« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Women's Political Hopes Do Not Begin and End With Hillary Clinton
Recently, we have heard a lot about the angst felt by supporters of Hillary Clinton now that her chances for winning the nomination are virtually impossible. One Clinton supporter was quoted in the New York Times as saying “Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them. Sexism has played a really big role in the race.”
Many of these supporters hold Barack Obama to be responsible in some way for the gender discrimination that they feel resulted in the defeat of their candidate. What appears to get lost in their anger and frustration is the reality that Barack Obama is not the enemy. He did not orchestrate the sexist attacks against Hillary, and in fact he has had to endure racially-based attacks that were equally as offensive as the sexist comments and insults directed at Hillary. It almost seems surreal to me that an African American is being accused of somehow stealing the election from a woman, especially after we have seen the African American vote “stolen” in recent elections by the GOP through wrongful voter purges and other tactics.
In reality, African Americans and women have both been at great disadvantage in their quest for the White House not only due to social attitudes but also to their previous exclusion from the political power structure. One of the biggest obstacles has been their relative absence in the US Senate and state Governorships since, in recent history, most presidential nominees have come from these offices. Currently, there are 16 female US senators and 8 female governors, or just 16% of the total number of each. The numbers are even more sobering for African Americans. Barack Obama is only the third African American senator in the modern era, and only 2 African Americans have been elected as state governor. While the under-representation of women and African Americans is obvious, the good news is that their numbers have been increasing at both the state and federal level and, in fact, several key leadership positions in the US Congress are currently held by women and African Americans. By having more women and minorities within the political pipeline, there will be bigger and deeper pools of candidates to field in future elections.
In the case of women, there is also reason to be optimistic based on the growing number of women being elected to national leadership positions in countries throughout the world. For example, current female leaders include President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, President Tarja Halonen of Finland, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Pratibha Patil of India, President Mary McAleese of Ireland, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, Prime Minister Helen Clark of New Zealand, and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines. In recent years, women have also been heads of state in Indonesia, Ireland, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, and Panama, and even Cherokee Nation was led for 10 years by its first female chief. And then there are the most recognized female leaders of our time, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India, and Prime Minister Golda Meir of Israel.
This is not to say that women have equal representation and influence in the political, economic, and social spheres throughout the world, but clearly the barrier to female leadership is being knocked down slowly but surely. In fact, the success of women elsewhere in the world may actually contribute to the frustration and sense of urgency that many women in this country feel about our own presidential situation. If women can be elected as heads of state in countries throughout Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, why can’t we elect one here?
Unfortunately, the rallying cries from some Clinton supporters have been sounding increasingly disingenuous given the absence of such support for recent female presidential candidates. If, as many Clinton supporters assert, it is so critical to elect a female president now, why did Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun get so little support when she was a Democratic candidate in 2004? In spite of her endorsements from NOW and other feminist organizations and leaders, Moseley-Braun’s polling numbers were in the low single digits when she dropped out of the race. Since women make up more than half of the Democratic voters, it is clear that very few of them were supporting the female candidate just 4 years ago. And what about the 2000 election? If some Clinton supporters are willing to vote for the Republican nominee, John McCain, in this year’s general election, why didn’t they support the candidacy of Elizabeth Dole in the Republican primary in 2000? She had to drop out of the race due to insufficient financial support in spite of her second and third place showing in polls at the time.
It is clear that it really isn’t just about women voting for women. It has to be the right woman. More importantly, it has to be the right candidate, regardless of gender or color. While I sympathize with the frustrations of older women who have been waiting a long time for a female president, many Democratic women do not feel that Hillary Clinton is the right candidate, especially due to her position on the Iraq War and her pro-business DLC influences. However, this does not mean that future female candidates will not be successful. In fact, the stigma regarding a female president is less likely to exist among younger generations who have been exposed not only to the growing prominence of women in our own society but also to the realization of female presidents and leaders in other countries around the world.
On the other hand, we have not seen similar progress made by racial or ethnic minorities in other countries with regards to national leadership positions. In fact, the only example of an ethnic minority head of state that comes to mind is the recent election of Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian, as president of Bolivia. But even though Bolivia is a poor and relatively small country, the impact of this victory was felt far and wide because it demonstrated that the empowerment of indigenous people is possible. Similarly, the election of Nelson Mandela as president of South Africa in 1994 was celebrated worldwide as an inspirational example that institutionalized racism and oppression can be overcome (although in this case Mandela was a member of a previously disenfranchised majority).
