Cabinet Watch: Will Obama Give Women a Voice?
December 1, 2008
by The New Agenda
|If you look up, you’ll see that we’ve got a new tab on the menu bar, called Cabinet Watch, where we’ll be keeping track of Obama’s cabinet appointments as they are officially announced.
So far—not so good. He’s got women in just two posts: Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. (UPDATE: That’s three posts — Obama has announced that he plans to appoint Susan Rice as U.N. Ambassador at Cabinet-level rank.)
Presently, Congress is made up of 17% women and 83% men, and state and federal government combined is 20.5% women and 79.5% men. Compare that to the countries on this list to see how poorly the U.S. is doing.
We also note that President Bill Clinton had seven women in his first cabinet, while President George W. Bush had four in his cabinet. The New Agenda hopes that President-elect Obama will not be a step backwards for the women of this country.
We’ll update the Cabinet Watch as new information becomes available.
Keep watch with us.
Okay … so now Hillary is okay with Obama and his bone-headed minions.
But here’s what some of the DEMOCRATS, including the Obama devotees, were saying about Hillary not so very long ago …
- – - – - – - – - – - – -
… just a small sample of the slurs against Clinton MADE BY DEMOCRATS, writing:
I’ve said it before — but because some Slog readers seem to still think I believe any attack on Clinton is a sexist attack, I’ll say it again: The misogyny from the media, from supposedly liberal blogger doodz, commenters on this blog, and just about everywhere during this campaign has been despicable. This kind of s___ ought to be behind us: Hillary Clinton is a bitch. A big ol’ bitchy bitch. And a cunt. A “big f___ing whore.” Fortunately, you can “call a woman anything.” She’s “Nurse Ratched.” She’ll castrate you if she gets a chance. She would like that. She’s a “She-Devil.” She’s a madam, and her daughter’s a whore. She’s frigid, and she can’t give head. She’s a “She-Devil.” A lesbian. A nag. When things get tough, she cries like a big dumb GIRL. In fact, she’s just that — a “little girl.” In FACT, she wants to “cry her way to the White House.” To be, ahem, “Crybaby-in-Chief.” That proves that she’s not tough enough. But she’s also not feminine enough. She’s “screechy.” She’s an “aging, resentful female.” She’s “Sister Frigidaire.” She really ought to quit running for President and stick to housework. She basically spent her entire times as First Lady going to tea parties. She’s a monster who just won’t die. In fact, she really should just die. You can buy a urinal target with her face on it to express what you really think of her. OMG she’s got claws! She’s crazy. In fact, she’s a lunatic. She’s petty and vindictive and entitled. She’s a washed-up old hag. She’s “everybody’s first wife standing outside probate court.” She’s a “scolding mother.” She’s shrill… shrill… shrill. She can’t take it when people are mean to her. She’s a “hellish housewife.” She’s Tanya Harding. She CAN’T be President, what with the mood swings and the menses.Any woman who votes for her is voting with her vagina, not her brain. Women only like Hillary because she’s a fellow Vagina-American. And because they vote with their feelings. Frankly, anyone who still thinks we need “feminine role models” should get over it and move on, already. Oh, and men who supporters are castratos in the eunuch chorus. You shouldn’t make her President because she wants it too much. She’s totally just banking on support from ugly old feminists. And she looooves to “play the victim.” She cackles! And cackles. And cackles. It’s like she’s a witch or something! She’s definitely”witchy.” And now you can buy her cackle as your ring tone. Her voice, too, is “grating” — like “fingernails on a blackboard” to “some men.” She’s hiding behind her gender. She isn’t a “convincing mom” because she’s too strident. She never did anything on her own. Her husband keeps her on a leash. She hates men. Her campaign is a “catfight.” She makes people want to kill themselves, is like a “domineering mother,” and is cold. And OMG she has boobies! All of which are reasons to hate her. (And boy, could I go on.)
Oh, and if you even mention any of this, you’re either silly or a bad person.
So yeah, while I’m ready to get on the Obama welcome wagon, I’m also angry. And I’m not ready to “get over” the blatant, ugly misogyny that so many Democrats — Democrats! — have displayed throughout this campaign, thank you very f______ much.>>
Read this WITH LINKS at: http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=3577
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Yes, that sort of denigrating talk about Hillary won the nomination for Obama, but it is — and will always remain — a BLOT on Obama’s reputation in history … that he had to insult and disrespect a powerful and supremely qualified and capable woman in order to win the nomination.
During the primaries, Obama SCOFFED at Hillary’s foreign policy smarts and experience and said all she had done was “sip tea with foreign leaders.”
Now Obama has put Hillary in charge of the State Dept., which is responsible for America’s face to the world and America’s relationships with the rest of the world.
So, either Obama was LYING then or he’s LYING now.
Take your pick.
But I am NOT optimistic about Obama’s attitude toward women.
I hate it when I feel the need to defend Obama, but your comment, lightacandle, has inspired me to do just that:
I am unfortunately affiliated with a lot of insane, nasty people who vote the same way I vote. That does not mean the candidate shares the views of the insane nasty people.
I recall that Hillary also dismissed Obama’s readiness to lead during the primary campaign—something about how all he’s got is a speech (loved that one)—so his dismissal of her credentials seems less of a concern, taken in context.
Do you have a link for where Obama said all she did was “sip tea with foreign leaders”? I don’t recall that one being attributed to him.
While I don’t have a lot of confidence in Obama’s attitude toward women, I also don’t want to cast aspersions on his character that are undeserved.
Um Dawn, yes he did actually say that to demean Hillary’s experience as First Lady…sigh…
Here’s the closest I could find: http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....6036_x.htm, but it doesn’t attribute the quote to him, and his dismissals of her credentials in this case are no worse than her dismissals of his.
I don’t mean to defend any of his team, but I want to be careful about attributing quotes that don’t belong to the person they’re being attributed to.
The worst I saw was Zbigniew Brzezinski on Morning Joe, with his daughter Mika right there as co-anchor, and he was comparing Hillary Clinton to Mamie Eisenhower, and Tucker Carlson was laughing like an idiot.
Whether it is Obama or one of his surrogates that makes a statement is not relevant. What rational the attackers choose to justify the attacks is not relevant either. It is the attack itself and the acceptance of it by society that matters. The Barrack Obama’s of the world come and go. The struggle for human rights continues on and on.
Dawn, I think you are missing some relevant points here.
1. Whether Obama said the “exact” quote or HAD one of his staffers say it, the message came from Obama and had his endorsement, since he never made any statement saying the insulting comments (regarding Hillary) were incorrect..
2. Another important point is that after disparaging Hillary’s foreign policy credentials, Obama has now appointed Hillary to be Sec. of State with the most important foreign policy role in his administration (other than the president’s).
3. We do NOT know what role Hillary would have given to Obama if she had won the presidency, so you cannot think she is being the same sort of hypocrite Obama is. My opinion is that I seriously doubt Hillary would have made Obama Sec. of State in her administration. There were too many other people with genuine foreign affairs experience supporting her candidacy whom she could have appointed
4. Either Obama was lying when he disparaged Hillary’s foreign policy smarts, or he’s lying now.
Didn’t Hillary offer to make him VP? Second in line to the President, and therefore presumably qualified to be President?
Anyway, I agree with John Horning: “It is the attack itself and the acceptance of it by society that matters. The Barrack [sic] Obama’s of the world come and go. The struggle for human rights continues on and on.”
We have to keep fighting to bring women’s status up, and the cabinet appointments are the obvious place to do it.
Boy, this dialogue appears to be ranting. Obama appoints four women (Chris, Hillary, Janet and Susan) to very senior, vitally important post, and this web site is crying the blues and revisiting old news. If he also appoints one over Labor and surprises people with a women, not Bill Richardson, as Commerce Secretary and finds a prominent role for Shelia Blair on the Economic Team, I do not care about quantity of positions, we got quality of positions.
As I recall, both Hillary and Obama were asked at various times if they would CONSIDER the vice presidential slot for the other. They both said they would, of course, CONSIDER one another for that post.
Neither one was in ANY position to “offer” the job to anyone until after he or she was elected.
Yes, the struggle for human rights goes on, and it was Hillary who pointed out while making an important speech in China, no less, that women’s rights ARE human rights.
The struggle will ever be with us, and apparently so will hypocrisy.
Kevin,
Women compose 52% of this country and we expect that representation in government – including Cabinet.
That is the goal of our organization.
Kevin, I regret to inform you that despite what you may have been told, size really does matter.
Here’s one sarcastic slur about tea drinking that Obama aimed at Hillary during the campaign, after Hillary had mentioned her years of traveling the world and talking to world leaders and ambassadors when she was First Lady:
“It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassador’s house I HAD TEA WITH, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa,” he said.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.....-a-teapot/
BTW, Obama used his black grandmother’s “tiny hut in Africa” to burnish his foreign affairs credentials, but you might notice Obama has never done anything to move that grandmother into better quarters.
