Not the face of the patriarchal conspiracy.
So, I’m disappointed this morning, not because the primaries are still a dead heat, but because I fear that Clinton might be able to scratch out a narrow victory because she’s the establishment candidate and utilizing elements that are less than ideal. There’s still the threat that Florida and Michigan will become contenders after Clinton broke her promise not to campaign there and won the states handily. Then there’s this superdelegate thing—if you look at the charts at CNN, it’s clear that there’s tension rising between what the superdelegates want and what everyone else wants. It would be a shame to see Clinton squeak in a people vs. their representatives stand-off. I am looking forward to what might be the most powerful vote I’ve cast in my lifetime, though. For that reason, I’m excited. My track record of supporting winners is pretty weak, though.
But enough of that. Ann at Feministing linked this essay by Robin Morgan about the election. Most of the essay, I was nodding in agreement about how the Clinton hatred is uncloaked misogyny. I especially chuckled at this:
Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
Since it’s so hard for people to ponder Bill Clinton’s infidelity without seamlessly sliding into blaming the victim of that infidelity for it. But let’s be honest—she’s excusing Clinton for her husband’s behavior while campaigning for her under her leadership. This excuse-making only makes sense if you discount the abilities of a woman to be an effective leader of her own campaign. And if you don’t think Hillary runs her campaign like a tight ship, why on earth are you recommending her for the job of President? (For the record, I think Clinton runs her campaign and would run the White House like a tight ship. I don’t discount her abilities.)
But you really know that Morgan’s out of line when she engages in what’s really beginning to get on my nerves this primary—bashing the other candidate to puff up your own.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
The short-sighted willingness to push the lie that Obama is “inexperienced”, much less arrogant and ignorant, makes me crazy. Thanks for giving the McCain campaign their narrative in the general, should Obama win! It’s vaguely racist to say these things (see: the long tradition of trying to discredit black leaders by casting suspicion on their qualifications, such as the way that racists obsess over MLK’s doctorate’s legitimacy), and certainly banking on the fact that Obama looks younger than he is. His extensive experience that qualifies him for the job—including more years as a politician than Clinton—is readily available. Which is not to slam Clinton’s experience! Both are experienced plenty. Surely adult Americans can grasp the concept of two talented, experienced people existing at the same time without the universe imploding. We certainly can if the people in question are white men.
But she has to imply that Obama just wandered by accident up to the stage at the 2004 DNC and was allowed to stay when everyone realized, movie style, “This kid can really sell it!” Why? Because it sets her up for what is going to be a frankly sexist denunciation of women who have decided to throw our support to Obama.
Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”
Usually when I’m being accused of being some tee-heeing bimbo who is only playing at politics, it’s usually by some conservative white dude who can’t think his way out of a paper bag, but feels entitled to believe his every thought is gold served up with caviar. Hearing it from a fellow feminist, someone I recall was a brilliant radical feminist when she was my age, is shocking. I know Morgan probably doesn’t know me from Eve, and thus I shouldn’t take it personally. But it still hurts tremendously. I’m not shaking in fear of my boyfriend finding out that I’m a feminist (I think he knows), nor am I afraid to talk up Clinton’s strong points to men. I do it all the time, and haven’t gotten any funny looks, even though I’m prone to phrasing things in provocative ways. (Favorite talking point: “She’d probably be a better President than her husband.”)
The electability thing is partially about her gender, but not completely. I think a female candidate who had Obama’s general strategy could probably generate the enthusiasm and cross-over votes we’re going to need to beat McCain. But the war is the issue that will sway undecideds, and if you’re running a only semi-repentant hawk against a hawk, you’re not going to get them to care enough to vote for your candidate. Her womanhood plus her being a Clinton will turn out the vote against her, and we need to be able to generate enough enthusiasm for her to balance that. Good luck with that, with her hawkish heart beating insider her. If she loses because of these factors, and I think it’s highly likely she will, that will then be turned around and be used to disqualify the whole bench of excellent potential female candidates the Democrats have.
The nation has a massive debt to pay to the world for the crime of invading Iraq. I can’t, in good faith, put my need for role models and self-esteem and pride in the feminist movement before this debt I owe collectively with all of you (Americans, at least). Clinton has done nothing to convince me that she will embrace this burden. She’s offering solutions, sure, but we need more than that. Again, if she wins the nomination, I’ll be supporting her 100%, because she at least indicates that she wants us out of this terrible war. And the female thing is of course a giant bonus. But we have a real choice in this primary season, and I’m choosing the candidate who has actually embraced the opposition to the war, instead of the candidate who has surrounded herself with people that believe it sounded like a good idea at the time.*
Look, I get there’s a lot of nastiness towards Clinton. I fully agree that the hate towards her is mostly grounded in sexism. But what about those of us who don’t hate her, but are supporting Obama anyway? We are the majority of Obama supporters, you know.
And there’s something bizarre about referencing the struggle to overcome racist institutions like slavery as a reason to vote against a black candidate, seriously. That’s Limbaugh rhetoric.
*No, it really didn’t.
307 Responses to “Robin Morgan tells young feminist Obama supporters we’re scaredy-cat bimbos”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Hey, Texas primary might actually matter for once! Think about that.
Both candidates have to campaign there.
Amanda, Clinton did not campaign in either Michigan or Florida. She was still on the ballot in Michigan after all the candidates did some bizarre game of chicken with the deadline, and the only “campaigning” she did in Florida was a statement that she wanted her delegates to support the seating of the FL delegates.
The battle of competing stereotypes!
now, that’s democracy.
The battle of the competing stereotypes of supporters!
Now, that’s democracy.
Yesterday, it was quite interesting to hear my 16-year old budding feminist daughter extolling the importance of voting for Clinton.
When I asked her why, it eventually came down to “Clinton has more experience than Obama”.
Since none of her family has been saying anything like that (and even my 70-year old - often bigoted - father is talking up Obama), I was really surprised.
She must be picking up the narrative from the air. She doesn’t watch any MSM, and doesn’t read any online political sites (that I know of), so I’m kind of mystified about where she’s getting this talking point…
So if I rationally look at the policies of both candidates and decide that, on the whole, I prefer Obama’s policy positions, I’m just deluded and working for The Man?
Fuck you too, Robin.
We keep being accused of discounting second-wave feminists, but they get to discount us and our opinions all the time. What’s up with that?
Yeah, I clicked that link and read that barely decipherable rant/essay. Even from “within the Karl Rove frame” of questioning Clinton’s political machine, as it were!
That pissed me off massively, but it was the standard East Coast Mean Girl “insult you until you vote like we tell you to vote” garbage that was pissing me off about Clinton supporters in MA state government all along.
When I asked her why, it eventually came down to “Clinton has more experience than Obama”.
At what? Inhaling and exhaling? She has more BOARDROOM experience perhaps, but far less POLITICAL experience than he does - unless you count the “First Lady” years.
Nobody elected her to be first lady.
At present, I don’t hate Hillary Clinton. I don’t particularly like her voting record, particularly on the Iraq debacle, but she easily outshines the asshats on the GOP side.
But if she is successful in seating the MI and FL delegates that were not supposed to be in play, I will hate her. Very much.
Let’s make this a fair contest between two well-qualified candidates on as level a playing field as politics ever provides. I really don’t think it’s too much to ask.
I loved the original “Goodbye to all that” essay by Morgan, but this just seemed shoddy and poorly put together. It was really disappointing. I think it could have been a great essay if she had just stuck to denouncing the sexism that is being used against Clinton. It would have been fabulous if she had denounced sexism, racism, and pitting the two against each other like only one oppression can be overthrown.
I think things like this essay also serve to turn women off of feminism; “Mommy knows best” isn’t any more liberating than “Daddy knows best.”
I think you guys are overreading Morgan’s piece. The way I read it, she is saying a big fuck you to those who choose Obama for that reason, and who play the “I’m not a feminist but” card or the “I’m a feminist, but I don’t want to rock the boat” card.
I don’t think she views young feminists as vapid. That’s just not how I read the piece.
Amanda–I’ve heard people mention that both Clinton and Obama voted to keep up the spending for the war. Do you think that taints him a bit with the hawkish brush? Also, WRT electability and hawkishness, do you think most Americans think the war was a mistake and that the politicians should’ve known from the outset it was wrong/unjustified, or that most Americans think it is wrong in hindsight? (I don’t really have the answer to that one, my fiance is clearly in the first camp, but when we were talking with our liberal buddies, as well as a few conservatives, when he said that, the room got really quiet and no one else agreed.) If most Americans follow the latter view, perhaps Obama will be viewed as weak or cowardly, where Clinton will be viewed as strong, if unfortunately misled.
I’m also not sure how I feel about Bill Clinton’s campaigning being laid at Sen. Clinton’s feet. He’s not the first outspoken political spouse (Teresa Heinz Kerry, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Edwards, Elizabeth Dole, and my favorite, Maria Schriever), and I would say he is not the most controversial (THK) or contradictory (MS), but I think that because he is the former President and has a bully pulpit all his own, there is only so much reigning in to be done. (Of course, that is not to say that Sen. Clinton can’t hide behind that–oh, I don’t tell my husband what to say. People probably won’t expect her to hide him like THK was hidden after a few choice remarks.)
The superdelegates problem could get ugly. Can you imagine the Clinton T-shirts? “We brought back the smoke-filled room!” (And on the back, in tiny, tiny print, “fuck you! neener neener neener!”)
I see nothing to change my evaluation from a previous thread: Clinton is going to win, and do so in a way that puts a huge cleft between the party establishment / Clintonites on the one hand and everybody else on the other. She will convincingly demonstrate that whatever the progressives or the roots or the base want, in the end it’s the Machine and everybody else will just have to deal with it.
First, it will either tear the party apart and guarantee an ongoing Republican ascendancy. Second, it may provoke the base into a long-term plan to take over the machine like the one started by the GOP ultraconservatives in 1964.
Of course, a nice fallback might be a Clinton White House with an aggressive, populist Democrat Congressional majority. (Laughs. Like that’s going to happen.)
Getting on my last nerve too — I really worry that this tendency is the democratic party shooting itself in the foot.
I have heard some people argue that the very close race between Clinton & Obama is a bad thing, because that means that a large portion of democratic voters will be upset when their candidate isn’t THE candidate, and they won’t want to support the eventual nominee. I have dismissed that argument, noticing that about 95% of the people I know (in RL and online) steadfastly maintain that although they are currently supporting Obama or Clinton, they would be JUST FINE with either one of them over any Repub, and will throw their support wholeheartedly behind the eventual nominee, whoever that turns out to be.
But this bashing-the-other-to-elevate-your-own could destroy that. Could upset people so much that by the time the general comes around, those who backed the one who wasn’t nominated will be so pissed off at the nominee (and his/her supporters) that they just stay home. I am truly terrified that too much rancor in the primary (and especially attacks that are personal rather than policy-oriented) will end up costing us the general.
“The way I read it, she is saying a big fuck you to those who choose Obama for that reason, and who play the “I’m not a feminist but” card or the “I’m a feminist, but I don’t want to rock the boat” card.”
Agreed. i don’t think it’s talking to all young feminists either. I mean the first line of that paragraph is:
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo),
You know how we tell guys that get unnecessarily offended by something to not wear the shoes if they don’t fit. Same applies here. If you’re not supporting Obama for the reasons she listed, stop trying to wear the shoe.
I think you guys are overreading Morgan’s piece. The way I read it, she is saying a big fuck you to those who choose Obama for that reason, and who play the “I’m not a feminist but” card or the “I’m a feminist, but I don’t want to rock the boat” card.
I think she needs to be held accountable for exactly what she has said here, not excused from anything.
This sort of “thinking” is exactly why younger women and gen-x women turned their back on “feminism” as it was constituted - grouchy, preachy, authoritarian, and completely insensitive to the realities of life for the vast majority of women living outside of Manhattan.
I absolutely count her “First Lady” years. She has been experiencing, participating, and observing - and learning - in politics for significantly longer than Obama. She knows exactly what’s coming her way as far as Republican dirty tricks - in fact, she’s been there, done that. I have confidence she can weather the storm and win the general.
Look, I simply love, admire, and am endlessly inspired by her. I’ve been following her career for years and years. I became a Democrat (after 16 years of npa) this year because of her. So I’m biased for sure.
And she didn’t campaign in Florida or Michigan, so to say she “broke her promise” there is disingenuous. Frankly, as a former Floridian of 20 years, I wouldn’t vote for anyone who took their name off my primary ballot like I don’t count.
Cursory look at Super Tuesday result indicates the so called “Hillary experience” is bunk, just as Obama can’t win white vote.
Hillary only can win in a) home states b) safe big blue states. The implication being, she is the party status quo candidate.
She has nearly zero ability to fight in red states, attract non loyalist voters, or doing grass root campaign. Her so called experience obviously doesn’t translate to broader campaign strategy.
She fights like the status quo and the result shows.
“At what? Inhaling and exhaling? She has more BOARDROOM experience perhaps, but far less POLITICAL experience than he does - unless you count the “First Lady” years.
Nobody elected her to be first lady. “
That’s what I found interesting. What my daughter was saying was an obvious talking point, and not supported by any actual examination of the facts. But it was there nonetheless.
That kind of thing will probably end up making the difference. The problem is going to be the old “If one is a Republican wannabe, and the other is a real Republican, why shouldn’t I vote for McCain?”.
Added to the completely irrational visceral hatred Clinton seems to bring out of some people, the whole thing looks more and more like ‘08 might well be yet another Democratic election disaster. Which will be another disaster for America…
I wish he didn’t do it, but it’s not enough to overcome my objections to their advising staff and her unwillingness to admit that she made a mistake. You’re looking for a candidate to stake out a position with the understanding that they’ll compromise. Obama is to the left of Clinton on the war, so his compromise position is a lot less likely to look like “continue on for years” I expect all three candidates will shut down Gitmo.
I’m starting to worry about that, too. I think the candidates themselves are doing fairly well at keeping it under control, but there’s a lot of loose cannons running around out there spouting off incredibly stupid shit that’s going to damage both candidates.
I was pretty much undecided between Obama and Clinton, but I ended up inking my card for Obama just because I got tired of the accusations of not being a Real True Feminist unless I voted for Clinton.
“lizriz. February 6, 2008 at 12:37 pm”
I absolutely count her “First Lady” years. She has been experiencing, participating, and observing - and learning - in politics for significantly longer than Obama.
In that case just about any cabinet position personal has more experience.
1. That position was not elected. NOT even properly appointed on government payroll.
2. That begs the question: do we really want that sort of “free of responsibility/not answering to anybody” political move? That smacks nepotism to me. It smells backroom channel.
3. well. Let’s look at her so call “experiance” as if she was a proper government official then. I bet she will cringe.
let’s do full accountability on that “experience” during her first lady tenure.
I count her First Lady experience as experience.
To say that Obama is expereienced in no, way, shape, or form means that Clinton is not.
This is not hard. Supporting one candidate =/ hating the other.
This is not hard. Supporting one candidate =/ hating the other.
I think that’s one of the reasons it’s getting so ugly: like it or not, Obama and Hillary are pretty comparable in experience and viewpoint, so people are focusing on the stupid litmus tests of loyalty.
Okay, Ms. Kate, I’m game, here is the excerpt, and what I think it means:
“Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous ‘Obama Girl’ flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said ‘made me feel like a dork.’”
I see this as her pointing out the sexist nature of the ‘Obama Girl’ spot, basically saying that people were led to believe that an event, scripted, casted, and costumed by men was actually an authentic (and shallow) reflection of women’s (lack of) political consciousness.
“Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo),”
Do you disagree with this?
“who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power,”
I do think there is some truth to this–i.e. look at women in public interest vs. corporate law–I think a lot of us are still buying the lie that grasping for power is low, when many times it is essential to preserve our rights. (Now, that is not to say that there can’t be a pretty effective critique of the whole system.)
“who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her.”
Later in the essay, she calls to Hilary supporters to STOP being embarrassed about her, and to extol her virtues and actively, unabashedly, campaign for her. I think she would be (and is) thrilled to know that even non-supporting feminists decry the sexism leveled at Sen. Clinton. (For example, when she references the Chris Matthews apology, although she mentions the women’s movement, not specifcially blogs.)
“Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking ‘what if she’s not electable?’”
Spot on. She should be electable, or rather, she shouldn’t be unelectable because she’s a woman. (I find all that “is America ready for a woman president” bullshit very annoying. What happens if we aren’t “ready” and she gets elected? I guess we’ll get ready.)
“or ‘maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.’”
This may be taking it too far for my taste, because I think it can be read to mean that the only way to be free is elect Clinton. But I think it also can be read to mean that we cannot forget that right now, among many voters, even if we vote our conscience, they don’t. So, we, individually, may be free as voters, we as a society, are not “free” of gender stereotypes such that a woman candidate gets the same respect a man candidate would.
“Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, ‘I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.’”
We know that people vote against their interests. Poor people voted for Bush in droves. Also, while there is some dispute about false consciousness, I think we can agree that many women are in denial about their status and the respect they are accorded. Or just uninformed. And as feminists, we should do our best to explain inequality so that it is addressed.
So, even holding her to her words, I don’t have much of a problem with the excerpt.
But I am interested to hear your thoughts, as well.
“I was pretty much undecided between Obama and Clinton, but I ended up inking my card for Obama just because I got tired of the accusations of not being a Real True Feminist unless I voted for Clinton.”
Interestingly, I was going for Edwards, mostly, but saw pretty much all three candidates as equal. Now Edwards is out, and by pretty much default I’m supporting Clinton, mostly because the internet forums I hang out on are frequented by geek men, who have a completely irrational hatred of Clinton.
Haven’t read her earlier, um, “seminal” (really?) work, but judging from this unfocused, poorly presented blather, Robin Morgan needs to take a writing course at her local community college. The piece’s semantic high point is the Tubman quote, and even that’s hyperbolic and cheap-feeling … hide the jejune-ness of your argument behind a pillar of acknowledged righteousness, the most tranparent play in any third-rate politician’s book.
She sounds like a personally — not just sociopolitically — bitter person.
I read Robin Morgan’s piece a few hours ago before I started reading the blogs - and I’m kind of stunned at the anti-feminist reaction she’s getting from women, especially those who identify as feminists. I did not get out of it what others apparently did, and contrary to some of the commenters here - I didn’t take it as I need to vote for Hillary or I suck.
Maybe I’m biased because some bloggers’ blowhard conclusion-jumping just plain old gets on my nerves most of the time - but this post made me wonder if this blogger even read to the end!
As a feminist I don’t feel any rancor from the essay by Robin Morgan. I did not agree with all of her points, but I certainly wasn’t insulted by it. I was inspired.
So both you and Ann from Feministing completely misread this piece. You are conflating “young women” with “young feminists.” Nowhere in this piece does the writer insult or criticize feminists of any age. She is criticizing NON-feminist women.
Her observations are spot-on and incredibly frustrating.
Many, many people associate voting for Hillary Clinton with being a feminist. They think feminism is wrong, so they bad-mouth Clinton and her supporters. A lot of these folks are on the Obama bandwagon. Just because some of his supporters are behind him for “good” reasons doesn’t mean these other people don’t exist.
For someone who bemoans the “I’m not a feminist, but…” crowd, you sure get angry when someone else calls attention to the trend.
Many young women are die-hard Obama supporters because they don’t want to be shunned as dirty feminists for supporting Clinton.
Their whole argument in favor of Obama is that “Hillary’s a bitch.” Seriously. That viewpoint is incredibly widespread, and I see nothing wrong with calling people out for having it.
Too many young women feel compelled to loudly reject Clinton in order to gain approval from men.
I’ll bite. Those comments, coupled with the bashing of Obama, is why she’s saying that a woman who supports Obama is de facto sexist and afraid of men. Because she makes it very clear that she finds the very idea of voting for Obama preposterous—she compares him to Bush—that the only reason left to vote for him is not because he’s good (she rejects that outright) but because you’re a sexist Clinton-hater. She doesn’t allow a legitimate reason to be pro-Obama.