While I may be overlooking other examples, it is clear that there are very few countries today in which a member of a racial or ethnic minority community has been elected (fairly and willfully) by the population to lead the government. For this reason, I believe that the election of Barack Obama will be a hugely important and monumental event in history because of the precedent it will set. It will clearly be historical in this country due to our legacy of slavery and disenfranchisement of African Americans. But think about the message it will send to the rest of the world. If an African American can become president of the world’s only superpower, there is hope for people throughout the world who are struggling to have a voice, to have representation, to be treated with dignity. I can only smile when I think about the celebrations that are likely to take place in countries throughout the world if Obama is elected!
On a more personal level, an Obama victory wouldn’t just be about Obama. It would be about us, the people. It would be about us, the people, sending a message to the world that, after all the war and crime committed in our name by the Bush administration, we are a better society than that. It would be about us, the people, putting the divided past behind us and moving forward together. If and when Obama is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20, 2009, I will not only feel incredible pride and hopefulness. I will feel like I am a part of history.
Comments (94)
I dig it.
May 21, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, sheez. You made me cry, with that last paragraph. Shame on you!
What a beautifully executed post. Excellent, excellent, excellent.
Highly recommended with two thumbs up on top.
May 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Lis. Sorry to make you cry. Let's hope we can laugh and celebrate together in January!!
May 21, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how you put the divided past behind without uniting Hillary supporters.
I'm also not sure how pointing at female leaders around the world refers to a female leader in America - we also know Europeans can manage socialized health care, public transportation, recycling and long holidays. When exactly will these come to America?
Half of the 34 women who have served in the US Senate were put there by appointment. 6 of the 11 current Democratic female Senators will be older than Hillary is now in 2012, 9 of the 11 will be by 2016, and 2 have been in office only 1 year. Of the 5 Democratic female governors, only 1 has ever won re-election. And that's before we even consider national acceptability or policies. You can put a smiley face on women's chances to get into office, but the odds are very very slim.
May 22, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly there is a least one REPUBLICAN woman who has been re-elected as governor in recent memory, but you limit your discussions to DEMOCRATIC women governors, when considering the options for women politicians for you to support.
I would assume that you would not support a Margaret Thatcher clone, and did not support Liddy Dole in her bid. Being a woman, alone, does not seem to be the only determinate in your choice to support Senator Clinton. You make a differentiation in which woman to support, not a blanket declaration of support for any woman who runs for the Presidency. Similarly, I decided not support Hillary Clinton, as I did not support Liddy Dole, because I had a substantive disagreement with Senator Clinton on a policy decision. She voted for AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman, and she has never renounced the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive War. This is a critical for me as support for abortion rights, it is a bread and butter issue (as our economy drowns in the tank due to the Iraq War). I would have supported Senator Clinton if she had not so publicly demonstrated in 2002 and again in 2007, her willingness to support the worst kind of US foreign policies in the Middle East that the neocons have to offer.
If Senator Clinton had been a strong Democratic woman leader in the mold of Shirley Chisholm or Bella Abzug or Patsy Mink, I would have been as energetic and proud a supporter of hers, as I am of Senator Obama.
May 22, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do I care about a Republican woman? I have as little interest in seeing a Republican woman in office as I do seeing a Republican man?
You mean if Tammy Faye Baker ran for office I'd jump up to pull the handle?
(Though I hear there's a whole bevy of Republican African American candidates coming up).
May 22, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I have little interest in electing a supporter of the Bush doctrine as the representative of Democratic Party ideals, whether that person was a man or a woman. Senator Clinton's gender does not trump her political choices and her votes in a match up with Obama, for me as a woman. She is too eagerly hawkish (and too Bush-like) in her votes on AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman, and her recent pronouncement that she would obliterate Iran. Clearly, this does not disturb you as a Democrat.
I assume you were referencing Tammy Faye Bakker Messner. If you wish to jump up and vote for her, that's your choice, but she is currently dead.
May 24, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
All Clinton had to do was run a competent campaign and she'd have been the nominee. But then, all she had to do was run the health care task force competently and we'd all have health care.
May 22, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
Clinton didn't tell voters in TWO states that their votes don't count.
Clinton didn't tell Obama to take his name off of the MI ballot.
Clinton didn't campaign illegally in FL.
Obama is blocking revotes in FL and MI, which would be the obvious solution to the impasse.
Obama is playing Katherine Harris in this election. This is because he wants to get votes that he did not earn.
May 22, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah.. yeah she fucking did:
May 22, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the Four State Pledge:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_...
Let's just say that Hillary Clinton figured she was going to win easily when she signed on to the Four State Pledge on September 1, 2007. She was going to be coronated, right? Well, it turns out...not so much. Just for poops and cackles, here's the initial press release:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=313...