1. Re: The title of this thread. I prefer not to think of Obama or anyone “giving women a voice.” We have a voice. It is how we are able to make our voices her and be counted that matters. And, while much of what may impact that may be how others (those in power, men, etc) recognize, respect and honor our voices, I still don’t consider it giving me a voice. I have my voice and always will.
2. Re: tenor of the blog. One thing I have really liked and appreciated about this blog is the tenor. For the most part, threads and posts have been thoughtful and mature in tone. It is one reason why I have gravitated here and away from some other grassroots orgs. That said, lightacandle, whatever thoughts or feelings you have, likely could be expressed in a way that wouldn’t sound like someone screaming and mired in what we all already know full well by now. I think it’s established that Clinton was treated miserably by the media and the DNC. We’re trying to move forward, to correct, to grow. Meanwhile, I’m not sure what you mean when you say you’re not ready to get over the blatant misogyny? If you want to stay mired and stuck in it, be my guest. I, for one, feel painfully aware of it and need to take that energy and use it constructively.
3. Dawn – Your integrity is much appreciated!
Anna,
If you will look again, you will see that it was not I who said I was “not ready to get over the blatant misogyny” — that was a QUOTE from someone else. I provided a link to the excerpt and set the excerpt inside dotted lines. What I wrote comes before and after the section inside the dotted lines.
I had included that sampling of the slurs hurled at Hillary during the campaign because I thought it was useful to remember — on the very day Obama was elevating Hillary to be Sec. of State — what he and his minions had said about Hillary during the campaign when they were trying to destroy her credibility and her candidacy.
I think it is important to remember what people say and do — and to hold them accountable for their words and deeds.
Otherwise they’ll just keep doing it and getting away with it.
Thanks for providing that quote, lightacandle, and thanks for the feedback about the blog, Anna. We’ve had a very fast launch, and have been responding to stuff as it comes. There’s so much from one day to the next that it’s a challenge to keep up with all of it.
But we’re trying!
lightacandle – I noticed the link and thought that what came before might have been excerpted. I agree that it’s important to remember, lest history repeat itself, which it seems to do either way, unfortunately. As for Obama’s mimimization of Clinton’s foreign policy experience and his current appointment of her as SoS, I view that more within the context of how politicians hit each other hard during primaries and then afterwards suddenly realign and all if forgotten. I think it’s nuts, but that’s politics. BUT, all of that said, I agree that part of Obama’s version of hitting hard including patronizing comments toward Clinton that were misguided, at best. What can I say? I put little stock in him and I’m expecting precious little. I hope we can apply precious and get some media attention on gender parity in his appointments, whiile expanding our vision beyond Obama (and Clinton, for that matter). I think there are countless places to focus AND if this site is truly going to be non-partisan, all the more reason to move beyond these two individuals.
Finally, I love the idea of holding people accountable for their words and their deeds. Have any ideas how to do that with a President-elect and other power brokers?
sorry about a zillion typos….haven’t the patience to proof read in this tiny box….
oops…forgot to note the corrections:
“…and all IS (not if) forgotten…”
“….INCLUDED (not, including)…”
“…apply pressure (not, precious)….”
Perhaps there are some things we can agree on:
1. Likely many, if not most, of us dislike Obama and would have preferred Clinton.
2. Misogyny is alive and well in America.
3. We agree with the goals of The New Agenda.
As for the first, the litany of issues we could raise about Obama, his background, his hyporcisy is long long long. But, I fear it will only drag us down, keep us stuck and distract us from the goals at hand which is to advance women’s rights.
We’ve got some work to do! On the home page of the Politico website, NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON has written an article titled, “Poll: Gender not important for Obama picks”.
Henderson states,
“When it comes to Barack Obama’s Cabinet, women offer some intriguing advice: ??Gender shouldn’t matter. ? That’s the finding of a new national poll of 600 women – two-thirds of respondents said Obama should focus strictly on qualifications and “should not consider gender at all” in building his team. ??A mere 3 percent said Obama should appoint an equal number of men and women to his Cabinet. . . . “
WHAT?? 600 women don’t represent US women. Articles like this only hinder our work for gender parity in the Cabinet. We need to respond. The public needs to know we DO CARE and we care a lot about gender parity! Here is the article: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....16116.html
You can click on NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON’s name, and post a comment: http://www.politico.com/report.....erson.html
One clarification for the above post. You can comment on the article, “Poll: Gender not important for Obama picks” at the end of the article: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....16116.html
The public will see those comments! We need to set the record straight that we do, indeed, care about gender parity!
I posted a link here before on Obama’s disparaging “tea drinking” remark regarding Hillary’s foreign policy experience. A slur that has deep roots in this nation and was used to keep our original political sisters down.
Here it is again, to put Obama’s despicable gender slur in context:
http://www.historiann.com/2008.....gy-bottom/
And, Dawn, as I mentioned before, maybe you’d consider asking historiann to guest write for this blog. Apparently, her insight and depth is as much needed here as it is in the general public.
Anna, you make some good points about dwelling on Obama-bashing…but how delicious will it be to adopt the civility of bygone eras in order to advance our own?
Surely, we can at least agree to give Obama the benefit of the doubt while insisting he “learn” that his tea-drinking remarks are as offensive as comparing his foreign policy “experience” to shoe-shining?
He made the remarks. They are unacceptably offensive and have an odious history of denigrating political women. Whether we believe he made the remarks on purpose or in rank “bone-headed” ignorance, is irrelevant. That he needs to be enlightened is indisputable. Let’s help the poor fellow out, as publicly as possible.
The 600 women polled most likely do accurately represent American women. This is a significant component of the underlying cause of underrepresentation of women in elected office. There is an assumption of fair play by the population taken as a whole.
To quote the comment: “… two-thirds of respondents said Obama should focus strictly on qualifications and “should not consider gender at all” in building his team.” Well sure, if each prospect actually is evaluated without bias, this is the way it should be. It would result in equitable representation at this level because there are plenty of qualified women.
One of the clearest examples of the unfair play, to me, was in the V.P. debate when Biden scored points by crying whereas if Palin had cried the press, and therefore the voters would have ridiculed her. There is an incessant application of double standards by the press that influences public opinion.
Anna,
You wrote: “As for the first, the litany of issues we could raise about Obama, his background, his hyporcisy is long long long. But, I fear it will only drag us down, keep us stuck and distract us from the goals at hand which is to advance women’s rights.”
Yes, I assume we are here because we all care about women’s rights but how can we take Obama off the table when, in six weeks, he will be the most powerful person (man) in the world and in a position to DO something about women’s rights?
If we do not remember what Obama has said in the past, how can we know whether or not to trust what he says going forward? If we don’t hold him accountable for his words and deeds, what is the point of ever listening to him (when he’s president) or even voting?
What Obama said to get elected matters a whole lot to me, and I thought the treatment doled out to both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin in the past campaign was what had motivated this group to organize.
I thought the idea of this group was to assure that never again would women candidates be treated in the same vile way they were this year.
And Obama was a major part of that vileness; he used (here it comes) misogyny to win the nomination and the election.
If we can’t talk about the most powerful person in the world (Obama), who can we discuss?
—————-
“SHADOW” now . . . and “SHADOW” forever!
“Stop Humiliation And Disparagement Of Women”
I find it interesting that this poll by “Lifetime” was conducted (at all) but that it also included non-voters (typically polls include registered voters). It would be interesting if someone could look into the folks running Lifetime and check who they donated to in this election cycle.
Re: This poll of 600 women. There are polls and there are polls. Not only is 600 a very small number, as others have already pointed out, but who knows how the polls was constructed. For example, if you say to someone: “Is it more important to you that we make sure we have qualified candidates in top level positions or is it more important that half the postions be filled with women irrespective of qualifications?” many people might say the former. But, if you frame the question differently and say, “Is it important to you that gender parity be achieved in the new administration so that women are represented in top level positions in proportion to their numbers in the population?” many more people might say, “Yes.” Then there’s the whole issue of how the pool was selected and who they were. There is a science to polling and it’s hard to know what this poll means without more information. Regretably, it’s been given public attention, and that’s a problem. So, thanks to ER for providing the link so we can put in our own two cents.
And, lightacandle and zee – Yes, I hear your points. I guess I’m just so weary of Obama (already and he hasn’t even been sworn in) and feel desperate to find a way to advance our goals without feeling overly dependent on him and what he does. I suppose I’ve pretty much written him off and have little hope that he or his administration will be worthy. But, you’re both right in reminding me (as I try to look away and stick my head in the sand) that he will be our next President and we will need to be dealing with him and all the baggage that accompanies him. Ugh.
lightacandle – BTW, what does “Shadow Now…and Shadow Forever” mean, or come from, if you’re inclined to share.
“SHADOW” now . . . and “SHADOW” forever!
It’s the first letter of each of these words:
“Stop Humiliation And Disparagement Of Women”
lightacandle – Ooohhhhhhhh. I would not have figured that out. Is it your own unique thing, or is it an established thing that I’m just out of the loop about?
