Women Will No Longer Be Denied
March 15, 2009
by MadamaB
|
We Made Him Listen to Us!
It’s happening – the promised awakening that resulted from the misogyny directed at both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the election of 2008. Women are realizing that they are a force to be reckoned with, and that their power lies in standing strong to support other women.
Just look at Barack Obama’s executive order, signed on March 11, which created a White House Council on Women and Girls. Many Presidents have had similar councils, including Presidents Clinton, Kennedy and Roosevelt. This council was not part of the President’s original plans, but womens’ groups have been lobbying him to make this happen for several months. And lo and behold, it did!
Do I think that a lot of good will be done by this council? I have to say, I’m not too optimistic, considering that the person who’s leading it is Valerie Jarrett, whose only qualifications appear to be her long friendship with the President. Putting her in charge is similar to putting Dick Cheney in charge of the White House Committee on Terrorism, which had not one single meeting prior to 9/11. And although WomenCount and other organizations wanted the Council to be a Cabinet-level organization, it isn’t.
But in a way, it really doesn’t matter. What is key here is that Obama felt pressured into doing something, even if it appears to be more of a token gesture at this point. And why? Because women are flexing their political muscles. And doesn’t it feel good?
Besides which, there is no telling what will happen once Ms. Jarrett gets in a room with other women. I believe that every woman has a deep, undeniable connection with every other woman, which our patriarchal society does its best to suppress. But let’s face it: when a woman looks at another woman, she KNOWS that woman. On a basic level, that woman has gone through the same things she has, has suffered and triumphed over the same things, whether they be physical or emotional: menstruation, which can be horrible for many women; first love; losing her virginity; facing up to sexism at home, at school, and at work. That awareness is in Valerie Jarrett, too; although it would have been much better if she had been a true believer like Eleanor Roosevelt, President Kennedy’s choice to head up his council, there is no telling what she could become.
And speaking of becoming, it looks like Hillary Clinton might still become President someday. Seems she may have kept her political future alive by accepting the Secretary of State position.
When she agreed to serve as Barack Obama’s secretary of state, there was some question about what it would mean for Hillary Clinton’s political future – and more specifically, if she’d even have one.
Outside of the early days of the republic, secretaries of state do not have a track record of advancing to the presidency, or to any other prestigious elected posts. And they often don’t even last for a full presidential term, let alone two, meaning that Clinton risked finding herself out of a job – and without the public relevancy of a Senate seat to fall back on – long before the Democratic presidential nomination next comes open, presumably in 2016.
It seemed unfathomable that the ambitious Clinton, far too young (61) to be excluded from ’16 conversations, would do anything that might seriously jeopardize the possibility of running for president again some day, but already, less than two months after taking her new job, the logic behind Clinton’s move is coming into focus: A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week found that 59 percent of voters now have a favorable opinion of Clinton, with only 22 percent viewing her unfavorably – “an all-time high” for her, as the newspaper put it.
The article is entitled “Hillary 2016!”, but I say, “Hillary 2012!” I think assuming that Obama will be President for the next eight years is taking a little too much for granted. And should Our Girl indeed run in 2012, I have the perfect opponent for Hillary: Governor Sarah Palin!
If the Republican Party gets a grip and realizes that their love affair with Bobby Jindal is not reciprocated by the base of their constituents, they will realize that Governor Palin is the only candidate they have that has generated any excitement whatsoever in many years. She is, quite frankly, their only shot in 2012. If they take it, and if Obama implodes the way I think he will, then we may just have two strong, powerful and charismatic women running for President.
Before the Great Awakening of 2008, this scenario would not have been possible. But now, we’re seriously considering a truly historic election – two women, representing both major parties. What would that race look like? Would there be fewer dirty tricks, more focus on the issues? Would the media try to destroy them both, or pick one over the other, or would bloviating misogynists like Keith Olbermann simply shut down, like the robots on Star Trek (the original) whose logic circuits were blown by an unacceptable paradigm?
Who knows what the future may bring, in these uncertain economic times, and with threats from abroad seeming to multiply every day? But one thing I believe is certain:
Women will no longer be denied.
And that’s a really, really good thing.
Hillary for President! I still have have the bumber sticker on my car. I am ready to go for it again!
As USUAL, “You Nailed it MadamB”!!
Dear Madamb, I can only hope that some of your predictions come true. I give them a low probability rating. A strong voting group for the president were the young. and when you look at the interviews here and elsewhere, the young women engage in any humanistic cause except their own. it is not clear to me what besides life time experience could give young women a wake up call.
Marille – I agree that life experience is the best wake-up call, but education does help, as well as strong role models like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But the patriarchy is fighting back, hard.
I have been struck lately with how the film industry is portraying young women in their twenties. For example, the recent rash of films like “Confessions of a Shopaholic” and “Bride Wars,” both of which star 20-somethings whose whole reason for existence is either shopping, or having the biggest wedding ever. Could they be more stereotypical and insulting? What happened to movies like “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants?” And that’s not even mentioning how many horror films are coming out, with comely 20-somethings as victims, of course.
It’s definitely an uphill battle, but I think we will triumph, eventually.
In 2012, a challenge from a fellow Democrat will not be welcomed unless Barack Obama makes the decision not to run himself a la Lyndon Johnson. If the country is in such bad shape that the Democrats push him out against his will, we will see a Republican in office no matter who he or she is. Although I personally could support either Clinton or Palin, I think the only way we will see a woman in the oval office in the next couple of elections IS if they run against each other, and there is no other choice. As far as the White House Council on Women and Girls goes, when it becomes fully staffed and funded, I’ll believe Obama is taking it seriously. Until then, it’s just a vanity title for Jarrett.
Well, Hillary has “dear old” Teddy Kennedy’s 1980 example if she wants to challenge in 2012. I think the novelty of Obama will have worn off long before then and the country will be looking for someone who can actually fix something. In every household I’ve ever been familiar with, who was the fixer of last resort? Mom!
I suspect in four years someone who has juggled political work and home – in other words, has demonstrated brains, industry and a heart – will look pretty damn good. If people continue the trend of seeing past the male- and privilege-encrusted media that was indicated in Clinton’s continued support last year, the nomination could be possible for Clinton and/or Palin.
It’s a shame, though, that we couldn’t have them together – Clinton in the top spot, Palin as veep. Two women from the middle and working classes who made their own ways, one Ivy League, one working state schools, representing a broad range of experiences of women (and men) across the country. Now there, Batman, would be your dynamic duo.
BTW, good to see you again, MadamB.
I peeked at this yesterday, madamab, and loved it. I agree that we’re making progress. I’m trying to keep a positive attitude. This helps. Thanks.
Speaking of cultural representations of women, did you know that Tough Love premiers on VH1 tonight? Drew Barrymore produced this piece of crap. Google it. You’ll be outraged.
I will resist the group think and assert that given the number of bright, hard-working and intelligent women Obama had on his campaign team and within his administration that he supports the advancement of women’s rights and he has chosen his closed friend Ms. Varrett and teamed her with Tina Tchen because he has ambitious goals for the White House Council on Women.
I believe to assert, as many have, that President Obama creates or supports a culture of misogyny is simply wrong and counter-productive. To assert, as many have, that President Obama or members of his team, have engaged in actions that both hindered and hastened sexism is probably true. On the one hand, his wife, his female advisors and female’s supporters include women who through hard work, diligence and courage are excellent role models. On the other hand, several of his statements and statements by his campaign team during the election can rightly be interpreted as sexist, or sexually insensitive – as many behaviors by the campaigns of Secretary Clinton and Governor Palin could be perceived as racially insensitive and promoting xenophobia.
madamB,
Thanks for good sense! For more evidence that Obama fears our power, look at how he rammed this package-deal ‘Council’ through, and how it is configured.
