BlogHer - Why women undermine Hillary Clinton - Comments

Oh, I forgive you, but I still must ask ...

Nordette — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:54:22 -0600

So, let me understand this here. Do I, as an African-American female, vote for Hillary because she is female or do I vote for Obama because he's African-American? Pushing "vote for Hillary because she's a woman" will backfire in African-American communities.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but no one took Sharpton seriously enough to bring him to task. For these two "firsts," over-simplification may be the norm to enter this most exclusive club: President of the United States.

Nobody, including most African-Americans, took Sharpton seriously. Neither did African-Americans take Alan Keyes seriously. They really hated Keyes' politics, and yet, like the white woman in my doctor's office who assumed I'd support Al Sharpton because we're both black, there were some who thought African-Americans would support Keyes because he's black. And herein lies both the danger and offensive nature of Feldt's logic and oversimplification asking should women support Hillary the way blacks are supporting Obama. The offensive assumption is that blacks are only supporting Obama, if indeed that's true, because Obama is black.

I realize your original post is not about Hillary's winning the black vote, but I think my reaction to Feldt's logic should be a red flag to anyone supporting Hillary. Feldt's logic and her oversimplification is the type of thinking that makes it laughable that African-Americans would think of Hillary as non-white.

Vote for me because I'm female won't fly with the black community. Actually, I don't think it flies well with women in general, women of all races.

Sorry, while I understand your concept of Hillary being a non-white/non-male candidate to mean she's not an establishment white guy and she's breaking barriers, as an African-American, I don't accept it. Hillary Clinton is a seasoned politician of European descent. African-Americans probably see her as "Democrat," and we tend support Dems, but she's still white to us. Surprisingly, her whiteness may not have anything to do with the color of her skin. Remember Obama's "blackness" challenge! The question is really, are you genuine in identification with matters important to our community?

It should break down the same way for female voters. Does Hillary identify with what's important to me and my community? Can she help us?

And let's be practical here. If either of these candidates makes an issue of heavily identifying with gender or race, he/she will lose. Hillary will suffer if she harps on "I am woman" as will Obama if he focuses on "I am black."

Barak's blackness vs. Hillary's womanliness

Morra, I wrote a book today because of your response and this post. Thank you! The discussion broke me from a slump of writing trivia.
The rest of the "book" is posted to my blog at this link.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Moral Bankruptcy

Mata H — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:35:25 -0600

I honestly think that our current political system is morally bankrupt. It isn't the media. It isn't the gender preference. These are not the big issues.

I think the big issue is that the two main parties have sold out to entrenched special interest groups (not just the presidential candidates). The corruption, the lies, the secrets, the back rubbing and back stabbing -- all the heinous behavior -- we now take it for granted. Add to that protectionism, special favors, spin doctors, and floods of MONEY and we are left with a system that could make our founding fathers (and mothers) spin fast enough in their graves that clumps of earth should fly into the air.

It may be time for a viable 3rd party in this country.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool

Agreed that Hillary has a

nelle2nelle — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:39:43 -0600

Agreed that Hillary has a track record... but the degree of animosity goes far beyond what we'd see with the average second term senator.

As stated before, it is not my intent to advocate for Hillary, only to get more people to do what you have done, namely articulate why it is you dislike her/can't vote for her. Too many I have run into cannot or will not do this.

And again, I know not who will get my vote when that first primary rolls around (whatever date they set it for.)

Finally, a thought running through my mind this morning... men are more adverse to voting for a woman than the reverse, which does put every woman who runs for president at quite a disadvantage.

nelle

Utopian ideals

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:58:25 -0600

In the little utopian world that exists in my head, feminism will eventually bring us to the point where we look past a person's sex when we consider them for any job. It'll just be, is this person the most qualified candidate around?

I don't like the idea that women should vote for female candidates any more than I think it makes sense that men should vote for male candidates in some weird show of gender solidarity. (I wrote about this at BlogHer in a post called "Elect Women for a Change." Just because we share an identity as women does NOT mean we have the same goals and desires in life. Voting based on gender or ethnicity is foolish.

I also explained why I don't support Clinton, and it is for the same reasons that everyone else has already cited. I'm judging her on her actions and beliefs, and over the years, I've found them disappointing. I understand that politics are harsh and require compromises. Clinton is obviously smart, but I don't think she is the right leader for these times.

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Whose version?

marymbauer — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:25:14 -0600

Morra, Yes, but whose version of "truth and honesty" are we getting?

I couldn't agree with you more about the current challenge of learning the "truth" being solely the candidates problem. The media has a HUGE hand in "picking" our president. Sound bites easily make or break a candidate.