Great! Hillary Clinton was playing by the rules of the Democratic National Committee that thinks that states can't just decide when they want to vote out of schedule. Rules...kind of neat things to follow. If you're running for President, following rules is a pretty cool thing to be known for. Right?
So things are moving along with Michigan and Florida Democratic Party "leaders" (after repeated warnings) decided to disenfranchise their own voters by breaking the DNC rules. Way to go! You screwed over your own constituents! Nicely played!
So the news continues to show Hillary Clinton's clear support for the DNC rules and the Four State Pledge:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.ht...
Just so we know what Hillary Clinton's intentions were, let's look at last August, 2007:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=36993ac7-40a6-40d1-a96a-55253123b1a1&headline=Clinton
So the DNC releases a press release in December, 2007 that Michigan and Florida did not comply with the Four State Pledge (that Hillary Clinton signed on and agreed to):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151
So, just to make sure everyone knew where she stood, Hillary Clinton is on record and in an audio document where she KNOWS the votes will not count:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg
Full interview: http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858
So which Hillary Clinton are we to believe?
Her stance and argument is so phony it's almost laughable. Ickes was on the commission that stripped Florida and Michigan of all delegates and McAuliffe, when DNC chair before Dean, stared down Carl Levin threatening to carry through with stripping MI of half their delegates if Levin and Michigan moved up their primary under McAuliffe's watch.
If Clinton was so concerned with having all the votes counted, why didn't she raise this stink when the punishment was being discussed or soon after it was handed down? Attempting to champion the cause now, only because she needs the votes is shameful. If she was beating this drum against not seating the delegates before it became a necessity for her to seat the delegates she might have a leg to stand on.
May 22, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Thank you.
In the coming weeks, when I start reading articles in the MSM pointing out the facts you've documented, I'll remember the source.
May 22, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hot damn.
May 23, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recycling in Europe? I've heard they wear sweaters there too.
May 22, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best post I've ever read here. Beautifully written, thoroughly researched, perfectly argued. They should hire you.
May 22, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, Waldengirl. Henry David would be proud.
Thanks.
May 21, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
refreshingly honest. I'm curious. Which female leaders in world history do you have the most respect for?
May 21, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a difficult question to answer. Because most political systems are dominated by the powerful and privileged forces of the establishment, most national leaders (whether male or female) are supported by those forces on some level. As such, I do not support many of the women on the list of leaders that I posted. I especially don’t admire the conservative warmongers like Margaret Thatcher.
My hope for the future is that the increased leadership of women will go hand in hand with the goals of increased respect and cooperation among people and nations. As such, I am encouraged by the election of women like Michelle Bachelet of Chile who has personally experienced the terror and oppression of the Pinochet regime. I support the more progressive female leaders such as former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway and prime minister Helen Clark of New Zealand. I admire former chielf Wilma Mankiller who brought gender balance back into Cherokee Nation. Previous female trailblazers such as Rep. Barbara Jordan was a voice of conscience during the Watergate crisis while Rep. Barbara Lee was a solitary voice of conscience before (and since) the Iraq War. Among leaders of social justice movements, I greatly admire Nobel Peace Prize winners Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma (who was actually elected president) and Wangari Maathai of Nigeria, Kathy Kelly of Voices in the Wilderness and anti-nuclear advocate Helen Caldicott. There are just too many to name, so these are just some of the great women who I respect.
May 21, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction - Wangari Matthai is from Kenya, not Nigeria. I just noticed my mistake!
May 21, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Five Star Post ***** Recommended and Permalinked!!!
May 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the best blog posts I've read on this site in a long time. Thank you.
May 21, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another significant thing about Clinton's candidacy is that it sets the delay: 35 years.