It’s mine, but you are welcome to spread the word.
While I understand that women compose 52% of this country does that really mean they should represent half of the cabinet?
Extending that logic means women should represent half of nearly every professional or academic field regardless of their interests or qualifications. Is the New Agenda’s Agenda “we want half,” or we want women to have an equal and fair opportunity to succeed on their merits? Don’t misunderstand me, however, I do believe that their are qualified women to fill every cabinet post – but should Hispanics get 13% because of their make-up of the population, and so on and so on ….
While I am glad HRC is secretary of state, Bill Richardson was actually more qualified. On the other hand, it was sexist and arcane for HRC not to be given a Senate Chairmanship simply due to seniority (within an organization that historically denied women access).
John Horning,
The very little information presented from the Lifetime poll results is, despite it’s paucity, sufficient to reveal that not only are the results misleading, that the poll was constructed in such a way that the obtained results were inevitable (for reasons having little to do, oddly enough, with the purported poll topic).
There’s a lot of information available, if you want to gain some insight into the tools and strategies being used to strategically generate misleading “data”. [You could start by searching forced choice polling, for instance, though if you're inclined to pursue it further, you could visit the (sadly defunct) Rockridge Institute site; they've left a collection of articles up for public consumption/inoculation.]
I’m not easily offended, but from my perspective, Lifetime just perpetrated an act of public obscenity. The seemingly invisible nature of the offense to otherwise rational and intelligent people (as you seem to be) is a sad commentary on what it is people are not noticing these days. Unfortunately, not noticing, rather than mitigating its impact, actually facilitates it.
Did you even notice the embedded (sexist) meme?
Neither did anybody else, apparently, but it still gets reinforced – sadly undigested, as its implicit presentation facilitates its acceptance as an unexamined given.
The goal of strategic framing is to slip things under your empathic radar. Since the demise or Rockridge, however, nobody on the liberal side of the continuum appears to be talking much about this stuff (with the exception of an occasional Lakoff post over on Huffington). Their conservative counterparts, despite a more venerable status, never talked about it openly. Those conversations continue behind the closed doors at places like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.
Because once you train people to recognize implicit messages – once you make them explicit, they can be subjected to conceptual correction. Not coincidentally, this is one of The New Agenda’s primary goals – to identify and decry misogyny, regardless of where it originates along the political spectrum (and as recent events have abundantly demonstrated, the “left” is in as dire need of this these efforts”right”).
In the mean time, we all get to experience the persistent effects of strategically invoked prejudices, and wonder how in the world we ever became so polarized, or how we could despise each other with such intensity – even months after the election, where those tools were indiscriminately employed by all sides to foster alienation from opponent candidates, without any consideration of lasting social consequences.
Groups that transcend party politics, like The New Agenda (are there others?), in addition to promoting an important and intrinsically worthwhile social agenda, also constitute something of a more general antidote (provided we don’t allow ourselves to be provoked into responding to our philosophical adversaries in-kind); we undermine a “delivery system” that is also used for other social pathogens.
Just one more reason I’m grateful to the founders, and feel fortunate to be a part of it. Because as important as the primary cause is, the impact of our efforts extends much further. The emergence of this group actually kindled a spark of hope in my embittered little heart, and with Hillary’s appointment, it’s burning a little brighter. When I think of the barriers that Amy Siskind and the founders had to breach just to get this organization off the ground, however, and their audacity to grapple with such pervasive, seemingly intractable challenges, I actually find myself feeling inspired.
Go figure – I wouldn’t have thought it possible, after the last eight years.
Kevin, I think women should compose the entire cabinet. We have a lot of catching up to do when you think about the hundreds of years women have not been represented in government at all. Half is a good start. I remember reading here something about how other governments have quotas for female representation. That would be excellent. Can that be a bill someone introduces in the United States, a movement we can get behind?
You said, “Extending that logic means women should represent half of nearly every professional or academic field regardless of their interests or qualifications.”
I don’t see how wanting half of the cabinet to be women extends to wanting women in professional or academic fields regardless of their interests or qualifications. Of course politicians, lawyers and doctors should be interested in what they are doing, and there is no lack of interest out there for any of these things, and as for qualifications, no one has brought up that we want unqualified women. We are working on the assumption that there are qualified women out there and there have always been. And honestly, qualifications, at least when it comes to politics, seems such a joke. I mean, truly. What has Obama done to qualify him to be President? I guess if the job of President is to win campaigns, then yes, he’s qualified.
I happen to believe that yes, all minorities should be represented at least to reflect the percentage of their population. Why don’t we try that? I’m up for it!
Kevin,
You said
“Don’t misunderstand me, however, I do believe that their are qualified women to fill every cabinet post – ”
The answer is if you believe what you said then yes, we want half. The argument is moot as it pertains to the cabinet if you concede what you said in the quote above.
As to the other point, if there is some field where women are lacking “regardless of their interests or qualifications” then we need to encourage the women who have interests in those fields and get them the “qualifications” they need. I guess my point would be that when women really do have an equal opportunity and we are being treated fairly, then I would agree with what you said “we want women to have an equal and fair opportunity to succeed on their merits.” The problem is we don’t have that opportunity now and the only way to get it is to get more women in power. Think about how it used to be with doctors. Women could only be nurses or midwives until women broke that glass ceiling and now most people don’t even think about it as “strange” to have a woman as a doctor. People only got used to the idea after several generations of women had to put up with making tiny steps into the field. (at first they were only allowed and encouraged to be obstetricians or gynecologists) How will we ever have the opportunity to stand on our merits if the first thing the media and everyone else notices is that we are women going after “a man’s job?”
Dr. K,
While hardly an expert on the subject, I am well aware. One of the things I have commented on elsewhere is how the pollsters frame questions when doing political polling and how the media frames the reporting afterword. Frankly, if a trial attorney used such leading questions you would reasonably expect the Judge to chide her or him.
In response to Kevin’s post about equal representation: yes Kevin, if our society affords equal treatment and opportunity over time I would expect the numbers to work out that way. But then, you see, I believe that those few genetic differences that actually exist are not significant in terms of intellectual and leadership ability. The reality is that society will not allow equal treatment or opportunity unless some segment of the population forces it to happen.
All, I think we are in general agreement; I am simply not an advocate of quotas.
The proportionality argument is fine when it comes to the cabinet because for some of the positions, the qualifications are so non-specific. I would argue, however, that not only is Bill Richardson more qualified than HRC for the SoS but there are other women who are more qualified for that post. I am simply ashamed that the men in the Senate didn’t provide her with a chairmanship so I guess SoS is an okay 2nd prize.
Within corporations, the proportionality argument is very faulty because many women and minorities simply do not have the experience, skills and expertise for some job where they are underrepresented. In this situation, I agree with Cynthia, we need to encourage women who have interests in those fields to apply and to get them the “qualifications” they need.
Having said all that, I am back to my original thought (quality of position over quantity). I think it is vital that a women – unlike the last women – be Labor Secretary and aggressively promote affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws.
Kevin,
I do not remember recommending quotas. Where you and I disagree is that I see many qualified women right now, including Hillary Clinton. Regarding corporate America, we now have all of the highly qualified and experienced financiers and bankers who wrote bad loans and made bad investments now supported by $8 Trillion of government money and they cannot figure out how to make a loan.
Maybe their qualifications have to do with plumbing and the Old Boys Club, and the experience is just an illusion. Personally I have more faith in honest hardworking women at the middle management level than I do these guys in the executive suite.
The post above linked to my quotas post. Perhaps that’s what Kevin was referring to.
Really a foreign concept, huh? Quotas. People in the U.S. meet these ideas with utter disbelief.
John, you may not have recommended quotas but the statement made by Anne – “I happen to believe that yes, all minorities should be represented at least to reflect the percentage of their population. Why don’t we try that? I’m up for it!” – is quotas.
Also, as I recommended early on this web site that I wanted a qualified and caring women – Christina Romer or Shelia Blair as Treasury Secretary. Keep in mind, there were women at very high levels of Wall Street firms – Zoe Cruz, former co-president of Morgan Stanley; Sallie Krawcheck, former chief financial officer of Citigroup; Heidi Miller, the chief executive of treasury and security services at JPMorgan Chase; Amy Woods Brinkley, the chief risk officer at Bank of America; and Erin Callan, chief financial officer of Lehman Brothers.
I don’t want women, just because they are women (I think that is an insult to women). I want qualified women who genuinely care about promoting affirmative action, equal opportunity and public good, or I will take a man.
Having said all that, we agree more than we disagree.
Responding to Kevin’s last comment regarding qualifications and the notion of quotas (though he didn’t use that word):
I’m not sure where I stand on quotas.
I agree that qualifications should count.
I also think many people are elevated to positions without the necessary qualifications (Obama being the most recent, major and blatant example), so….
The problem is that many men rise to power who don’t deserve it, but men are like the default gender.