Oh God, the media -- probably best not to start on that, BUT... drama sells and not real issues and THAT IS OUR PROBLEM. Our responsibility. We actually do have control over that -- turn off the offenders. Don't watch them. Don't buy papers/mags with sensationalized reporting. If the drama no longer sells, the reporting will change.

But that said, the candidates ALL know this. At this point in our history they must take full advantage of the coverage they do get -- if they get any at all -- and let it rip. Let us know who they are.

So far, Hillary Clinton has done a good job of changing her position on key issues as to make me suspect of her motives, AND her sound bites have been less than flattering, and she did so KNOWING what she was doing. And that is why I can't vote for her now.

Had this been several years ago -- when Bill Clinton first took office... I liked her then. The media flogged her mercilessly, but that made me listen to her more. Why? Because she truly did seem to be someone who cared -- deeply -- about the same things I cared about. And though she struggled and wasn't all that polished, her true intentions came through loud and clear. She was Jimmy Carter with even less support!

But Hillary is not this same person anymore -- at least I haven't seen any evidence of this. There's a cold, calculated feel to her now -- could be she's more guarded and I don't blame her a bit -- makes sense, all she's been through. But what she DOES say, doesn't seem the same message anymore. It too seems cold and calculated.

And it angers me to the core that any woman could think this is about gender or race or any of that bull. I wish we'd all quit thinking this way because we are smarter than this. I am from the Midwest -- Wisconsin of all places. I talk to my friends -- male and female about this and the bottom line is these candidates are applying for a seriously tough job -- a selfless, dangerous, you will-look-and-feel-390 years-older-when-your-term-is-up kind of job.

We absolutely need a superhero in this position, yet we are all mortals. And the media does make a BIG fuss about that. Kennedy would've gone down in flames given the press coverage of today.

Can't have a superhero? Then I'll take the next best thing: someone who is genuine, honest, takes their lumps with grace, and says it like it is to my face every single time. No grandstanding allowed. Equal opportunity employer.

http://www.marymbauer.com

Our system doesnt let candidates be who they really are

Morra Aarons Mele — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:36:11 -0600

Mary, you write: "...And that's the fundamental problem as I see it with all of this -- we don't know who the candidates really are or what they really stand for. They ALL tell us what they think we want to hear -- all of the time -- without really saying anything. "

I agree with you, but I have a hard time just blaming candidates for this. In our 24 hour news cycle/microscope in light/poll-driven culture, how could someone as famous as Hillary Clinton possibly be more honest, more raw than she is? She cannot be Britney Spears, shaved head, rehab, etc. She cannot be Cindy Sheehan. She cannot even be Jim Webb, who gets away with a lot more, er, eccentricities.

But ironically, that's what our nation, I think, thirsts for. Honesty, truth.

Not about gender

marymbauer — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:18:57 -0600

"You simply do not see this same level of intense dislike with men, not until there is an actual track record that can be dissected and critiqued."

Hillary Clinton does have a track record. And yes, those who do not agree with the Bush politics "dislike" him just as vehemently -- before taking office and after.

It is not personal -- not for me. I prefer to know less about their private lives, but feel entitled to know the valid info as it pertains to running the country: Are they fiscally responsible? Do they play well with others? Do they have a good grasp on reality? (What the people are struggling with, what they want accomplished) Do they have a real plan to accomplish these tasks? Where do they stand on environmental issues? Do they NOT blame and excuse their behavior and incite the masses with fear (ie: the whole "axis of evil" thing)? Are they courageous and inspiring people? Do they get that the "job" is NOT about them or their religion?

I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton and it has nothing to do with gender. I could not and did not vote for George Bush (either of them -- ever) and it had nothing to do with gender.

Elizabeth Dole had my attention until she packed it in -- but again, we were just starting to get a glimpse of where she stood on issues and then it was over. So it's hard to say if she could've gone the distance.

I see Hillary Clinton as basically the new Dick Cheney -- quiet, smart, manipulative. Is capable of doing whatever it takes to forward her interest. If she doesn't want to be seen in this light, then her "track record" needs to look different. Same goes for John Edwards -- it's a "no" to him as well.

I am totally for doing whatever it takes to get the job done, and I absolutely KNOW how much smarter and harder a person has to work as a woman to do that -- but NOT when it's for personal gain at the expense of others. Probably why I don't shop Wal-Mart.

Hillary is to be commended for her attempt to change the role of June Cleaver-ish First Lady. Her healthcare for the masses was a very worthy cause and effort, and I have nothing but admiration for her in this regard -- but she's not talking about this issue now. At least I haven't picked it up in any sound bites.