Clinton is from the first generation to enter political feeder professions (law, military, Californian movie star, et cetera). The fact that she has run a highly competitive campaign means that there is, or soon will be, a wide field of female presidential potentialities. A list I've seen on another site (made of all Democratic women in prominent positions) reads:
"SENATE
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Dianne Feinstein, California
Barbara Boxer, California
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
Patty Murray, Washington
Maria Cantwell, Washington
HOUSE
Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona
Doris Matsui, California
Lynn Woolsey, California
Nancy Pelosi, California
Barbara Lee, California
Ellen Tauscher, California
Jackie Speier, California
Anna Eshoo, California
Zoe Lofgren, California
Lois Capps, California
Hilda Solis, California
Diane Watson, California
Lucille Roybal-Allard, California
Maxine Waters, California
Jane Harman, California
Laura Richardson, won't someone please stop the Californias
Grace Napolitano, all work and no play makes mtvcdm a California
Linda Sanchez, I don't want to be Elfstar anymore, I want to be California
Loretta Sanchez, drop down, increase speed, reverse California
Susan Davis, I don't want to work, I want to bang California all day
Diana DeGette, Colorado
Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut
Corrine Brown, Florida
Kathy Castor, Florida
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Florida
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii
Melissa Bean, Illinois
Jan Schakowsky, Illinois
Nancy Boyda, Kansas
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Michigan
Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Shelly Berkley, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Yvette Clarke, New York
Nydia Velasquez, New York
Carolyn Maloney, New York
Nita Lowey, New York
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
Louise Slaughter, New York
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio
Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Ohio, there were more of these than I thought, yeesh
Betty Sutton, Ohio
Darlene Hooley, Oregon
Allyson Schwartz, Pennsylvania
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota
Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
GOVERNORS
Janet Napolitano, Arizona (term-limited in 2010)
Ruth Ann Minner, Delaware (limited in 2008)
Kathleen Sabelius, Kansas (limited in 2010)
Jennifer Granholm, Michigan (limited in 2010)
Christine Gregoire, Washington (seat up in 2008)"
Of course, the next respondent noted that everyone 60 and older should be knocked off the list and that Granholm was born in Canada.
One caveat, though: Like it or not, Clinton got to her position in politics through her husband. This is not an insult to Clinton, but a observation that the fact that a woman could become a staff attorney and member of a political inquiry staff (in this case, an impeachment inquiry of Nixon) in 1974 does not mean a woman could become an attorney general in 1976 or governor in 1978.
Now let's see: the first woman became a governor in 1925, but she was replacing her late husband, so that's not very indicative of anything but how much people like keeping things in the family. The first member of a presidential cabinet was in 1933, which is quite early, even if there has never been a former Secretary of Labor running for president (as far as I know). The firsts for the house and senate, respectively, are 1916 and 1932 (although one was appointed in 1922, she was only there two days and wasn't elected, so it's more achievement than indicator).
May 21, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Half of the female Senators have been appointed or gotten there by special election, and a good portion of the remainder had politician hubbies or fathers.
Of course John McCain, Al Gore, George Bush, etc. didn't have it too bad either.
Ted Kennedy got John Kennedy's vacant Senate seat when the governor put in a buddy to hold the place for 2 years so Ted could turn 30. Ain't it nice to have friends?
May 22, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this is exactly why Hillary's campaign is tarnished. She got to where she is on her husband's coattails!
The other issue is that white women as a block are inherently racists as evidenced by the women's suffrage movement (read "When and Where I Enter" by Paula Giddings) and the fact that they are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action (http://www.aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct30.php).
May 22, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
She helped build those coattails, if you noticed. They had diddly-squat moving to Arkansas, and she actually campaigned for him, as she had for McGovern, McCarthy, Carter and others. Involved in high profile charity and rural development activities in Arkansas that raised their prestige. Two-for-the-price-of-one in 1992 before the sexists moved in and she had to back off. You had Bush Sr. who didn't understand a grocer scanner and his baking cookies wife, and the young Clinton couple with the working policy-wonk wife. And she campaigned her ass off in New York to win.
Compare that to Teddy Kennedy, who Obama fans just love the bejeezus out of - who had a Senate seat held open for him for 2 years until he turned old enough to occupy it. Or Al Gore, another progressive hero with his Senator dad who happened to own an important newspaper in Tennessee as well. Or Arianna Huffington, who got her riches from her husband and then suddenly figured out she was a liberal. Or Chris Dodd, son of Senator Dodd. Or Jay Rockefeller, a price superdelegate snatch a while back (with the misconception that he voted against the Iraq War). Or Nancy Pelosi, daughter of a Congressman/Baltimore Mayor whose brother-in-law was on the SF Board of Supervisors and she got to Congress by being picked by the widow who'd inherited her husband's seat.
Family connections are the rule, not the exception in politics, and yet people only seem to care about Hillary, who married a younger redneck classmate from a broken family rather than one of the scads of wealthy and well-connected lawyers in her Yale class. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? Oh yeah, because I wrote this stuff here and here and here and here.
May 22, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
My caveat was about seeing Clinton as setting a chronology. You can't read anything into the results of an obstacle course if the runner was picked up by a dire crow after the first hurtle and deposited at the finish line.
As for Kennedy, he's earned his respect through his service in the senate and his ability to withstand anything and everything the GOP throws at him.
May 22, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what you mean by the first paragraph, and I'm scared you'll translate it into non-allegorical English and it'll still make no sense.
May 23, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...white women as a block are inherently racists as evidenced by the women's suffrage movement ..."
