BlogHer - An interview with Helen Thomas: Clinton and Obama aren't tokens, so don't treat them like they are - Comments

Well you know - I think it's a little different than that

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:14:47 -0500

It isn't about the right woman or right black or white Evangelical or right Mormon, though. It's about the right candidate, period.

I live-blogged a session that focused on how the media spins certain myths about women that then become popular legend and one of them had to do with this thought that women place such high bars in front of themselves and other women.

So when a person uses the term "right" woman, be very very thoughtful about this. Because you are possibly setting up something that can never be met - what would be "right" - and if it isn't "right" does that mean that no woman should run who can't win because she isn't "right" enough?

This pushing of the idea that she isn't the right woman, versus the right candidate, sends a very awkward message to women and girls who want to engage in politics - and that is that it reinforces the unattainable goal of having to be the perfect woman - rather than just a darn good candidate.

So - while I agree - I didn't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman, and I would prefer people have other reasons, the fact is - if you've listened to the heart of the women, particularly the ones who lived through not having the right to vote, you know that they really feel this way - that they really feel that it is just gosh darn expletive time. I'm not excusing their going to that reason first, but it is not a cop-out, even if it is the preferred way to choose.

Again, we know people vote for Obama because he is black, we know people vote for Huckabee because he is an evangelical and so on. So - let's be fair.

Again - the question we should ask ourself about all these candidates - are they the right candidate for you to choose, period. Not the right women. All women who want to run should feel they can - and not that they will be judged as to whether they are the right woman. I think that's a bad message to send, IMHO.

Thanks.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Vote for Your Favorite Female Blogger (hint - the end of the list!)

A woman President

livingingrace — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:14:44 -0500

I believe the public in many ways has made Hillary Clinton a "token" candidate.

I hear so many say "I'm behind her becasue we need a woman in the White House".

The question is: do we need "a" woman in the White House or the "right" woman in White House?

In my opinion, there is a big difference.

Ooo! Thank you for posting, Morra!

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:11:10 -0500

This will teach me to be late and chatty with too many people and not enough time. And I'll be sure to refine my interview with Iraqi exile Haifa Zangana and post here as well.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

An interview with Helen Thomas: Clinton and Obama aren't tokens, so don't treat them like they are

Morra Aarons Mele — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:45:08 -0500

Part of being a token--a minority presence chosen to represent a larger group-- as Rosabeth Moss Kanter wrote in her classic Men and Women of the Corporation, is that the token receives special attention and special treatment in exchange for being expected to conform to certain stereotypes and acting a certain way. As the presidential race has progressed, both Clinton and Obama have risen above token status. This sounds facile now but imagine saying it several years ago! I don't know about you, but in recent months I have ceased to think of Hillary as a "woman candidate" or Obama as a mixed-race or black candidate. Maybe it's purely the length of the cycle and the resulting familiarity with both contenders, but for me, the race-gender politics angle is now less germane and less interesting (but like many Americans, I struggle not to think of McCain as the "old" candidate).

On the flip side, if Clinton vs. Obama were a typical political race between two white men, no one would balk at the "divisiveness."

At the Women Action & the Media conference this weekend, I had the privilege to interview Helen Thomas, the 88 year old legendary journalist and "Patron Saint of not shutting up." I asked Thomas what she thought about recent claims that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the Democratic race because Clinton's presence is creating divisiveness in the Party.

Helen Thomas said "what's wrong with a little divisiveness-diversity- and divisiveness is a good thing." She later said, "If I were her, I'd hang in there and fight to the end-win lose or draw- fight the good fight - if you've hung in there that long stay in to the end - what's wrong with division? Is everyone supposed to be in lockstep? I can't help but admire her grit. Maybe it is all over but I wouldn't listen."

White guy politics as usual is well-acquainted about divisiveness. It's the name of the game. When you're part of the dominant culture, the rules of behavior are clear. But because women and minorities who run are usually still seen as tokens, it's harder for the gloves to come off. Often, women candidates are recruited to run in races against a scandalized opponent on incumbent because it's harder to attack a woman and voters think women are more morally upright. But according to Helen Thomas the press and the campaigns are playing normal "hardball" and this is healthy because neither Obama nor Hillary is a token on behalf of their race or gender.

I think Helen Thomas is right: neither Obama nor Clinton is a token. They're full-fledged mainstream candidates and thus, the gloves are coming off. But many of us are still squeamish if gloves come off around a black man and a woman. It's a new experience in political life. For example, the verbal sparring I experience among men in a competitive workplace rarely incorporates women on the team. "You can't talk to a woman like that!" is a familiar refrain. But when the woman is running for president, I guess you can, and maybe you should. I appreciate tough talk around Hillary's recent behavior. It's well-deserved and it's not about her ankles, it's about her bad campaigning. She needs to hear it, I think, especially when it comes to her recent Bosnia whoppers. But when she's asked to leave the campaign, many state her gender makes it easier to ask her to drop out, including the candidate herself. I don't think it's about this. When Bill Clinton employs Hillary's femaleness as a reason why many ask her to drop out when she shouldn't, it rings false to me. It feels like a manipulation of Hillary's gender. It felt like Clinton was trying to "betoken" her when she's not a token woman candidate.

As for Obama's token status, the Jeremiah Wright issue disproved this. When it comes to Obama, I think fewer and fewer voters see a black candidate, they see a good candidate. Voters did not lower their opinion of Obama after the Wright blow-up.

For a longer discussion with Helen Thomas, see Jill Miller Zimon's excellent live blog coverage of Thomas' talk at WAM.

More blogging from the Women, Action and Media Conference in Boston this weekend: Feministing