And that's the fundamental problem as I see it with all of this -- we don't know who the candidates really are or what they really stand for. They ALL tell us what they think we want to hear -- all of the time -- without really saying anything. And if they are a congressional member, it is really tough to decipher how they feel about an issue based on their voting record. Maybe they didn't like the attached pork projects and their nay vote was about that?

The presidential candidates are applying for the toughest job in the nation -- we need their true credentials in order to hire the best person for the job. I don't think we've had a worthy applicant in a very long time...

http://marymbauer.com

Comparing

shelleyp — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:15:24 -0600

What concerns me more is when I hear people say, "Oh, I just don't like her" without specifics as to why. When you do hear specifics, if you ask, what is Edwards or Obama's take on the same issue, you find that Clinton isn't much different. In fact, may even have a better take.

She voted to support the Iraqi war? So did Edwards. Edwards apologized, but Clinton didn't? Is that really so important?

More importantly, I dislike both Obama's and Edwards constant reference to religion, something you don't see Clinton do. In fact, Clinton is the candidate least likely to 'please' the crowd from what I've seen, so I'm surprised when people are critical of this.

Women shouldn't feel we have to support Clinton, or any other woman for office. But I do think we need to look inside and question our initial responses when we don't. We owe each other that, at least.

Then if it's a no go, at least it will be based on the issues.

What bothers me the most of this whole election is with all the diversity present, it will probably end up being some white, Christian, straight guy against another white, Christian, straight guy.

When are we going to stop being afraid?

Mention Hillary in a quiet

nelle2nelle — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:32:50 -0600

Mention Hillary in a quiet room, then crawl out underneath all the legs...

I'm rather amused by the degree of hatred and dislike for her, and have been encountering this on a feminist board for some time. I inevitably ask those dissing Hillary to explain what it is about her policy positions which lead to their intense dislike.

I rarely get answers.

I'm not sure as yet who will get my vote, it's too early... but there is still an undercurrent of gender discrimination afoot here, of that I am convinced. You simply do not see this same level of intense dislike with men, not until there is an actual track record that can be dissected and critiqued.

With Hillary, it starts with health care. She advocated for *gasp!* covering everyone... imagine that - what a perfectly awful thing to propose. OK, so that flows into "but she wanted the government to be involved!" So rather than have the health care discussion this country so desperately needed and needs to have, we shot the messenger, and keep right on shooting.

Then it was her playing road runner to the Republicans wily coyote, as she danced around their feeble attempts to pin Whitewater and various other dreamed up events upon her and her hubby.

That was followed by her not nailing him in the nuts for his sexual transgressions, she was supposed to follow Lorena Bobbitt's lead and end his flirtations once and for all.

What gets lost here is we know not what she had to say to good old Bill when the doors were closed. She also played this in a very strategic way, knowing she could better advance her cause and her ambitions by hanging near Bill, rather than tossing him to the wolves in a public way. Not to mention how that would have impacted their daughter.

Not yet finished with her perceived faux pas, Hillary suggested all of us play a role in raising a child in our community. No! Why that's... how commie's think!

So who wishes to say universal health care is in fact a bad idea? Anyone wish to suggest a community has no stake and role in raising children?

I do think arguments can be put forth about her war stance, or even her move to the middle on choice, though I do understand what she was suggesting there... there is common ground, rather than dig trenches, let's accomplish something by working the middle. Makes sense.

I'm not crazy on her lukewarm snuggle up to the lgbt community. DADT is a noble thing to cast aside, but where oh where are you on marriage, Hillary?

Make no mistake... she is a brilliant human being, a cunning and shrewd politician, a formidable opponent. She also has to do what most every woman has to do when applying for a job - be twice as good as any man who applies, in order to be taken seriously. That can be a very tough standard for anyone.

nelle

ah, Sharpton...

Morra Aarons Mele — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:49:42 -0600

he was entertaining during debates, though. Kept me awake.

I think Obama has to explain his blackness for the same Hillary has to address her womanliness head on: these are the first two really serious non-white guy candidates.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but no one took Sharpton seriously enough to bring him to task. For these two "firsts," over-simplification may be the norm to enter this most exclusive club: President of the United States.

Anyone see Man of the Year?

marymbauer — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:27:27 -0600

Hillary Clinton -- No. I can't vote for her and it doesn't have a thing to do with gender. It's a trust issue with Hillary -- I don't trust a thing that comes out of her mouth. Her politics are the flavor of whatever audience she panders to. But she says it in a way that comes across as totally fake and rehearsed, because you just KNOW that she has thought and rethought every single word. And it makes me angry that she thinks people are naive enough to not notice. Who the heck is Hillary? Who knows? That's what's so frustrating.