This is damn common sense.
Wish we could spread a bit more of that around.
Now Edwards is out, and by pretty much default I’m supporting Clinton, mostly because the internet forums I hang out on are frequented by geek men, who have a completely irrational hatred of Clinton.
That may be the difference — most of the forums I hang out on are feminist or at least woman-friendly, so I haven’t been getting too much irrational Clinton hatred. It definitely made it easier to decide on policy instead of personality or supporters.
But her piece is not about people who support Obama for legitimate reasons. Why does she have to address that?
It’s about young women (NOT feminists, as you claim) who support Obama in order to distance themselves from “that bitch Clinton.” It’s about young women who support Obama because their boyfriends have pressured them to. It’s about young women who support Obama because they don’t want to be accused of voting for Clinton “just because she’s a woman.”
I really don’t get what’s objectionable about it.
As someone who likes Obama and Clinton equally, and has still not decided for whom to vote, I hear and read A LOT of Obama supporters bashing Clinton. Only recently have Clinton supporters begun to take hits at Obama’s supporters, because they are so exasperated by the irrational Hillary-hate coming from them.
I get it: because I read the piece and took it at face value I am misreading the piece. Oh, it said X but means Y really and you are soooo silly not to get that!
Gee, stupid girl I am. Must do what told by olders unfamiliar with life off the island. Can’t read or think for self.
That’s really feminist. Yep. Really feminist.
Yep, Betty. She equates voting for Obama with either fleeing the feminist label or trying to take the meaning out of it. Basically, you can’t be a real feminist, a good feminist if you vote for Obama. Crystal clear.
Oh, and as far as the argument that Morgan is only bashing non-feminist women, this graf is third from the end:
That’s not an argument that we all need to rally around Hillary because we share the same genitalia?
Mnemosyne, it’s pretty clear she’s talking to women who already support Hillary in that paragraph - women who support her but keep quiet about it because they don’t want to be the target of misogynist attacks.
seeker6079,
I agree that the superdelegate thing could be a party-buster, and potentially an election-buster. Backroom arm-twisting beating out popular mandate would be a sure signal that we cannot in fact be the change we seek, and it would erase much of the enthusiasm that Dems are feeling in this election.
I can’t see any use for superdelegates apart from an electoral-college-style check on the rabble by the powerful few. It certainly isn’t democracy.
Amanda wrote:
Thing is, it’s Mrs Clinton’s campaign which is claiming that she ought to be the nominee and the president because she’s the experienced candidate, the only one who’ll be ready on day one to be president. Is it so surprising that she’s sold some people on that line?
But her piece is not about people who support Obama for legitimate reasons. Why does she have to address that?
Because this is what she says right after her “goodbye” to “some” young women who she disagrees with:
Because, apparently, the only two options are to be a self-hating woman who votes for Obama or a self-loving woman who votes for Hillary. Not even a nod towards any other option.
Again, I don’t hate Hillary. If she wins the nomination, I’ll vote for her. But I really don’t want to be told that it’s my Duty As A Woman to vote for her in the primary. I get enough of that shit from the patriarchy — now I’m supposed to accept it from my fellow women as well?
How nice of all you to interpret the words written in the proper way, SarahMC. We just don’t get it, it wasn’t about us, etc.
Ever consider that we are smart enough to read it for ourselves and find Ms. Morgan’s rant to be antifeminist to our ears? Is that possible? Or does she walk on water or something.
Some things that put gen-x and later off of the “women’s movement are crystal clear in this “essay”: narrow focus, name calling as a recruiting tool, geopolitical myopia, self-aggrandizing ageism.
You see a “feminist essay that everyone should just understand”. I see an insulting screed that represents much of what went wrong since 1975.
You said Hillary Clinton is responsible for her husband’s behavior?
“But let’s be honest—she’s excusing Clinton for her husband’s behavior ”
Jesus frickin’ Christ.
Oh yeah. Spouses are always responsible for their spouse’s behaviors where I come from — they’re just one big spousal blob.
You’re way off on this one.
Leaving aside the fact that your headline asserts something that Robin Morgan’s brilliant piece certainly did not assert.
Ms. Kate,
I was just saying how I read the piece, and didn’t think it was anti-young-feminist, and asked what you thought about it. I am really interested. I am aware of the fact that I could be wrong, and want to know more about why you think that is.
BTW, regardless of Ms. Morgan’s age, you may well have more life experience than I do. I’m not convinced b/c of her authority-based appeal, I just think that her words aren’t as bad as some commenters here seem to think they are.
Mnemosyne,
I read that part as her encouraging the feminist Clinton supporters to stop being timid–that she was making an in-group appeal that if you were voting for Clinton, that wasn’t going to be enough without proudly rallying behind your candidate. (I think she is right that it is really WEIRD to be ashamed to mention you are voting for a candidate, and yet I know Clinton supporters who are saying that.)
FTR, I support Obama. But am sick of the sexist shit the MSM lobs Clinton’s way, and really want a democratic president. (Did anybody read that frightening WSJ editorial about electing McCain to get the Sup. Ct. back on the correct, “constitutionalist” path? WTF! The ct. is already out of touch with mainstream America, and only has two democratic appointees, and no leftist replacements for my heros, Thurgood Marshall and Brennan. No matter what, come general election time, may we all campaign aggressively for any candidate who is not a republican.)
Mnemosyne, it’s pretty clear she’s talking to women who already support Hillary in that paragraph - women who support her but keep quiet about it because they don’t want to be the target of misogynist attacks.
Given the entire rest of the essay, I have to disagree. Especially when she goes off on her rant about how ageism is preventing people from voting for Hillary, which is yet another jab at Obama and his supposed youth and inexperience.
Again, I have nothing against Hillary, but some of her supporters are shooting all of us in the foot and need to be called out for it. I’ve done the same thing with Obama supporters who crossed the line, so please don’t try to paint me as a Hillary hater who can be dismissed.
For what it’s worth (likely: very little), I read the piece exactly as SarahMC did. Young women /= young feminists.
As I said in the post-SooperTuesday thread, I worry about the primary season getting dragged on like this, even if it means more States gets to participate. Even if Obama and Clinton are able to refrain from personal attacks, their supporters (both official staff and otherwise) are likely to sink under the tension and start attacking each other more and more. Implosion imminent?
Can anyone point me to a forum where Obama supports are calling Hillary a bitch and using misogyny to try and gain support for Obama? I consider myself fairly clued in to politics and have not seen this behavior though it may be due to the fact that I am leaning toward Obama (I caucus on Saturday). I have seen misogyny directed at Clinton from the mainstream media and some Republican groups (the people making the Hillary nut cracker and the CUNT shirts come to mind).
Because so many people hate Clinton for stupid reasons, wrong reasons and regressive reasons, that doesn’t mean there are no legitimate reasons not to support her, or no legitmate reasons to support Obama.
“Yep, Betty. She equates voting for Obama with either fleeing the feminist label or trying to take the meaning out of it. Basically, you can’t be a real feminist, a good feminist if you vote for Obama. Crystal clear. ”
I completely and totally disagree. That’s not at all what the piece says, but I now know better than to underestimate the desire to be offended.
“Ever consider that we are smart enough to read it for ourselves and find Ms. Morgan’s rant to be antifeminist to our ears?”
Ever considered that perhaps others are also smart enough to read it and yet don’t agree with you also have a right to an opinion?
Rachel,
I don’t think Obama has contributed to any of that, as least as far as I know. Didn’t he decline to comment on the whole tears thing, or do I misremember?
“I don’t think Obama has contributed to any of that, as least as far as I know. Didn’t he decline to comment on the whole tears thing, or do I misremember? ”
See Shakesville:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/1489175400104495954/?src=hsr#962371
I’m a Gen-X-er and I wasn’t put off by the article one iota.
I’m also a feminist, and I wasn’t overwhelmed with the feeling I’d be less of one if I supported Obama.
I do get the idea that I’m being told that I must be outraged over something that isn’t really outrageous. And it wasn’t by Robin Morgan.
You’re right, Ms. Kate, we’re so sorry.
We don’t find your posts to be “grouchy, preachy, authoritarian, and completely insensitive to the realities of life for the vast majority of women living outside of Manhattan.”
So we’ll just shut up.
So I’m not allowed to comment on this post, Ms. Kate? I am not attacking you so stop being so knee-jerk in your replies to me. And stop insinuating that it’s somehow anti-feminist to view the piece in a different light. For chrissakes.
Rachel, it was going on a lot on Daily Kos right after the first “crying” incident.
Democrats can be just as misogynist as Republicans.
I have an issue with the language that Clinton has hawkishness “in her blood” and “in her heart”for many reasons, part of which puts her decision about the war on her biology. Slippery ground for a metaphor.
Regardless of how either candidate voted on the war, they did so based on incomplete information and outright lies by a bullying Republican administration with overarching neo-con ambitions. Considering that both candidates made their decisions in good faith, it’s unfair to chalk one up to hawkishness considering the unbelievable lengths the Bush administration went to in order to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, including their own colleagues. A coerced decision is not a real decision emblematic of the candidate him or herself.
I think that’s a pretty self-serving way for Clinton supporters to explain why so many young people support Obama. I honestly just haven’t seen this at all. Young people seem to support Obama because they like Obama’s style and personality and to some extent because they associate Clinton with the old guard and Obama with a new style of politics. I encounter young Obama supporters pretty regularly, and I have never heard them say anything that smacks of “that bitch Clinton.”
If you read “Young women /= young feminists” then you’re totally wrong.
If she had meant that, she would have written that. Skewer her for her own words, not according to how you misread them.
Furthermore, in the midst of all the “electability” crap, I don’t think it’s a stretch for McCain, if he wins the delegation, to beat out any Democratic candidate. He’s a perfect shelter for any person who’s wary of voting for an effete, upper-class, educated candidate, and the last resort for any Republican who shudders at voting for a minority.
And can we please for the LOVE OF GOD stop equating Hillary’s ability to preside over the country with her husband’s open fly?
I’m not in either camp but I’m really fed up with the way so many people come to decide about Hillary by way of how she got cheated on in the 1990’s.
:::head exploding:::
Betty,
Wow, was I ever off. Shame on me for not doing my homework.
Amanda,
“Because she makes it very clear that she finds the very idea of voting for Obama preposterous—she compares him to Bush—that the only reason left to vote for him is not because he’s good (she rejects that outright) but because you’re a sexist Clinton-hater. She doesn’t allow a legitimate reason to be pro-Obama.”
I suppose I agree that she certainly doesn’t give any good reasons for voting for Obama in her essay. But if the focus of the essay is on why voting for Clinton is good, and that she is afraid many people choose Obama over Clinton for shallow reasons, is that necessarily bad? In a way, by never directly impugning Obama (except for that sly comparison to Bush, which I wasn’t sure how to take–I thought perhaps it was just a poorly turned phrase) perhaps she is trying to make it so that her words aren’t used against him in the general election?
Although I don’t buy into it, I think that people could argue that Obama is less experienced than Clinton–because she was so very effective her first term as Senator (which surprised the hell out of me, I had bought into the idea that she was incapable of negotiation or compromise, a lie which Brooks brought up in his op-ed today).
But hell, I’ll be over the moon if either of them wins, and like I said, I’m an Obama supporter, but I think I am still struggling to treat Clinton as fairly as I would treat her if she were male. And I was initially (about 2 years ago) opposed to her candidacy because I thought she was unelectable (as a woman, and as herself). I am ashamed of that, because I would never oppose the candidacy of a person based on sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity, regardless of whether I thought their race made them unelectable. (At least not consciously, and hopefully not at all.) I would see it as an opportunity to change minds. And yet I did not initially see Clinton’s canidacy that way.
I agree entirely with this post. It reminds me of the Marcia Pappas press release of a week or so ago declaring Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama to be the “great betrayal” of women. It’s the idea that ANY opposition to Hillary comes exclusively from sexism that is so frustrating to me.
The trouble is, if one is equally committed to ending racial and gender discrimination, then arguing that Clinton is the only candidate a feminist can support implicitly positions feminists against blacks and suggests that ending women’s oppression is more important than ending racial oppression. That is the WORST kind of identity politics. I actually think it would be less problematic if it were Clinton v. a white man, or Obama v. a white man, because then you could plausibly argue that the glass-ceiling-breaking is an important reason to vote for the non-white-man candidate. But either of them would be a huge step forward re: representation - so unless you want to compete in the Oppression Olympics, you can’t suggest that it’s MORE important to elect a woman than a black man, or vice versa.
As a historian of feminism, it pains me to see us fighting these battles this way, YET AGAIN.
It was going on a lot on Daily Kos right after the first “crying” incident.
Well, yeah. Because the posters at Daily Kos are misogynist assholes. We’ve known that since the whole “sanctimonious women’s studies set” post by Kos and the subsequent blog brouhaha. Lots of feminists and feminist supporters left Daily Kos after that, so projecting what they say out to all Obama voters is a little unfair, to say the least.
And we probably shouldn’t get into whose campaign said misogynist things because then we have to look at the campaign that said racist things and we get back into that nasty argument about what’s worse, racism or misogyny.
Thanks everyone for your responses. The link to shakesvile was very good. Now I have to go back to the drawing board with my ideas because I do think that both Hillary and obviously Obama as well have been using surrogates to bring out some racist and sexist tripe which really turns me off to both of them. I do remember the likeable moment- though that really seemed less sexist and more of Obama trying to play up his strengths to me.
SarahMC- yeah there is a reason I dont read Daily Kos, which may be one of the reasons I have missed a lot of this stuff.
I’m sorry, but I’m missing how the article excerpt that’s being so castigated above is much different from the blog article titled “If I Keep Bashing The Queen, I’ll Get To Be Snow White Forever.” The point of that blog post?
“…far more common was the attempt to distance one’s (female) self from Clinton, perhaps in a pissing-in-the-wind hope that by doing so, you’ll escape the same pressures put on her.”
“the dominant tone of the book is something like, “I just don’t like her, and I can’t explain it, probably because to do so would reveal how much misogyny I’ve internalized.” Faludi explains that this sort of opinion arises in a culture where young women can gain some semblance of power by becoming ciphers for the anti-female opinions of sexist men.”
“But at least in very young women, the combination of naivete and feeling the sexual power assigned the witch-accuser can understandably overwhelm reason. In someone over 25 or 30, it begins to really seem grasping.”
The point of Morgan’s article?
“Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her.”
Amanda, you are totally one of my feminist role model heroes, I am not kidding, and I love nearly everything you post. But I’m really not understanding why it’s okay for you to make the exact same observations that it’s not okay for Morgan to make. And get offended by them when she makes them, and think they’re cutting-edge daring when you make them. Please explain to me how I’m misinterpreting the whole thing cause this is depressing me.
“I think a female candidate who had Obama’s general strategy could probably generate the enthusiasm and cross-over votes we’re going to need to beat McCain.”
I have to disagree on that point. If there were a ‘female Obama’, not only would she deal with all the misogynistic bullshit that has been lobbed at Hillary, but much more would be made about the lack of experience she’d be bringing to the table. That’s one criticism that can’t be thrown at Hillary.
First of all Sally, I am not a Clinton supporter any more than I am an Obama supporter. I support both.
How can you deny that SOME PEOPLE (what happened to “If it doesn’t apply to you then it’s not about you?”) support Obama not because of his policies but because they’ve bought into Hillary-hatred?
There is a HUGE cult of personality thing going on with Obama. I have heard a number of Obama supporters threaten (and yes, they threaten because they’re that dogmatic) to sit home in November if Obama’s not the nominee. I’m sorry, but a lot of his supporters are entitled, whiny kids.
projecting what they say out to all Obama voters is a little unfair, to say the least.
WHO IS DOING THAT?
Exactly, LisaKS!
The Hillary nutcracker was shown to me by two acquaintances whose house I went to for a party on Iowa caucus night. One of the guys presents it to me at the door and I immediately said what an interesting, sexist piece of pop culture merchandise it was. Look at where the power is: her vagina. (You crack the nuts by squeezing her legs.) He looked taken aback, more like he didn’t realize it was a sexist toy than he was offended that I could have been implying he was sexist for having it. But my statement became the topic of conversation for the rest of the people who walked through that door for the rest of the night.
seeker/matthew - I’m also concerned by the idea of a superdelegate mutiny. If the popular vote is squashed because enough of the gazillion-billion superdelegates the Dems keep around support the “minority vote” candidate then we’re definitely going to have a new leader who’s also questionably elected. Controversy over the place of superdelegates in the electoral system could rival the 2000 controversy about the electoral college.
I have no reason to believe Hillary won’t try to get the FL and MI delegates seated. It’s a DNC rule, right? Not a campaign pledge from her that she wouldn’t try to secure their delegates voting rights at the convention. I could be wrong - please correct me if so - but I think her pledge, as all the other candidates did, was to not *campaign* in the states that jumped the predetermined primary calendar - not that they wouldn’t try to seat their delegates if they won the states anyway.
By emphasizing the virtue of experience and the ability to be President on Day One, Hillary is encouraging me to vote for McCain — he has at least a decade more experience than Hillary, and his military experience means he’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One. So I’m curious to see how she would backpedal on this in the general election. Maybe she’ll claim to have the Goldilocks’ “Just right” amount of experience.
Should the desire to vote for a woman President blind people to Hillary’s flaws?
Hillary’s biggest claim to fame is being Bill’s wife. As she benefits from the pleasant associations of Bill’s presidency (the economy, stupid), so she should suffer from the unpleasant associations of Bill’s presidency, including welfare reform and NAFTA. Back in 92, Bill emphasized we were getting two for the price of one. He turned the all-important job of drafting the universal health care plan over to her. Her failure to anticipate and address objections, as any good lawyer should, and her failure even to listen to the stakeholders, made that plan sink like a stone. Her inability to listen makes her a liability as president.
Another liability is her inability to admit her mistakes, such as voting for the Iraq war. This unattractive personality trait could easily turn her into a ’stay the course’ President like W. Further, Hillary helped open this Pandora’s box, and Obama deserves little blame for not helping round up the demons and shoving them back in. Still further, by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Hillary has shown a willingness to invade Iran, as well.
A further liability is her willingness to misrepresent the facts, as with her famous mailer accusing Obama to be weak on choice, when he voted “Present” on anti-abortion bills at the specific request of the head of Illinois Planned Parenthood. I was hoping for a President who wouldn’t feed me bullshit on a regular basis.
W. has set the Presidential bar very low and so Hillary easily meets it. Yet I would prefer to elect the best person available, who in my opinion is Obama.
Well, ok. I’ll state that I don’t like Clinton.
I don’t like the way she plays “now you see it, now you don’t” in regards to her ties to W. Clinton’s presidental policies which I consider to be a disaster for the left in many ways. One week it’s all “bring back the good times” and the next week it’s all “change.”
I don’t like the conservative Democrat political bedfellows who have been cozy with her from the start. I don’t like the crew that’s been trying to hitch a ride on her coattails.
I don’t like the way she tried to play to both sides on immigration during a recent debate.
There are bona fide issues of politics and issues that inspire a dislike of Clinton as a candidate.
WHO IS DOING THAT?
You are:
I’m sorry, Sarah, but you keep saying that not all Obama supporters are like that and then immediately make sweeping statements about “many” or “a lot” of his supporters. You seem to be saying that most Obama supporters are doing it out of misogyny, and those of us who aren’t are are rare exceptions.
But what’s up with being able to cast a vote for yourself as a superdelegate? Both Hillary and Barack are federal legislators, so they automatically get one SD vote each. Of course, they’re voting for themselves. Why is this okay? Shouldn’t they be forced to recuse their SD votes because they’re candidates in running for the nomination?
The saddest thing about this whole argument is that, looking at the Super Tuesday returns, the Democrats could kick major ass with a Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket. She’s strong in traditional Democratic areas; he’s strong in places that could be won over, like the West and Northwest.