In sum, therefore, I believe women should be able to be as great as or as medoicre as men and still have the chance to rise until some ideal day when qualifications really and truly are the rule.
I apprciate your prespective of carrying out the notion of various demographic groups being represented according to their proportionate numbers in the population and how perhaps difficult, if not also misguided, that might be. In the U.S., there are A LOT of demographic groups. That said, as Anne-Marie said, why not at least be shooting for it in some form. Women, to my mind, are the place to start since we are half+ of the population, not a tiny demographic.
Those are my few random, non-proof-read thoughts for the moment…
Anna,
You nailed it with this: “…but men are like the default gender.”
So true … so true.
Men carry on about women needing to be “qualified” (as if the assumption is that they can’t be, or seldom are, “qualified” enough), but the “default gender” is always (wait for it): a man, any man.
I truly agree with the statements: “… but men are like the default gender” and “in sum, therefore, I believe women should be able to be as great as or as mediocre as men and still have the chance to rise until some ideal day when qualifications really and truly are the rule.” This is the practical reality. So my position has become:
1. I am fine with a 50/50 male/female split in the cabinet because there are enough qualified women but it is more important what these women accomplish in this roles than simply their gender.
2. We should really question the qualifications of men who hold positions of power and apply the same test to women
3. Some cabinet posts are more important than others, we missed out on the Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary (I would liked to have seen a woman in financial posts) and thus believe a women at Labor is a must (along with a prominent role for Shelia Blair).
Finally, while most of this web site may disagree, I don’t believe either HRC or Obama were all that qualified to be the President (but neither was Bush). And while I do believe sexism may have been a slightly stronger deterrent to her election than racism was for Obama, I believe Obama strove to rise above race in a manner that HRC did not with respect to gender – i.e., I think HRC used the “gender card” more than Obama used the “race card.”
Kevin
1. Obviously.
2. I think you have this a bit backwards. I would say: We should question the qualifications of men who hold positions of power and hold them to the same standard we set for women. (That might be what you meant, but it reads a bit ambiguous.)
3. Not sure why you feel so strongly about matching gender to certain cabinet positions, but whatever.
Finally. I think you have underestimated the impact of sexism on Clintons’ campaign. I think the issue of racism was complex since while there were surely voters who would not vote for Obama because he is half black, many, many, many, many more voters it would seem felt white guilt and voted for him to assuage some emotional need to unburden that guilt by casting their ballot for the first black President, something Obama exploited to the max.
I’m not sure what you mean by your lace comment. How did Obama strive to rise above race? How did Clinton need to or not manage to rice above gender?
As for your very last statement, I strongly disagree. I think Clinton was caught between a rock and a hard place. If she mentioned gender, she was vilified for doing so. If she didn’t, critics thought she should have. Meanwhile, Obama played the race card throughout his campaign, and continues to do so.
P.S.
Regarding the race issue, forgot to mention how Obama benefitted from nearly 100% of African-Americans voting for him. Clinton did not benefit from the equivalent, i.e. nearly all women voting for her. And, while on that topic, folks dared not questions blacks who supported Obama because of race, but if a woman said she supported Clinton because she was a woman, she was castigated. Very double standard. It seems the country was tripping over itself this year not to appear racist, but misogyny was just fine indeed.
My thoughts:
1. I did mean, “we should really question the qualifications of men who hold positions of power and apply the same test to women.” Translated, this means we should adopt very high standards for both women and men and judge all people on results that promote fairness, equal opportunity and meritocracy.
2. I am focused on finance because this is a unique field where women have traditionally been excluded and whoever controls the money flow, truly has the power. I would take a female Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary over getting any other four other cabinet posts. Also, see this study
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/967/gender-power.
3. My experience is that “white guilt” becomes less relevant as the degree of significance of the position rises. White Americans can definitely experience white guilt but they will think twice before they let it affect their pocket book. No doubt, a vast majority of African Americans voted for Obama due strictly to race pride – point well taken.
4. “Gender card” vs. “Race card.” I believe Obama deliberately did not want to discuss his race and the significance of race to the campaign – it was in fact a crucial element of his strategy. I never recall Obama saying race benefited or hurt him. HRC definitely talked more about gender than Obama discussed race.
“Sexism” is very real. I experience it everyday through my wife who is in a leadership position at a leading manufacturing company and is actively penalized due to her gender (but can never raise the issue). However, the pure hate and vile statements regarding Obama’s race were astounding, particularly in the South. In the end, though, I do not believe it is fruitful to attempt to measure the degree that sexism and racism played because we cannot get into people’s head and heart.
Kevin
Several interesting points…
Curuious analysis of value added (!) regarding various cabinet posts, sort of like one win here equals two over there. Interesting notion. Not sure I agree, but it’s thougtful.
I disagree about just how far “white guilt” carried people. Many individuals voted for Obama even though it was indeed against their interests, with Jews being one such among many other groups in my view (not to mention women!).
As for the “race card”, Obama made a big deal of it in various ways, some subtle, including his ridiculous lie about how he was born of the march on Selma, his repeated references to how people (voters and his opponents) might find his name odd or note that he looks different. He’s smooth, very smooth. But, he kept the issue of skin color front and center throughout (including his statement early on in the year about how young black children would feel to see him place his hand on the Bible on inauguration day. I’m not necessarily placing a value judgement on any of this, just stating what happened from my perspective.
As for your last comment, that’s a real tough one. I agree, one can never get into the heart and mind of another. The problem with many “isms” is that people often say one thing on the outside to appear a certain way, while feeling something quite different on the inside. It’s hard. I’m a scientist at heart, but I’m not convinced you can really get all this fully and honestly just through science.
Oh! Somewhat related to all of this and the notion of parity among demographic groups. Things get tricky. For example, as a woman, I’m in favor of parity. BUT, as a Jew, I’m strongly against Samantha Powers being part of Obama’s team in any way shape or form. So, not so simple….In this case, my religious identity trumps my gender identity and I would say that Powers has to go.
Kevin,
A phrase that I have used before, Truth it seems is to be found in the bias of the beholder. There are fellow citizens that genuinely saw a racist under every bed during this campaign. I respect them, their life experience and personal conclusions.
I was born into a mixed race family, I am white. My wife is of mixed races. I have spent my entire life associated with people of mixed race or racial minority. I have also witnessed a great deal of politics within minority and mixed race environments. All of this affects my judgments and you are welcome to designate me as biased
.
Separate from the individuals I mentioned above, there was a small army of Obama surrogates in the campaign apparatus, in the media and some allied public figures that began openly playing the race card the last week of January and actually continued until after the election was over. What caused me to get off the fence and back Clinton was the very clear position taken by the Obama supporters; Race trumps gender! I know this one well. I do not agree with it.
I do not expect anyone to agree with me. I will continue forward with my own judgments and opinions and accept that the majority disagrees with me. Meanwhile, I would remind everyone of Rev. Wright, who knows Obama so very well – “he is a politician”. I would add, a truly exceptional one.
Per our discussion:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200....._diversity
John
Sorry for eavesdropping (!), but I would extend the playing of the race card to present:
Most recently, it seems Obama gave the press permission to release a story about the numerous plots out there against his life. And, while there may be more than past Presidents and President-elects, there have always been nut jobs who plot such horrors. BUT, past Presidents have not typically given the press permission to release stories about it. Obama did. Then, in recent follow up interviews he got to appear brave in the face of this risk, stating that he’s not concerned about these threats. I view this as a continued manipuation of the race card.
Anna,
“Many individuals voted for Obama even though it was indeed against their interests, with Jews being one such among many other groups in my view (not to mention women!).” Educate me here, McCain/Palin where better for Jews and Women?
There were also many McCain/Palin and HRC voters, or simply middle income, or poor whites who voted against Obama against their interests because he was Black.
Your comments regarding Samantha Powers relates to my point. I just don’t want women, simply because they are women; I also prefer quality of position over quantity of position. I would argue that the most important cabinet, or cabinet-like positions are Treasury Secretary, Head of the National Economic Council, Chairman of the New Economic Advisory Board, Defense Secretary, National Security Advisory, Secretary of State, Labor Secretary and Commerce Secretary. At this stage, there is a woman in only one of these posts and it is the post where we have already had women. I’d like to see a women where no women has ever been before – in control of the money and in control of the weapons (the true power positions).
I do believe it is sexist that Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Paul Volcker head the top economic spots with Christina Romer stuck doing the numbers and Shelia Blair being ignored. The New Agenda should have a separate Blog ensuring that these women in finance are not marginalized within the new administration.
Kevin,
You have to be kidding when you say Obama didn’t raise the race issue as much as Hillary raised the gender issue.
On May 18, 2008, Obama made his famous race speech. In fact, that’s how one can look it up on Google — “Obama’s race speech” Multiple websites list it just that way.
— “Barack Obama’s Speech on Race” at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03.....obama.html
Hillary never gave a campaign speech dedicated solely to the issue of gender, but Obama’s race speech was entirely about race.