*****
Whoa! That remark is not only illogical it is racist.
The women's suffrage movement was a late 19th-early 20th Century struggle fought by women of all colors. Depending on when you were born, it was your grand or great-grandmother's struggle. To attribute their attitudes, or any attitude, to white women "as a block" is just nonsense.
May 22, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...white women as a block are inherently racists as evidenced by the women's suffrage movement ..."
*****
Whoa! That remark is not only illogical it is racist.
The women's suffrage movement was a late 19th-early 20th Century struggle fought by women of all colors. Depending on when you were born, it was your grand or great-grandmother's struggle. To attribute their attitudes, or any attitude, to white women "as a block" is just nonsense.
May 22, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. This is a great post.
May 22, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
We shouldn't forget Benazir Bhouto and Shirley Chisholm.
The recent assasination of Bhouto is fresh in our memory. Perhaps Shirley Chisholm's contribution has been somewhat forgotten.
On January 25, 1972, Chisholm announced her candidacy for president. She stood before the cameras and in the beginning of her speech she said,
"I stand before you today as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud. I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that. I am not the candidate of any political bosses or special interests. I am the candidate of the people."
May 22, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Shirley Chisholm was one of the great women who not only paved the way for women who followed but who did so with integrity and honesty. If only more candidates would start a speech like that and mean it!
May 22, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give it up, most of these people can't remember past Carol Moseley-Braun and think she was actually an acceptable candidate, but yes, Chisholm was quite interesting.
Barbara Jordan was kick-ass, but she had a disease that pushed her aside.
The point is that a female candidate has to be compelling, not just simply there and female.
Bhutto actually belongs to the chummy corrupt dynasty crowd. It's hard to tell just how much she stole, and then you have to balance it with "she was better than the others". But a very tough interesting woman.
May 22, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero beat me to mentioning Barbara Jordan, whose fiery speeches I still remember.
Jordan never ran for president, but Jimmy Carter did weigh offering her the 1976 VP nomination.
She would have been the trifecta: black, female and lesbian to boot -- though the latter was not public knowledge at the time.
Looking back, that's probably why Carter chose the infinitely duller Walter Mondale instead.
One of the first black female lawyers in Texas, and the first in its legislature, Jordan won election to the House of Representatives. In her first term, she was named to the judiciary committee. Then came Watergate.
From being a rookie member of an obscure committee, she became a star in a riveting high-stakes drama, watched by millions. Calling for impeachment of Richard Nixon in 1974, she delivered a stirring, passionate defence of the constitution. Watching her on TV, the thought struck many of us: she should be president.
It didn't happen. But two years later, she was asked to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention -- the same role Barack Obama would play nearly 30 years later.
It's all come, in a way, full circle.
May 22, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her multiple sclerosis popped up in 1973, which may not have pushed her out of VP contention, but she was only a 2-term congresswoman and from the south - Carter needed a northerner on the ticket.
May 22, 2008 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget Barbara Jordon and Anne Richards, both gone, but not forgotten.
May 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love it!! My thoughts exactly. Thank you.
May 22, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will feel like I am a part of history.
Rock star groupies feel the same way.
May 22, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And some of them are right!
May 22, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful post, and recommended. For women (and I am one) to claim that Obama has somehow "stolen" the election that should rightfully have been "theirs" ignores so much else that's going on in this world as to spread the stereotype of women making political decisions only from emotion instead of reason. What is Nancy Pelosi, chopped liver? Women are making great advances, even if/when Clinton doesn't win.
That doesn't mean that we need to stop working; until the House and Senate are about 50/50 female and male, it won't be truly representative. But women needed get "their" turn at the expense of African Americans... especially if enough Americans believe Obama is the better candidate.
May 22, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you name one woman who claims that Obama stole an election that was rightfully theirs?
May 22, 2008 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would suppose that most "angry white older women" will not come out publicly and say Obama (personally) is stealing the election but he IS a man and to this group of women it seems that men or the "old boys club" is partially to blame. The SF Chronicle, in their Politics blog, has posted the following email "by a prominent supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton" which is a good example of the venom being spread:
"There are millions of voters who feel as you do, that the Democratic primary campaign uncovered the pervasive and insidious sexism that runs rampant through our country. That Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate, and that she is being cheated out of the nomination by the good old boys network, the DNC and the Mainstream Media. You are angry. You are in a rage. I am too." more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=26652
I've debated several associates over the past week on this issue because I do not believe sexism is the reason Hillary has lost but is simply going to be her explanation for her loss. Too bad. It will only taint any admiration I may have left for her.
May 22, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can Obama be a part of any old boy's club if he's not old?