There’s an article (I’ll look for the cite) quoting Alinsky’s son as complimenting Obama on setting up the Democratic Convention in August as an ‘organized’ event — meaning that there was no opportunity, ever, for other views to be heard. The establishment of this ‘Council’ has a similar pattern (though spread out longer).
No chance ever for public input on its configuration or its leadership. Membership and leaders names were all in the Executive Order that established the ‘Council.’ The first that most of us heard of it was as a fait accompli with a big media event. (It was also set up such that those leaders did not have to go through Senate Confirmation Hearings.)
Now look at who are already, package deal, defined as members. Obama’s own Cabinet Secretaries ( c. 75% males) plus some department heads (dunno that parity). I’m waiting for some good number cruncher (where are Anglachel and Riverdaughter when we need them?) to research this and compute a head count.
Look at the firewalls Obama has built in here, against this ‘Council’ ever coming out with any recommendation or statement that could embarrass or incovenience him, or hamper his re-election.
Supervised by two trusted cronies who helped him defeat Hillary and Palin. If by any chance they let something come up for a vote, the voters will be his own Cabinet appointees who owe their high paying day jobs to him.
Even if Jarrett and Tchen were to suddenly reveal feminist T-shirts, the 75% male members are there to vote it down.
Imo our best strategy would be to come out now, while the issue is current, strong and loud against this travesty. Use the current pro-Council publicity to get ourselves establishsed as the ‘go to’ opposition voice. Then we might have a little pressure as time goes on, to push the ‘Council’ to actually throw us a few crumbs instead of rubber stamping whatever Obama wants.
Who can draw a cartoon of a sock puppet with a rubber stamp?
The Great Awakening of 2008———–that’s the kind of goosebumps I like getting (and they”re not going up my leg either!!). That’s what our current epoch is……..great piece MadamaB
would bloviating misogynists like Keith Olbermann simply shut down, like the robots on Star Trek (the original) whose logic circuits were blown by an unacceptable paradigm?
Delurking to say: fantastic post!
donna,
Nice to see you!
May I offer my comment above to you as a Guest Post — and anything else you’d like from my new blog?
You’re talking to NA not me, right?
Flora I wish I could draw a sock puppet and a rubber stamp
Hillary will run against Sarah, the incumbent, in 2016.
Flora,
On what is this statement based:
“Even if Jarrett and Tchen were to suddenly reveal feminist T-shirts, the 75% male members are there to vote it down”
The other cabinet members know that Obama choose Ms. Jarrett – his long time friend – for a reason. He did not choose her to let her fail, nor is he motivated for the Council to be unsuccessful given that 36 million women voted for him and he wants to maintain these votes in 2012.
Being objective, many of you sound like you not only think Obama/Jarrett/Tchen will be unsuccessful, you want them to be unsuccessful to validate your belief that either HRC or McCain should have been President and to set-up a run of either HRC or Palin in 2012, or 2016.
It is illogically to believe that Obama choose his friend to loose him votes! If anything, he choose Jarrett to make her successful so she could legitimately run for political office at some time in the future.
Kevin, we don’t believe she will be unsuccessful. Rather, we believe she will be ineffectual. We believe Obama created this position to appease the feminists and to keep their votes, but also that the position won’t really good anything.
er, the position won’t do anything…
Karen,
So who are these “feminists” – really – that would be satisfied with the creation of a position, alone, with no results?
And, again, if the position is ineffectual, Ms. Jarrett has a spot on her resume. Obama would not choose his best friend to put a bad mark on her resume. Even assuming the “feminists” are satisfied with an ineffectual Council, Obama would not risk losing the votes of the 36 million women he obtained in 2008. Even if he believed he could fool the feminists, the general media and the 36 million women who voted for him, he would not choose his best friend to carry the water – he would choose a patsy. Neither Ms. Jarrett or Tchen are chumps. They were both to valuable in his campaign.
Finally, would you choose your best friend for a job where you planned for him, or her, to be ineffectual?
I would give my best friend a position of prestige if she wanted it, and even if the position were ineffectual. Sometimes people just love prestige, and some positions are full of prestige without any significant meaning. The emperors of Japan beginning with the Fujiwara clan up to present day are the best known examples of this.
Obama has already fooled the media and the major feminist organizations such as NOW. They completely ignored the misogyny; the media portrayed him as Lincoln, FDR, Reagan… They never questioned his lack of experience, and I can go on…
Donna,
I’m offering my ’sock puppet’ rant to you and anyone else who wants it. And any other rant from florasteele.blogspot.com/
Who’s NA?
Kevin,
I expect Jarrett will be quite effective — at her real job which is keeping the women from embarrassing Obama. The ‘Council’ is like the Human Resources job described in another thread: the purpose is not to help the employees/women, but to keep them quiet, under control, treat them as troublemakers whom the management/Obama must be protected from.
Thanks MadamaB for contributing once again.
I agree with what you have written. We have to view this as a moral victory. If not for our collective speaking out, this Women’s Council would not exist.
We must continue to speak out loudly!
Flora,
Within a corporation, HR does, in fact, sometimes have this role – many times it does not, depends on the corporation. HR can accomplish this suppression task because employees are not organized and the company is not in the public eye. This situation is not the same as the Council. It is in the public eye and both supporters (TNA, NOW, Catalyst, etc.), as well as many detractors who did not want the Council created, are organized.
Given this situation, it would be hard for the Council to “keep them quiet, under control” without results. Without results, Obama runs the risk of losing votes from backers and providing ammunition to his enemies (who did not want the Council created in the first place). A smart politician would not take such a fool hardly risk, too much to lose with very little to gain.
Folks, I know must of you hate or dislike Obama and I agree that the it would have been preferred that: 1) the chair be at a cabinet level; 2) the council begun with a larger staff and 3) a person other than Ms. Jarrett been chosen as chair but logic simply does not follow that Obama would choose his best friend to lead a highly visible position where in 4 years 36 million women voters, as well as women’s rights advocates, will publicly critique its success.
Now, time will tell if – indeed – the Council is successful but a very logical case can be made that Obama choose Ms. Jarrett specifically because he wants her and the Council to be successful.
Kevin,
Any judgment of whether the ‘Council fails’ or is ’successful’ will be filtered through his smoke machine and Big Media. He will make Jarrett look good and she will make him look good. That’s her real job. If he had wanted someone who would really work for women, or even take a balanced position — he would have chosen someone familiar with the field and NOT a trusted crony.
As for Cabinet Level, that would have made the head subject to Senate Hearings — which would have given people like us a chance to organize on the issue, point out the flaws in configuration, and suggest qualified names.
NA = The New Agenda. Give him a chance, give him a chance…he gave all the money to the banks so nothing good will happen in the next eight years except symbolic gestures like this. Re-lurks…
Flora,
“Obama will instruct Jarrett to do some good things for those women who voted for him”
- Obama carried the women vote in general but did not carry the White women vote (but he did better than Kerry), particularly the older, married White women vote
“He will also instruct her to do some things that look and sound good but in fact hamper the sort of women who voted against him.”