But it's not just Hillary with these shoddy politics. I have no doubt that most of us ARE looking for the same type of candidate no matter the race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. My wish list:

1.) Honest

2.) Hard working

3.) Must have their own personal checkbook in balance

4.) Knows and lives by the Golden Rule-- that means NO NAME CALLING or negative campaigning -- ever.

5.) Good listener and team player -- as in gets our foreign policy back on track

6.) Gets the congress to actually do their work instead of grandstanding and voting on "pretend" ammendments

7.) Accountability. A candidate who is first to admit fault and take action WITHOUT needing prompting by a "special hearing" or media thrashing will definitely put the itch in my voting finger.

8.) No talking around the questions. Just say it and mean it and stick to it no matter who the audience is. We really do want to know what the candidate thinks -- really -- we're not kidding about that.

Side note: The second a candidate waffles on issues during a debate, I'd disqualify them from the debate -- if only I were Jim Lehrer...

9.) Someone who can make congress vote for term limits on their jobs. We need new blood! New thinkers! More of a true representation of The People.

10.) Someone who can boot out the special interest groups and lobbyist - for good. Period. Slam the door and nail it shut.

11.) Someone who thinks voting for one issue at a time is a good idea vs. trying to decipher and vote on 400 pages of ??? This way the voting record of each congressional member would be accurate and something tangible the voters can use to base an informed decision on the next election.

12.) I want someone who can leave all personal issues at home, or on the therapist's couch, or with their clergyperson. And I want the government to quit trying to decide all the personal issues for us. Sheesh.

Oh the dream world I do live in. I already know that I'll vote for any candidate who can meet my first three wishes... Colin Powell, what are you doing Nov. 2008?

http://www.marymbauer.com

Feldt oversimplifies and makes a poor analogy

Nordette — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:13:01 -0600

Feldt asks: "Shouldn't women support Hillary in the same way support from African Americans is beginning to sway toward Barak Obama?"

Uhh, NO! If anything, women should be smart enough to learn from African-Americans. We've put in some outstanding leaders using the logic that the candidate is "black like me."

However, we've also put some crazy people in charge sometimes, voting African-American candidates into office based on race. Some of these candidates have done more damage than good. Women should study African-American history and learn to not vote for women simply because they are women.

Furthermore, Feldt is assuming that the main reasons African-Americans may be leaning toward Obama is because they hope he'll be the next black first. How very provincial of her! Is she assuming all African-Americans think the same way as some whites assume Jesse Jackson speaks for all African-Americans?

While some African-Americans may vote for Obama simply because he is of African descent, others are carefully studying his record. Ironically, Obama has the challenge of proving himself to be "black enough" with some African-American voters. (Takes too long to explain why.) If Feldt would consider the origins of why Obama should have to prove his blackness, she'd know her analogy is an oversimplification of the African-American experience.

The most appealing thing about Obama for me is that should he be elected and become "the first African-American President," he seems to have enough integrity and smarts to stay out of a scandal. I hope his brains may make up for his lack of experience; however, I remain concerned that he's moved too quickly in seeking the presidential office, too quickly in relation to his own experience, not too quickly in relation to America seeing an African-American President.

Inexperience notwithstanding, I think it may be that brain of his that's prompted his running. He may not win the nomination, but he may end up the final nominee's running mate.

Feldt should look around and pay attention. Al Sharpton ran for President without much support from the larger African-American community. Does she believe whatever she reads from big media and sees on TV about African-Americans and how we think? Does she see a crowd of black people congregating around a certain individual and assume even those of us who are absent like that person as well?

Really, her statement reminds me of a white woman who sat near me in '03 or '04 in the doctor's waiting room on the day Sharpton announced he was running for President. I heard the news and burst out laughing. Couldn't stop myself.

The woman looked shocked, and was honest enough to admit she was surprised by my reaction to his announcement. I said, "Oh, you thought all black people think alike and follow the same self-professed leaders?" She blushed, her bright red face revealing her misguided mindset.

The political climate for electing women to office is not the same as the political climate African-Americans face now and have faced in the past. Yes, there are some similarities, but the challenges are not and have not been the same. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a white female makes it to the Oval Office before an African-American. In the meantime, Feldt should be more careful about how she makes her points. Certainly, she loses credibility with me using her "like African-Americans" analogy.

If Hillary would make a good President of the United States, then women and everyone else should consider voting for her. However, these times are more turbulent, war in mind, women should vote for the "best" candidate, regardless of gender. That may in fact be Hillary Clinton, but I'm not convinced she's the one for me, even less convinced after seeing her recent "drawl" shenanigans. Bill was more sincere. A lot of that laughter in Selma could be described as nervous chuckles.

Hillary! Stop trying to be "us" to win our love. If you're worthy to be the next President of the United States, then just be yourself.

As presidential candidates go, this nation has slim pickings.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette

Call her Hilary-

Pattiofdarkstar — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:32:52 -0600

I believe the Clintons came up with the First name Good ole Boy talk to seem more like "real folks"...
At one point we were supposed to call her Ms. Roddam,( to honor her rich, Yuppie parents? To distance her from her poorly behaved husband? )- remember that?
I personally call her what she and her husband are- very poor excuses for elected officials. Hopefully they will go away and quit embarrasing the rest of us.

smiles Morra, I've been

viciousrumours — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:16:48 -0600

*smiles* Morra, I've been saying that about the men running for President since I was a teenager. I don't think we've had a decent choice for President in a very long time. Mostly we are forced to chose between the lesser of two evils. Sad.

It's unfortunate that stigma will be forever attached to a femal presidency if the first one elected fails to accomplish Kennedy like stature, but it's true none the less. The same holds true for electing an President of another ethnic group. No one seems to not want to elect another old white guy because Bush screwed things up....I wonder why that is?

Backing Hillary Clinton should be done because you agree that she will be able to fix problems that need fixing and from where I sit, she's just another fast talking politician. This would be an example of equal treatment....I don't like her anymore than I like the Protestant White Guy candidates.

It's a good topic for discussion though. How do we fix the perception that as long as it's an older, smiling white man with good "Christian" values it's okay to not judge him based on what others like him have done, but that for a woman or a person of ethnicity to be elected, they will be watched and judged and their actions will likely determine if any others of that gender or ethnicity get to run or be elected? Combating that mindset in our nation should be a primary focus.

Bring it on Mata: Why don't we call Cheney, Dick??

Morra Aarons Mele — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:32:57 -0600

"And what is it with always calling her "Hilary"? We didn't always call Kerry, "John". We don't always call Obama, "Barak"."

You are SO right!! Why is it that just because Hillary is a woman she has to have a "conversation," and soft lighting and a first-name relationship with the country????

And will her VP candidate have to use his first name on the placards??

Why women undermine Hillary Clinton

Morra Aarons Mele — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:37:13 -0600

Today in Womenâ€™s eNews, former Planned Parenthood head and renowned feminist Gloria Feldt talks about why women have a hard time accepting that Hillary Clinton could actually BE president. Feldt says this hurts the ultimate goal of gender neutrality in politics- and basically asks women to summon their courage and get on with it. Itâ€™s kind of the like famous Groucho Marx line: I wouldnâ€™t join any club that would accept me as a member.

Feldt asks: "Shouldn't women support Hillary in the same way support from African Americans is beginning to sway toward Barak Obama?" And then goes on to cite four reasons why itâ€™s hard for us to fully get behind Hillary, even if we think she could be a good leader (and I fully accept the legitimate arguments with her politics or voting stances: I have them too).

1) 'Not Ready for One of Us' Fear: our society is â€œjust not readyâ€ for a female president, so why bother?

2) 'I Love Hillary BUT'â€¦she carries Bill's baggageâ€¦she's polarizing. Older women, Hillaryâ€™s peers, â€œworry that if Clinton loses, they lose--that it will set back their accomplishments for women; they are clearly wary of that risk.â€

3) Media Fears or, as Feldt writes, â€œthe Maureen Dowd effect. In a stunning display of sexist language, The New York Times columnist last December called a tiff between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman a "catfight." About Clinton, Dowd wrote that as first lady she "showed off a long parade of unflattering outfits and unnervingly changing hairdos" and that when Clinton "expressed outrage about Iraq," she "ended up sounding like a mother whose teen-age son has not cleaned up his room."
I call it the â€œmean mommyâ€ effect.

4) Fear of Identification with Imperfection Fourth is the Arianna Huffington paradox: women are toughest on other women.

Leading women like Huffington can reserve â€œfiercest vitriol for the candidate of her own gender and her own party.â€

Itâ€™s called projective identification in psychology: we project onto others our worst fears about ourselves. National leaders, like celebrities, are prime candidates for this because we imbue so much into them. Their faults are our faults.

What do you think? Hillary has so much on her shoulders, and so many waiting for her to fail. Are Americaâ€™s women, especially, maybe even unconsciously, waiting for her to fail?