Furthermore, although both Clintons had been respected and beloved in the African-American community for decades — because they understood and persistently fought on behalf of black issues — they were both labeled “racists” by the Obama campaign (and we HAVE to presume with Obama’s approval since he never said a word to discourage his minions) even though the initial Clinton statements that precipitated this name-calling were accurate, historical, and anything but racist.
That is using race to win.
——————————————————————–
“SHADOW” now . . . and “SHADOW” forever!
“Stop Humiliation And Disparagement Of Women”
lightacandle,
Obama was pushed by the media to make the speech on race; it was not something he planned within his campaign strategy. I don’t know how many Black churches you have attended but you would be amazed at what some Black pastors say, particularly “old school” Pastors.
And HRC’s and Bill’s definitely used racial “code words” in middle-income and poor White areas and stated that Obama couldn’t win White votes.
Again, I think the Sexism vs. Racism debate is unfruitful. My point – I want to see women in cabinet positions of true power, positions they have never had before. I am not focusing on quantity but quality of position.
Well, the “quality” position in America is president, and Hillary SHOULD, by any measurement, have been president before Obama.
He is inexperienced and has little real achievement to show for his few years on the national stage – two senate bills that he initiated and saw through to passage.
Obama “won” the election because the media people (who seem to control an awful lot of what passes for thinking in this country) decided it was “time” to elect a black man but not yet time to elect a woman.
The IDEA of electing a black man won the presidency for Obama.
Apparently, the IDEA of electing a woman president hasn’t attracted enough people — yet.
Kevin,
If you really believe the Clintons were using code words for racist remarks,. then you must be mad as heck that Obama is nominating Hillary as Sec. of State, where she will be America’s face to the rest of the world.
What is heaven’s name is Obama thinking by putting a “racist” in charge of our relationships with a world that includes many races that are not white?
Good grief, I hope you’re writing letters to Obama reminding him what “racists” the Clintons are (if you really believe that).
I have heard a rumor that Obama may ask former President Clinton to be his special envoy to Pakistan and India. How in the world can Obama justify sending someone he believes to be a racist to try to tone down the Pakistan-India dispute?
Maybe Obama never truly believed those were, as you call them, Clinton “code” words for racist remarks.
And, Kevin, what do you suppose Obama meant us to conclude from his remark that maybe Hillary was “periodically” feeling down?
What do you suppose that was code for?
lightacandle,
You are going off the deep in. I have no problem with HRC being SoS (about I believe she really deserved a Senate chairmanship). A lot of that campaign talk is just that – campaign talk. HRC is smart and savvy.
With the degree of racism in this country, I do not believe “the IDEA of electing a black man won the presidency for Obama.” The statement truly understates the superb grassroots campaign Obama directed.
HRC didn’t run a good campaign until the last 2 to 3 weeks; if she had started the way she finished, she would have been the Democratic nominee. Her campaign missteps were not Obama’s fault. HRC was going to have to run a near flawless campaign because 1) a lot of people, including women, do not like HRC for one reason or another and 2) she is a women. Obama was going to have run a near flawless campaign because of his race and inexperience. HRC ran a very bad campaign – a lot of in-fighting going public; changing themes and messages, ignoring caucus status, etc. etc.. You can’t call this sexism – it was poor campaign management.
I believe – without a doubt – proper campaign would have overcome any sexism HRC experienced. And if the campaign were run again, HRC would win because she would not make the same campaign mistakes.
If success is assessed by how many people thought you’d make a better Democratic candidate for president, Hillary’s campaign got more people out to vote for her than Obama’s for him so it was successful, even with its “mistakes”. It’s flawed thinking when people try to put all blame for the loss on the loser, in this case the “loser” who got more votes from the people. In my opinion, Hillary did not become the Democratic nominee not because of the mistakes her campaign made but because of the strengths and advantages Obama’s campaign had.
All those media campaigns that have been telling Americans to vote, because their vote counts, I certainly got the opposite message after the Democratic primary. The next presidential campaign the message should be not that every vote counts, but every caucus vote counts, so go out there and fight like mad to win those caucuses.
Kevin, imagine living in a world where no man has ever been POTUS and where the history of this country is dominated by female figureheads. Founding mothers, all women Constitutional Convention where they decide how this country should work, and every signature on the Constitution a woman’s. History books where a man’s struggle for equality is covered on a few pages, and the rest is all about women’s accomplishments in history.
I voted for McCain/Palin, and it was not a vote against my best interest. I feel pride when women are at the top levels of anything because of living in a world opposite of the one I asked you to imagine. It’s in my best interest to see women have power because it makes me feel good about myself, whether or not that woman agrees with me on every issue. It’s been shown by scientists that self-confidence has all kinds of benefits for a person: They are happier, and more effective in their lives.
And about quotas–men (interested, disinterested, qualified, unqualified) have benefited from 100% males 0% female quotas for thousands of years. That is why I have no qualms at this time about official quotas that would begin to address the imbalance of male vs. female representation and power in this country and world. It might be interesting to find out who first introduced and instituted the idea of gender quotas in government, was it a female, a male, and how did it come about, what was their reasoning? Anyone know where might be a good place to research this?
Here’s an article about quotas in Mexico: http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/.....s/view/314
It seems that many of our fellow citizens would have everyone validate the Obama victory. Some are distressed because a small number of citizens think his victory lacks validity because of the conduct of the campaign. I am one of the citizens that think the victory lacks validity. At the same time, I want the upcoming administration to be successful.
What I am not willing to do is ignore the reality of the campaign and its effect on our society. In particular, I will not ignore the propaganda activities by the media. These are essentially the same people who propagandized for “W” from 1999 through 2005. They are essentially the same people who chose to promote and sell “W’s” war of self-glorification in Iraq.
Once it became obvious that the public at large would no longer buy into the “W” program, they chose to become neo-pacifists and blame Hillary Clinton for the war. They selected Obama as their replacement for “W” and launched a multiphase campaign on his behalf. Standard Clinton bashing and race baiting was not enough for them they resorted to blatant sexism as well. This additional blatant sexism became generally accepted.
To validate the campaign and the Obama victory would be to validate this additional blatant sexism. I will not do that.
That is my theory anyway.
ps – Anne-Marie, quotas would be an effective tool if there was not so much resistance to the concept being applied to gender. I may be wrong, but I think the result would be negative rather than positive. The last that I knew, the SBA was authorized to secure preference for all known racial minorities but specifically precluded from securing preferences for women. That tells you something.
Kevin,
You wrote: “And HRC’s and Bill’s definitely used racial “code words” in middle-income and poor White areas and stated that Obama couldn’t win White votes.”
If you really believe that, how can you possibly think Hillary should be Sec. of State and America’s face to the world? How can you not be enraged that Obama appointed a person who uses “code words” to make “racist” remarks?
If you really think President and Senator Clinton “used racial ‘code words’” during the campaign, I would think you would want them OUT of public life.
Or do you just casually throw around such accusations to shock people?
No, Obama did not win because he ran a “flawless” campaign (no matter what song the media people have been singing), Obama won because the entire press corps was in his corner — overlooking the negatives in Obama’s life story and political record. The media treatment toward Hillary, especially on the cable networks but elsewhere too, was a disgrace. You have only to read my first post above to see the many examples of that. In fact, it was the vile nature of the remarks made against Sen. Clinton and Gov. Palin that motivated the originators of this site to organize.
You go on and on about the need for women to be “qualified” before they can be considered for high public office, but you gloss over Obama’s lack of such experience and qualification to be president. I assume Obama is smart, most people who run for the presidency don’t do very well unless they are smart, but what has Obama done since entering the U.S. Senate that sends any signal of his readiness to be president? Yes, he is surrounded by highly experienced “old Washington hands” but so was George W. Bush. The question is: How will Obama know which advisors to listen to? Bush didn’t, and he made terrible mistakes.
Obama does not have the very “qualifications” you insist any woman must have before she can be considered for high public office. Yet, there he is, and you seem to think he got there by running a “flawless” campaign. Well, he didn’t, and he made many missteps early on, but the media people (and you) have glossed over all of Obama’s mistakes (and deceptions) while spotlighting and magnifying and inventing Hillary’s missteps.
But back to my first pint in this post: Why are you not enraged that Obama has appointed as his Sec. of State a person you believe “used racial ‘code words’” during the campaign?
You should be furious.
correction:
But back to my first point in this post: Why are you not enraged that Obama has appointed as his Sec. of State a person you believe “used racial ‘code words’” during the campaign?
You should be furious.
lightacandle,
I am comfortable with HRC because I think she is a smart and savvy woman with international contacts (although as experienced or qualified for SoS as Bill Richardson). Both HRC and Obama are back peddling on comments they made regarding each other – so if they can forgive and forget, so can I.
At the end of the day, HRC’s experience boils down to being Bill’s wife and a Senator for one term. Obama does not have her similar experience but I would not consider either one of them really qualified for the Presidency. But given that we elected Bush, qualifications do not seem to matter all that much, what matters is your ability to seize on the emotions and needs of the electorate. Obama did that throughout his campaign, HRC did near the end.
Both sexism and racism were rampant within the campaign but HRC made four campaign mistakes that cost her:
1. Flip-flopping on Michigan and Florida votes. While she ended her campaign with “let ever vote count,” she became the campaign with expressing agreement that Michigan and Florida be punished and their votes be excluded
2. Ignoring the Caucuses
3. Spending and focusing too much on Super Tuesday
4. Finding her message or theme late in the campaign. She began with a theme of experience but that is not what the electorate wanted. For better or worse, they simply wanted something as far removed from Bush as possible.
If HRC had fought from the beginning to campaign and include Michigan and Florida votes; campaigned for Caucus votes; not focused so much money and time on Super Tuesday and decided on (and stuck with) a theme that connected with voters, she would have won the nomination. These missteps have nothing to do with Obama or sexism. HRC was so much the favorite that nearly ever Congressional Black Caucus member backed her and not Obama.
I agree with the reality that sexism, vile and fragrant sexism exist on the campaign trail, but sexism was not HRC downfall with respect to the election. And I am very pleased and happy she rebounded is our SoS.
Now, I want women in political positions closer to the money and the weapons.
I don’t think it is relevant whether Hillary would have lost anyway or not. Sexism was rampant in this campaign against Sarah and Hillary and whether they won or lost doesn’t change the need to do something about it. If some think the Clinton’s used the race card that also doesn’t change the sexism. Whether Obama or Hillary was more “qualified” also doesn’t change the sexism. It was rampant and obvious and WRONG.
Kevin,
You keep returning to the idea that Bill Richardson is so much more qualified than Hillary Clinton is for the Sec. of State job. Here is one possibility that you may not be considering.
Many people, including Obama supporters, concluded that Bill Richardson demonstrated a complete lack of loyalty to the Clintons. Obama is a “Master Politician”. It is likely that (1) Obama does not trust Bill Richardson, and (2) that he is aware that many other World Leaders will not trust him either. This would not be a good thing for a Sec. of State.
Hillary did not “lose” the primary campaign; it was stolen from her.
More people voted for Hillary than for Obama, when ALL the votes were counted (as they were once Obama was already assured of the nomination at the Democratic Convention).
As for Florida, you are wrong: Early on, Hillary asked Obama to share with her the expenses for Florida to re-do its “disallowed” election (disallowed by the DNC chieftains). Obama refused to join her in paying for that re-do.
And, I still cannot comprehend how you be content to have as America’s face on the world a person you believe made racist remarks but used “code words” to mask her evil.
It is just incomprehensible — unless, of course, you don’t even believe what you wrote and were just flame-throwing.
–
“SHADOW” now . . . and “SHADOW” forever!
“Stop Humiliation And Disparagement Of Women”
Kevin
Part of seizing on the emotions and needs of the electorate is using sexism to make the electorate emotionally prefer you because of their discomfort with women in power. So I agree, Obama campaign did that successfully, throughout his campaign.
“Being Bill’s wife” would have meant nothing if she didn’t seize that opportunity to advance her agenda of helping people and advancing her political ambitions. And she is not just any one term Senator. She was a elected to a 2nd term by over 60% of the voters. And when she first ran she was maligned for being a carpet-bagger. She had “being Bill’s wife” and “politically ambitious” working against her. Let’s not diminish her accomplishments.
And I was wondering what did her mistakes cost her again? She won in Florida and Michigan, despite the “flip flopping”.
She didn’t ignore the caucuses. Obama simply made sure he won them through questionable techniques such as busing supporters in from other states, bullying Clinton supporters, etc.
I don’t know why it would be a mistake to spend a lot of money on winning the big states of Super Tuesday. Maybe you can explain that.
She had her message and theme from the start, she didn’t find it later in the campaign as you put it. If she hadn’t changed her strategy, she would be accused of not seeing that she needed to re-evaluate her strategy or theme, and was inflexible, and that’s why she lost.
No matter what Hillary did or didn’t do will be seen as a mistake that cost her the election, because as I pointed out earlier, people have the tendency to try to put all blame for the loss on the loser, in this case the “loser” who got more votes from the people.
This was a political game. She had wins, she had successes, and there were many things that her campaign did right. Look at the popular vote. You don’t win that by making horrible mistakes. In the end for many different reasons she lost.
My explanation as to why she lost is because women of this country didn’t appreciate the importance of having a female president, because women of this country are not educated to understand the connection between female political power and the betterment of their lives.
If women would have appreciated the importance of a female president the way blacks appreciated the importance of a mixed race president who identifies with African Americans, Hillary would have been President. This is why I am here, to learn how to help and advocate so other women understand the positive effects of women being in power on their lives.
I think we need to learn from the African American community. What explains their almost perfect unity in voting for Obama?
And, P.S., Hillary Clinton was far more important to her husband’s political life and decision-making than you have concluded. Hillary was always Bill’s most trusted advisor and the last person who spoke to him before he made critical decisions. She was fully knowledgeable about all the issues President President Clinton dealt with.
Clinton’s years in the U.S. Senate — unlike Obama’s years there — have been filled with achievement, and as a result she has won the respect and even friendship of senators in both parties.
Sen. Clinton has served — actively (as contrasted with Obama, who was hardly ever there) — on five Senate committees: the Committee on Budget (2001–2002), the Committee on Armed Services (since 2003), the Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001), and Special Committee on Aging. She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[200] (since 2001).
Clinton has been a powerhouse in the senate … Obama has dropped by occasionally.
Cynthia, I am in agreement with you.
John, with respect to your comments regarding Bill Richardson, could be – who knows.
HRC as SoS is really minor in my mind. The big fight would have been and are:
1. Why the senate sexist seniority system stopped her from getting a Senate chairmanship and how it can be changed to help current women?
2. Why a women was not chosen as Treasury Secretary, Head of the National Economic Council or chairman of the National Economic Advisory Board – we got Tim, Larry and Paul?
3. Will Christina Romer and Shelia Blair be marginalized in national economic discussions?
4. Will HRC be marginalized in national economic discussion among Jones, Gates and Biden?
5. Will the incoming Labor Secretary (man or female) actually enforce affirmative action laws to break down glass ceilings in corporate America?
If you get a cabinet with 50% women but these issues do not get addressed, there really will not be an meaning progress for women, just some women who got some cabinet posts.
Kevin,
When are you going to explain the fact that you believe Hillary and Bill Clinton used racism in the recent primary campaign but you now think it is okay for a “racist” to be our Sec. of State?
The senate seniority system is not sexist — the senators apply it across the board to men and women alike.
Kevin,
You wrote: “If you get a cabinet with 50% women but these issues do not get addressed, there really will not be an meaning progress for women, just some women who got some cabinet posts.”
Why are you NOT applying the SAME standard to men?
I think this country is in pretty bad trouble and, for the most part, it has been men making the decisions that got us here.
It seems to me (and anyone who is paying attention) that men have been failing “up” for a lot of years.
Why do women get one shot at addressing issues, according to you?
I can’t partake in this exchange cause without blog posts being numbered, it’s hard to reference which post one is responding to, at least for me. John, you posted something a ways back (I think your next-to-the last post) that I found very interesting and thoughtful.
Meanwhile, two quick requests:
1. FDIC Chair is Shiela Bair, NOT, Blair.
2. Can someone at TNA find a way (I know, in your “spare time”) to have posts numbered?
lightacandle,
I did not say Bill and HRC were “racists;” I said they used code words to elicit negative the attitudes many Americans have regarding African Americans, particularly those in power.
All campaigns use code words, it is a campaign strategy. Bill and HRC did it when they said poor whites would not vote for Obama. I do not approve of what Hillary did but this vile tactic is not the totality of her character. At various times, many Americans have used, or said sexism or racist remarks they now regret. I support HRC as SoS because she is qualified for the job, however, I believe that she engaged in a practice of which I disapprove, simply as that.
With respect to the senate seniority system, it is sexist given that until recent history it was very unlikely for a women to be elected to the senate – So, of course, few women have seniority, and thus, few women are in powerful senate rows. Tenure in a job does not equate to during a job well, or being able to do a job well in the future. If the Democratic party would have been smart, and not sexist, they would have leveraged HRC’s popularity and knowledge on Health Care to place her in a chairmanship role.
I’ll ask Violet about it, Anna. In the meantime, you could use the timestamp to indicate which comment you’re responding to, ie. “Anna @ 3:00pm”
lightacandle,
Where does “Why do women get one shot at addressing issues, according to you?” – when did I say this?
I said, I believe, I am less concerned with the proportion of men and women in cabinet posts but that:
1. Women are placed in cabinet posts with true power, particularly those focused on Finance, Security and Labor. I am extremely disappointed that all men – Tim, Larry and Paul – are in the key Finance power posts
2. Getting a women, or man, is not as important as getting a man, or women, who aggressively promotes affirmative action, fairness, and merit in breaking the glass ceiling for women in corporate America.
I am not sure what is so disagreeable regarding these positions.
Kevin,
If you truly believe “HRC’s and Bill’s definitely used racial ‘code words’” then you must believe they employed racist tactics to achieve some goal.
Since Hillary was hoping to hold onto her decades-long support among African-Americans, this would have been a suicidal tactic, and I dispute that that is what they did.
I reject your description of Sen. Clinton’s and President Clinton’s remarks as ever being the use of “racial ‘code words’” but if you continue to insist they used “racial ‘code words’” then I ask you again: Why would you want someone as Sec. of State who has stirred up racist attitudes by employing “racial ‘code words’”?
Kevin,
Why do you persist in saying that women should hold positions in the “Finance, Security and Labor” departments?
Women are just as capable as men of running ANY department or section of government. As for the Defense Dept., there are many women in the military (if one thinks military service is a requirement for leading the defense dept) who could step right into the job as Sec. of Defense.
There are women in the CIA who are capable of running that organization. Good grief, women couldn’t have fouled up the CIA any worse than Porter Goss or George Tenet did. Yet, presidents keep appointing men to those posts. And I haven’t noticed anyone saying that men have had their chance and now it’s the turn of women at Defense and the CIA..
Furthermore, if these things should be decided based on “qualifications,” then Hillary was/is far more prepared than Obama to be president; in fact, Hillary was the most qualified person in either party.
lightacandle,
You must be having a bad day. I am not saying women should be limited to any cabinet post. I am specifically saying that I would like to see women in cabinet posts they have never been in before, like Treasury Security and National Defense. I am also saying having a women as Labor Secretary, or someone very aggressive at enforcing affirmative action laws.
You seem to want to simply disagree with me because I will not agree that HRC lost the nomination bid solely due to sexism and that Obama is a sexist hack.
lightacandle,,
I believe these are code words, or a phrase used by HRC:
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on … Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, White Americans, is weakening again, and how Whites in both States who had not completed college were supporting me.”
This statement, may or may not be true, and it’s certainly a fair topic for political commentary. But when a candidate talks this way, it comes across as an unsubtle use of code words – ugly and unacceptable. Why did she do it – to gain more White votes and imply an African American could not win the race for Presidency so moderates should vote for her. It was a campaign tactic.
Find me a similar statement where Obama said White people were not going to vote for him because he was Black, or women were voting for HRC simply because she was a women.
Should have been Treasury Secretary
http://www.reuters.com/article.....liticsNews
Geithner Seeks to Push FDIC’s Bair Out After Clashes
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....p;refer=us
Bair should have actually gotten the Treasury Secretary job, women should rally around her. Unbelievable that the top economic jobs all went to men – Tim, Larry and Paul.
Kevin,
Obama made an ENTIRE speech about race. Do you think that speech was not calculated to attract black votes and “white guilt” votes?
Do you really think that speech was not an attempt to make people feel guilty so they would vote for him?
When, early in the campaign, Hillary was attracting more African Americans to her candidacy than Obama was, an interviewer asked Michelle Obama why that was. Michelle replied, “‘Black Americans will wake up and get it.”
Get what?
That they are SUPPOSED to vote for a black man simply because he’s black?
There was a lot of pressure applied by the Obama campaign to get people to vote for “the first black president.”
It was the media’s favorite song.
Oh, and there’s this.
================================
Obama Camp Concedes “Dollar Bill” Remark Was About His Race… Duh!
Either the Obama camp or the media thinks we’re all morons, or both.
The Obama Camp today conceded that his “dollar bill” remarks were indeed about race.
ABC News reported:
– – – – – – -
Sen. Barack Obama’s chief strategist conceded that the Democratic presidential candidate was referring to his race when he said Republicans were trying to scare voters by suggesting Obama “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
The comment had triggered a charge Thursday from Sen. John McCain’s campaign manager that Obama had “played the race card… from the bottom of the deck.”
Obama’s camp initially denied the remark was a reference to Obama’s race.
Obama is poised to become the first black man to be the presidential nominee of a major political party when he claims the Democratic nomination on Aug. 28 — the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
– – – – – – -
HotAir has the video- Axelrod admits that Obama was indeed speaking of race.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot......emark.html
lightacandle,
We agree to disagree.
Geithner is trying to push Bair out of a high profile, high impact job, and we are debating whether or not Sexism or Racism was most important within the campaign and who use gender or code words the most.
I am turning the page and more interested in women getting (and keeping in Bair’s case) jobs that have the high potential to better people’s lives.
lightacandle,
Now that Kevin has turned a page. A reminder, goal number two is below.
2. Increasing the Number of Women in High-Level Appointments
There is a grave imbalance in the number of women appointed to high level government positions, most clearly evident in the reduction of female Supreme Court justices by half. Having only one woman justice on our highest court is unacceptable, and reflects the wider problem of lack of female appointees to high-level government positions.
The number of cabinet level positions that go to women does indeed matter to The New Agenda.
I am with John here,
1. Get cabinet posts and other high profile positions for women
2. Hold women accountable to deliver results for other women
3. Support, and advocate, for men who promote gender equality as well
I am simply not stuck on the number of cabinet posts, because as I have personally witnessed in corporate america – women in executive level jobs does not necessarily translate to more women in senior management. It really depends on whether or not that executive women you appoint, or hire is an advocate for other women.
Turning the page back, lightacandle, I’m with you.
Kevin, people who worked for Hillary and then supported Palin as a protest against the sexism and misogyny we felt, as in my case, were accused of being racists because we do not support Obama.
For you to say that Hillary used racism to win votes, and not give equal amount of time or acknowledgment to the incredible, damaging sexism and misogyny that went on in this Presidential Campaign season is just wrong. Isn’t this why The New Agenda was created, because of the sexism and misogyny?
I don’t think lightacandle is having a bad day, I think s/he is upset with you. But s/he can speak for her/himself. I think I can see where she’s coming from though…to say that Hillary used code words that elicited a response in racist people to vote for her is basically to call the people who voted for her racist.
I am a great fan of Hillary–admire her tremendously, despite her imperfections etc. I suspect a lot of people here do. She is a role model and a symbol for many. You can’t just bring it up that she inspired racist feelings, and expect no reaction to that from her fans.
The fact is there were white racists voting for Hillary and black racists voting for Obama. There were sexists, male and female voting for Hillary and for Obama. I think I remember some statistic showing that a majority of white males voted for Obama in the primary. And I know Obama used code words about Hillary to get men’s support, like “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out,” and “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”
Obama is a sexist hack.
One more thing: Hillary has proven in her history of activism her devotion and interest in helping African Americans have equal footing in American society. Obama has done no such thing for women. Hillary has proven her interest in civil rights. Obama has not proven his interest in women’s rights.
Well, I thought I was turning the page.
HRC did use racial code words to get votes, that does not make her a racist. Obama made more ageism coded remarks against McCain than sexist code words against HRC. The media did turn on HRC in an unfair and sexist way but Obama does not control the media.
HRC’s campaign also made a lot of mistakes. Moreover, HRC lost votes, not just because of sexism but also because some folks, including a lot of women, simply do not like HRC. In early March, a WSJ/NBC poll showed that even among women, HRC was viewed negatively (44%) more than positively (42%). Did Obama make women not like HRC?
Obama, at least in my opinion, is not a sexist hack. While I wish he would have appointed Shelia Bair as Treasury Secretary, appointing HRC and Janet to their posts is significant. Time will tell with the other cabinet positions.
To be a HRC supporter (which I was for a long time) and then vote for Palin is an insult to HRC and all the values and political positions HRC holds.
Having said all that, I give Obama a C+ so far with the Cabinet with respect to diversity and women. The only real breakthrough he has made to date is Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security which I applaud; Christina Romer was a good pick but she should have gotten the role Paul Volcker got. Unlike many HRC supporters, I do not believe Obama walks on water and I am willing to judge him on the merits of his actions.
Okay, so you’re not showing that you understand what I’m saying, or at least you’re not acknowledging it, so I’ll try to express my point of view one last time, as clear as I can.
You said:
“HRC did use racial code words to get votes, that does not make her a racist.” I know she’s not a racist. But again, the implication is that she did something to get racist people to vote for her, which implies that if you voted for her you are racist. Which is what a lot of Hillary supporters have been accused of, whereas, Obama’s supporters have not been called out for being sexists when Obama used sexist phrases and codes like the ones I quoted in my last post. And even if they have been called sexists, it doesn’t feel like such an insult because people in this country don’t think sexism is as bad as racism. Or they don’t even recognize sexism. My point is that it is wrong to make such a big deal about Hillary using racist code words (whether she did intentionally or not), without making an equally big deal about Obama using sexist code words, which you are not doing at all. You’re just focusing on her. If you could give either the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t use code words intentionally, you could only do that for Hillary because she has shown in her past through her time and effort a desire to help African Americans. Perhaps that made her more lax with the words she was using, because she trusted that people knew she is not a racist. Obama, again has not shown such loyalty to women’s causes in his political life, so he should have been extra careful, if he cared, about using sexist code words.
You say:
“Moreover, HRC lost votes, not just because of sexism but also because some folks, including a lot of women, simply do not like HRC. In early March, a WSJ/NBC poll showed that even among women, HRC was viewed negatively (44%) more than positively (42%). ”
Kevin, to “simply not like HRC” is not “to simply not like HRC”. That “simply not liking” comes from women’s own sexism and feeling threatened or uncomfortable by women in power. I have a friend who told me she wouldn’t vote for HRC because she just doesn’t trust her. I asked her why? And she said she didn’t know. My observations are that these attitudes come from being sexist.
You say:
“Did Obama make women not like HRC?”
Yes, because as we should all know women are as capable if not more of sexist attitudes toward other women, and when you use sexist phrases like Obama did, women can respond to them the same way as men.
I wish Obama well, and I am optimistic, because his success is tied to the success of our nation. It doesn’t mean he’s not sexist.
You said:
“To be a HRC supporter (which I was for a long time) and then vote for Palin is an insult to HRC and all the values and political positions HRC holds.”
I will let Hillary tell me what insults her. I would think she’d be happy I voted and participated in democracy. If it insults you there’s nothing I can do about that. It’s not meant to offend you. It was an expression of my displeasure with sexism in society, and I really don’t need to defend it or to worry about who it insults.
And I just want to remind you that this is a non-partisan website, not a democratic party website, and your comments about voting for Palin being an insult to anybody are actually partisan and don’t belong here.
Anne-Marie and Kevin-
Any chance we could call this a draw and agree to disagree?
Pretty please?
Anne-Marie,
I think Obama’s use of gender and age coded words was vile and wrong. And I don’t give him a high grade yet on placing women in positions of power; HRC as SoS and Janet as Head of Homeland Security is a start. I want women to obtain other cabinet posts that allow them to work with empathetic and well meaning men to crush the glass ceiling.
I AM A HRC fan, an Obama skeptic and an independent voter. I want women in positions of power and authority because I actually think they will make better decisions in the interests of all Americans. My wife faces sexism everyday in a manufacturing job; I have made sacrifices in my career to support her career. I walk the talk of equal opportunity but hold people accountable for their actions and believe in self-responsibility.
I am not the enemy, I simply think HRC made some mistakes – not related to sexism – that cost her the nomination. I don’t think she is a racist and I do not believe Obama is a sexist, those are powerful words which should not be thrown around. I do believe they used racist and sexist coded words that they should be ashamed of, Obama really used a lot of ageism coded words. But then again, McCain and Palin were so heavy with promoting religious hate that nearly half of their voters think Obama is a muslim. It is all wrong and what turns the fair minded person off about politics.
The current challenge for me is women, and men, rally together to be sure HRC is not marginalized by Gen Jones, Biden and Gates; Christina Romer is not marginalized by Tim, Larry and Paul; Bair doesn’t lose her job as Head of the FDIC for speaking up to Paulson and Tim; a women (or man) aggressively enforces affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws as labor secretary and more women receive appointments within the Obama administration and within the judiciary – including the Supreme Court.
Kevin doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he persists in repeating that people don’t like Hillary.
More people voted “for” Hillary in the primary campaign than voted for Obama.
A CBS exit poll on Election Day in Nov. demonstrated that if Hillary had been the candidate running against John McCain, she would have beaten McCain by ELEVEN points as compared to Obama’s SEVEN point margin.
(excerpt)
- – - – - – - -
As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, WIDER THAN Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.
Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.
- – - – - – - -
http://tinyurl.com/62tqz2
lightacandle,
I will not wear the rose colored glasses you wear considering HRC (just as a don’t for Obama). If the criteria for the New Agenda is all things HRC are great, all things Obama are bad and whenever women don’t win, sexism is at play, I am out.
I think I have made fair arguments but you simply want me to agree that HRC lost solely due to sexism and Obama is a sexism hack, I cannot do that but I can hope and work towards women being in positions of power and authority so they have an equal opportunity to succeed in this country. If that is not good enough, you will lose a lot of empathetic men who actually want to help the cause.
When Kevin “quoted” Hillary as saying . . .
- – - – - – - -
I believe these are code words, or a phrase used by HRC:
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on … Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, White Americans, is weakening again, and how Whites in both States who had not completed college were supporting me.”
– - – - – - – - -
. . . he wasn’t reporting accurately
Hillary was CITING a statement made BY the Associated Press in an article.
= = = =
(excerpt)
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton CITED an Associated Press ARTICLE “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....view_N.htm
= = = =
There were many, many discussions by the media and various political pundits during the campaign about the “black vote” and the “white vote.”
There was nothing racist or “code” about what Hillary said or what the Associated Press had written.
Kevin,
You are not “helping the cause” by starting partisan arguments that are completely irrelevant to the subject of this article. I intentionally don’t discuss politics here because it is divisive. There are a million websites that exist for that purpose but this is not one of them. I am beginning to find it difficult to believe that you don’t know exactly what you are doing and I think I even recognize your “style” from the together4us site. We need all the help we can get here, but intentionally provoking partisan arguments is not helpful and I think you know that. Please stop.
Cynthia,
I am not aware of the together4us site and what partisan argument am I starting? I thought the New Agenda’s goal was to work towards parity in the government and in the workplace. I have been advocating for women not being marginalized on the new Economic and National Security Teams and breaking the glass ceiling in corporate America. Members of the web site have ganged up on me because I was critical of HRC, even though I began my dialogue by being upset that HRC did not obtain a Senate chairmanship.
I did not originally bring up McCain, or Palin but commented on the subject when someone did.
If these beliefs make me someone that should not visit or comment on this web site, please let me know.
Kevin
Kevin-
Please tell me you are not using the “they started it argument?” It serves no purpose to be critical of Hillary unless she says or does something that relates to our goals. You have to know that feelings about Sarah and Hillary are still very raw here. You were the first person to be negative about McCain/Palin on DEC 3rd at 10:39 and you took other partisan shots after that. If we get into this kind of argument it takes away from what we are trying to accomplish. It is very hard to leave politics, except as it relates to women’s rights, and partisian positions aside for the greater good. I am simply asking you to try.
Cynthia,
On December 3rd I said
“McCain/Palin where better for Jews and Women? There were also many McCain/Palin and HRC voters, or simply middle income, or poor whites who voted against Obama against their interests because he was Black”
in making the point that all the candidates, male and female, republican and democrat were using gender, race, and age code words. I said I thought all of it was vile. I did, however, wonder how McCain/Palin were better for Jewish voters, correct. You are right – I am agreeing with you here.
One point I want you to consider, it is very difficult not discussing politics when discussing women’s issues because being an advocate for women is more than just being an advocate for women in positions of power. It should also be about whether those women advocate for policies, practices and procedures that advance other women.
I speak from the experience of sourcing and recruiting Executive Women who turn out to be not advocates for the advancement of other women and do not believe it is their burden, or responsibility to advance other women.
My point: I want – more women in positions of power, and women who advocate for other women. But if I can only have one, I will take a man truly committed to advocating for women. I know the New Agenda, hopefully, is about both objectives which is why I logged on in the first place – that is my preference as well.
Are we square?
I really do understand your point. I just think the more we can keep politics and rehashing the election out of this, other than as relates to our very specific goals, the better off we will be. Believe me, I have very strong political opinions but I try to check them at the door when I come here.
We are square.
Kevin, it is interesting that you bring out this choice of choosing between electing women who advocate for other women, women who don’t want that burden or responsibility, and men who advocate for women.
I have yet to see a US male who is a national leader who advocates for women.
But I am tempted to go along with the notion, that if a male feminist leader come along, it makes sense to vote for him than to vote for a female who is not a traditional women’s advocate.
Except that, I also think what if all we ever had were male presidents. Would I be okay with that if they did right by women, and if they were feminists?
Right now, my answer to that is no. I want the symbol of a female POTUS. Such a woman may not advocate for women but her presence in that role may just be the thing that gets other women who will advocate for women the self-confidence to pursue the goal of being POTUS.
Anyway, I have thought about this choice a lot.
So in your experience, when you sourced female business executives, and were surprised to find them not being advocates for other women, do you think that the symbolism of their role did not have any effect on the men and women around them?
Anne-Marie,
I find that women who do not know that the Executive woman is not an advocate for women are still empowered by the symbol that the Executive women represents – so that it is positive.
However, I have seen these same Executive women in Board and Executive meetings downplay or specifically advocate that no special programs be developed to support women break the glass ceiling.
My experience has been that the non-support they show at these meetings overwhelms the positive symbol they send to lower level women because the programs and resources do not get allocated.
Kevin, thanks for your response. Do you or does anyone here have any theory as to why Executive women downplay or advocate against special programs to support women breaking the glass ceiling?
And Kevin, during the sourcing and recruiting process is there any way for you to figure out what women might be supportive of other women, and use that as a criteria for recruitment?
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...