But if this rancor keeps going, no one would accept that ticket and we’ll get another Holy Joe that no one likes as the vice presidential candidate.
Slightly but not entirely OT–you folks may be able to give me an answer (to date the people I’ve talked to in the Obama campaign have not yet). I haven’t yet figured out how Obama has become the ‘non-hawk’ candidate as he has already specifically threatened to bomb three countries (Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan–will post cites if I need to, but they shouldn’t be too hard to Google). Can anyone point me in the direction of anything that he has repudiated these statements? I do concede that Clinton’s advisors are not inspiring on the peace front.
“Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her.”
I’m delurking here with a question for Amanda. I love your writing, and when I first read the part of Robin’s essay shown above I immediately equated it with this part of your recent Snow White post:
“It’s not like you can’t tell what women are going to squirm when you say, “You know, I like Hillary Clinton.” For some women, that’s like ripping their underwear off in public. It’s depriving them of a major tool in the kit of Ways To Charm Gentlemen.”
I agree that some of Robin’s points in regard to Obama are off the mark. But Amanda, isn’t it possible that you and Robin are both speaking about the same kind of woman here? I know women like the ones you both describe, and both statements rang true for me in regard to them.
LisaKS - Very well said.
Mmenosyne - In debate language, “not all” “many” and “a lot of” are perfectably non-absolutist ways to state your argument in a manner that allows for exceptions. In no way did SarahMC ever impugn on “all” Obama supporters.
Oh, “liberal” men. How I adore you so. *pinches cheeks*
I really don’t think the rancor is that bad. Maybe I’m missing a lot (I work too much) but I think this has been a tea party compared to what the right is up to.
I am AMAZED at how many conservative friends are sulking about a McCain candidacy. Some are telling me that Newt Gingrich might come out of retirement to run. (They really have their heads up their asses if they think he would ever win over anyone outside of the party faithful.) And all of Amanda’s coverage about how various wingnut groups are throwing snit fits.
Hell, we’ve got the marquis of queensbury rules going on by compare.
I dunno, mnem. I don’t think they’d work well together and I don’t see either of them being okay with being the functional equivalent of “executive whip” and official senate tie-breaker. I still think if Clinton wins she’ll pick Clark as her VP. Or at least that’s what my crystal ball says. It’s still blurry for Obama.
C.D. — Obama wants to track al-Qaeda and Bin Laden down wherever they happen to be. If they’re in Pakistan and Pakistan is unwilling to capture them, the US will.
I’m profoundly unconvinced that the behavior of unnamed and unreferenced “some people” should make a difference in how I cast my primary ballot in May.
Mnemosyne, so “many” is a synonym for “all?”
What do you want me to do, give you an exact percentage?
CBrachyrhynchos, I am not trying to convince anyone to vote one way or another. I am defending Morgan’s piece and concuring with her viewpoint.
Absolutely. But that isn’t a fair way to characterize the young people I’ve seen who have become enthusiastic about Obama. They’re genuinely enthused about Obama. I have a fair amount of contact with young people, I know a lot of young Obama supporters, and I just have not seen a lot of anti-Clinton rhetoric. It’s self-serving, I think, to assume that young people support Obama out of stealth Hillary-hatred.
“…he has at least a decade more experience than Hillary, and his military experience means he’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One.”
McCain’s military experience, gathered at great personal cost to himself, during America’s last quagmire-war before Iraq, doesn’t seem to have given him enough understanding of military issues and strategy to avoid supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq, or allowed him to see that we are spending soldier’s lives fighting a war of choice with no hope of winning, and that there was not, isn’t, and won’t be a plan that explains exactly how we will get our bruised asses out of there, let alone a coherent explanation of why we’re there to begin with.
So I guess as far as military knowledge that counts, McCain has no more understanding of warfare than Clinton, since both voted to authorize the war…
Hillary’s biggest claim to fame is being Bill’s wife
‘Oh, “liberal” men. How I adore you so. *pinches cheeks*’
How many other candidates have ever been on this trajectory: Yale Law –> Little Rock law firm –> trailing spouse –> Senator from New York — Credible Presidential candidate? Her career is a lot more like Eva Peron’s than, say, Dianne Feinstein’s.
Mnemosyne, so “many” is a synonym for “all?”
What do you want me to do, give you an exact percentage?
Oh, let’s just stick with many. I’ll even change what I said:
Lots of feminists and feminist supporters left Daily Kos after that, so projecting what they say out to most Obama voters is a little unfair, to say the least.
So, again, you’re defending the proposition that most Obama supporters are on his side because of misogyny and those of us who aren’t are a tiny minority.
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable)
I wonder what misinterpretation I made in order to be offended by that.
Personally, this is a pretty compelling reason not to vote for Obama.
Actually *pinches cheeks* this is a pretty common trajectory for all ambitious women of a certain age, including former beloved members of the Supreme Court. Lest ye forget.
I’ve heard tell that black women who choose to support HRC are also being labeled “race traitors”. So this shit cuts both ways.
By whom?
Mnemosyne, I do think that is unfair. But Amanda, and the folks who agree with her, seem to be denying that such people exist at all within Obama’s camp.
Something Betty Boondoggle said over at Shakesville:
“If you are going to present yourself as the candidate for change and community, not speaking out about the viscious misogyny (that you are benefitting from) shows me you’re not either of those things.”
SarahMC: CBrachyrhynchos, I am not trying to convince anyone to vote one way or another. I am defending Morgan’s piece and concuring with her viewpoint.
My sense of the piece was that there was something less than feminist about considering Obama a potentially better choice.
Yep. In fact, I will go so far as to say that just as some people are supporting Obama out of misogyny, some people (not anyone here) are supporting Clinton out of racism. Which are, needless to say, both bad reasons to support a candidate.
The problem is to get through all of the blogosphere noise and figure out if those loudmouths are the majority of either group, or if they’re just the ones with a megaphone at the party making asses of themselves.
Yeah, Juan Stoppable, that kind of took my breath away. Actually, there was a lot of fucked up stuff about race in that essay. How the fuck is Obama passing as white. No, really. Can someone explain that to me?
Heh. I’m in Illinois and I just voted for Obama.
My reasons for preferring Obama over Hillary are the following:
1) He’s a damn good constitutional lawyer. Chances of the PATRIOT Act being negated, Habeus Corpus brought back, etc. I consider higher under Obama than Clinton.
2) The “Billary” effect. I want ONE President, not TWO. Given Bill’s rampaging around in SC, what I saw was either a) Hillary unable to control Bill when he wants to jump in, or b) a deliberate dual run. Neither of these sounds good to me.
3) Hillary is the candidate the Republicans would love to run against. They will be climbing over broken glass to vote against her. Hillary as the Democratic candidate makes it much more likely that McCain will win.
4) Hillary’s goddamn sense of entitlement to the candidacy and her willingness to triangulate every issue to death.
5) The War in Iraq. I believe we’re much more likely to get out of Iraq within a sensible period of time if Obama is in charge. Hillary has given me the impression that she is so worried about being taxed with “not being strong enough” that she is perfectly willing to keep up in Iraq as long as one Republican continues yelping. Result: more dead bodies, more decaying economy.
There. Note that absolutely NONE of the above have anything to do with feminism or voting-against-a-woman, or whatever.
SarahMC: Mnemosyne, I do think that is unfair. But Amanda, and the folks who agree with her, seem to be denying that such people exist at all within Obama’s camp.
Bullshit.
After Obama got the T. Kennedy nod, how can anyone seriously claim Sen Clinton is the establishment candidate? Pres Clinton was the outside-the-establishment candidate not so long ago after the establishment candidate imploded. Sorry, old style Democratic establishment is the Dean-Kennedy camp.
Sen Clinton voted the way her constituents wanted. I also am in the camp with Ismone’s boyfreind who felt the war was not justified/supportable at the start and said so to crickets from freinds and acquantances.
Obama does not have more national political experience. And this is not counting Clinton’s 1st Lady years. He has only been in the senate half the time Clinton has. His position papers are scant, his voting record almost identical except for being shorter. When initially campaigning for the Senate he was asked how he would have voted on the war, he both bravely and honestly admitted he didn’t know.
Other than the rhetoric of hope he spouts, how are you judging him as better? Where are the details?
I’ll also go along with Ismone on you not reading this correctly. While I found the wording unfortunate and unnecessary in the parts you quoted, they are not general descriptions of every feminist who chooses to vote for Obama, and that is indicated clearly.
Mnemosyne, I do think that is unfair. But Amanda, and the folks who agree with her, seem to be denying that such people exist at all within Obama’s camp.
How? I think we’ve all acknowledged here that there are assholes on both sides who are making trouble.
When I read Robin Morgan’s essay yesterday, I had the same reaction as Amanda: “Thanks for the sour persimmons, cousin.” That combined with a really annoying troll at Feministe who said she was a HRC supporter because Hillary was going to cut off welfare payments to black single mothers and if I thought that was a bad idea, I wasn’t a Real Feminist, pushed me to vote Obama yesterday.
This behavior is happening on both sides. Since I am willing to vote for either candidate in the general election, I see no reason why we should give either side a free pass when they say stupid shit. Fortunately, on most of the blogs I frequent, both sides have been getting criticized pretty equally.
It’s not just Daily Kos. I can’t believe y’all claim you don’t know what I’m referring to when I bring up the Obama supporters who foam at the mouth re: Hillary.
Ahem
Yes, let’s criticize her for pursuing the only practical way for women (of a certain age) to grow to prominence in a patriarchal society that demeans and devalues the contributions of women in society as a knee-jerk habit.
*pinches cheeks* So cute!
this is a pretty common trajectory for all ambitious women of a certain age, including former beloved members of the Supreme Court
Do you mean Sandra Day O’Connor? Because I’m having a hard time matching her story to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s. First, John Jay O’Connor III never had the household name recognition of Bill Clinton. I can’t find out any of his claim to fame; his bio consists of being the Alzheimer’s patient spouse of SDOC. Second, SDOC is a generation older than HRC, marrying when HRC was a kindergartner. Third, SDOC climbed the ladder rung by rung: Stanford Law School –> County Attorney –> civilian Army attorney –> law practice –> Assistant AG –> state senator –> state court judge –> appellate court judge –> Supreme Court. I admit she did skip one step, the state supreme court/US court of appeals one. Hillary’s equivalent story would be law practice –> Supreme Court
“We’ve got plenty of hearsay and conjecture… those are KINDS of evidence…”
Helen H: After Obama got the T. Kennedy nod, how can anyone seriously claim Sen Clinton is the establishment candidate? Pres Clinton was the outside-the-establishment candidate not so long ago after the establishment candidate imploded. Sorry, old style Democratic establishment is the Dean-Kennedy camp.
Which is funny, I just saw a documentary on mainstream news coverage during 1992 based on raw television feeds sent over satellite unscrambled and uncensored. It was abundantly clear from the different levels of professionalism extended to the different candidates who was in and who was out of the club.
By all means, both Clinton and Obama are firmly establishment. Neither can make a claim to outsider status in my opinion.
Helen H: Other than the rhetoric of hope he spouts, how are you judging him as better? Where are the details?
I posted three reasons quite a bit upthread.
the only practical way for women (of a certain age) to grow to prominence in a patriarchal society that demeans and devalues the contributions of women in society as a knee-jerk habit.
Excuse me? Hillary’s a baby boomer who reached adulthood at the time of the Women’s Liberation Movement, not some widow from the Victorian Age. Name some of her contemporaries who needed the spousal route to become prominent.
It’s not just Daily Kos. I can’t believe y’all claim you don’t know what I’m referring to when I bring up the Obama supporters who foam at the mouth re: Hillary.
I do know what you’re talking about. I disagree that you can project progressive male asshattery out to the general electorate and assume that most Obama voters are voting for him out of misogyny.
Kos is not the Democratic kingmaker he used to be, much as he and his pals try to pretend otherwise.
I am sooooo very tired of this. I’m tired of the assault that just because I am a woman, and a baby boomer too, that I MUST vote for Clinton or I’m a hater.
It so turns me off that it becomes very hard to view Clinton in a postive way.
I have very good reasons for preferring Obama; Kyle Lieberman was one, her vote on Iraq another, Murdock paying for her fundraiser, Bill, etc. etc. etc.
I deeply resent the implication that I MUST as a woman and a boomer have a “herd response” to her campaign. That’s not being responsible with a hard won franchise.
And while I think she does it the wrong end of the stick in alot of press coverage - that has ALWAYS been part of women breaking a glass ceiling - did she think it was going to be easier now, for her? Yes, it’s unfair, but it’s reality
Where the hell does one think the saying:
“To be thought of as equal to a man, a woman must be twice as good. Fortunately it’s not hard.”
came from???
SarahMC: It’s not just Daily Kos. I can’t believe y’all claim you don’t know what I’m referring to when I bring up the Obama supporters who foam at the mouth re: Hillary.
I’ve been complaining about being in a bad position in regards to HRC for months now, of being in the awkward spot of not liking her politics and not liking the raw misogyny leveled against her.
It’s old news. If you want to fight against people who are rejecting HRC primarily because of misogyny, wouldn’t you be better off actually fighting those people rather than people here who actually agree with you?
“Hillary’s a baby boomer who reached adulthood at the time of the Women’s Liberation Movement, not some widow from the Victorian Age.”
Okay…so now the fact that some women were protesting to get equal rights and equal treatment in the ’70’s means that they immediately won those rights and they were immediately available to anyone with a vagina.
Interesting. Very reminiscent of Reichwingers who claim racism no longer exists because there were Civil Rights marches in the 1960’s…
LisaK:
I’m sorry, but I’m missing how the article excerpt that’s being so castigated above is much different from the blog article titled “If I Keep Bashing The Queen, I’ll Get To Be Snow White Forever.”
Actually, there is a huge difference. The “Queen Bashing” article was a book review: specific contributing writers were criticized for their arguments and tone, and a few other specific writers were complimented. The overall criticism of the book was based on concrete and verifiable points.
Morgan’s article doesn’t criticize any specific woman or identifiable group of women (feminist or otherwise): it criticizes “young women” who behave in a certain way, leaving it up to the reader to draw the dividing line between the criticized and the un-criticized–especially since the criticized behavior is motivations and attitudes, which can easily be misjudged by observers. The only “outward” sign that can be used as a dividing line for Morgan’s criticism is “do you support Obama”: everything else is internal and hidden and subjective, and (given the Harriet Tubman quote) open to interpretation by others. That’s very tricky.
(I haven’t read the whole piece, but if Morgan has any lines like “I know there are legitimate reasons to prefer Obama” or “I’m not talking about women who considered both candidates fairly and chose Obama”, then she would be off the hook, I think. If not, it’s open to the reader’s interpretation whether she means “I am only criticizing the sub-group of women who support Obama for these reasons” or “I am saying that women could only support Obama for these reasons.”)
If Morgan had pointed her finger at any objectively identifiable group or person (even a hypothetical “Feminists Against Hillary” or “Self-Hating Bimbos for Obama, PAC”) then the two pieces would be equivalent.
actually
If you want to hold kyl Liebermann against Hilary you need to remember that Obama co sponsored early in the year a measure that called for the exact same thing Kyl Liebermann did- requesting for the Iranian National Guard to be considered a terrorist organization.
Second, you might want to remember that Obama did NOT vote on kyl Liebermann, he chose to not stand up and be counted. What do you call that?
soopermouse
I don’t think he was there for the vote and I believe that he was told no vote would be taken that day on Kyle Liebrman so he didn’t break from campaigning to be there.
I think Clinton would be good on a number of social issues, while Obama hits all the right notes with me on constitutional law issues. Obama certainly seems like the best bet for rolling back the John Yoo “shit pants and wipe ass on constitution” approach to national security, which is why he’s my preferred candidate. Clinton knows the system and knows the major players out to get her, so I suspect she’d be a lot better at dealing with the inevitable attacks and smears, and I hope she’d be willing to fight back in a way that would leave permanent wounds on movement conservatism. I don’t think Obama is vicious enough to do that, and frankly it’s something that needs to happen if we aren’t to continue the slide towards soft fascism.
Apparently MikeEss was unable to think of any of Hillary’s contemporaries who had to go the spousal route to achieve prominence. Women older than her in California did not need to leverage their spouses’ prominence to achieve theirs: Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer.
I dunno, mnem. I don’t think they’d work well together and I don’t see either of them being okay with being the functional equivalent of “executive whip” and official senate tie-breaker. I still think if Clinton wins she’ll pick Clark as her VP. Or at least that’s what my crystal ball says. It’s still blurry for Obama.
Well, my prognostic ability sucks, as I discovered yesterday (I really thought the California Republicans would go Romney, but McCain kicked his butt). I’m more saying that if Clinton and Obama could come to an agreement, they would be unstoppable as running mates.
Plus it would make the heads of the jerks on both sides explode, which can only be a plus in my book.
So if I rationally look at the policies of both candidates and decide that, on the whole, I prefer Obama’s policy positions, I’m just deluded and working for The Man?
Freedom is slavery, Mmenosyne.
It’s Kyl-Lieberman. Not Kyle.
K thx bye.
togolosh: I don’t think Obama is vicious enough to do that, and frankly it’s something that needs to happen if we aren’t to continue the slide towards soft fascism.
We’ve been sliding that way since 1980, including both terms of the Clinton administration. At this point, the only fucking thing either Democratic candidate is going to do is ease off of the accelerator. Which is necessary at this time but it certainly isn’t progressive.
Regardless of how either candidate voted on the war, they did so based on incomplete information and outright lies by a bullying Republican administration with overarching neo-con ambitions.
If someone had incomplete information before the war, it’s because they weren’t paying attention to the rest of the information. If someone was swayed by the lies before the war, it’s because they weren’t paying attention to anything except the lies.
Either of these errors are of course forgivable for, say, the average voter. But in someone who is now a presidential candidate, such errors are very very bad– worse than voting for the war because one is a hawk, maybe. We need a president who is paying attention. After all, since Bush himself claims the same “bad intelligence” defense for starting the Iraq War (Mistakes Were Made!) which you’re defending Clinton with here, then if we are to accept that defense as valid then Bush and Clinton did the exact same thing for the exact same reasons in 2003– not paying attention, not trying to seek or demand any more than the clearly incomplete information which was being put in front of them, being too credulous to Bush’s neocon advisor pool.
Is this really supposed to be a defense that puts Clinton in a better light? After all, if the best that can be said for Clinton is that Clinton can be swayed by “incomplete” information, doesn’t this open up the possibility that Mistakes could Be Made again, perhaps? If someone wasn’t paying attention in 2003 on Iraq, then there is the risk they will be not paying attention in the same way in 2009 on Iran.
I agree on both points
It would also help to explode the heads of the extra hard cases if:
Richardson became Sec of State
Edwards Sec of Labor
Gore head of the EPA
etc. etc. etc.
I’d tivo c-span for those confirmation hearings
You’re right, Hector. The glass ceiling is no longer in effect and Arkansas is just the same as California.
Mnemosyne -
soory Mnemosyne, i’ve been writing so much the last few weeks, that I miss spell check and I am not being so careful pre-edit and proof.
No, he wasn’t there. So he gets the privilege of making a statement that is unverifiable as in ” I would or would not have voted this”. It is a convenient thing to have. However, the fact that he co authored a similar measure tells me all I need to know. Here is the text in cause:
“The Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.”
“(14) the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of specially designated global terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters; ”
I also feel that the hope that he would leave Iraq soon is sort of blind to things like this declaration he made when he was part of those who buried teh KerryAmendment- ya know the one who wanted to leave Iraq in 2006?
“… .. For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.
But having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.
It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.
I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won’t be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support. ”
And tbh? I dont really like people who use dead corpses as vehicles. Both MLK and JFK need to be given a proper burial considering how much their names have been prostituted for the past 40 years.