I guess this just comes down to my perspective that the only reason there aren't any women in the old person's clubs is because they're all still waiting for one of the old boys to die off (leaving a vacancy).
May 22, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "old boys club" is just a reference to any informal group giving favor to thier own social class/type. In this example it would be men, hence the complaint that a qualified woman (Hillary) is being overlooked due to stereotypes and favor being given to Obama because he is a man. I'm not saying he is practicing "old boys club" tactics.
I believe there are women's groups guilty of the same thing. Especially when I read that there are some women threatening "blackmail" by claiming they will pledge allegiance to Hillary and if she doesn't win the nomination vote for McCain in protest. As a woman and a feminist it almost sickens me to no end that there are women Democrats out there even contemplating voting for McCain.
May 22, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's well documented that the MSM never told any other candidates that it was time for them to quit, and I don't recall the DLC doing that before either.
I don't recall Ferraro being called a bitch or "vaginal American" on TV and having nothing done about it.
I don't know that they're favoring Obama because he's a man, but it is a cliquey gang (not just old boys, also old girls) who pick and choose at their whim. They're favoring Obama or dissing her for their reasons, and they way they've slanted the table, yes, it is free advertising, but that doesn't mean anyone said Obama stole it.
It's easy to say Hillary's the more experienced candidate - the last ABC poll had 62% of respondents believing that even with a smaller percentage thinking she had the best chance to win in November.
So back to Yvaughn, "Can you name one woman who claims that Obama stole an election that was rightfully theirs?"
May 22, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Somewhere in South Carolina, I recall seeing a black man in his late 40's walking quickly away with what appeared to be my nomination. But I had NO idea it was Barack until I saw it in his pocket last night. I'm as shocked as the next person," said Senator Clinton."
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i35316
Lighten up. :)
May 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Onion missed that one - they've been going downhill ever since liberals started writing for them.
May 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thought I'd get Mr. Crankypants in here, but he's MIA as usual, probably sandblasting his dentures.
May 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's well documented that the MSM never told any other candidates that it was time for them to quit,"
ROFLMAO
Did you somehow miss Huckabee hanging around like an unwanted guest in the media coverage?
May 22, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you have point. I think the best question they gave Edwards in the debate was, "Are you still here?"
May 23, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton,
May 22, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton's candidacy has been atypical not only because of her gender but also because it must be viewed through the prism of "former first lady". It is not only a question of her breaking the glass ceiling for women. It is also a matter of Bill Clinton's working around term limits to secure a third mandate. This plan was hatched long ago. The reasons it is failing have become obvious throughout this never ending democratic primary; Barack Obama is the better candidate and has ran a phenomenal,brilliant,campaign. Yesterday, speaking to some seniors in Fla, Hillary Clinton invoked the 2000 recount in Florida and compared the Floridians predicament to Zimbabwe.She is my Senator-for whom I twice voted. I am embarrassed by her shenanigans to steal the nomination from B.Obama, her so called "nuclear option", and believe she is not temperamentally or morally suited for the presidency. Or the vice-presidency.
Finally, what really unnerves me is the fact that were she in Obama's shoes, ahead in every possible category, she would have declared herself the winner long ago and the party would have given her the nod. As her constituent, I feel her reputation has been tarnished, so has Bill's. Time to exit, for both of them. Barack Obama's presidency will be transforming and historical. I can't wait.
May 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "Bill Clinton's 3rd term" is bullshit, and you know it. This isn't Lurleen B. Wallace, this is a professional woman with a cold hard grasp of policy and facts, a top law degree and a ton of international diplomatic experience, and a debating style that has tossed her opponent on his ass. So shove your sexism, even if you are a woman.
May 22, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you being so bitchy about? Do you, yourself, blindly forget how Hillary sold some of us out? You seem to have spent too much time dabbing your eyes at thehillaryiknow.com site. For F*cksake! she broke my heart when she stood up and said that a war in Iraq would be a disaster for the USA and then in the same breath voted to give Bush a ticket over to Iraq! (insert a hundred more examples of her failures here)
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
May 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does that have to do with Clinton's 3rd term? And by that I don't mean a continuation of policies, I mean the sexist idea that Bill will pull the strings and her mouth and arms will move. These are straight Republican talking points adopted so easily be they left. We can argue about the other issues. This one is just bullshit.
May 22, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
no desidero, you are the one in the dark. how quickly you have forgotten these quotes that were issued from the horses mouth : "two for the price of one", it will take a clinton to clean up the mess", "we did this we did that in the 90's".
did i jog your memory just a tad????