- White, particularly older, married White women
If what you believe is true, you would expect significant advancements and appointments for minority and younger White women but not older, married White women. Is this the situation you are projecting?
http://www.examiner.com/x-3925.....scriminate
kevin said: “I agree that the it would have been preferred that: 1) the chair be at a cabinet level; 2) the council begun with a larger staff and 3) a person other than Ms. Jarrett been chosen as chair [....]”
Avoiding confirmation hearings may be reasonable. However, look at the opportunity for milking publicity which Obama has deliberately precluded: even without hearings, you’d expect a president to announce that he is going to create such a council, invite public input, announce or leak some possible names … have some public meetings with organizations in his pocket (NOW etc) — the whole suspense build-up over perhaps several weeks. To give up all that media coverage of fawning by NOW etc, he must have some good reason. Like needing to keep the configuration and chairing under very tight control, so the resulting ‘Council’ will be under his tight control. Giving up this big publicity series carrot, imo means Obama has a bigger fear of a future big stick, ie a Council he could NOT control.
Kevin,
Your Examiner article is race-baiting. I’ll ignore that post — and that subject. Sexism is on topic here at TNA — racism, not so much.
Flora,
The facts are the facts. The majority of women voted for Obama, minority women overwhelmingly supported Obama and 46% of White women voted for Obama.
You keep communicating as if a small population of women voted for Obama and that is not true. If Obama was such a sexist why did so many women, 36 million, vote for him.
Jarrett’s help would likely go to where it would get the most bang for its buck for 2012. That’s not likely to be serious money for people who already give their milk for free. It would be token money aimed to impress white guilt liberals who might otherwise start voting their own economic interests or their common sense. Or money to ACORN and other organizations that directly worked for Obama. Etc.
If Obama was such a sexist why did so many women, 36 million, vote for him
Um, because the alternative was McCain. I know literally dozens of people (women and men) who thought Obama was sexist, some even thought he was a misogynist, and many were disgusted with the way he and his campaign treated his female opponents, but they ended up voting for him nonetheless because after eight years of Bush, the thought of another anti choice, anti equal pay, anti environmental protection, anti science, anti intellectual, anti universal health care, but pro tax breaks for the rich Republican in the White House was just too frightening. Plus, many took comfort in the fact that electing Obama would at least shatter one glass ceiling.
Kevin,
Obama made use of sexism and misogyny to win against Hillary Clinton. He also used ageism. He really turned people against one another. You were for him, or you were racist, stupid, uncool, etc. He never ever ever ever spoke up against some of the nastiness that was being thrown at Hillary or Palin, because he didn’t want to lose the political advantage.
You bet I don’t like him, and I don’t trust him, and he has a lot to make up for.
A true leader, a true feminist, a true humanist would have made some motion to show that he does not agree with the sexist attitude inflamed and unleashed upon his opponents and upon all women living in society. He either is clueless or a ruthless political animal. A feminist, no.
People: Hillary never spoke up about the racism directed at Obama. It wasn’t as widespread as the ugly sexism directed at her by the media, but it was there and it was ugly too. Needless to say, Palin didn’t speak up about it either–and with her “palling around with terrorists” remarks, probably fueled, whether or not that was her intention.
So why are you upset at Obama and not at Hillary or Palin?
I get being upset that Obama didn’t speak out against sexism. But if you are going to be objective about this, you have to be upset with Hillary and Palin as well. Unless you view racism as not even on the same level of seriousness as sexism.
I have to say, as a life-long feminist, I have never seen any convincing evidence that Obama is sexist or employed sexist strategies, and I combed sites like this one throughout the primaries and continue to do so. Or rather, I should say that the evidence for Obama being sexist or employing sexist strategies is as good as the evidence that Hillary is racist and employed racist strategies.
Also: even if Obama were the worst president in history (and given where the bar has been set on that one, he would have to work really hard to achieve that dubious distinction), the idea that Hillary or any other Democrat would or could run against him in 2012 is not rational. I hope that Hillary runs in 2016. Her position as Secretary of State would place her in a fantastic position on that front because she would probably be more experienced in foreign policy than pretty much any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.
Kevin –
There is no shortage of citizens basking in the glow of the Age of Obama. These people are content with the status quo. I congratulate them.
It is o.k. for other people to conclude that the status quo is not good enough. People who are not content should be allowed to dissent and work for change.
Madeline,
The problem is not that people view sexism on a higher “level of seriousness” than racism. It’s that people don’t view sexism as being as serious. It affects 51% of the population and leads to travesties of enslavement and death as well as lost opportunity for women- the same travesties that racism produces. When the majority of the people take sexism seriously enough to codify it into our laws that same way racism has been, then we can talk about who should have said what.
Anytime anything racist (real or imagined) was said or done against Obama or his candidacy, the media jumped on it immediately – no matter who spoke against it or didn’t. Acts of racism can carry legal penalties under the hate crime statutes, and Obama was protected by those laws. When sexism and misogyny were directed at Clinton and Palin, the media jumped on board and added their own sexism to the pile. There are no laws against hanging women in effigy. Did Obama have an obligation to speak out? If he wanted my support, he did. Obviously, many other women were willing to give him a pass. However, when you are part of the oppressed group, objectivity should not be required when you are seeking redress. We each to get pick our own issues.
His choice of Jarrett for the head of the Council on Women, the make-up of the rest of the council, and the lack of funding for it has left me unconvinced that he cares about this group accomplishing anything. I also like to be pleasantly surprised, and I would welcome being wrong about this and many other Obama-related things. But it’s too soon to celebrate IMHO.
John,
I respect your opinion but the statement, however, a statement like “there is no shortage of citizens basking in the glow of the Age of Obama. These people are content with the status quo” can be interpreted as pretty self-righteous.
I am not basking in the glow of the Age of Obama. I seek to be fair to him and his administration while I hold him accountable. I also do not view HRC and Palin through rose-colored glasses. America had powerful streaks of sexist, racist, ageism and xenophobia before Obama and each candidate used these fears to get votes (particularly Palin).
It is the America way to constructively dissent; I just employ people to accept that they may have a subjective and biased lens (including myself) through they see the actions of other people so everyone should be willing to accept that their judgments are not wholly accurate.
Kevin –
I think dismissive would be a more accurate depiction than self-righteous. Back in the day when I was being dismissive of the people who were basking in the glow of the Age of Regan and took the position that; “We gave you Colin Powell, what more could you want?” I suspect you were not displeased with me, if you were around for that.
John,
Dismissive is also a pretty subjective posture when you are discussing “isms.” For example, I was amazed that people hold Palin in high regard given her limited educational accomplishments, small Alaska voter base and random professional track record. However, if I dismissed folks who are in the glow of the Age of Palin, I believe I am the person who loses out.
I lose out because I would tend to reject interacting with her supporters, understanding why they admire her and or realizing what about me that does not find her appealing. Because I am not dismissive of her or her supporters but have tried to really reflect on her and her campaign, I now admire her as well.
Kevin said: “Because I am not dismissive of [Palin] or her supporters but have tried to really reflect on her and her campaign, I now admire her as well.”
Maybe I should read your posts (or your threads) from the bottom up.
Would you pretty please pretty please write a nice long piece about what you learned about Palin and how you learned it — to share with Madeline the steps of that journey? I’ll see it gets published as widely as you’d like.
Kevin –
I have no problem acknowledging that you are the better person between the two of us. However, I think you are attacking the messenger in order to hide the message. I repeat:
It is o.k. for other people to conclude that the status quo is not good enough. People who are not content should be allowed to dissent and work for change.