So sorry. You’re so right. Since the civil rights movement in the 1970s, presidential races have been inundated with candidates that accurately reflect the demographics of sex (and race) of the country as a whole. 50% of the presidential candidates have been women, and 50% of the presidents themselves have been women - Linda Johnson, Ronalda Reagan… Oh. Wait. Not quite. Possibly, could strutural prejudice and latent cultural misogyny prevent most women from rising up to head the executive branch? Seriously, what blog do you think you’re commenting on?
And the vast majority of your examples of such admirably independently successful women? Legislative branch, with small elections where there is more personal access to the populace and they can therefore be voted in as sexist biases can be mediated. The national stage is quite different, obviously.
I can not tell you how disgusted I am by screeds against Obama supporters (or any opposition to Clinton) like this from Robin Morgan and the previous one from Gloria Steinem, a woman I otherwise greatly admire. I used to believe in 2nd wave & 3rd wave unity, but this primary season has really outspent my patience with establishment feminism–the kind of feminism that demonstrates more concern for creating female CEOs and politicians than helping women screwed over by CEOs and politicians, that believes American women are more important than women the world over being crushed by American military and economic foreign policy. And when I think of the thousands of people slaughtered as a result of the war that Clinton voted for and still refuses to apologize for, I think that perhaps the term “femi-nazi” might have an appropriate use after all. Many of us have no problem calling Bush a nazi, so why is it so outlandish to do so to people who advocate the same bloodthirsty policies in the name of feminism?
Agreed!
If it were not for my desire for them to wither up and fall out of circulation, I could include all these emails that some guys I work with (at a little moving company) have been sending back and forth. Endless permutations about how emasculating Hillary is, how she is some kind of vicious she-male. Immature and hateful and am baffled by the popularity of this simplistic and vile tripe. Often with guys who never seemed like misogynistic numbskulls up to this. Please advise me as to why people are so threatened by Hillary?
Clinton did not campaign in Michigan. Her name was on the ballot, though, which I appreciate. If she succeeds in seating the Michigan and Florida delegates, I will be thrilled. And yeah, I’m a Michigan voter who hates disenfranchisement just like anybody else. The Democratic party was wrong in taking away my vote. Good for Clinton for trying to fix that– I don’t care what her reasons are.
sorry Mnemosyne, i’ve been writing so much the last few weeks, that I miss spell check and I am not being so careful pre-edit and proof.
So not a big deal (which is why I closed with LOLcats-speak) and you were not the only one. I used to be a copy editor, so sometimes I just HAVE to correct something or my head will explode.
Richardson became Sec of State
Only if he makes a full and public apology to Wen Ho Lee. And maybe not even then, since he showed he could be rolled by Republican pressure during that whole fiasco.
What SarahMC said, a whole fucking lot.
I read Morgan’s piece and cheered. I’ve been waiting my whole life to support someone like Hillary Clinton.
I think Morgan’s piece, though quite clear, has been horribly misread or misinterpreted. Much like Hillary herself.
Shouldn’t a candidate that runs “anti establishment” and “pro change” refuse to win based on the disenfranchising of over 1 million people?
How is the disenfranchising of the Michigan and Florida democrats different from the disenfranchising of the Florida black voters in 2000? Or is it only a bad thing when it doesn’t serve us?
Lessig on Barack
a lengthy argument video worth watching
http://www.fistfulayen.com/blog/?p=163
soopermouse and others,
I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick on the MI & FL delegates question. My understanding (can’t remember the possibly dubious source) was that Edwards and Obama hadn’t even gotten on the ballot in those states, believing them to be out of play, thus ensuring a Clinton win. The more I hear, it sounds as if it’s considerably more complicated. Surprise, surprise…
clytemnestra,
Howzabout Edwards as Attorney General? I like that.
soopermouse - that was pre-surge and pre-General Petraeus report. Kyl Lieberman was Sept 2007 - and her justification of voting for it was that it would “limit the president and give the senate a role”
Except that this is a president who has already shown that if you give him an inch he will take the whole 1,000 miles (see Iraq) and cut off the senate too boot dispite what they think their vote meant
Given what this president does and says her voting for it and her reasoning behind it (especially since she really can’t say her vote on Iraq was wrong) struck me as either being too simplistic or naive or stupid (which I don’t think she is in either case) or trying to look and be tough to counter the “she’s a girl and their weak” argument thrown at her.
I thought, and still think that that is the case, and I wrote her and told her so.
teac-
yes that would be good too
but his labor background and legal experience there would send an unmistakeable signal to big business
In my fantasies I’d love some one like Erin Brockovich to be in charge of OSHA
Great! Maybe you can explain to me how Obama is passing as white.
That’s not rhetorical. I am sincerely interested in an explanation for that statement.
Clytemnestra: what are you referring to? Obama’s opposition to Kerry Amendment or to his The Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.” ?
My understanding (can’t remember the possibly dubious source) was that Edwards and Obama hadn’t even gotten on the ballot in those states, believing them to be out of play, thus ensuring a Clinton win.
This is exactly correct in Michigan but not correct in Florida.
gawd I forgot about that
soopermouse - Kerry Amend
Sally, to many whites, Obama is an “acceptable” black. It’s not *his* fault, though; it’s not something he can help or control. He is light-skinned, first of all. His mom is white. He isn’t “angry.” He doesn’t “play the race card.”
No wonder he has an unprescedented amount of support among whites.
Dorothy says in comment #109:
“(I haven’t read the whole piece, but…”
Ok. STFU.
That is all.
“Women older than her in California did not need to leverage their spouses’ prominence to achieve theirs: Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer.”
Diane Feinstein:
She received her B.A. degree in history in 1955 from Stanford University. In 1956, she married Jack Berman, a colleague in the San Francisco District Attorney’s office. They were divorced three years later. Their daughter, Katherine Feinstein Mariano (b. 1957), is a superior court judge in San Francisco. Berman later became a judge; he died in 2002. In 1962, shortly after starting her career in politics, she married neurosurgeon Bertram Feinstein, who died of colon cancer in 1978. In 1980, she married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. She is adamantly Pro-Israel and a member of AIPAC.
Richard C. Blum is an investment banker and the husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein. He is the Chairman and President of Blum Capital Partners, L.P., an equity investment management firm that acts as general partner for various investment partnerships and provides investment advisory services. He founded the firm in 1975. He also owns 75% of the voting stock in Perini. Blum is also chair of the University of California Board of Regents and a Director of several companies, including CB Richard Ellis.
Nancy Pelosi:
Pelosi graduated from Baltimore’s Institute of Notre Dame high school and from Trinity College (now Trinity Washington University) in Washington, D.C. in 1962. Pelosi interned for Senator Daniel Brewster (D-Maryland) alongside future House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. She met Paul Pelosi while she was attending Trinity College, and then Georgetown University. They married in a Catholic Church on September 7, 1963. After the couple married they moved to New York, and then to San Francisco in 1969, where his brother Ronald Pelosi was a member of the city’s board of supervisors (San Francisco city and county council).
After moving to San Francisco, Pelosi worked her way up in Democratic politics. She was elected as party chairwoman for Northern California on January 30, 1977. She later joined forces with one of the leaders of the California Democratic Party, 5th District Congressman Phillip Burton. And in 1987, after her youngest child became a high school senior, she decided to run for political office.
The Pelosi family has a net worth of over US$25 million, primarily from Paul Pelosi’s investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, he also has millions of dollars in stock from publicly traded companies such as Microsoft, Amazon.com and AT&T. In 2003, the Pelosi family sold their eight-acre (three hectare) Rutherford vineyard. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress
Barbara Boxer:
[Barbara] Levy [Boxer] graduated from Brooklyn College in 1962 with a degree in Economics. She was a member of the Delta Phi Epsilon sorority, in the Phi chapter. Later the same year she married Stewart Boxer.
Boxer worked as a stockbroker for the next three years, while her husband went through law school. Later, the couple moved to Greenbrae, Marin County, California, and had two children, Doug and Nicole. During the 1970s Boxer worked as a journalist for the Pacific Sun and as a congressional aide.[3] In 1976, Boxer was elected to the Marin County Board of Supervisors, serving for six years.[4] During part of this time she served as the first woman president of the board.[5]
In 1994, her daughter, Nicole Boxer, married Tony Rodham, brother of then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a ceremony at the White House. The couple had one son, Zachary, and divorced in 2000.[6]
Boxer’s husband, Stewart, is a prominent attorney in Oakland, where he has always practiced. He mainly handles workers compensation cases (on the side of injured workers) and is known for keeping a very low profile, when it comes to politics.
Hillary Clinton:
A native of Illinois, Hillary Rodham attracted national attention in 1969 when she delivered a controversial address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College. She began her career as a lawyer after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973, moving to Arkansas and marrying Bill Clinton in 1975, following her career as a Congressional legal counsel; she was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979 and was listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991. She was the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992, was active in a number of organizations concerned with the welfare of children, and was on the board of Wal-Mart and several other corporate boards.
Moving to New York, Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, the first time an American first lady ran for public office and the first female senator from that state.
***
Hector, you are so right. Imagine the odds of every one of those women (except Clinton) growing up an unmarried orphan, struggling just to feed and cloth themselves. And yet, they still achieved greatness. Wow…
And it’s obvious that Senator Clinton would have disappeared into irrelevance if she hadn’t married Bill…
…or maybe Bill would have disappeared into irrelevance if he hadn’t married Hillary Rodham…
My thought exactly. I don’t see the difference between saying some young women are tempted by the rewards you get for Hillary-bashing and what Morgan said.
I have big problems with a lot of Morgan’s article (especially the sex vs. race comparisons and the failure to take into account Hillary’s not so perfect record on various issues that should and do matter to women), I dislike Clintonism in almost all its forms, and were I American I would probably be an Obama supporter. But I’m not offended at the suggestion that there are a number of young women out there — beyond Katie Roiphe et al. — who are avoiding identifying with Hillary for precisely the reasons someone like Katie Roiphe avoids it.
I think that the timing is exactly what makes Obama’s move more damning. A withdrawal at that moment in time would have been easier to achieve.
as far as Kyl Liebermann goes, as stated before, you can’t throw a stone at Clinton on this one without throwing one at Obama as well. The fact that his measure didn’t pass doesn’t mean that the intention wasn’t there. it just means that it didn’t pass. We can analyze her motives for as logn as we desire, and imo the last exlanation you provide might have been correct, but again, I WAS talking about Obama. What was his excuse? Wouldn’t his measure give Bush that same exact power?
Intellectual honesty requests us to look at both their actions and measure both with the same stick. because if we don’t, the republicans sure will. in spades. And they won’t even have to create a new campaign slogan, they can just reuse the anti Kerry flip flopper one again.
But I’m not offended at the suggestion that there are a number of young women out there — beyond Katie Roiphe et al. — who are avoiding identifying with Hillary for precisely the reasons someone like Katie Roiphe avoids it.
The offense wasn’t in saying something we already know, but in implying that any woman who would vote for Obama over Clinton is in the same group as women who are running away from feminism.
That’s the problem with drawing a dichotomy between the “young women eager to win male approval” and the “glorious young women who do identify with Hillary.” What about those of us who are not eager to win male approval but don’t identify with Hillary? Do I have to turn in my ovaries?
Your half-hearted caveat that it’s not *his* fault doesn’t negate the fact that you’re essentially calling him an Uncle Tom. If you feel that way, take the bull by the horns and simply say so. Defaming by insinuation is just so much Clintonesquery.“Sally, to many whites, Obama is an “acceptable” black.”
I had really mixed feeling when I heard my (solid life-long Republican and recovering fundamental religionist) say that he thought Obama was “articulate’, etc., and that he would support him.
On the one hand, I appreciate that he’s willing to set aside (temporarily at least) a very large pile of racist messages that he grew up with, and still maintains at some level (a very slow simmer).
OTOH, the whole “articulate” thing is just a code phrase for “he’s not like those OTHER colored people.”
Real mixed bag…
Oh sweet Jesus. I am not calling him an Uncle fucking Tom. I am pointing out the racism that DICTATES which blacks can succeed in majority-white America and which blacks can’t.
“…when I heard my DAD“…sorry…
Sally, is the entire sentence, “Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable)” so offensive?
I think it’s one of those figure-of-speech thingies, but you’re welcome to ask the author. I didn’t write it.
Dorothy said: “Actually, there is a huge difference. The “Queen Bashing” article was a book review: specific contributing writers were criticized for their arguments and tone, and a few other specific writers were complimented. The overall criticism of the book was based on concrete and verifiable points.”
Me (I still haven’t mastered HTML tags!): The “Queen Bashing” article was not a book review. It was a review of Susan Faludi’s opinion piece of a book that Amanda stated she had not yet read. Your description of “specific contributing writers etc. etc.” is an accurate description of Susan Faludi’s article, but not Amanda’s blog about the article.
Dorothy says: “Morgan’s article doesn’t criticize any specific woman or identifiable group of women (feminist or otherwise): it criticizes “young women” who behave in a certain way, leaving it up to the reader to draw the dividing line between the criticized and the un-criticized–especially since the criticized behavior is motivations and attitudes, which can easily be misjudged by observers.”
Me: Morgan is a lot more specific than ‘“young women” who behave in a certain way,’ so broadly stated that nobody can be sure of exactly whom she is criticizing. She specifically states that she is criticizing: “some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. “ This is a VERY detailed description of a very specific type of young woman. I have no problem distinguishing that that doesn’t describe me, for instance, and I am a Gen-X feminist who supports Obama about 50% of the time. (Depends on the issue I’m discussing at the moment.) How can anyone not tell pretty much instantly if that describes herself or not? How are you logically able to boil that description down to “do you support Obama?”
Dorothy says: “If Morgan had pointed her finger at any objectively identifiable group or person (even a hypothetical “Feminists Against Hillary” or “Self-Hating Bimbos for Obama, PAC”) then the two pieces would be equivalent.”
Me: She did. I requote: “Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”” So you’re agreeing the two pieces are equivalent, then?
She must be picking up the narrative from the air. She doesn’t watch any MSM, and doesn’t read any online political sites (that I know of), so I’m kind of mystified about where she’s getting this talking point…
It truly takes a man to dismiss his daughter’s opinions while being unable to fathom the possibility that her ideas came from her own brain.
White liberal men are so predictable.
A candidate who was an angry person who played the race card would certainly arouse the ire of racists, it’s true. He would probably rub a lot of perfectly reasonable people the wrong way, too.
You suggest that he’s somehow less authentic because he’s not angry and doesn’t play the race card. I have black friends who aren’t angry and don’t play the race card, and I’m guessing they’d resent being told they were the kind of black person that white racists have allowed them to be. They’d have quite a different take on the matter, I’d wager.
Seriously, what blog do you think you’re commenting on?
A feminist blog. Not a blog whose message is “The most important factor in your success is the man you marry. Remember ladies, your M.R.S. degree is more important than your YLS J.D.”
And MikeEss, while their husbands did well financially, none of those women followed the Eva Peron/Imelda Marcos/Lurleen Wallace model of succeeding their husbands in office.
So you’re agreeing the two pieces are equivalent, then?
Considering that Amanda criticized one piece where you had women shying away from supporting Hillary because she’s a woman and then criticized another piece where it was implied that it’s required to support Hillary because she’s a woman, I am seeing an equivalence here. Namely, that Amanda criticizes pieces that tell her how she should or shouldn’t feel about Hillary based on which genitalia she and Hillary have.
I’m not sure why you think it’s so weird that Amanda would criticize people on both ends of the spectrum. There is this thing called a middle ground between the two extreme viewpoints.
When did I say he was “less authentic,” Godmonkey?
Racist whites who don’t think they’re racist consider him an exception, not me.
And now I have to wander off and do some actual work. Having both bosses out at the same time is bad for my productivity.
Really. Sigh.
One thing has become extremely clear to me reading these comments. I don’t know who’s reading Morgan’s essay “correctly,” and I don’t think I’m going to find out. That’s because it’s a wildly incoherent mashup of insults, calls-to-arms, purple prose, and plain gibberish. I’ve read it four times now and I still can’t tell who on this comments has the better interpretation of it. Is she saying goodbye to non-feminists, or to a type of feminist she disagrees with? Is she saying that preferring Obama ‘cuz he’s a man is sexist, or that preferring Obama at all is sexist? I truly cannot tell, and that’s not my fault - it is the fault of bad bad writing. I know Morgan’s a venerable and influential feminist and undoubtedly an inspiring activist, but if this is the best media that the head of the Women’s Media Center can come up with…. whew.
The difference is that it was announced that those votes wouldn’t count, so it was an unfair election. How many people didn’t vote because they thought it wouldn’t count? How many wanted to vote for Obama or Edwards, but couldn’t because they weren’t on the ballot because it didn’t count? To enfranchise them we’d have to give them a new primary, not just let the existing votes stand.
There are, of course, dogmatic rigid individuals on all sides of the political spectrum. However, this was NOT how 2nd wave feminism “was constituted”. This was how feminism was characterized by opponents of feminism, with unbelievably and MADDENINGLY widespread success in the public consciousness. Take it from someone older, and from the midwest: feminism in the 70s had a great deal of relevance to women’s lives everywhere. It certainly had a huge influence on my awakening consciousness about the patriarchal world around me. It is a shame that misogynists managed to make it such an accepted “truth” that feminism was “grouchy, preachy and authoritarian” (you forgot hairy-legged, man-hating, and bra-burning), so that young women began to feel the need to say “I’m not a feminist but…” right before expressing feminist sentiments. They ARE feminists, they are just not the misogynist mischaracterization of feminist that they came to believe was the true definition of the term.
I am saddened that someone who is taking offense that gross and inaccurate overgeneralizations are being applied to Obama supporters, based on the comments or actions of a handful, is herself applying gross and inaccurate overgeneralizations to old school feminists.
As for the article under discussion, I can see both possible readings of Morgan’s piece that people are arguing for. Honestly, I feel the piece is just poorly written, so that her intentions in writing it are unclear.
From a Jabberwonk commenter. Hillary’s so called “experience” during her co-presidency. (hey, I don’t know what else to call her position.)
note: I haven’t fact checked it. so read it at your own peril
http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=txwsf
- As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would ‘demonize’ anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn’t even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as ‘my worst mistake.’ - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier’s radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary’s involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for ‘gross mismanagement’ and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary’s assumed duties was directing the ‘bimbo eruption squad’ and scandal defense: —- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. —- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. —- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. —- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury —- And Bill was impeached by the House. —- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, ‘I do not recall,’ ‘I have no recollection,’ and ‘I don’t know’ 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote ‘It Takes a Village,’ demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother’s clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the ‘woman card’ by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary’s husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary’s correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary’s one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume’.
Hector, I agree with you. I would not say she has no experience, or that her spouse years don’t count for something, but they are not really comperable to the three women you mentioned. She’s gone more the liddy dole, mary bono route.
Marichiweu,
It is, indeed, breathtakingly bad writing.
*blink* Dear Hector, you may be surprised to find that many women on this blog, myself included, have acquired prestigious degrees on the mistaken premise that it will aid us in securing social and economic clout, only to have it limited by social realities. This is what is referred to (for the last decade or so) as “the glass ceiling.” We can recognize that actual degrees are much more important than MRS degrees, but until you men start giving us due credit for those degrees, the reality is only women who have important connections, via family or marriage, practically have any chance of being elected to the most senior position in the country. So, seriously - FUCK OFF, YOU PRIVILEGED TWAT.
HEY HECTOR HAVE YOU NOTICED A TREND, THAR?
“And MikeEss, while their husbands did well financially, none of those women followed the Eva Peron/Imelda Marcos/Lurleen Wallace model of succeeding their husbands in office.”
…and neither has Clinton, unless she was secretly Gov. of Arkansas after Bill, and Bill was Senator from NY before she was…
Honestly, as far as I’m concerned, when she was elected Senator she made it on her own (unless you can prove she stole the election). Who her spouse is at that point is irrelevant…
If a Senator, regardless of who their spouse is, wants to run for POTUS, they would merely be following in the footsteps of countless other Senators before them.