May 22, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about load up a quote so I can see in context. I link about 50 URL's a day. I don't recall ever saying, "I'm just in it so Bill can keep doing what he's good at and I'll just keep fixing him sandwiches".
May 22, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you vote for my husband you get me. It's a two-for-one blue-plate special." - Hillary Clinton, August 1992
May 22, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's 2008, not 1992, Rip van Winkle. Show me the quote from this year or last year.
May 22, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irrelevant. They were selling a co-presidency then and she is claiming the positive achievements of that administration as her own and part of her resumé now and your attempts to dismiss through parsing won't work.
May 22, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alberto Fujimori of Peru. Ok, not exactly a happy precedent; pretty much everything you can imagine the Bush Administration wishing they could do with regards to the economy, the threat of terrorism, and political opposition, not to mention constitutional impediments to executive power, Fujimori went ahead and actually did.
Not that it all had a happy ending for him - fleeing to a foreign nation and then submitting your resignation by fax is not the most stylish way to retire from office. Especially when the Parliment refuses to accept the resignation just so they could vote to throw the bastard out themselves.
A couple of other South American states, Suriname and Guyana, have had heads of state (not heads of government) who were of Chinese descent.
May 22, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
there are currently 16 women in the United States Senate. There is only one African-American.
Also there have been 30 women governors in US history and only 4 African-American governors.
So this whole notion that women somehow have it tougher is laughable.
I think that tells you a little about how much easier it is for a woman than a black man, although, by no means does that mean women don't have obsticals to overcome...merely, that a black guy has more.
The proof is in the numbers.
May 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do have access to some impressive facts and figures. I haven't read you whole post, but I have to point out two things. One, since joining the Senate Obama has voted exactly the same as Hillary on the Iraq war every time. And the other is that when comparing the relatively few blacks elected to office compared to the number of women you might want to point out that women make up more than 50% of the population in this country, and blacks make up about 13%.
But thank you for pointing out that it doesn't have to be a woman. It just has to be the right woman. I've been saying the same thing about Obama. It doesn't have to be a black candidate. It just has to be the right black candidate. One that doesn't have deep ties to Jeremiah Wright, for example.
May 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to a cult that calls itself "the family?"
Oh, that's right, only black preachers can be crazy.
May 22, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone should be so lucky as to have ties to Rev. Wright.
The man is brilliant and educated, talented and electric and he has rhythm. He speaks truth to power and isn't interested in your Uncle Tom preferences, thank you very much.
We need to hear more from him and others that are unlike the whitey talking heads that have bored us and lied to us for decades.
May 22, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell that to Ferraro who is on a vendetta against Obama (and black men in general) to paint them as enemies of women:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/geraldine-ferraros-sexism-neo.html
May 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch for Kamala Harris, now District Attorney in San Francisco. She's my bet for first woman President.
May 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've written some pretty bombastic anti-Clinton tirades, which makes this extremely thoughtful post all the more important.
Emotions are running high right now, so thanks for being one of the adults in the room! We're going to need people like you to help reconcile the party at the grassroots when this is all over.
May 22, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
Thank you for the thoughtful post.
I've been saying all year that Sen Clinton's assertion that she is the only woman qualified to be President is a pretty stern slap in the face to her female colleagues in Congress and our sitting female Governors. I was especially struck with Patty Murray's endorsement letter, which started out "We came to Washington together in 1992"- how heartbreaking that Patty was the one ELECTED in 1992 and yet she was apparently not as qualified as HRC. We have three states entirely represented by women in the Senate, and the Speaker of the House- 3rd in line for the Presidency is a woman!
I would encourage Sen Clinton's supporters to turn their energy to their communities- find women that you respect, in the PTA, in the Chamber of Commerce, in your church, where ever, and encourage them to run for office. Then give them money, and knock on doors, and make phone calls and do whatever is necessary to get them into office. Turn all of this energy into something productive and history-making.
That's the way to get a woman President.
May 22, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I've been saying all year that Sen Clinton's assertion that she is the only woman qualified to be President is a pretty stern slap in the face to her female colleagues in Congress and our sitting female Governors".
Challenge. When did Hillary Clinton ever assert such a thing?
May 22, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We were just thinking of pushing the candidate we have now - why start over when she's so close?
May 22, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev- If you are unaware of this assertion, you haven't been paying attention to Sen Clinton or her surrogates. Many of her supporters have been whipped to fever pitch by the notion that if Hillary doesn't win this nomination, they will never have the opportunity to vote for a credible female candidate again in their lifetime. That's ridiculous- the Democratic Party is much stronger and more diverse than that. (see list above)
Desidero-
We were just thinking of pushing the candidate we have now - why start over when she's so close?