John,
I aggressively support people who believe the status quo is not good enough and that people who are not content should be allowed to dissent and work for change.
I am just suggesting to be active at it, it is best to have a fair, objective and self-critical perspective.
I didn’t mean to attack you if that has the impact – that was not intent – but being human, I can get carried away. I apologize
Flora,
If I wrote a note regarding Palin the themes would be that I admire her confidence and conviction, I appreciate that she represents everyday people who typically do not make it to the nadir of political positions and she has a religious viewpoint that appears to be based on personal tenets she lives by as opposed to purely a campaign strategy. However, I was extremely disappointed that she used her charisma to promote religious xenophobia (”he is not one of us”) and racial hatred.
Given that McCain/Palin actually won the White male/female vote, I believe they would have won the election (essentially won over independents) , if they would have projected themselves as reasonable moderates (which McCain had been most of his career) as opposed to zealots.
People like Obama and Palin, because of their political youth and charisma, have a unique ability and opportunity to bring people who would not ordinary have an engaged and thoughtful discussion together. Obama did a better job of “crossing over” than Palin, partly because of the way Palin attacked him. Obama basically ignored Palin and went after McCain, particularly tying him to Bush.
Kevin,
I withdraw my request.
I’m interested in getting people past the Bimboization of Palin and looking at her real number-crunching financial accomplishments in Alaska. (And quick, earned rise and popularity there.)
Madeline, you ask: “why are you upset at Obama and not at Hillary or Palin?”
Because Obama campaigned on voting for him because he is different, he is enlightened, that he is not doing this because he cares about personal power but that he is doing this because he wants to make the world a better place. And this was supposed to make up for him not having the experience that his competitors had. He campaigned on the premise that he’s not just a politician, and people bought it, but when it came to benefiting from ugly, nasty, in your face, hurtful prevalent sexism, he did so, without a peep.
The sexism evident in that campaign was so much more widespread and aggressive than any racism anywhere in this campagin.
I never said Obama employed sexist strategies. He is too cunning a politician to be obvious about it even if he did. But he benefited from the inflamed sexism but being quiet about it and allowing it to happen. Proof? After he won he said not one word about the picture with Jon Favreau, among other things.
His presidency was only possible because of sexism and misogyny, and people’s desire to suspend disbelief and believe him a better man than he really is.
Obama basically ignored Palin and went after McCain, particularly tying him to Bush.
Obama himself may have mostly ignored Palin, but his campaign, his supporters, and the mainstream media sure as hell didn’t. They embarked on a vicious smear campaign against Palin that was especially designed to discourage women from supporting her (a couple of examples: “Palin made rape victims pay for their own rape kits,” “Palin believes in abstinence-only education”). It was quite clever, particularly because in many of these instances the Republicans couldn’t really set the record straight without offending their fundie base. Can’t say part of me doesn’t believe it serves them right for pandering to dangerous religious extremists who are out of touch with the rest of the country.
I do agree that McCain/Palin would have done better if they had presented themselves as moderates. I know a number of people who really didn’t like Obama but ended up voting for him who said they would have voted for McCain if he had given them any indication that he was a moderate and not someone who would continue Bush’s policies for another four years. Inexplicably though, McCain actually distanced himself from some of the economic and environmental positions he had taken in opposition to the Bush administration as a Senator. Talk about a losing strategy.
Kevin, just curious. You mentioned that Hillary’s and Palin’s talk on the campaign trail could be considered racist and xenophobic.
Can you give examples on this?
Purity,
For example, suring the campaign, HRC cited press reports “that found how Sen. [Barack] 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.” And Palin said Obama “was not one of us” to a predominantly White audience. These statements could be considered racially coded in a similar way that Obama’s statements like “sweetie,” and “the craws come out” could be considered sexist.
My take on the campaign is that all the candidates used racial, gender and age code words to benefit them; HRC was particularly the victim of sexism (more by the public and media in general than Obama, or his campaign) and Palin was hammered publicly after a series of poor interviews and the SNL skits.
I think Palin is a legitimate candidate for another Presidential run if she really works on being a policy wok because she has the charisma and a grassroots following. HRC will have a much tougher time because a lot of people simply do not like the Clintons; do not like Hilary and younger candidates will spring up in 2012 or 2016 that we cannot even image now.
Sorry for the spelling errors. Up to late, couldn’t sleep
Madelaine,
yesterday was an hour long blogtalk at no quarter “sins of omission” with Paulie Abeles interviewing Susan Estrich about sexism in the campaign. you can still listen into it.
Susan Estrich was the first woman president of the harvard law review, law professor and best selling author.
some of you up on the comments suggested that Obama re sexism was either clueless or ruthless. to me he and V. Jarrett come off as ruthless. that was also discussed yesterday at Sins of Omission. discussed whether we had to be as ruthless if we want to win. a very conflicting approach to me. i am most impressed by Alice Paul’s brilliant strategies to get us the vote. but who can afford these high profile actions, risking imprisonment, taking on hunger strike and risking our life?
asking nicely, betting on V. Jarrett or lobbying seem a deadbeat strategy. did anybody go on the whitehouse page and look under women? go there. you will find that their goals are reducing domestic violence. so what % is o.k.? rape doesn’t even have a title line, only mentioned under domestic violence.
on another thread here, flora suggested dressing in burkas and stripping down to pant suits. that sounds interesting. would we be targeted like Salmon Rushdie? would Obama or Jarrett come to our defense?
Kevin,
Palin is already a policy / financial wonk. That’s why she did badly in some hostile national interviews (Gore had the same problem in 2000.) Check her record of performance in Alaska on boring things like reducing taxes, sending money back to the citizens, negotiating with the oil companies (all in a readable article at USA Today called “Palin governed from the center) and more recently getting the contract signed for her giant gas pipeline through Canada.
Marille,
I agree with what you’re saying. Obama’s way of setting up the ‘Council on Women’ is definitely ruthless. Sucking up to them (sorry, I can’t think of a milder term) is a bad idea, imo. We should be exposing it as a fake, thus pressuring them to actually do a few good things, and keeping them from being taken seriously as a fig leaf.
As for publicity stunts, I’m not the first to talk about that as a current tactic. Someone in a whole nother world was talking about individual stunts, eg a woman parachuting off a skyscraper, saying she had been driven mad by the misogyny. Today we don’t need to go to jail or do anything really uncomfortable and the media doesn’t cover our mass demonstrations anyway. But everyone has cell cameras and blogs, so anything INTERESTING or funny that even one woman does, can go viral.
Kevin,
I must run, so I’m putting in so many links this post will go to moderation and let them decide about it.
Personally I don’t see anything wrong with any of the quotes you cited from either Hillary or Obama. Those were definitely from the top but only dubiously wrong imo.
Starting at the bottom, we have things that were definitely wrong: T-shirts saying “Bro’s before Ho’s” or saying nasty things against Palin. So we could look at how far up the organization they went. Were they sold/seen/allowed at rallies? Were organizers wearing them?
Were there comparable T-shirts at Hillary rallies, same questions.
We can’t judge the candidate on what some individual supporter might do on a handlettered sign, unless the campaign allowed it a lot of prominence.
Some blogs of mine, hello spam trap:
http://pumaresponders.blogspot.com/
http://pumaforpalin.blogspot.com/
http://florasteele.blogspot.com/
Kevin, I disagree with racially coded language. Republicans tend to talk a lot about patriotism and loving ones country. Her speaking to a predominantly white audience and saying “one of us” to me connected with her saying Obama “palled around with terrorists.”
Bill Ayers, friend of Obama for many years, was a terrorist. He helped plant bombs in the Capitol and was a big part of a terrorist organization. I think she was referring to his level of patriotism.
I try not to engage in discussions about coded language and try to talk about discrmination in concrete terms.
Hearing a pundit on CNN call HRC a “B” tore at me. Additionally, hearing her belittled and called “old” was difficult.
Women and girls watched the first two women in recent history reach for the brass ring and get crucified for their hair, looks and voices.
This primary will have consequences for girls.
The Girl scouts of America came out with poll results. Although girls were hopeful about seeing a woman president one day the amoint of girls who see reaching powerful leadership positions for women as more difficult for women than for men almost doubled from 2007 to 2008. The sexist behavior of voters, pundits and politicians hurt all women, girls and our country.
Purity1,
You, others and I may be disagree that Palin’s statement was racially coded but many believed that it was racially coded. Now, everyone can agree when someone uses the “N” or “B” word but all other subtle words really need to judge by those impacted. Many people felt Palin words led audiences to yell, “kill Obama” and bring monkey dolls to campaign rallies. Sexist acts were also conducted at Obama rallies, I am sure, but he (as did McCain – but not Palin) asked his supporters to be respectful.
Sexism is s0 strong within this country and is fueled by so many factors (the media, fast food establishments, the internet), it really is not fair to lay the blame on Obama’s feet for the three or four quotes that came out of his mouth that could rightly be interpreted as sexist.
As many others who comment, however, I am disappointed in only 6 women, and only 3 majority women, hold cabinet level positions and that the White House Council on Women is not a cabinet level office. This means he choose a safe path, re-instituting the Council (that Bush disbanded) but opting not to give it a high profile. So far, I would say Obama gets a C+/B- on women’s rights. I would give him a D or F if the Council had not been re-instituted and the LedBetter Act not signed.
Time will tell.
Kevin,
I apologize for my hasty post. I should not have said anything that sounded like an invitation to post charges here against Palin (or Hillary).
I’d like to discuss this with you at my own blog, and have posted a reply at
http://florasteele.blogspot.co.....ainst.html
Re the ‘Council on Women’, here’s more info (as of January) as to its apparent gender ratio.
Men: 15
Women: 7 (including Jarrett and Tchen)
See http://thenewagenda.net/obama-cabinet-watch/ as to Obama’s cabinet members and ‘cabinet level posts.’ His ‘Council on Women’ is defined as automatically including all those office holders. (Sorry I lack the stomach to read the Executive Order to see if it includes anyone else.)
A male dominated placebo wrapped in a fig leaf, I calls it.
Kevin
Respectfully, yes, I guess we disagree on racially coded words. I have observed and
thought quite a lot about race and gender in the primary.
I have to say that HRC and her closest endorsers were far more aware of race
and gender in the primary that the Obama team.
Of HRC’s closest endorsers three were African American women: Congresswoman
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Democratic
consultant Delmarie Cobb.
Jackson Lee endured being booed at a rally for Hillary in Texas and Delmarie
Cobb was called an Uncle Tom right to her face before the DNC because of her
solid support for Clinton.
Here is a good interview with Cobb you might like:
http://blogs.chicagoreader.com.....race-race/
Excerpt: “Race in the Race with Delmarie Cobb”
Q: But Hillary Clinton also brought up Jeremiah Wright‹and with him, it
seems‹race.
A: First of all, she didn¹t say anything for awhile. Then she finally said
something‹in response to a question, she said, ³He wouldn¹t be my pastor.²
What the Obama campaign has done is this: if I have a black candidate and
I¹m trying to get to the White House, and my biggest obstacle to getting to
the White House is a white candidate with a good relationship with black
voters, then I need to shut her down. And in effect the Obama campaign has
shut the Clintons down. I think it¹s horrible what¹s been done in this
campaign, quite frankly. There are so few white people who will stick their
necks out for black people, and President Clinton stuck his neck out.”
Kevin,factually, gender and race go together. One cannot be just white or
just a man or just African American and neither male nor female. We are one
and the other.
Hillary was the only one during the campaign who actually discussed this.
After Obama’s speech on race she was asked if she had heard it . She replied
while at a rally with two of her endorsers Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame
(remember those anti-Iraq war heroes?):
http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee.....nfere.html
“She addressed the speech on race and his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright that
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made here Tuesday morning. She said, “I did not
have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama¹s speech, but I¹m very glad
that he gave it. It¹s an important topic,” she said. “Issues of race and
gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they
have been complicated in this primary campaign. There have been detours and
pitfalls along the way.”
And as far as Lily Ledbetter, he had to sign. I don’t think “not signing” was an option.
Kevin,
When in came to gender, they didn’t use code words. They went all out and used blatantly sexist and misogynistic language.
For example, you had a panel of commentators discussing why it’s was ok’ to call Clinton a “bitch”. One asshole said that some women act pushy, shrill and combative or “bitchy”, and therefore deserve to be called bitches.
Can you imagine if the same people described Obama as a n*gger and justified it in the same way. All hell would brake loose!
Code words were not used when describing sexist overtures, because the commentators found it perfectly acceptable to be blatantly bigoted against the women, Clinton and Palin. Even words like c*nt and violent betrayals of them became acceptable. Battery against Palin, and hanging her in effigy was fine, but “code words” used to question Obama’s elegance to his Muslim heritage was off limits.
Some how questioning Obama’s experience was racist, while Wolf Blitzer asks Clinton in a debate what as first lady qualified her to be president, as though her 8 years as a US Senator and a 35 year career in law and public service had no import. Meantime, Obama had only been in the Senate for 2 years.
Kendallj,
I like your pithy comment below:
“Some how questioning Obama’s experience was racist, while Wolf Blitzer asks Clinton in a debate what as first lady qualified her to be president, as though her 8 years as a US Senator and a 35 year career in law and public service had no import. Meantime, Obama had only been in the Senate for 2 years.”
Says it well. THanks!
“Some how questioning Obama’s experience was racist, while Wolf Blitzer asks Clinton in a debate what as first lady qualified her to be president, as though her 8 years as a US Senator and a 35 year career in law and public service had no import. Meantime, Obama had only been in the Senate for 2 years.”
Some people claimed that questioning Obama’s experience was racist because you were implying that minorities were incompetent or something.
Some people claimed that questioning Hillary’s experience was sexist because you were saying that she was just a hostess and did nothing important as First Lady, or something like that.
Neither is correct–it was perfectly valid to question both of them on the issue of experience since neither had hugely long careers as elected officials (Hillary had been working at the national level longer, Obama had more elected experience total but most of it was at the state level). I don’t know about the media, but I don’t recall anyone from Obama’s campaign, or Hillary’s, crying racism or sexism purely on the experience question.
KendallJ: If we are going to look at non-elected experience as relevant, then Obama had more than two years in the Senate–he had a 20 year career in law and public service as well. But I agree with the silliness of the idea that Hillary was running based on her time as first lady rather than on her career in total.
Purity1:
Calling black people who chose to support Hillary “Uncle Toms” or just attacking them for that choice was horrible and absurd. I also think that attacking women, white or otherwise, who chose to support Obama, was horrible. That happened to a number of his prominent female supporters, including Kathleen Sebelius, Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, and (for non-elected officials) Caroline Kennedy. They were called traitors to their gender. Everyone should be allowed to support whichever candidate they consider most qualified.
Madeline,
If the candidates had been exactly equal in age, experience, ability, issues, character — I would probably have voted for the Black, as there are fewer Blacks in the pipeline.
Otherwise, I’d have voted for the older candidate, especially if the younger were young enough to run several more times, but for the older, this might be the last chance.
There’s a pattern that older feminists notice: an experienced, qualified middle aged woman is passed over for promotion in favor of a younger, less experienced man — and she is often made his secretary and required to teach him the job! (Or perform it herself in secret, letting him get the credit.)
For informed older women like Sebelius, Pelosi, etc to cheat in the primaries to make this pattern play out on the national scale, ignoring HIllary’s better experience and qualifications, was … shall we say … not quite “supporting the woman.”
Sebelius and Pelosi cheated in the primaries? I assume that with Pelosi you are referring to Florida and Michigan, which is its own issue, so let’s leave that for a later discussion.
But Sebelius cheated? In what way?
You say that Hillary had “better experience and qualifications.” That is not a fact, that is an opinion. A completely valid one that millions of people shared, but it is still an opinion.
Hillary had more years of elected experience at the national level. When she started running for president, she had been in the Senate for 6 years. Obama had been in the Senate for 2. If we are talking national experience, then she certainly had more elected experience.
Obama had more elected experience overall. He had served in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years and in the Senate for 2, which means he had 10 years of elected experience at the time that he began running, so if we are talking elected experience, he had more.
Some people valued total elected experience more, some people valued elected experience at the national level more.
As for life experience: Hillary had been an active First Lady, Obama had taught Constitutional Law for 12 years. Some people valued her experience more, some people valued his.
The difference between Hillary and Obama on experience was not so extreme. 2 years in the Senate was a very short amount of time, yes. She had more time in the Senate, yes. But only 4 years. She definitely could claim to be more experienced on the national level, but to many people the difference was not huge. Unlike the difference between either of them and McCain, for example.
As for older woman vs. younger man–Hillary is 60. Obama is 47. I don’t see how being somewhat older makes Hillary automatically more qualified.
Also, if experience were the biggest qualification for high office, we would all have been voting for McCain or we would have voted for Biden in the primary. They have literally decades of elected experience on the national level. But we didn’t vote for Biden in the primary, and many of us wouldn’t have voted for McCain, because there are other qualifications that matter besides the number of years a person spends in office. Nixon had tons of experience and look how that turned out. Lincoln had a few years as a Congressman.
And here, I don’t see how you can possibly say that Hillary’s qualifications were obviously greater than Obama’s as to make all opposition to her sexist. Their positions on the issues were very similar, so that can’t be it. They were both good, hardworking Senators. They have both fought for causes they believe in. They are both clearly brilliant people with top-notch academic backgrounds.
Based on this, and based on the relatively small ways in which their positions differed, based on their voting history and where they had stood on a whole host of issues, based on their backgrounds and their life experience, based on what we could glean of their leadership abilities and management styles, people decided which candidate they believed would be a better leader. Some chose Obama. Some chose Hillary. I am sure some people supported Obama for sexist reasons. I am sure some people supported Hillary for racist reasons. But most people chose the person they believed would best lead the country.
You and many other informed people believed that Hillary would make the best leader. I and many other informed people believed that Obama would make the best leader.
We did not ignore Hillary’s experience and qualifications.
We believed that Obama’s particular experience and qualifications would make him a better leader. That was our opinion, and your opinion is yours. Both are valid.
I can completely understand why you voted for Hillary and I would never attack your choice to do so. But for anyone to say that I and other women like Kathleen Sebelius and Claire McCaskill who chose to support Obama are somehow engaging in behavior that perpetuates sexism, that because we chose the candidate we believed would be the best leader for our country rather than the candidate who shares gender–to say that we cheated or that we are traitors to our gender is insulting and as incorrect as accusing black people who chose to support Hillary of being traitors to their race.
I don’t like the idea of the WH Council on Women and Votes. To me it says, “We have a woman problem in this country that is separate from other problems”. It’s obvious to me that the woman problem is connected to all of our other problems in this society. I don’t like being singled out for my gender, but this is exactly what this Council does.
I would rather have the WH Taskforce on Evolving American Culture by Increasing Representation of Historically Underrepresented Groups at All Levels of Government, Business, and Academia.
Madeline, did you ever feel ostracized for supporting Obama? I certainly did, for supporting Hillary, and even more so for daring to speak up in defense of Palin. There was a lot more going on in our society during this election than people calmly judging and making the most logical decision that made sense to them for who has more experience or who they think would make a better leader.
Madeline, you said, “As for older woman vs. younger man–Hillary is 60. Obama is 47. I don’t see how being somewhat older makes Hillary automatically more qualified.”
Who ever said it makes her automatically more qualified? But to dismiss it is wrong too. She didn’t spend those years gardening, she spent them engaged in politics in one way or another. And from what I hear, Obama’s national experience during his time as Senator involved mostly avoiding controversial votes, and preparing to run for President.
And btw, would somebody clarify this–did Hillary get more votes than Obama during the primary or didn’t she? I keep thinking she did, and I’d like to know for sure. I mean one of the reasons I am here today is because I believed that the Democratic Primary was undemocratic, if not illegitimate. How do we in this day an age, in America, tell two whole states their vote doesn’t matter during a presidential Primary? That is outrageous, and because Obama benefited from that, I don’t quite take him seriously. Sorry.
One more thing about what you said, Madeline ( “to say that we cheated or that we are traitors to our gender is insulting and as incorrect as accusing black people who chose to support Hillary of being traitors to their race.”)
Perhaps women were not insulting enough and vocal enough against other women who didn’t vote for the woman. There were a lot less “black traitors” than “woman traitors”, and look who won in the end. The one who had over 95% of his group stick with him. The African Americans taught us a very valuable lesson: If you want to help your kind move up, you need to stick together big time.
Next time, I’m going to totally, freely, and over and over pressure my women friends and family to vote for the woman.
Anne-Marie: I definitely agree that it was way harder on black people who supported Hillary than it was on women who supported Obama. But that doesn’t make calling women who supported Obama “traitors” any less factually wrong or insulting.
Pressuring your family and friends to vote for the woman doesn’t sound like it contradicts what I was talking about–people use all sorts of arguments to try to convince other voters. I hope you won’t call them traitors, though, if their preferred candidate happens to not be the woman.
Madeline, when a woman is made to feel like there’s something wrong with her for supporting another woman, there’s something wrong with this society. I really think you don’t understand what it was like, because you made the “right” choice. The socially and media approved choice. Perhaps the reason some women have called you and other Obama supporters traitors is because they were going through a negative experience due to the fact that they were a woman supporting another woman, and instead of having your support as a woman, you were on the team that was making her life difficult.
What is a traitor? One definition is: “a person who changes to the enemy’s side or gives away information to the enemy”
If me as a woman is being attacked by the other side because I am a woman and because I support a woman, and you as a woman instead of fighting with me (and by fighting I mean voting for women) you join them, than you are a traitor by that definition.
If your loyalty is not to women and you don’t see a reason to be on the side of women, than what are you doing here? If you do see a reason to be on the side of women now, why did you not see a reason to be on the side of women during the election?
And my other point is that the reason so many black people stuck together is because there was SO MUCH peer pressure, and that if you were black and you didn’t vote Obama, you were going to hear it from your black friends and family. The problem was not that women are calling other women traitors, the problem is that it wasn’t done enough, and the peer pressure was not enough. For African Americans, their cause was clear and unifying: It was putting one of their own in the highest office. Those women who voted for Obama, and not Hillary, (even though they were so similar, according to you Madeline) what is your cause?
This is really awesome news and needs to happen everywhere:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7936071.stm
Anne-Marie:
What “team” was I on that made your life difficult? I supported Obama. If by supporting him that puts me on his “team” then the only way he himself (not the media–Obama) made your life difficult was to run against the candidate you preferred. That’s the nature of a democratic primary. Candidates run against each other, and it can be unpleasant for their supporters. I agree that the media and Obama’s general popularity made your life more difficult, but I don’t see how I, as an Obama supporter, can logically be blamed for that.
“What is a traitor? One definition is: “a person who changes to the enemy’s side or gives away information to the enemy” If me as a woman is being attacked by the other side because I am a woman and because I support a woman, and you as a woman instead of fighting with me (and by fighting I mean voting for women) you join them, than you are a traitor by that definition.”
Anne-Marie, for goodness’ sake. Obama wasn’t attacking you because you were a woman voting for a woman—he was running for president against Hillary, just as she was running against him. I am sure that some of his supporters were horrible to Hillary supporters, but some of Hillary’s supporters were horrible to Obama’s supporters. I don’t accuse you of fighting against me because some of your fellow Hillary supporters called me names, so I don’t see how I am a traitor because some Obama supporters were rude to you. If you mean the media—well, I didn’t “join” them media. I hated them probably almost as much as you did because when they weren’t trafficking in sexism, they were trafficking in racism and just generally being offensive and lowering the level of discourse. But the fact that most members of the media are idiots and that they were often unfair to Hillary does not make me the enemy any more than the fact that they were often (not as often, but often) unfair to Obama as well makes you an enemy.
According to your logic—that I am a traitor because I did not vote for the woman—black men who voted for Hillary are traitors to their race. Do you honestly believe that black people who voted for Hillary are traitors for not supporting the black candidate? Would you question their loyalty to the fight for civil rights? Were they not “loyal” to their fellow African-Americans? Are you saying that anyone who peer-pressured black voters was right to do so?
Do you truly judge loyalty to women and feminism simply by whether or not a person votes for the candidate who shares her gender? So, for example, take Gloria Steinem—a lifelong feminist who supported Hillary ardently, and then supported Obama in the general election. Is she a traitor for not supporting Palin? Are all the women who didn’t support Palin because they found many of her beliefs and policies (and McCain’s) repugnant and antithetical to everything they believed in traitors too?
I do not equate loyalty to women with always voting for the woman even when I believe that the best candidate is someone else who happens to be male. I voted for the candidate I thought was the better candidate. I am a feminist and I fight with all my heart to make the lives of women better, to achieve fully equality in this country, but I am not going to vote for a woman just because she is a woman when I feel there is a better candidate who just happens to be male because I want the best possible leader for this country, regardless of gender or race. I am here because I am interested in any organization dedicated to fighting for women’s rights in this country. I am on the side of women, and saying that I am not because I did not vote for the woman makes no more sense than it would for me to say that you are not on the side of black people because you did not vote for the black candidate. Calling me a traitor for not automatically supporting the female candidate isn’t feminism, it is sophistry, and a touch melodramatic too. I would never attack you for your voting choice, and on a site that claims to be nonpartisan and welcoming to all women interested in helping women, I would have expected the same treatment.
Madeline, thank you for your response. I don’t know you personally, so when I attack or strongly argue against something you said, it’s just that, against the idea, not you the person. I do have strong feelings around this as you can see. You complained that you find being called a traitor insulting and incorrect. I was trying to show you where the people who are calling you a traitor are coming from, be they logical, or not. I think there is some truth to what I said. Especially the observation that so many African Americans–the majority–were needed to come together as a group in order for Obama to defeat Hillary. They were loyal, and they understood. The ones who supported Hillary–I was glad to see it, but I never ever blamed the African American voting group for being so unified. I didn’t think they were sexist or hated whites or anything, I knew that they knew what had to be done. Do you think the majority of African Americans who voted for Obama looked carefully at who would make the better leader? They saw Obama was going to be good enough not to embarrass them, and they seized the opportunity.
I think you, I and a lot of people, especially the ones with higher education, and especially women, like to be fair and act as if the world is fair, and give everyone equal opportunity regardless of race, gender, religion, whatever each individual can be open minded about. Well, I don’t think that’s working for women. And this is where my feelings come in. Women such as yourself need to see that we must vote for women no matter what, assuming they come close enough, JUST LIKE the AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTING BLOCK did when they voted for Obama.
By the way, I only represent my own self. If TNA wants to censor me or my comments because they don’t represent TNA then fine, but until then, I’ll say what I have to say.
Please attack my ideas. I feel pretty strong about some stuff, but I am also always reading and learning here. If you have a point to make, make it, just don’t curse me out. Be as frustrated as you want to be with me I don’t mind.
No some of my strong feelings around this topic come from having a friend who I helped and supported through an abusive arranged marriage, who broke my heart when she told me she won’t vote for Hillary because she doesn’t trust her, and she doesn’t know why she doesn’t trust her. And later she told me that I’ll never know what it’s like to walk into a room and be judged by her appearance, (referring to her South Asian appearance), in trying to reason with me about why she voted for Obama instead of Hillary. I am friends with her, I respect her, but that total disconnect and rejection that so much of the bad that’s happened to her is because she is a woman, not because she is South Asian is really frustrating and sad for me to be around.
Sorry for the long post.
Madeline,
As for considering Obama would be a better President than Hillary … considering events since the primary, have you had any second thoughts about that?
Flora:
No. That doesn’t mean I’ve been happy with everything that Obama has done, or that I don’t think that Hillary could have been a really good president and might be a really good one in the future. Neither is true at all. And Obama could fail, through his own mistakes or through circumstances beyond his control. I (and every other Obama supporter I know) was always very aware of that. But I believe that he is the leader we need right now.
But as I said, I totally and completely respect your opinion that HIllary would make a better president.
Anne-Marie: And thank you for your response. I don’t want to attack you or your views. They may not be mine, but you have every right to them. I don’t share your opinion that women can only support women by always voting for women, but do understand why you and many other women would adhere to such a view, and I can empathize with your frustration. I simply don’t appreciate being called (as I thought you were calling me) a traitor for my views.
Madeline,
To say that Hillary might make a good president in the future, ignores the facts of age and health. She is 61 now, Obama is 47.
This was her last chance. The damage was permanent.
Hillary made the win/win offer: Clinton/Obama 2008. This would have given him 16 years in the White House with a shoo-in in 2016.
(Exit polls Nov 4 showed that HIllary was the more electable candidate: she would have won by 12%, better than Obama’s 7%.)
Flora:
Exit polls are not completely reliable (as we saw so often), so I wouldn’t say that they prove that HIllary was the more electable candidate. Of course, she very well could have been. I don’t know that she would have won some of the states that Obama won, but she probably would have won others that he didn’t win. Hillary might possibly have been more electable, but Obama was obviously very electable too, and I don’t see how the question of “who is more electable” when both candidates are perfectly electable has a bearing on who we should vote for (if you were saying it did–I couldn’t tell).
It is not logical to say that Obama would be a shoo-in in 8 years had he chosen to be VP. Who can determine what will happen a year from now, let alone 8 years from now? 2 years ago everyone was 100% positive that it would be Clinton vs. Giuliani. Things change quickly.
I’m not ignoring the facts of age, I just don’t think that the fact that this was probably Hillary’s one shot at the presidency meant that Obama should have stepped aside. Obama wanted to be president, just as Hillary wanted to be president. She was not owed the presidency any more than he was.
Madeline,
In haste….
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2.....arch_story
CBS News’ Election and Survey Unit’s survey analyst extraordinaire Jennifer De Pinto [....]
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.
I don’t know which exit polls you consider not reliable and how you would compare their methodology with this. Iirc exit polls from the later primaries showed about 35% of HIllary supporters were planning to not support Obama in November (those did not break down the number who would actually vote for McCain from those who would stay home).
Pls note that the Nov 4 story calculated in the factor of Obama supporters who would have stayed home, but could not calculate in the Hillary supporters who DID stay home. Telephone polls in June and near the convention found more HIllary supporters planning to stay home than planning to vote for McCain.
Pls distinguish between Obama’s decision to reject the Clinton/Obama ticket — and Obama supporters’ choice to support him in that decision. That would have been a good time for Obama supporters who also cared about feminism, to speak out and urge him to accept Hillary’s win/win offer (a feminine solution).
Flora:
As I said, Hillary may very well have been more electable (although telephone calls in June are not the most reliable evidence given later events). I just don’t see what relevance that has to who we should have voted for when Obama was obviously very electable too.
Again, many women who are dedicated feminists, who fight passionately for the rights of women in this country, voted for Obama because they believed he was the leader we needed right now. That was why they were supporting him–they wanted him as president, not vice-president.
Women who want to vote only for women–that’s fine, I understand that strategy. But the views of women who think that they should vote for whomever they believe will make the best leader–male or female–are valid too.
Madeline,
According to Wikipedia, McCain’s popular vote was 59,934,814, call it 60 million. 16% of that, the Hillary crossovers, is … 9.6 million.
In the primaries, 18 million voted for Hillary. 35% of them, ie 6.3 million, said in primary exit polls that they would not support Obama. Phone polls that counted both Hillary-to-McCain voters and stay homes in May, June, and August iirc were pretty close to the primary exit polls. Breakdowns showed about 3 million planning to vote for McCain, 4 million planning to stay home.
43% of these voters who supported McCain but would have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Independents. 31% were Republicans; while 26% were Democrats. [from the CBS story above]
26% of 9.6 million is 2.5 million. Add a few from the Independents who got polled as Hillary supporters during the summer and there’s the same 3 million Hill’s voting for McCain.
So here’s three different kinds of pollings that come up with figures all in the same ball park. That suggests that these three pollings were pretty reliable. The Republicans who preferred Hillary were unexpected gravy.
This is evidence for Hillary being in fact the more electable candidate than Obama — and for 9.6 million people, the more credible leader.
Flora–what exactly are we debating? I agree that more people might have voted for Hillary in the general–some evidence suggests that they would have, some evidence suggests they would not. She might have been more electable–but Obama was obviously very electable as well. Hillary would have won the general had she won the nomination–but Obama won the nomination and the general. What are we debating?
madeleine, you happen to be at a site fighting for female representation.
your statement “so what obama won the nomination” is a slap in the face. if you truely have pink colored glasses on and want to turn a blind eye you are in the wrong crowd.
the obama nomination, the fixed primary and the shame roll call. not giving the person with more votes the nomination, buying superdelegates and attacking backers of the female candidate is a sore not going away. millions of democrats left the party. this is not the situation for “so what”.
in case you want to be open minded, there is a documentary available at amazon.com “the audacity of democracy”.
Marille: you misunderstand me. I was not saying “So what” to the fact that Obama won. That would be silly. I was confused because I wasn’t sure if Flora and I were now discussing leadership or electability. I couldn’t tell if she was simply saying that Hillary was more electable, or if she was saying that because Hillary was more electable, we should have voted for her. I was just trying to clarify that. I am sorry, but I wasn’t saying what you seem to think I was saying at all.
I’ve heard the arguments made such documentaries and on certain websites. While I agree 100% that our nominating system needs a huge overhaul, I find that most of the other arguments don’t hold water in terms of either facts or common sense–they sometimes seem a bit conspiracy theory-ish. The nominating system is odd and in some ways undemocratic, but both candidates knew that going in and had ample opportunity to figure out strategies to deal with that. As many of Hillary’s own top strategists have said, they made the mistake of ignoring caucus states. Had she not done that, I think she probably would have been the nominee. The popular vote was very close, but Hillary did not win more unless you throw out the caucus states and give Obama no votes in Michigan, which hardly seems fair–not that the solution that was eventually reached was entirely fair either. Honestly, that whole situation was a complete mess and there was no way to be completely fair to either Hillary or Obama on that one, so hopefully the rules will be altered to guarantee that we don’t have such a situation next time around.
so madeline, so people who have eye witnessed fraud, have a conspiracy theory? it needs a lot of cool-aid to not see how the primary was fixed.
groups of people voting with not existing addresses and not recognized by locals, illinois school buses driving around in iowa. obama caucuses in iowa representing the the east of the state, hillary caucuses winning the west (farther away from chicago, illinois).
be fair, don’t go by hear say, watch the documentary. with 20$ you can be informed. are you really not interested why millions of democrats left the party with no intention to return?
in any political organization after a loso blame is going around and some will see the fault at themselves. if you don’t you start really questioning the existence of democracy here. and that is too scary to many. but if you are interested in democracy you need to open your eyes and check the sources for yourself
Marille: there were reports of fraud/intimidation on the part of both Hillary and Obama supporters.
Perhaps some of the reports were true, but any rational examination of the facts will indicate that it is illogical to believe that Obama could have fixed the primaries. I’m going to rely on objective, truth-seeking sources for my facts–not a documentary from people who passionately hate one of the candidates (and I’ve seen other such documentaries). That would be akin to relying on Daily Kos as my “source” for information about Hillary.
P.S. If Hillary’s major advisers truly thought there was fraud going on in the caucus states, or if Hillary herself had thought that–much less if there were actual evidence for it–they would have been shouting it to the heavens, not blaming themselves for bad strategy.
Obama just had better strategies and better luck and so he won. That doesn’t mean you have to like him, by any means. You have every right in the world to dislike him, to hate him even. Hey, I supported him and I have issues with him. But I think your intense dislike of Obama is blinding you to certain facts.
Daily kos as your info, that explalns a lot
so what issues do you have with Obama, Madeline, I missed that part?
Madeline,
I tend to skim over long posts about emotional feelings or possible conspiracy theories pro or con, or details that were be-labored in the primaries.
Many feminists do use such terms as ‘backstabbing’ to briefly describe actions such as those taken by Pelosi, McCaskill, Sebelius, Caroline Kennedy etc. Without engaging in a controversial manner, I have been presenting evidence to promote understanding of where that language is coming from.
Such language is not going to cease; protesting its use will just draw pushback, and/or cause some valuable people to hesitate to post here. With respect to your feelings, I suggest that you not take such references to Pelosi etc as applying to you. Professional politicians have a whole nother level of information than we do, and more power, so imo it is not invalid to apply such expressions to them. If you want to pursue this, I’ll go into more detail at my personal blog than I feel comfortable with posting here.
“Daily kos as your info, that explalns a lot”
Marille:
I said it didn’t make sense to use Daily Kos as a source for information. I don’t see how that could be interpreted to mean that I do use Daily Kos.
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...