Nothing unusual about that at all…
BTW, unless I’m mistaken, comparing politics in the US to that of Argentina in the ’50’s, the Philippines, or the corrupt southern governorship of an infamous segregationist is really stupid. I’m as pissed about politics in this country as anyone, and even I don’t think we’ve sunk THAT low (yet)…
“It truly takes a man to dismiss his daughter’s opinions while being unable to fathom the possibility that her ideas came from her own brain.”
I don’t know whether she decided this in “her own brain” or not, but if she did, and didn’t have basic information to base that on, it still makes me wonder. Possibly she’s getting information from some source I’m unaware of.
I did have a nice discussion with her about the general topic, and she is probably more aware of things than the average high schooler…
OTOH, I will concede up front that she’s smarter than her parents, and with some more life experience she will probably go far.
I’m pulling for the presidency myself, be she’s probably smart enough to stay the hell out of that…
That such a woman—scared to be feminist, afraid of male disapproval—exists is not what I’m taking issue with. Through Morgan’s incessant slams against Obama, she makes it sparklingly clear that she thinks the sole reason to support him is sexism against Clinton. She finds it impossible to believe that anyone has a reason to vote for him. She portrays him as cocky and she seems to think he has no experience at all.
I can say this again if it’s still confusing.
SarahMC,
You may not have meant it that way, but the way you phrased your original comment skated very close to the old “He’s Not Black Enough” balderdash. If you say I misinterpreted you, then I did. Sorry.
I am not sure about that Marle. Remember: it was Obama and Edwards’ choice to not be on those ballots. You can’t punish what? over 1 million people who did vote because of a hypothetical number who “would have” or “might have” voted.
Obama and Edwards chose to not be on the ballots. It was their choice to disregard the population of those two states. Nobody forced them to. But it is unfair to punish those who did vote for the sake of those who “might have”. If you want to punish someone, punish the candidates who decided the delegates are more important than the people themselves.
You can’t pretend to be anti establishment and then go and kiss the establishment’s ass when it serves you. It makes you a hypocrite.
I don’t really know how many people would have voted if they felt that their votes “counted”. What I wonder however is how many of those voters would vote in the general elections for a candidate who chose to ignore them in the primaries. it is a question worth asking.
Nobody forced anyone to not vote in Florida and Michigan. However a lot of people did vote, and they should be counted.
If Hillary gets to claim her tenure as first lady as political experience, then we get to excoriate her for everything that Bill did wrong.
As of now, she’s been trying to claim this experience while ignoring Bill’s failures. She can’t have it both ways. And, for that matter, the Republicans will eat her alive if she tries to claim that “experience” in the general.
until you men start giving us due credit for those degrees, the reality is only women who have important connections, via family or marriage, practically have any chance of being elected to the most senior position in the country.
So, you agree with me that Hillary’s biggest claim to fame is being Bill’s wife. Fine.
If you really think that that’s the logical conclusion of this discussion, you are either being deliberately obtuse, intellectually dishonest, or outright stupid. Congratulations, you’re the blogular equivalent of a waste of space.
Hector probably thinks she killed Vince Foster too…
I have an issue with the language that Clinton has hawkishness “in her blood” and “in her heart”for many reasons, part of which puts her decision about the war on her biology. Slippery ground for a metaphor.
Regardless of how either candidate voted on the war, they did so based on incomplete information and outright lies by a bullying Republican administration with overarching neo-con ambitions.
I don’t think it’s wise to blur the distinctions between them. Obama was outspoken on the war when it was unpopular to do so. Clinton still is sticking by the line that her vote was reasonable. At best, her vote was a political calculation that backfired. At best. Maybe I’m wrong to think she’s a genuine hawk. Maybe she is just an opportunist. I don’t think so, though, because she echoes the same language the hawks do about how hawkishness is the only reasonable course.
It’s revising history to say that it was reasonable to believe Iraq had WMDs. I never believed it, not for one moment, and I wasn’t privy to the machinations in an up-close way. The leaks about the Edwards vote for the war resolution make it excrutiatingly clear that most Democrats who voted for it were aware that it was lies and bullshit, but either they were Edwards types who were told that voting against it was political suicide or they were Lieberman types who genuinely believe that making war on Iraq was so critical it was worth telling lies about.
I’m really not into the Big Social Lie that it was reasonable to think we had to invade Iraq to save ourselves. It was crystal clear that Bush’s urgency on the issue was the result of the eventuality that weapons inspectors would prove Iraq had nothing, robbing him of his excuse to wage war.
To Mnemosyne: I have to disagree with your equivalence. I don’t see both these pieces as Amanda criticizing pieces telling her how she should feel about Hillary based on which genitalia she and Hillary have. The Susan Faludi piece Amanda was writing about does not in any way state that anyone should feel any specific way about Hillary based on their genitalia, and stretching it out even farther, Faludi never claims or even hints that any of the book’s authors state that anybody should feel any specific way about Hillary based on their genitalia. So clearly, that’s a nonissue…unless you’re saying that Amanda thinks that Robin Morgan is saying that all women should vote for Hillary do to shared genitalia, and that’s what you think Amanda is objecting to. However, Amanda makes it very clear herself that that’s not what she’s upset about. She takes Morgan saying that there are some young women who are afraid to vote for Hillary because they think it will make them look too feminist-butch and deciding that she herself…even though she clearly does not fit the very detailed definition that Morgan paints of these women, and makes a point of listing all the aspects of herself that don’t fit each defined detail…and decides that what Morgan is really saying is that “all young women who don’t support Hillary are bimbos.” What’s bizarre is that Faludi characterizes the women essayists in the book she’s critiquing aren’t supporting Hillary in the following ways: “convenient psychologizing, self-absorbed meanderings and unearned snipes,” “unfactual and illogical thinking and, in many cases, downright 13-year-old cattiness,” and then goes on to argue how common this can be among young women based on fears of looking too feminist-butch to the male power base around them to share even crumbs of it, and here Amanda quite agrees with her that yes, this is a real phenomenon. But when Morgan mentions this phenomenon, Amanda finds it hurtful and personally aimed at her and just all around total BS.
I don’t think it’s weird when Amanda criticizes people on both end of the spectrum. But she’s not. She’s criticizing one person and lauding another of two people who are on the same end of the spectrum for nearly identical viewpoints.
She specifically states that she is criticizing: “some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. “
Yes, a group that is the same size as the Obama supporters. It’s clear from her essay they are one and the same. She can conceive of no other reason to support Obama outside of this. She finds it impossible to have non-sexist reasons, because she appears to think he rolled off the turnip truck into a presidential election.
I agree with RKMK. Hillary is not claiming Bill’s achievements, she is claiming her own. If all it took to have them was to be he first lady, why were there only 2 politically involved First Ladies in a whole century? let’s be serious here.
To those who are so eager to talk about Hillary’s presence on the Wal Mart board, it might be worth remembering that while in that position she fought
“Clinton was the first female member on Wal-Mart’s board, added when chairman Sam Walton was pressured to name one;[105] once there, she pushed successfully for the chain to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices,[105][106] pushed largely unsuccessfully for more women to be added to the company’s management”.
Unlike Robin Morgan, I can support my candidate without slamming the other candidate or suggesting her supporters are addled-brained. There are extremely solid reasons to vote for Clinton, who is an excellent politician and a role model. The woman thing is huge. She will manage a tight ship. Her domestic policy is better. She needs her back scratched by feminists for taking a leadership role on repo rights during a dark time. She will probably get us out of Iraq, and she will shut down Gitmo. Her health care plan is better.
See? It’s easy. Are there people voting for Clinton for shallow reasons? Probably. And that’s irritating. But if I said that there was no good reason to vote for Clinton, I would be automatically arguing that all people who vote for her are shallow. Which is what Morgan did with Obama.
If you say that there’s no good reason to vote for someone, you’re saying everyone who is voting for him has a bad reason. See? Simple.
“I don’t think it’s wise to blur the distinctions between them. Obama was outspoken on the war when it was unpopular to do so. Clinton still is sticking by the line that her vote was reasonable. At best, her vote was a political calculation that backfired. At best. Maybe I’m wrong to think she’s a genuine hawk. Maybe she is just an opportunist. I don’t think so, though, because she echoes the same language the hawks do about how hawkishness is the only reasonable course.
It’s revising history to say that it was reasonable to believe Iraq had WMDs. I never believed it, not for one moment, and I wasn’t privy to the machinations in an up-close way.”
I don’t know. It’s easy to make “told you so” proclamations in hindsight, but many people, me included, didn’t believe that the Bush administration would be so opportunistic and malevolent to send their most credible members of the administration into the UN and the Senate to feed us outright lies. Call me naive.
To look back and conclude that all politicians who voted in favor of going into Iraq are merely hawkish is, I believe, a simplistic representation of the historical context in which the vote took place. The Bush administration pulled a lot of remarkable, advantageous stunts to make the eventual march to Iraq look necessary and obvious.
I’m not even sure how to respond to this.
Obama is not “passing as white.” He is being Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a black man. If his persona is more acceptable to white people than some other black person’s would be, that doesn’t mean he’s “passing” as anything. To suggest otherwise is really, really offensive.
Not to mention that the whole “passing” thing is totally racially charged language, and it’s not the kind of thing you should just throw around casually.
Hold on a second. Amanda just landed a double standard there: It is OK for Edwards to vote for teh war because it would have been politican suicide not to do it, but for Hillary to do it was “hawkish”.
right
Why am I not surprised? At all?
It fucking sucks that the “race vs. gender” narrative is so firmly set in this contest. I feel like it obscures almost every attempt to talk about either Democratic candidate.
I’m happy to read this post, Amanda, because it’s pretty much how I felt about that column too. If it’s an “in-group” message to feminists, it doesn’t read like one — it reads like a divisive shot across the bow, the sort of linguistic trick that muddies the water in these contests: “Clinton is the feminist candidate. Feminists vote for Clinton. Aren’t you a feminist?”
When it comes down to it, the relevance of either factor in my decision begins and ends in being happy that the Democratic party at least is willing to entertain a black candidate and a female candidate for President this year.
My actual decision in who to support comes down to what each has to say about the progressive movement as a whole. What Clinton has on offer doesn’t give me hope: third-way “centrism,” a continuation of the late 20th century “bipartisan foreign policy,” a record of supporting censorship, and an unabashed pro-corporatism bent. (She’s been very strong in some areas, like reproductive rights and support for upstate New York, but then they seem like they’d be better served by her keeping her Senate seat anyway.)
Obama still has plenty of room to disappoint me and pander to corporations, but he hasn’t done it yet — and the movement potential to actually galvanize progressives in America and reward political awareness with real results strikes me as worth the risk.
It fucking sucks that the “race vs. gender” narrative is so firmly set in this contest. I feel like it obscures almost every attempt to talk about either Democratic candidate.
I’m happy to read this post, Amanda, because it’s pretty much how I felt about that column too. If it’s an “in-group” message to feminists, it doesn’t read like one — it reads like a divisive shot across the bow, the sort of linguistic trick that muddies the water in these contests: “Clinton is the feminist candidate. Feminists vote for Clinton. Aren’t you a feminist?”
When it comes down to it, the relevance of either factor in my decision begins and ends in being happy that the Democratic party at least is willing to entertain a black candidate and a female candidate for President this year.
My actual decision in who to support comes down to what each has to say about the progressive movement as a whole. What Clinton has on offer doesn’t give me hope: third-way “centrism,” a continuation of the late 20th century “bipartisan foreign policy,” a record of supporting censorship, and an unabashed pro-corporatism bent. (She’s been very strong in some areas, like reproductive rights and support for upstate New York, but then they seem like they’d be better served by her keeping her Senate seat anyway.)
Obama still has plenty of room to disappoint me and pander to corporations, but he hasn’t done it yet — and the movement potential to actually galvanize progressives in America and reward political awareness with real results strikes me as worth the risk.
Hi, white liberal man here, my eyebrows were raised at that comment too, but I attributed it to ageism rather than sexism.
It truly takes a man to dismiss his daughter’s opinions while being unable to fathom the possibility that her ideas came from her own brain.
White liberal men are so predictable.
It is OK for Edwards to vote for teh war because it would have been politican suicide not to do it, but for Hillary to do it was “hawkish”.
right
Why am I not surprised? At all?
Um, that’s not a fair representation at all. Amanda is saying that their choices were politically informed. I’m saying that their choices were politically informed based on deliberately untrue information. That’s the argument, and I fail to see the double standard.
Except, Lauren, she still uses the hawk=serious people argument in her stump answers on Iraq. And she, unlike you, was an insider who knows the Bush administration and probably has a lot better sense of what sleazy liars they were.
Again, the story about Edwards that was leaked is instructive. It was well-understood on the Hill that the WMDs thing was an excuse. Comments from the Bush administration about when to roll out the “new product” (the war) and of course the vindictive behavior they had to silence anyone (Valerie Plame) who spoke the truth was pretty solid evidence that there wasn’t anything. Senators were well aware that the weapons inspectors were outspoken against the war and that the U.N. would not support it. If the U.N. members thought Bush was lying, then there’s no reason our Congresspeople wouldn’t think the same.
There were two basic reasons that a Democrat would look at the mountain of anti-war evidence on one hand and the molehill of pro-war on the other. a) You thought building the stronghold of military might in the Middle East was worth it or b) after 9/11, not supporting a strike against a Muslim country was assumed to be political suicide. I feel a little better about the latter group, because they’re the ones who have apologized and owned the mistake. (Edwards.) Clinton is very defensive about her position. Maybe she’s just defensive. *shrug* I worry she will be easy to convince that she could actually do the invasion “right”, pull a Nixon in Vietnam bit. But I don’t have statistical evidence on this, no. I don’t expect to convince anyone else.
SarahMC and Tammy: kudos. What you said. I loved Morgan’s essay.
“If Hillary gets to claim her tenure as first lady as political experience, then we get to excoriate her for everything that Bill did wrong.”
Wrong. During her tenure, she helped establish the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Adoption and Safe Families Act, among other things, on her own. She can quite reasonably claim her time there as experience without being tarred with everything people dislike about Bill.
I was with Morgan until she said this:
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Obama=Bush. Again, with the Obama is stupid thing. That slur doesn’t have a racist history at all. That’s why the Republicans aren’t lapping it up.
I had a long talk with my aunt the night before the election — she’s 65 years old, has been teaching 3rd and 5th grade for 30 years in the same private progressive school she attended, and is a yellow dog democrat. She was totally behind Obama for a long time, and still likes him, but as she says, she’s had her heart broken so many times — Stevenson, McCarthy — and there’s also a part of her that sees, despite herself, every smug young teachers aide who has walked into her classroom straight out of school ready to discount her 35 years of experience. I think there’s something visceral that a lot of women her age see when they think about electing Obama — as much as they like him, do they really want to give this hard-won opportunity to the young guy? To a guy? When they’ve finally got a chance? Molly didn’t know who she was going to vote for — she said it was the first time she’d ever walked into the booth undecided (on the other hand, my 97 year old grandmother cast her first-ever Democratic vote for HIllary, or as she put it “for that woman.”) As for Robin Morgan — what can we say? She *is* the face of 2nd wave feminism, and everything I find so tiresome, offensive and shopworn about that part of the movement shines forth in that odious essay. I’ll be voting for Obama in June when we finally get to vote here in Montana, and I’ve been sending him money for ages — I don’t think Hillary can win the general election. I think people would rather vote for the actual hawk, than for the pretending-not-to-be-a-hawk that is Hillary.
I think it’s the comparison of swagger.
Both Bush and Obama had/have a distictive style, not that they’re directly comparable. Part of the cult of personality with Obama that bothers me is the new version of “who’d you want to have a beer with?”
And admittedly, while the New Camelot aspect of the Obamas is more than appealing, it’s also a shallow reason why I like them.
Amanda: “If you say that there’s no good reason to vote for someone, you’re saying everyone who is voting for him has a bad reason. See? Simple.”
Me: I don’t necessarily agree that Morgan is saying there’s no good reason to vote for Obama (unless I missed it when I read her article) but I do understand your line of reasoning–I can totally see why you’d make the argument you did in this blog while agreeing with Faludi’s point in the “Queen Bashing” blog if that’s the taste MOrgan’s article is leaving in your mouth. ‘Preciate the time taken to clarify, thank you!
Two politicians meet and marry- oh the horror the little wife didn’t give up her political ambitions because he has them too. She has a unique life path and people are pissed at her for it. So she has to be like everyone else or someone you can identify with in order to be authentic, wow, sad. Her problem isn’t Bill or Obama, her problem is that even feminists aren’t willing to accept her as a person.
As for the Morgan piece, it is a rant. A rant isn’t supposed to be parsed, it represents a deep frustration on the writer’s part for something they have experienced. Her rant is supposed to touch those who feel a similar frustration or get others to recognize that such a frustration exists. If it isn’t your experience then it simply isn’t. I, for one, agree with some of her points and disagree with others.
My personal frustration with Obama is that I would like to trust him. I would definitely take him to my favorite restaurant for a meal. I don’t, he sets off my politicalk alarm bells, he makes me squidgy and Michelle makes me squidgy.
1) I hate pep rally politics. I understand the need but it was what got Bush elected because it leaves the candidate relatively unaccountable as statements can be brushed of as ‘heat of the moment’. Obama is good at these kind of political rallies but last night he basically said Clinton was soft on torture at 11.41 into his speech and I know that no one is going to call him on it.
2) He talks about his grand vision even if what he says is poltically impossible. He lets American troops into Pakistan and they will be bogged down there with the war on a new front, a new endless drain on the finances. No one wins a war in that area of the world without the support of the locals.
3) Clinton was accused of only running for Senate as a leadup to an immediate presidential bid, Obama did exactly that. Why can he do it and it was wrong for her?
4) His voting record- or lack thereof- since he became a federal Senator. Even when he is in the building he avoids voting when he can. I prefer a candidate who has something to defend however wrong than one who will not take a stand on the record.
That’s what makes me squidgy about him, other people have other experiences.
octogalore: Wrong. During her tenure, she helped establish the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Adoption and Safe Families Act, among other things, on her own. She can quite reasonably claim her time there as experience without being tarred with everything people dislike about Bill.
Well, isn’t this a matter of having your cake and wanting to eat it too? One of the reasons I don’t like Hillary politically is that throughout the primary season, she’s been see-sawing back and forth between invoking the Clinton administration with a sense of nostalgia, and selectively disagreeing with some key decisions (DADT). Why shouldn’t people who don’t think about the Clinton administration with warm fuzzy nostalgia be critical of her attempts to invoke that bit of history?
It’s not that I don’t think that her role in that administration qualifies as unearned experience. It’s that I’d be critical of any politician who considered the Clinton administration as a good model of progressive governance.
As for Robin Morgan — what can we say? She *is* the face of 2nd wave feminism, and everything I find so tiresome, offensive and shopworn about that part of the movement shines forth in that odious essay.
Bingo!
The voices of the college-educated 60-something Manhattanite feminists are valuable in the advancement of women in society. They are not THE VOICE of feminism, however, nor do they get to appoint themselves as the Shadow Patriarchy when it comes to the behavior and thought processes of women of different ages in different places.
We won’t get fooled again.
In an attempt to sum up the terms of this debate.
Just about everyone agrees that there some people reject Clinton as a candidate due to internalized misogyny.
We don’t all agree about Morgan’s point to the essay. Some of us interpret it as insisting that feminist politics mandates a vote for Clinton, while others see it as focusing on the internal misogyny behind some people’s lack of support for Clinton.
Does that sum it up?
It’s a really problematic rant, in ways that people have been pointing out that Morgan was problematic for more than 30 years now.
There is no way that Obama could have predicted, when he decided to run for Senate , that he’d be a viable Presidential candidate in 2008. That possibility only emerged after his speech at the Democratic National Convention, and he’d already been running for months when that happened.
You forgot the part about how it isn’t feminist to insist that other women must be anti-feminist if they don’t agree with your choice of candidate.
3) Clinton was accused of only running for Senate as a leadup to an immediate presidential bid, Obama did exactly that. Why can he do it and it was wrong for her
Both Clinton and Obama responded to a mixture of an open window of opportunity and taking the next logical step in the progression of their careers. I don’t get any of that “just wanted to be president”.
Of course they “wanted to be president”. They are both ambitious!
I don’t deny that his speech made his viability, I question why the porridge is just right in his bowl and it’s too cold in hers.
I don’t really see a problem with this. I, too, look back fondly on the Clinton administration (In comparison to the Bush-saturated 2000s? a goddamn American Political Renaissance), but I didn’t agree with everything that was accomplished during those years. Even if she was married to the man in charge at the time, she doesn’t have to agree with everything her husband enacted. It’s called being “independent of thought.”
To me, it’s a very reasonable outlook: “You know what? When the Democrats were in power in the 90s, under Bill, things were pretty good - certainly better than now. But things weren’t perfect, and while I was supportive of my husband, I certainly didn’t agree with everything he enacted - such as DADT.” I don’t see what’s wrong with this.
Sorry, but this is just absolute BS.
See here.
It may be modest, but it’s ill-informed to refer to his work as thin or non-existent.
I have never said that he wasn’t accomplished or that his record is non-existant, just that since the campaign started it has been suspiciously safe. Ethics reform is a well-trodden maverick political path and making it tech-savvy is simply a new angle on an old trick. Many of the bills that he sponsored or co-sponsored relate to technical adjustments to regulations that needed to be made anyway and most predate Fall 2006. He has been on the Presidential track of the Democratic party since he was elected, so why is he all ‘not like the other guy’ when he does exactly like the other guy?
I just feel that he has been given a pass on his political ambitions in a way that Hillary will never get and it makes me uneasy about him.
RKMK: I don’t see what’s wrong with this.
My god! It’s full of stupid!
You don’t see anything wrong with the State Department submarining just about every environmental accord on the table during Clinton’s second term by holding out for consessions that minimized or negated any practical commitments to reduction in carbon emissions, overfishing, or maintainance of research seedbanks?
You don’t see anything wrong with COUNTERINTELPRO investigation of the American left to an extent unheard of since the death of Hoover? With non-violent activists being held on million-dollar bond and puppeteers arrested for posession of turpentine? With free speech zones and federal law enforcement training of other police forces resulting in an escillation of violence against protesters world-wide?
You don’t see anything wrong with threatenting a trade war with the EU over their more stringent labeling requirements?
You don’t see anything wrong with trade decisions governed by an anti-democratic body with the power to invoke sanctions against countries with stricter labor, environmental and product safty laws?
You don’t see anything wrong with perpetual warfare in Iraq (and yes, we were for all practical purposes, at war in Iraq during Clinton’s terms, running both air and grond operations?)
You don’t see anything wrong with the weakening of the social safety net, with reduced access to abortion, and a growing gap between social classes?
You can certainly hold up the W. Clinton administration as a good example of something. But as a good example of progressive political action towards social, economic and environmental justice, that’s not reasonable. And I’m not obliged to take you seriously as a progressive if you do.
I’m probably not going to say anything that hasn’t already been said, but I suppose it’s worth a try. Robin Morgan’s piece is a kind of rhetoric, a hyperbolic kind, one might say and I don’t agree with everything she says but here’s a list of things I’m sure she DID NOT say:
1) There is no reason to support Obama.
2) All young women who support him are “scaredy-cat bimbos.”
This essay is a call to arms largely directed at people who already support Hillary (Chelsea has been emailing it around) with a side goal of perhaps converting a few people who are on the fence. It’s not a comparison essay listing the reasons to vote for two candidates, so I don’t understand why people are so upset she doesn’t devote part of the essay to listing Obama’s good points. Especially since she doesn’t spend very much time even hinting at his bad points. But not listing reasons to vote for Obama does not mean she is categorically saying there are none. Her main focus is about the misogyny inherent in many of the reasons people choose not to vote for Hillary (and I think that includes non-hillary supporters on both sides of the aisle). Unsurprisingly, she focuses on the bad reasons not to vote for Hillary, not possibly legitimate ones, because her essay is about voting for Hillary, not why Obama might be okay too. It’s not her job or her focus to tell us why Obama is great. This essay is in no way represented as an objective telling of facts, so–surprise, surprise–she’s not objective. She likes Hillary better and she’s telling us why. Feel free to disagree with her, but don’t act like you’ve never read an essay with a point of view before. It’s disingenuous and suggests a lack of understanding. I feel like we need to take a trip back to SAT-prep. What is the theme of this essay?
A) Reasons Obama sucks
B)Reasons Hillary rocks
If you read this essay and want to answer A, then I’d say you’re not only missing the point, you’re also looking for reasons to be offended. Why so defensive? If you want an essay promoting all the great things that would be represented by voting for Obama, go write it, don’t be pissed Morgan didn’t. That wasn’t her goal. She only mentions the word “Obama” five times in the whole thing, and one of those is inside “Obama Girl.” She also recognizes that they are very similar on “97 percent” of the issues. Forgive me if that doesn’t seem like Obama bashing.
As for the idea that she told “young feminist Obama supporters we’re scaredy-cat bimbos” I’m again left wondering why you’re so determined to be offended. She says “Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists.” I didn’t know that was a code phrase for “young feminist Obama supporters.” Foolishly, I thought she was talking about young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists. Doesn’t her wording completely exclude anyone who labels themselves a feminist? She’s not talking about you or me or anyone who has probably ever read this blog. She’s talking about all the young women out there who would be afraid of being accused of reading this blog because then boys might think they don’t shave their legs. Why wouldn’t we want to say goodbye to that? Morgan is criticizing people (especially women) who don’t want to vote for Hillary for sexist reasons. If you have other reasons not to vote for Hillary (ex: you disagree with her on the issues) Morgan is NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU and I am curious as to why you would think she was.
Uh, no, I said I don’t see anything wrong with Clinton taking the view that her husband’s administration wasn’t totally evil, but that it did do things that she didn’t agree with. I don’t see this as - how did you put it? - “see-sawing back and forth between invoking the Clinton administration with a sense of nostalgia, and selectively disagreeing with some key decisions.”
Please read more carefully, and refrain from calling me “stupid”, reactionary asshat.
I’m probably not going to say anything that hasn’t already been said, but I suppose it’s worth a try. Robin Morgan’s piece is a kind of rhetoric, a hyperbolic kind, one might say and I don’t agree with everything she says but here’s a list of things I’m sure she DID NOT say:
1) There is no reason to support Obama.
2) All young women who support him are “scaredy-cat bimbos.”
This essay is a call to arms largely directed at people who already support Hillary (Chelsea has been emailing it around) with a side goal of perhaps converting a few people who are on the fence. It’s not a comparison essay listing the reasons to vote for two candidates, so I don’t understand why people are so upset she doesn’t devote part of the essay to listing Obama’s good points. Especially since she doesn’t spend very much time even hinting at his bad points. But not listing reasons to vote for Obama does not mean she is categorically saying there are none. Her main focus is about the misogyny inherent in many of the reasons people choose not to vote for Hillary (and I think that includes non-hillary supporters on both sides of the aisle). Unsurprisingly, she focuses on the bad reasons not to vote for Hillary, not possibly legitimate ones, because her essay is about voting for Hillary, not why Obama might be okay too. It’s not her job or her focus to tell us why Obama is great. This essay is in no way represented as an objective telling of facts, so–surprise, surprise–she’s not objective. She likes Hillary better and she’s telling us why. Feel free to disagree with her, but don’t act like you’ve never read an essay with a point of view before. It’s disingenuous and suggests a lack of understanding. I feel like we need to take a trip back to SAT-prep. What is the theme of this essay?
A) Reasons Obama sucks
B)Reasons Hillary rocks
If you read this essay and want to answer A, then I’d say you’re not only missing the point, you’re also looking for reasons to be offended. Why so defensive? If you want an essay promoting all the great things that would be represented by voting for Obama, go write it, don’t be pissed Morgan didn’t. That wasn’t her goal. She only mentions the word “Obama” five times in the whole thing, and one of those is inside “Obama Girl.” She also recognizes that they are very similar on “97 percent” of the issues. Forgive me if that doesn’t seem like Obama bashing.
As for the idea that she told “young feminist Obama supporters we’re scaredy-cat bimbos” I’m again left wondering why you’re so determined to be offended. She says “Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists.” I didn’t know that was a code phrase for “young feminist Obama supporters.” Foolishly, I thought she was talking about young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists. Doesn’t her wording completely exclude anyone who labels themselves a feminist? She’s not talking about you or me or anyone who has probably ever read this blog. She’s talking about all the young women out there who would be afraid of being accused of reading this blog because then boys might think they don’t shave their legs. Why wouldn’t we want to say goodbye to that? Morgan is criticizing people (especially women) who don’t want to vote for Hillary for sexist reasons. If you have other reasons not to vote for Hillary (ex: you disagree with her on the issues) Morgan is NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU and I am curious as to why you would think she was.
RKMK: Well, when you make a statement that is utterly and completely divorced from historical and political reality, that’s not stupid? Ok, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and call you ignorant instead. Because after all the myth of W. Clinton’s liberalism certainly was as much a creation of the American MSM during that time period as the administration’s own spin. It was only by looking at the foregn press who were shocked by the slow train wreck that was American social policy, and frustrated by the utter obstinance of American negotiators over environmental and trade issues that one gets a good picture of what happened during W. Clinton’s terms.
Progressive in comparison to Reagan, or W. Bush is a very low bar for social reform. By waxing nostalgic over an administration that in many ways occupied the same political space as Nixon a generation before, H. Clinton is showing her own political position. Push comes to shove, I’ll vote for her, but it looks like her government is going to be moderately conservative.
To critics:
Please find where she corrected her hyperbolic language accusing Obama of having no experience, by saying there are plenty of good reasons to vote for him. I looked up and down for where she corrected her slams on him and admitted that he’s a fine candidate, and there are many non-sexist reasons to support him. When you find that quote, I’ll be willing to reconsider my offense. Because I read it ten times, and still see nothing but slams on his abilities.
Thanks, Lisa. She implies Obama is dumb, calls him inexperienced, and most certainly doesn’t leave an ambiguity about how she feels about voting for him. I am open to someone digging out her explanation of why Obama is a reasonable choice outside of “I will never vote for a woman” bullshit. I’m afraid I’ll be waiting, though. It’s not in there. She doesn’t allow the existence of the vast majority of female Obama voters, who actually like Clinton. The majority, mind you, is who she’s ignoring. Check the polls.
Lauren, I’m not sure why it’s okay to call Obama cocky while denying that Clinton acts entitled.
“Great! Maybe you can explain to me how Obama is passing as white.”
You’re haven’t been paying attention. Don’t you remember when Obama was being questioned by the MSM for not being black enough?
It wasn’t that long ago. A month or so maybe.
I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson.
Opps,
I meant to write you haven’t been paying attention.
There’s so much going on in this thread it’s hard to keep track…
but to the asshat that says Hillary’s only qualification is her spouse:
Men have been passing power and position onto other men forever.
Sorry, CBrachyrhynchos, but the W. Clinton administration was not evil. Without hyperbole, I truly believe Bush’s presidency is. I’m Canadian, so I assure you that my politics would likely seem outright communist to you; I did not agree with everything Bill Clinton enacted, but I do not blame people looking back on that time with nostalgia, after the last 7 years. The Clinton Administration was better (at the very least, competent), and with him in charge, your neighbours to the North did not quake with overwhelming fear.
Perhaps that’s why I’m more forgiving, and I admit that - our major concern, up here, is that you don’t elect a total nutcase who exports reichwing ideals, doesn’t screw us on cross-border trade, and doesn’t start glory wars that put us all in danger. I’m not invested with the details as much as you are. though as a good neighbour, I am moderately concerned about the health and general-well-being of you all. Clinton’s bright, tough, and competent, and I don’t particularly care that she’s married to a former President. Do not. Care.
And, of course, as a woman, I do wish that she wasn’t irrationally tarred-and-feathered for her husband’s politics, constantly. I have dated people - long term - who I disagreed with on any number of matters. It didn’t mean that I didn’t support them in their endeavours. And as a woman, I’m annoyed by the attacks launched on her by so-called liberal males. She deserves better than 95% of the bullshit spewed about her.
I’m not going to plant a stake in the broader issues of feminist loyalties and divisions, including across race and generational lines. I’m male (and feminist), so I would rather not presume to have more than half of an education about what loyalties and divides exist. But I do want to express a disappointment with these scions of feminism that write such partisan pieces on HRC’s behalf without holding her accountable for her politics.
I support Obama (actively in the campaign), and while I’m not a Hillary-hater, I’m a Clintonite-hater. They sunk the Democrats and the nation into the Bush years. Consider this moving line from her commencement speech that Morgan quotes: “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.” Awesome. Now how on Earth did HRC become the candidate who has Marc Penn and Terry McAullife and Paul Begala running her campaign? How does someone with such potential and vision and compassion become the the 50%+1, divide and conquer candidate? How does she become the corporate candidate, the one with the big donors (maxed out now, by the way) and the lobbyists and the institution? How did she become the candidate with the snide, dirty campaign tactics that seek to win in an underhanded way despite her genuine and hopeful vision? I get so damn angry when I think about her Iraq vote. Either she was a coward for deciding to ‘triangulate’ the politically safe vote or she was deluded for trusting Bush or she is deeply, deeply wrong about how to use foreign policy and military might. For all the vitriol and hatred the Right spews at her and her husband, let’s not forget that some of that vitriol was encouraged by their political machine that wins at all costs and shuts out the losers, including progressives.
I want so much of what HRC wants and passionately cares about: better access to childcare, jobs with justice, universal healthcare, etc. But she can’t get it for us because her politics–how she gets, keeps, and uses power–runs contrary to achieving any real, deep, and lasting changes in our beleaguered nation. The fact that Robin Morgan and Kim Gandy can’t find a way to see past their loyalty to HRC to ask her to be better than she has been erodes my trust in their words. So, Robin Morgan, good-bye to all that.
“Men have been passing power and position onto other men forever.”
GOOD point!
In fact, it occurs to me that GWB would still be just the forgotten black sheep of the family IF HIS FATHER WASN’T AN EX-POTUS!
Same for his being made gov. of Texas.
How many times was GWB described as riding in on his father’s coattails? How many times was he held accountable for his financial “misadventures”? How many times was he called out for his bogus claims of being a Texan? How about being nothing but an over privileged ne’er-do-well for all his adult life?
The man has had a free ride his entire life. The press supplied the lube for his smooth slide into office with all the ass-licking they did - and still do to this day.
But, OH MY GOD! HILLARY WOULD BE NOTHING MORE THAN A THIRD TERM FOR BILL CLINTON!!!!
I don’t even particularly like the woman, but this is bullshit…
Wow, this exploded while I was at my meeting!
I don’t have time to read through right now, but I thought this little tidbit might help soothe the people who are convinced that Daily Kos commenters represent most of the electorate:
This whole argument we’re having about how many people are going to refuse to vote for Hillary because she’s a chick? Sounds like not too many. Plus, let’s face it, if there are too many guys who voice those opinions from the Democratic side and Hillary loses, they will become the new Nader voters as far as most liberals are concerned.
Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .”
One which you’re clearly promoting here, Amanda.
“Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her.”
I’m not clear at all on how this applies to you, personally, or to any feminist. I suspect I feel this way because it doesn’t.
“Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.”
Completely and utterly true. The media drowned out HRC as soon as she started to connect with voters. Having been called on their sexism, they aimed their vitriol at Bill Clinton instead.
“Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election.”
That’s her political opinion.
There is so much in her essay that’s worthy of discussion and, frankly, praise. So what if she supports HRC? In case you haven’t noticed, a lot of people support HRC.
“And goodbye to the ageism . . .”
As someone who finds herself precisely in between the two so-called waves demographically, I have to say I’m deeply disappointed by the ageism coming out of the third wave blogs. Ageism is real and, despite some disingenuous posts which claim the opposite, it is aimed disproportionately towards older feminists. It’s sad and self-defeating and those who engage in it will understand what I mean by that in a few very short years. That’s the thing about ageism- we’re all going to experience it, particularly those of us who happen to be female.
A minute ago I suggested that the Morgan piece was so badly written that one could read it in either direction that it’s been taken on this comments thread. But I’ve been thinking, and I read it again, and now I’m not sure. A charitable reader might be able to read it such that Morgan is only calling out the genuinely sexist Obama supporters. But now I think that to read it that way requires a serious commitment to ignore the subtext. If something this vague appeared in, say, the NYTimes, I would not be so generous in my reading, not for a second. I would recognize it for the mudslinging that I think, on second thought, that it is. Yes, it’s badly written, and one could point to the text and say “Where does she say supporting Obama = sexism?” Right, right, she doesn’t say those words. But it’s not actually that hard to find that opinion buried beneath the incoherent ranting.
Amanda said “Please find where she corrected her hyperbolic language accusing Obama of having no experience, by saying there are plenty of good reasons to vote for him. I looked up and down for where she corrected her slams on him and admitted that he’s a fine candidate, and there are many non-sexist reasons to support him. When you find that quote, I’ll be willing to reconsider my offense.”
To which somegirls offered the Morgan quote:
“I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson.”
Folks, that’s a diss. “Maybe in 8 years when he knows something and isn’t being handled by the Kennedys” - damn! If that’s the closest we can find to Morgan acknowledging non-sexist reasons to support Obama, then I submit that Morgan does not think there are any. Perhaps she does not say so in so many words, but I think Amanda’s right. Would we read the intentions of a Republican pundit so charitably?
Forgive me, because I haven’t read the whole thread. I don’t “hate” Obama, but I have to admit to having an aversion to him that I’ve been thinking and thinking about, trying to nail down just why.
Part of it is likely just simply that I’m *so* excited about Hillary, and he’s running against her. And part of it has to be that I truly feel like I’ve only just heard about him, while I’ve been following her career for years and years. And part of it is that I’m surrounded by vocal Obama supporters who are all *way* more liberal than me.
In the end though, I voted for Hillary because she speaks to me. I reviewed both their websites thoroughly, just to be sure. My vote was *for* Hillary; not *against* Obama. I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee; I just won’t be excited about it, like I am about Hillary
See the difference is lizriz that I who have supported 4 other candidates inclufing now, Obama, am not going to insult you for supporting Hillary . . . but I’ve been insulted by many Hillary supporters for not being in her camp, especialy since I’m a feminist, white, female and a boomer.
Barack Obama is a black man.
As someone who is mixed race and who has mixed race children, I have to point out that Obama is mixed like so many of us. When I was a young women people were often forced to “choose” which can make you feel like a fraud and you would find yourself forever suspended between two worlds. Now I look at my kids and their friends and thankfully this is changing. When people can get past the fact that not everything (and not everyone!) is black or white this country will be moving in a better direction. He is both/and not either/or.
“but I’ve been insulted by many Hillary supporters for not being in her camp, especialy since I’m a feminist, white, female and a boomer.”
Who has insulted you exactly? Who are these “many Hillary supporters” who took you to the woodshed?
I’m not not against Obama. I hate his campaign style, that’s me. Pep rallies leave me wondering what all the fanfare is hiding. So for me, after reading the positions and comparing the records, it is visceral. Add to that that I don’t think that whoever wins in 2008 can win in 2012 due to the baggage they will accumulate cleaning up after the Bush years and I feel that Hilary is the better of the two to throw under the bus. She has already had to develop the emotional armor necessary, it is part of what makes her seem cold.
Hot damn!
Did you read the speech Morgan links to:
HRC:
“The voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loud and clear:
It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women’s rights — and women’s rights are human rights. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely — and the right to be heard.”
Really, read the whole thing. It’s an amazing speech.
HRC speech
I’m clearly under-the-weather or something ‘cause I can’t get my own link to work. Here it is, in full:
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.ht
First I want to say that I see how different people would interpret this piece differently. I’m merely stating how it made me feel and not saying this is the “correct” way of interpreting it.
I read the piece as saying: “I am voting for Hillary because I am a woman and a feminist and so is she. And here is why that’s a perfectly legit reason to vote for her.”
For that reason I totally dug it. When Hillary first announced her candidacy I was very excited and was telling everyone. On more than one occasion, from otherwise progressive males, I heard “That’s only because she’s a woman.” My response was, “Yes! Of Course! What the hell is wrong with that?”
I felt Ms Morgan was addressing some of the reasons that people hold Obama up over Hillary and why they are not any more legit than her reasons for supporting Hillary over Obama. I can totally see why Amanda et al would interpret that as dissing on Obama supporters because truthfully the writing is not clear.
Wow that was horrible essay. Might as well just write:
“Hillary is better and if you can’t see that you must be stupid and anti-feminist. And no, I’m not going to explain why.”
Convincing!
It makes me really sad to see all these old-guard feminists supporting Clinton just because she is a woman. Doesn’t seem like that’s how it’s supposed to work.
Margalis,
Your comment is so disingenuous, I hardly think it deserves a response.
Yet here I am responding to it. Oh well . . .
oh yeah… the writing is not clear and possibly that’s what the author intended to do…if the 2nd is the case than screw her.
Even though I want her to win, this would be really terrible. It was hard enough to watch her play Calvin ball with Michigan and Florida. Our system has been so badly abused in the last 8 years that the last thing we need is another president who demonstrates similar disregard for the trust the people place in him/her.
(as a sidenote, I really look forward to a day when referring to a generic presidential figure as him/her doesn’t sound so hollow. I just hope I live to see it)
Amanda, where you see entitled, I see confident.
My comment was not disingenuous at all. There was very little of substance in her endorsement of Hillary. Quoting a speech where Clinton says that breaking the spines of babies is wrong is not any more convincing than Bush saying that we are opposed to genocide in Sudan. (Is there a candidate who is for the breaking of babies spines? I suspect not)
She said a lot about Clinton’s rhetoric and almost nothing about her legislative history.
The entire last section of of the essay is basically “we women have to band together and vote for Hillary, because we’re women.”
I don’t begrudge anyone for liking Clinton. But it’s more than a bit lame to pretend that every true feminist has to feel the same way.
“There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means.”
So if you don’t recognize what Clinton means you are a dishonest person? Isn’t it possible some feminists prefer Obama for genuine policy reasons? Not because they want to be a “guy’s girl” and not because they are dishonest?
Might as well just write:
“Hillary is better and if you can’t see that you must be stupid and anti-feminist. And no, I’m not going to explain why.”
Bullshit.
You didn’t address the substance of her commentary at all. You just keep writing over it.
When did Hillary say she was entitled to the Presidency?
I’ve never heard her say or act like she was entitled.
I know I’m hogging the thread at this point, but this just pisses me off:
“Quoting a speech where Clinton says that breaking the spines of babies is wrong is not any more convincing than Bush saying that we are opposed to genocide in Sudan. (Is there a candidate who is for the breaking of babies spines? I suspect not)”
And yet, so fucking few candidates say anything at all about it. Probably because most don’t give a shit.
I’m not going to argue that Clinton is a bad candidate, I think she’s fine.
“You didn’t address the substance of her commentary at all.”
There was not much substance. One of the complaints in the essay is that Obama is a good talker but not a doer. Yet the essay relies very heavily on what Clinton has said rather than done.
Clinton spoke up against killing babies. Fine. What did she do about it? Point me at the legislation she authored.
For all the talk of her experience little if anything was said about anything specific she’s done in her political career.
But again, I don’t think Clinton is a bad candidate, I just reject the notion that by preferring someone else I’m somehow stupid or sexist or anti-feminist or betraying my feminist comrades.
I prefer Dodd much more than Obama or Clinton. String me up I guess…
She believes Clinton is the most experienced of the two candidates. She states this quite clearly.
I don’t know how a US politician (and, at the time, HRC was not in office) can legislate against an illegal practice in China. But they can speak up against it, which is what HRC did. How many others have?
“But again, I don’t think Clinton is a bad candidate, I just reject the notion that by preferring someone else I’m somehow stupid or sexist or anti-feminist or betraying my feminist comrades.”
I don’t see Morgan saying you’re stupid or sexist or anti-feminist by supporting someone else for your own reasons. Honestly, I don’t. She’s fairly specific about what she is against, which is the rampant misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton.
What about the entire “Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .” segment?
Or what about “Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?”
She compares women voting for Obama to slaves. Come on.
Note that she doesn’t lay out a single positive reason why someone would support Obama. In her mind supporting Obama makes someone defective.
The forum comments there are worth reading, very mixed:
http://womensmediacenter.com/b2evolution/index.php?blog=5&title=020408_robin_morgan_response&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments
(Forgive me if this link was already posted)
Gayle - I just checked back here before going to bed. Tomorrow, if I can find them I will post all the Kos and C&L comments were I was “taken to the woodshed.”
Mind you that when I do post it since it will be more than one link it will go into moderation before it gets posted.
You can’t honestly deny that this happens
which is the rampant misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton.
Which she defines as “voting for Obama”.
Sorry, but I’m not buying it … and I’m not buying the “generational divide” bullcrap she’s spewing because she means “you do as I say and we won’t have one” rather than “I’m ready to listen to people not over 60 and not educated at Smith or Wellesley and not living in New York”.
There have been a lot of good points for Hillary in this thread, but this part of Morgan’s essay really turned me off:
You know what? Screw that. Boomers have had a good time of it for almost 50 years now, and the seething sense of entitlement that leaps off the page in this paragraph disgusts me. She’s almost saying, “How dare we choose a younger candidate when the most entitled generation in history is due another decade or two in the sun???” This is almost a parody of boomer disdain for younger generations which they’ve harbored for decades.@Tyro Yeah, the boomers drive me crazy too. And this part struck me a little bit as being hoisted on your own petard. Wasn’t it the boomers that claimed you shouldn’t trust anyone over the age of 30 and youth was everything. And also she’s setting up a false dichotomy of young people vs aging women.
But I also saw this as a reaction to all those teevee news personalities that are saying Hillary’s just winning with the old ladies. If just didn’t count their votes she would lose. As if their vote isn’t as legit as any other.
Charlotte, what an excellent comment!
“…here’s also a part of her that sees, despite herself, every smug young teachers aide who has walked into her classroom straight out of school ready to discount her 35 years of experience. I think there’s something visceral that a lot of women her age see when they think about electing Obama — as much as they like him, do they really want to give this hard-won opportunity to the young guy? To a guy?”
I think you can expand the gender of the smug young teacher. Although the media loves to write about the rejection of feminism by young women in the nineties or the noughties, I think that is insane - instead, you have the assumption that the conditions created, partly, by feminists like Robin Morgan are “natural.” Morgan’s description of these young women afraid to offend their boyrfriends about politics seems way out of touch to me - I can’t see some Democratic 21 year old Buffy making coweyes at her boyfriend Biffy as he lays down the law about who she is gonna support. I don’t even think that happens on the GOP side. Not that such domineering doesn’t occur, but it occurs in a different way, under guises that are shaped, in part, by the success of feminist discourse. I think there is something to thinking that, underneath the meme that Obama is cool, there could lurk some old sexist shamemaking.
IMO, however, it is the tone of odd, well, contempt for young women that comes through in that essay. Which may well be the anger of the revolutionary who is at least semi-successful in changing things, but who finds herself unrecognized for her efforts. Plus, the feminist movement, which took off under Carter, never really had an ‘in’ at the White House until Clinton. There’s a certain sense that one should respect that.
Although other than the tone, I really see nothing wroing with the crudest appeal to gender identity. American politics is all about that. From the Irish voting for the Irish, the Poles for the Poles, African Americans for African Americans, it was one of the means of ascent in a society that gave an advantage to a certain ethnicity and gender. If I was Hillary Clinton, I’d certainly pull out the traditional stops. What gives me pause about Obama is just this goody goody, purer than thou thing. It all too reminiscent of a certain strain of Dem politician - from Stevenson to Bill Bradley - who wants to remain above the fray. Well, fuck that.
I think this was very much an ageist column, and that people are right to contrast using generational arguments.
This was a classic “mind your elders, who’ve put in their dues” auntie/group of aunties verbal bullying.
I think it’s disturbing that there are few pieces that I am aware of by older (any) feminists that are more about how Hilary Clinton would advance the power of women. I mean, tell me who of her key advisors are likely to be part of the presidency, and are women, and tell me about them. Tell me more about what her presidency would mean to other men (in positive terms!). All that good stuff.
Reading the Gloria Steinem and now this…well…
It really does have that rude, grasping “Out’athWay, it’s OUR turn now!” element to it.
Anyone who’s actually familiar with Adlai Stevenson and Bill Bradley would not confuse Obama with them.
Their problem was that they were elitist and didn’t give off any real degree of engagement with people and their problems. High-minded city on the hill type protestant craptitude.
Obama is trying to run a cleaner campaign, not an above it all campaign.
Gayle, what state do you live in? HRC doesn’t have to say it for herself - she’s got plenty around her to beat the “entitlement” drum for her!
Around my neck of the suburbias, HRC commandeered the whole political machine and all it’s fantastic patriarchal glory gears. Said machine then took it as a mandate to browbeat people into conformity with voting for her or get called all sorts of ugly names or be attributed with all manner of ugly motivations. This, in part, because it was all framed as being HRC’s presidency to just show up and take, and Obama was an upstart who was NOT qualified to even be running let alone to be voted for!
See also Therese Murray. After Edwards bailed, all ll it took was two or three minutes of our Senate President’s antics aired on the local NPR affiliate while I got dressed to make me suddenly realize why I really cringed every time I thought about voting for HRC. It was the politics she plays - the same style that I have to deal with every time the local school board does something stupid for the sake of being “in charge” or the Mayor does something misinformed for the sake of “appearing decisive” and doesn’t back down in the face of reality and evidence of best practices … I hate this locally! Why do I want it multiplied across the land by these same party machine cogs?
Granted, I grew up in the Northwest where democracy means a little more than “vote for the party slate or else”… and comparable worth was the feminis order of the day in the 1980s.
“Obama is good at these kind of political rallies but last night he basically said Clinton was soft on torture at 11.41 into his speech and I know that no one is going to call him on it.”
While this may seem unfair to you I think it should be pointed out that as recently as the Democratic Debates in Novemeber of last year HRC had a position of torture to the right of John Mccain (who, for all hiis horrendous postions has been a 100% person on this issue to his unquestioned political detriment), frankly given the fact that the first Clinton administration pionneered the odious practice of “renditioning” I’m not sure why I should
her recent shift on torture as anything more than political pandering– there’s a reason the the lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo Bay did something unprecedented and came out to endorse Barck Obama, he has never waivered on this issue, he led the fight to re-establish Habeas Corpus, and in Illinois he somehow pushed a law on videotaping interrogations through unananmimoulsy despite the fact that it was opposed by law enforcement (seriously, can you imagine how hard it would be to get unanimous support for something opposed by both Police Unions and Prosecutors). I could get into this somemore because it lies at the very core of the reason I back Obama (other than the War and my beilief in his ability to unify America around a new Progressive majority) but I think his ability to achieve bi-partisan reform is better stated by Prof. Lessig in the link earlier in this thread, (for god’s sake the man actually passed legislation with Mega-Douche Tom Coburn that’s laudable, seriously I didn’t even know Coburn would support
His voting record- or lack thereof- since he became a federal Senator. Even when he is in the building he avoids voting when he can. I prefer a candidate who has something to defend however wrong than one who will not take a stand on the record.
That’s what makes me squidgy about him, other people have other experiences.
Couldn’t you say the same about Hillary thought, I mean aside from the stuff that Amanda and others have rightly criticized her for (the war) what has she done as a Senator, what are her legislative achievements, the only things I can think of her publicly making an issue out of are her flag-brunign law (right wing pandering) and her big stand on video games (the perfect case of a Mark Penn/BIll Clinton microissue to try and grab the concerned parent vote), both of which I find antitheitical to freedom (and no that’s not hyperboles one’s basically and argument for censorship of new media and the others a classic 1st amanedment argument), while I would agree that most of Obama;s major legislative achievements occured in the Illinois State Senate, his work to restore Habeas Corpus, and his bipartisan legislation with Tom Coburn on Sunshine Laws appear to be at least as substantive as anyhting Hillary’s achieved in her Senate Career.
Lets look at Bubba Elvis for a moment here:
Age at taking office:46
Political experience:2 years as Atty General of AR
12 Years as Governor of AR
Now let’s look at Obama:
Current Age: 46
Political Experience:US Senator from IL 2004-present
IL State Senator: 8 years
Constitutional Law Lecturer, 11 years
I’m not quite sure where the youth issue is coming from. POTUS Clinton had been a governor, but of a rather small state. Obama has been a legislator nearly as long, and held a national level office. Age is very similar - if elected, Obama will actually be older than WJ Clinton was by almost exactly a year.
I guess it was “just different” when babyboomers smoked pot, too (or didn’t inhale it at any rate).
Gayle- The “Found her Voice, Media Shift to Bill” bit is less than honest, or at best true by omssion. While the media narrative did shift to Bill after NH, this was also the same point at whihc Bill became nout jus the a surrogate but also the campaigin primary attack dog, and hopneslty its hardest campaigner (I am willing to bet the Bill Clinton spent more time and gave more speeches in South Carolina, than did Hillary Clinton).
Ms. Kate what’s really funny is the Clinton camp calling out Barack as being shaloow based on ihhis message of Hope and Change, its either entirely disingenous (almost certainly as these people are very smart) or a mind0nubming case of cognitive dissonasance, I mean does the Clinton camp just assume that people don’t remeber the “Man from Hope”, pictures with JFK, etc. stuff that was a hallmark of Bill’s 1992 campaign?
I just want to clear up a few things about the Michigan/Florida situation, since I’ve done a lot of reading up on the issue after getting analogized to John Yoo by the boys at LGM, who are about as unhinged in their Hillary-hate as they come. The following comes from contemporaneous news sources, the DNC rules themselves, and conversations with someone who had been working for a non-Clinton, non-Obama campaign and who had some insider information on what went down.
Here’s what actually happened:
The Republican-controlled Florida legislature moved up its primary day for reasons having to do with the Republican primary. This meant that Florida’s primary was going to be prior to Super Tuesday; DNC rules allow only four states (IA, NH, SC and NV) to hold their primaries/caucuses prior to Feb. 5.
The powers-that-be in the state parties of those four states (especially IA and NH) were livid about another state being allowed to move its primary up and threaten their primacy.
The DNC started putting pressure on the FL Dems to declare that the contest would have no effect; the FL Dems said no.
The DNC said, fine, then, we’re stripping you of delegates.
The DNC then added a rule to their convention rules that required the candidates to refrain from campaigning in any state other than the four who scheduled their primary prior to Feb. 5. The punishment was being stripped of any delegates from that contest.
“Campaigning” has a specific meaning in that rule, and the candidates are specifically permitted to campaign in those states *after* the primary. There is absolutely no requirement that any candidate withdraw from any ballot. Indeed, Florida law did not permit withdrawing from the primary ballot, and at the time the rule was adopted, Michigan had not yet been stripped of its delegates because it hadn’t yet moved it up. All the candidates were on the Michigan and Florida ballots.
Within a few days, Richardson played Political Chicken Game 1: he circulated a “pledge” among the candidates which in substance only had the candidates promise to do exactly what the DNC Rules required of them, i.e., not campaign. The pledge also contained a lot of language about how very special IA and NH and the other early-primary states were. He got Biden, Kucinich, and Dodd to sign right away. The IA and NH people started getting annoyed that the big three weren’t signing it, so they did.
Michigan moved up its primary, and got stripped of its delegates by the DNC.
A month or so later, the Obama campaign engaged in Political Chicken Game #2, and coordinated with the Edwards, Kucinich, Biden and Richardson to withdraw from the Michigan ballot at the last possible moment, in order to make Clinton, who they knew wouldn’t be able to file the paperwork to withdraw as well in time, look bad. Dodd was approached but refused. Kucinich was actually unable to withdraw, because he couldn’t get the paperwork in, either.
Michigan primary happens with none of the candidates campaigning (except possibly Kucinich, but I’ve not gotten firm information on that, and Gravel). A few days before the Florida primary, Clinton announces that she’s asking her delegates to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates (the convention itself decides who’s seated, and there are procedures for re-seating those delegation in the governing rules). Florida has its primary, again with nobody campaigning.
My feeling is that the DNC will *have* to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations somehow, because it would be suicidal if they didn’t. And I also feel that by the time they make that decision, the votes of those delegates won’t be decisive, so it won’t really matter. If they will be decisive, the rules allow for the states to hold additional primaries in order to get their delegations seated again.
I’m just really tired of the meme that Clinton’s cheating, or going back on her promise, when people haven’t bothered to find out what she actually promised to do.
OK, I’m a white liberal man from the South. Feel free to ignore me.
I have been looking forward to voting for Senator Clinton since before her husband’s first term. (I was living an Alabama at the time, and I distinctly remember seeing my first “Who elected *her?” bumper sticker before his innauguration.)
I’m casting my vote for Senator Obama. Ms Morgan’s essay has sealed the deal.
This *is a generational election. Like Obama, I was born in 1961. We are part of the ass end of the Boomer cohort, and I am fed-up with our generational politics. The question is not who was right in 1968, but who is right *now.*
Zuzu-
Firstoff, LGM aren’t just boys, and I seriously doubt that they’re Hillary Haters, hell prior to the Florida thing they seemed pretty apolitical about the primary process, the only the they really remarked on was the misogyny of the NH media narrative, what set them off, and what you seem to be omtting is that Hillary, agreed along with the other canidates to these conditions, and then didn’t make a fuss until a)she “won” Michigan and b)she got trounced in SC, this strikes people as the kind of twist-the-rules, letter of the law, legalisms that Bill Clinton was criticised for (mostly unjustifiably) and a rather obvious case of political opportunism (if she had come out earler, say before Iowa and NH, then it wouldn’t have played this way).
I don’t understand what Zuzu’s summary is supposed to clarify.
Everyone in the world agreed that the Florida and Michigan votes wouldn’t count for anything. After Hillary won she started arguing that they should count after all.
It’s pretty black and white. I didn’t see Hillary get any flack for simply being on the ballot, she got flack for trying to game the system.
Does *anyone* in the world think she would have made noise about the votes counting had she lost?
It’s dishonest.
Firstoff, LGM aren’t just boys
Well, no kidding, but Scott and Rob are, and they’re the ones who did the Yoo analogy, accusing me of not respecting the process, even though they couldn’t be bothered to find out what the process *was.*
Margalis, I’m clarifying some misinformation that’s quite persistent — first, that HRC “agreed” to anything (since the DNC rules were a fait accompli at the time that the pledge, which was circulated by Richardson and not required by the DNC, was signed). Second, the status of who was on the Michigan ballot, since some people seem to believe that Obama, Edwards and Biden were never on it rather than that they withdrew as part of a coordinated effort. Third, that HRC broke any promises or pledges or rules, which she hasn’t.
Finally, that there’s a procedure already in place for having delegations from Michigan and Florida seated, but that it’s not within the power of any individual candidate to invoke it, so really all that HRC is doing is playing to the voters in those states because she’s stuck with the votes the way they are, particularly in Michigan. So there’s no “gaming the system,” there’s no cheating, and HRC’s playing to those voters is essentially just the third game of Political Chicken that’s occurred during this whole long saga, not some kind of special, unique kind of evil, or power-grabbing, or what have you.
No shit she wouldn’t be making noise about those delegates if she hadn’t won those states. But again, she made this announcement in January, many many months before the convention. Who the fuck really cares at this point that she’s asking for the delegates to be seated in August, when they probably won’t even make a difference in the outcome of the nominating process anyway?
I’m not sure how this excuses her. And no one who so fervently agreed with the article seems to want to defend that statement.
clytemnestra,
Look what you made me do!!!! [I’m hankerin’ for a “Cabinet nominees” post or a “Federal Agencies nominees” post from our hosts!] Okay, my early picks for cabinet members and Chief of Staff for either Obama or Clinton:
*****
Chief of Staff: Rep. Tammy Baldwin
*****
SecState: Christine Todd Whitman
SecTreas: Chris Dodd
SecDef: Jim Webb
Attorney General: Carol Lam, former U.S. prosecutor
Interior: Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska
Agriculture: A.G. Kawamura, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture
Commerce: Barney Frank
Labor: John Edwards (I cede to your superior reasoning, cly!)
Health and Human Services: Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
Housing and Urban Development: Bill Richardson
Transportation: Oscar Munoz, CFO of CSX Corp
Energy: Roger B. Kelley, president and CEO of the New York Power Authority
Education: Timothy J. Sullivan, former president of The College of William and Mary
Veterans Affairs: Patty Murray, member Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
Homeland Security: Susan Collins, ranking member Senate Homeland Security Committee
*****
Climate Change Czar: Al freakin’ Gore
Ms Kate: Lets look at Bubba Elvis for a moment here:
Age at taking office:46
Political experience:2 years as Atty General of AR
12 Years as Governor of AR
Now let’s look at Obama:
Current Age: 46
Political Experience:US Senator from IL 2004-present
IL State Senator: 8 years
Constitutional Law Lecturer, 11 years
Oooh, nice way to make a point.
Got a similar comparison for the rest of the Repuiblican and Democratic field?
I think it should be pointed out that as recently as the Democratic Debates in Novemeber of last year HRC had a position of torture to the right of John Mccain (who, for all hiis horrendous postions has been a 100% person on this issue to his unquestioned political detriment)
I think it should be pointed out that McCain voted for torture.
What the fuck is up with the collective faux-amnesia on this point? It’s not exactly a minor issue.
And, if it needs to be said, Clinton voted against the same torture bill McCain voted for. To claim that Clinton is to the right of McCain on torture is as detached from reality as the suggestion that she murdered Vince Foster. To put it in plain English, it’s a lie.
It would appear that “old guard feminist” and “second waver” have become dirty words at pandagon. How dare this old biddies to interfere with the hipness of Amanda by pointing out that one of these old wrinkled feminists actually does have a real chance to winning the White House, even if she isn’t all hip and cute and down? hell, she isn’t even endorsed by Oprah and we all know what a feminist Oprah is , she of perpetuating patriarchal stereotypes and inflicting body image issues on a ton of young girls.
It is ageism at its finest. The second wavers should retire in peace and leave the feminist scene to Amanda and her ilk, right? And in achieving that a little lie here and there, a nice little strawman or two and the double standard as a general rule are just little tiny things that shouldn’t bother our little heads.
So it is OK for Edwards to do a politically motivated move on teh Iraq vote but not for HRC. Because HRC is a woman, she is not allowedto act like the rest of the politicians. it’s unbecoming.
I think I speak for everyone when I say that I hate old white broads and that’s the real problem I had with the essay.
Obama is running a great primary race but I wonder how many of the little mistakes buried in his speeches are going to come back to bite him. I mean does he really want to run against John McCain on the torture issue. He might as well just concede the right leaning independants and left leaning republicans right now then.
That is what gets me the most- the strongest arguments against HRC are for when her campaign makes moves to set up the presidential campaign. Like she’s the only one who actually understands that this is a presidential bid and not just a run for the nomination. The democrats are going to need the party machines in Michigan and Florida and any pissed-off democrats who doesn’t vote in November is going to cost them. Caring about the long game must just be more of her evil womanly ways and not years of painful experience.
The essay illustrates what I consider to be a fatal flaw of the Clinton campaign. It’s too much of a girl’s club.
Men still make up 46% of the electorate. If Hillary Clinton can’t win male voters, she will not be President.
From the preachy and condescending essay of Ms. Morgan to the unhinged and hysterical press release from NOW-NY, the rantings of older feminists don’t help. This isn’t feminism, this is misandry.
Amanda, where you see entitled, I see confident.
I 100% agree, actually. That’s my point. The enemies of Clinton see confidence and call it entitlement. Morgan is pulling the same dirty trick to discredit Obama. It’s not cool to do it to Clinton, and we see it as base sexism. So why is it cool to do it to Obama, especially since that invokes some base racism?
FYI, I threw out my request last night that someone find the clarifying comment in the piece where Morgan praises Obama as a good vote for a thoughtful voter, because without that clarifying quote people seemed to believe was in there, she’s arguing that there’s no good reason to vote for Obama and everyone who is doing so is motivated from sexism. (Nevermind the polls that say that 76% of Obama voters love Clinton, too.)
I read it 10 times, didn’t see the quote.
No one was able to find it for me.
Case closed. She thinks that there’s no reason outside of sexism to vote for Obama. She has plenty of language indicting that, and nothing whatsoever that says differently.
Again, I was with her until she argued that the only reason someone like me could be voting for Obama is to please my boyfriend. It’s worth noting that my boyfriend is hardly an Obama supporter, either. Gore stole his heart, and everyone else pales in comparison. Plus, he thinks Obama is a Bible-thumper. So, contrary Morgan’s assessment, I am not operating as a man-pleaser.
Repeat: The vast majority of Obama supporters report being very happy with a Clinton victory. That is not the sexist recoiling Morgan assumes is the standard. The standard is “I like Clinton, but like Obama a little bit better, though it was a hard choice.”
If Hillary Clinton can’t win male voters, she will not be President.
Well, obviously she needs some men to vote for her, but it is perfectly plausible that Clinton could get a majority of women voters but lose the male voters and still win the presidency. Bill Clinton lost the male vote but won the female vote in 1996 and still won a fairly strong victory over Bob Dole.
For all those who think the “stereotype” of second wave feminism = interests of an educated east coast urban elite were a media fabrication, try again.
In high school, I dated the son of the local NOW chapter president who was quite fed up with the “messed up priorties” she saw in the national scene as of 1981. As a remarried divorced woman who had been a single mother and never went to college and ran a dairying operation, she understood that divorce rights, property rights, birth control and abortion access, access to credit, and childcare and pay equity should have been more promenently featured than the huge push to get more non-representative people elected to high office who happened to have vagina - even though they didn’t get her working-class west coast reality.
I guess she just was trying to please her son’s girlfriend by being “anti-feminist”, eh?
Just about everything Ms Kate has said here is right on.
I’ll add: Anyone who protested for Valerie Solanas (sp?) to be released from her 3-year-sentence for attempted murder isn’t right in the head.
Maybe her original Goodbye was good — I haven’t read but snippets. But hey, even the Monkees had a good song or two. That doesn’t mean I’m asking Mickey to tell me who to endorse for president.
Since when does enthusiastic support for a candidate and criticism of sexist treatment of her have to come with apologies and reassurances to the supporters of the opposing candidate?
When feminists, including high profile bloggers, talk about “some men” or “men who…” and the trolls come in claiming we’re man-haters, we tell them that DUH! we aren’t talking about all men, and the description of what men we’re talking about is obvious from the context. And rightfully so!
But suddenly when Robin Morgan talks about “some young women,” and describes sexist attitudes and hatred for HRC, it’s totally different! It’s so vague!
“For all those who think the “stereotype” of second wave feminism = interests of an educated east coast urban elite were a media fabrication, try again.
In high school, I dated the son of the local NOW chapter president who was quite fed up with the “messed up priorties” she saw in the national scene as of 1981 . . .”
Why did you just turn a criticism of one NOW local into a criticism of an entire wave of feminism.
That’s just messed up.
“Gayle, what state do you live in? HRC doesn’t have to say it for herself - she’s got plenty around her to beat the “entitlement” drum for her!”
You mean the Obama people. They say it all the time.
You didn’t answer the question Gayle, but that’s typical of HRC supporters who think themselves beyond question.
“Repeat: The vast majority of Obama supporters report being very happy with a Clinton victory. That is not the sexist recoiling Morgan assumes is the standard. The standard is “I like Clinton, but like Obama a little bit better, though it was a hard choice.”
LOL!
Since when does enthusiastic support for a candidate and criticism of sexist treatment of her have to come with apologies and reassurances to the supporters of the opposing candidate?
It doesn’t, so long as it isn’t ALSO laced with intergenerational attacks and thinly-veiled racism masquerading as “good feminism”.
I realize that, at 38, I must seem like a teenager to you, but I agree with Amanda. The essay is unnecessarily divisive, especially since (as has been mentioned multiple times and linked to) Obama voters say by an overwhelming majority that they’d be happy to vote for Clinton.
This thread helped me clarify my thinking, thanks all. Had there were no Obama I would have supported Hillary because her flaws are negligible compared to any Republican’s. But there is an Obama, so for me the bar is raised for her.
Hillary’s experience is comparable to John Edwards, and no one would argue that John Edwards is unqualified to be President. Yet it’s almost impossible for me to imagine how she would have become be the junior Senator from New York without having been wife of the most popular Democratic President in decades. And Bill is certainly entitled to go on the campaign trail and talk up her virtues. I mean, Michelle Obama does the same thing. But for me, Hillary cannot in fairness claim the benefit from being Bill’s wife while waving off the negatives.
For her to get my vote in the primary, she would have had to disavow Bill’s NAFTA and Bill’s welfare reform, which have hurt ordinary people both here and in Mexico, by letting good-paying manufacturing jobs go to a few Mexicans while cheap tax-subsidized American corn takes away the livings of millions of Mexicans; and deprived poor children of their mothers’ attention and care. (At least the proposal to put poor mothers’ children in orphanages was scuttled.)
Not that Hillary is that much of a humanitarian on her own; the Adoption and Safe Families Act she pushed sets an arbitrary speeded-up timetable to take children away from their parents permanently, even if the parents are later found to be fit.
So while the Clintons’ nepotism makes them no worse than the Bushes, I hoped for — and can get — a great deal better.
BTW Gayle, it wasn’t the opinion of “one local” but reflected a general exasperation with misplaced priorities. It was a reality that the leadership of the organization had grown more concerned with advancing the careers of priviliged women from a narrow geographical area, and were not attending to and were even hostile to addressing the concerns of those whose lot in life they didn’t understand or share.
If the media parlayed that into a backlash, they were only able to do so because there was a certain bitter truth in it. After the ERA went down, “feminist leaders” proceeded to ignore or avoid the realities faced by the majority of women.
Wow, Kate,
You just did it again. You’re smearing an entire generation of feminists (and women outside of that generation who happen to agree with them) because someone you know didn’t like the priorities of a small group of NOW officers.
“After the ERA went down, “feminist leaders” proceeded to ignore or avoid the realities faced by the majority of women.”
Ugh.
Not an entire generation, Gayle, just those who marginalized the voices of the majority of their SAME generation and are continuing to do so to subsequent generations.
Just because they spoke YOUR language does not mean that they addressed the pressing concerns of a whole nation of women their same age, if they even cared to.
The primary process is flawed and undemocratic from the bottom up. Most people want to see their candidate elected and few care how its happens. Super delegates and what to do with the disenfranchisement of the Florida and Michigan votes is only a part of a process that is broken. Its beginning to look like Clinton will win the popular vote but arrive at the convention with less delegates. How did people feel about that when it happened to Al Gore? Which undemocratic flaw a person objects to and which one they ignore pretty much has to do with which candidate benefits.
Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama share many of the same goals and proposed policies. I actually would be comfortable voting for either over any Republican candidate. However, as a feminist, am I going to take the first real opportunity to vote for a woman to take the office of U.S. President?
By the way, I don’t care if it is identity politics (which a whole lotta politics is anyhow). Clinton’s not Elizabeth Dole; so I don’t have to consider the proposition of voting for a woman with whom I disagree on everything.
That’s a completely valid position. The position we’re arguing against is projecting that out to all women and declaring that if they don’t vote for Hillary and vote for Obama instead, they must be self-hating anti-feminists.
What I most hate about the “oppression-off” is that, as demonstrated in this thread, it pits women against each other. “2nd wavers” vs. “3rd wavers,” old against young, etc. You can’t make a decision in a vacuum about whom to vote for, not if you’re a woman. Or a person of color. Because women and people of color are not “the norm” (except that, in real life, yes we are), so every decision is, consciously or otherwise, influenced by our experience of “other-ness.”
For that, I’m sure 98% off the readers know what I blame, as another radfem constantly reminds us.
(hint: patriarchy)
so I must have imagined that shedload of Obama supporters bitching about how they’d rather vote for Mc Cain than for Hillary? Right
At the end of teh day, Amanda et all, this column is a strawman. Morgan did not address “young feminists”, she addressed a certain group which she defined in detail. Stating that said group equals all ofObama’s feminist supporters is disingenuous, but we have already got used to that at pandagon . Execting Morgan to give you an obligatory nod and a pat on the head that “your option is also valid” which seems to be the theme of a lot of Amanda’s comments on this thread is postmodernism at its finest idioticism. She doesn’t owe you that nod, and nobody else does. She talks about her own preferences.
IfAmanda needs the blessing of Morgan or someone else’s in order to feel good about her own optio, she should start asking herself why is that and why does she feel so eager to jump on everyone who disagrees with her on this matter. This entry is shameful.
Amanda: I’m not sure what I think of the essay, but these two bits:
‘I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?’
‘I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). ‘
does seem to suggest that she’s saying something similar to what you are with a slightly different conclusion: their politics are very similar, but you think that Clinton’s Iraq policy makes her worse, she thinks Clinton’s domestic policy makes her better. That might not be saying that it’s ok to vote for Obama, but it’s far from saying it’s stupid to vote for him.
My guess is that what you get out of the essay is partially what you go in with (the wording is very weird), for example this quote:
‘the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.’
you could either read as comparing Obama to Bush or as a counterpoint to all the comparisons of Obama to JFK. This second reading would be staying with her main point that Obama has little experience (not that I think he does, but some do).
I ended up voting for Obama, but really find them very similar–they both have their good and bad points, but are vastly better than any Republican.
The internet /= real life. Believe it or not (and I forget it sometimes myself), most people don’t spend a lot of time reading about and commenting on politics. You’re going to get a higher percentage of whiny-ass titty babies online.
And, like I said, if those guys persist in saying that through the election, and Hillary loses, they will be pariahs. They’ll be the Nader voters of 2008, the assholes who lost us the election and fucked up the country.
(Note about my last graf: I was a Nader voter in 2000. I’m using the rhetoric to point out what will be said about liberal chauvinists who refuse to vote for Hillary, not starting the third-party argument up again.)
“Just because they spoke YOUR language does not mean that they addressed the pressing concerns of a whole nation of women their same age, if they even cared to.”
I’m sure any number of misogynists would agree with your opinion.
did you just pull that out of the air hoping that no one would actually go to the page you linked to?
obama is 46. that’s pretty damn young for a presidential candidate. he’s been in a political office–any political office–for three years. before that he was a community organizer, a lawyer, and a lecturer — NOT a politician.
clinton is 60. she’s been in political office for seven years. before that she was a first lady for twenty years.
i’m not disputing your support of obama, but please don’t say that obama has more political experience, or even more experience as a politician, than hillary. it’s just not true.
and tell me Mnemosyne, did that help the USA in the past 8 years? did it make things better? did it erase the Bush administration? Because I don’t think it achieved anything.
Words and votes can’t be taken back.
The Obama campaign has yet to delimit itself from the rampant mysoginy it cultivated amongst its supporters. It takes women for granted, and in the process it has burned a lot of bridges. It is funny enough probably the reason why Hillary will win: because the women can see themselves in her and identify with what she is putting up with.
I have yet to see a good enough explanation as to what makes Obama better. I have however seen that he gets away with a lot of things, and the double standard that the patriarchy is based on is being re enforced by his supporters on a daily basis. Even at Pandagon, who was at some point ago a feminist blog, we have seen how the same act comitted by two politicians changes its significance when one of said politicians is male and one female. Exactly how well do you think that will be washed come national elections? Has Obama ever even competed with a republican candidate? he was state senator in a liberal district and represents a liberal state. Are you that willing to put one of the most important elections your country has ever seen in the hands of someone untried and untested?
And if we want so much to compare Obama to JFK it might be worth remembering that JFK achieved nothing of what he had promised to do. That he couldn’t work with the congress or anyone else, and that it took the unglamorous LBJ to actually get things done. here in Europe we have a long history of glamorous charismatic leaders…. and we have learned the hard way that nothing replaces competence. The glamorous hip and charismatic leaders have ended too many times in being very dangerous and damaging for their nations.
I see Obama’s popularity as a symptom of the American push button and instant gratification conception of life. it is a lot easier to convince yourself that this candidate has a magic solution to all of the hard problems your country faces, and to be resentful against the candidate that tells you that it actually takes hard work. Yelling “change, change change” doesn’t actually achieve anything but a sore throat in real life. not to mention the “not all change is good change” part. Hey, Bush sure changed things for your country, didn’t he?
Look at yourself. You are a Naderite. has it ever bothered you that your vote helped get Bush into power? has it stopped you enough to think that someone with a proven record of bad choices should maybe abstain and think twice before endorsing another high risk candidate?
Claire, you’re wrong. Obama was in the Illinois senate before Congress, starting since 1997, and Hillary was first lady for 8 years.
soopermouse, Hillary also never really faced a strong republican candidate in NY either after being handed the nomination by the NY Democratic machine.
Claire, you’re wrong. Obama was in the Illinois senate before Congress, starting since 1997, and Hillary was first lady for 8 years.
soopermouse, Hillary also never really faced a strong republican candidate in NY either after being handed the nomination by the NY Democratic machine.
Claire, you’re wrong. Obama was in the Illinois senate before Congress, starting since 1997, and Hillary was first lady for 8 years.
soopermouse, Hillary also never really faced a strong republican candidate in NY either after being handed the nomination by the NY Democratic machine.
Chester- she was First lady in Arkansas for 12 years. Plus 8 in the White House, that makes 20.
Experience in the Academia is not experience in politics. Comparing the two is disingenuous at best.
and if you seriousy dont count teh constant smearing she’s had to put up with for 10 years or more as “opposition” you are seriously delusional.
Soopermouse, I’ll grant you the first lady of Arkansas (comical to me, sorry) but not the “constant smearing” as opposition. You said: “Has Obama ever even competed with a republican candidate?” and my response was neither did Clinton in NY.
Please don’t change the goalposts.
I don’t buy the “ruthless” Hillary meme since the Republicans were able to shut down Bill’s presidency and impeach him. Both he and Hillary were stymied.
Amanda, great article.
Thread is wayyyy dead.
But to anyone who is still reading:
I loved it. Thanks for your thoughts.
“We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography…”
I’d like to know what was meant by the above quote.
Robin Morgan: “We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography…”
I’d like to know what was meant by the above quote.
Yea, probably dead now!
But I’d still like to know what was meant by:
“We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography…”
(Morgan)
“The short-sighted willingness to push the lie that Obama is “inexperienced”, much less arrogant and ignorant, makes me crazy. Thanks for giving the McCain campaign their narrative in the general, should Obama win! It’s vaguely racist to say these things (see: the long tradition of trying to discredit black leaders by casting suspicion on their qualifications, such as the way that racists obsess over MLK’s doctorate’s legitimacy), and certainly banking on the fact that Obama looks younger than he is. His extensive experience that qualifies him for the job—including more years as a politician than Clinton—is readily available.”
I forget. What was it that Obama accomplished as a senator?