Because voting for President is not an Affirmative Action exercise. When I voted for Obama, it wasn't that "well, it's high time we had a black candidate and this one's so close so he'll do..." It was because I took a hard look at all the candidates and found the one I most believed in. HRC was largely considered to be the strongest female candidate that the Dems could field because of a)superior name recognition and b)an incredible fundraising apparatus in place. This election has proven that our paradigms about both of those issues are wrong. Five years ago no one was talking about Barack Obama, he was an unknown state legislator. I'm just saying that the same is absolutely possible for a female candidate. There may very well be a fantastic progressive woman toiling away in the ID legislature, or CA, or NC, or anywhere, biding her time. And if she puts together a smart, lean campaign and has the vision that Dems are looking for, she will be the candidate.
May 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few weeks ago, few people thought Hillary could pull out a victory. Now it's going to the convention!
By the way, I don't care if we elect a woman president - I just want the toughest, most competent person for the job.
May 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you mentioned in a different thread, you really want a national security hawk. Quit with the false feminism. I'm a 51 year old woman who's been a feminist since I reached puberty. Hillary Clinton gave Bush a free for all in Iraq, and she did it again when she voted for Kyl-Lieberman. Unacceptable.
May 22, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please explain what my "false feminism" is. That I don't think like you?
May 23, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully, I just asked for one cite to substantiate the quote I excerpted with precision from your comment. It doesn't call for an explanation. Again, when did Hillary Clinton ever assert, as you assert, that she is the only woman qualified to be president?
May 22, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did Veronica Corningstone say Clinton assert "she is the only woman qualified to be president"...?
Physician, heal thyself.
May 22, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, there, and she reiterated it in her snide comment to Bruce.
So, where is that quote?
This is like the "Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh" Bullshit.
May 22, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I've been saying all year that Sen Clinton's assertion that she is the only woman qualified to be President is a pretty stern slap in the face to her female colleagues in Congress and our sitting female Governors".
Healed. All I had to do was read, um, the first sentence of the post and paste it here.
May 23, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every criticism of Hillary Clinton provokes her supporters to cry SEXISM! Pleeeze! She may be a policy wonk but she has demonstrated POOR JUDGMENT- I do not forgive her votes on: Iraq, Iran, bankruptcy law, to name the most egregious. Her senate record is less than stellar. Her handling of the Travel Office fracas and Universal Health Insurance, just two examples of an erred approach.
The Clintons were a two for one deal in 1992 and they are even more so today. So, Desidero, don't deceive yourself. And control your vitriol. We all have a right to our own opinion. By the way, "a ton of diplomatic international experience"? I don't think so. She has been ridiculed for her claims re. Ireland and Bosnia. Enough said.
May 22, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's also been supported on her N. Ireland claims, which I've written about (go through my previous blogs yourself, I'm sick of your specious claims).
May 23, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a supporter, and I'm a supporter NOT because she is a woman, but because the debates show her to be SMARTER, MORE KNOWEDGEABLE, and to have BETTER JUDGEMENTthan her opponent.
OK? GOTTIT? I DON'T WANT A WEAK CANDIDATE.
PLUS, ANYONE WHO WOULD TAKE HIS KID TO JERAMIAH WRIGHT'S CHURCH IS AN IMBECILE.
May 22, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when the Clinton's asked Wright to come to the White House when Bill was atoning for lying under oath about getting a blow-job... that was what exactly?
May 22, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was religious cover for atonement for lying about a blowjob. You were almost there, I thought you had it.
May 22, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero,
In the time that I was sleeping and at work, you posted 17 comments that seem to add little to the discussion. Really, don't you have something better to do with your time?
May 22, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if you'd stop sleeping and post the useless comments for me.
May 23, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
So by Clinton rules, Wright is ok to ride on the bus when he is there to clean up the Bill's blue dress problem with the sky-pilot, otherwise...
May 22, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever, you're a clever boy, go figure it out yourself.
May 23, 2008 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who is so concerned about having a WEAK CANDIDATE sounds like a Republican in disguise. It's easy to pretend to be a Democrat by parroting the latest Clinton talking points.
May 22, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's not obvious, the above comment is directed at frogworld.
May 22, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Scalfin, historically speaking CA needs to make up for Nixon and Reagan ;-)
May 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a quote, so take it up with teh internets.
May 22, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still trying to get my mind around anyone still thinking Hillary is "close". I know women are traditionally poor at math but even my math skills are good enough to see that there's no way Clinton can pull ahead of Obama at this point (legitimately, that is).
May 22, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a flesh wound.
May 22, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment