73 Responses to “Gloria Steinem on Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the new feminism.”  

1. 1 borafina on January 8, 2008 said:

   I absolutely agree with your position that it’s about choosing the right president, not a female president. Ms. Steinem has done much to help bring about equal rights for women, but to direct women to vote for Ms. Clinton based on her sex is shameful and extremely sexist.

   Although I am a strong support of Ron Paul (to me, he is the only one who has voted consistently over the years, is trying to give us back our rights to freedom and privacy, understands that every time our government prints more money we are individually getting more poor, and is the only one who has publicly announced over and over again that he would reinstate habeas corpus — hello everyone, why is this not a HUGE issue for you?!!) and therefore disagree with who would make the best president, I am grateful for the post you wrote. I hope many people will read it and think twice before voting.
2. 2 OpEdna on January 8, 2008 said:

   Borafina,

   I am so glad that you stopped by and commented on this post. To my knowledge, you are my first Ron Paul-supporting visitor, and I do hope you will come back and offer more thoughtful insight on these topics.

   Additionally, I think it is phenomenol what Ron Paul has accomplished by energizing the youth in his base and outside of it. I may not agree with all of his positions, but I do certainly agree with you that Habeas Corpus is being hugely overlooked. Unfortunately, it is only one of many HUGE issues that this adminstration has created for its successor to clean up.

   One step at a time, we can change the world, and believing that is the first step.
3. 3 babar on January 8, 2008 said:

   Ok, I have many reasons that if Hillary were a man I still wouldn’t vote. And sometimes I wonder if feminists who talk like this would vote for someone just like Hillary with her track record if she were a man.

   I’m not all that fond of the Clinton Era. I liked America more back then, but it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Clintons. America had just won a decisive popular war in Iraq, the cold war was over, the internet and telecommunications took off. The Clinton’s had absolutely nothing to do with any of that. In fact the stage was all set LONG before Bill took office or was even important in politics. People also seem to forget that the big corporate scandals all happened under Clinton. They all just came crashing down at the beginning of Bush, but 80% of the crimes were committed while he was president. The technology stock bubble developed during his presidency. The plots for 9/11 and the reasons Osama attacked us all happened under Bill’s presidency. His “moral relativity” is what brought evangelicals into the political process today. I have serious doubts that if Clinton been elected a 3rd time, any of that would have been averted.
   If I had a choice between Clinton and Bush, I would reluctantly take Clinton while I was wishing for a better choice.

   Years spent as a first lady do not count as on-the-job training. Last time I checked, she wasn’t that successful at getting anything done, and actually caused somethings to go backwards *cough* healthcare *cough*. Her record as a Senator isn’t all that great either. Her percentage of moving bills out of committee is one of the worst in congress.

   Those are the reasons I’m not voting for Hillary. I’m not voting for her because she’s a woman, I’m not voting for her because she’s not the right person for the job.
4. 4 OpEdna on January 8, 2008 said:

   “And sometimes I wonder if feminists who talk like this would vote for someone just like Hillary with her track record if she were a man.”

   Excellent point, babar, as usual.
5. 5 Ravi Kumar on January 8, 2008 said:

   I just read that NYT article and your article too, linked from reddit.com.

   I am in agreement with your opinion. Gloria’s saying that Blacks got voting rights much earlier than women is very misleading because she’s using that point to support her argument for voting in a woman rather than a Black man. The civil rights movement and modern feminism, both of which gained momentum in the 60s, make it apparent that Black men (after those lynchings) and White women achieved a semblance of human rights at the same time. Black women, in comparison, fared poorer.

   I wonder why Ms. Steinem doesn’t criticize Ms. Clinton for forgiving Bill Clinton’s history of sexual harassment of women. What kind of feminism is that? I think Barack Obama is more feminist than Hillary Clinton and I think that’s why younger women are voting for him.
6. 6 OpEdna on January 8, 2008 said:

   Thank you Ravi. You raise a good point about Hillary’s tolerance of Bill’s behavior toward women. Something else for undecided female voters to consider.
7. 7 babar on January 8, 2008 said:

   Borafina-
   As respectfully as I can say this – I wish RPer’s would get off the gold standard. It’s horrible. The fed “creates” money in more ways and just printing it, such as lowering the interest rate and letting the government borrow more. However, the fed can also “destroy” money as well, like raising the interest rate and how much cash banks have to keep on hand, or not allowing the government to borrow, or not replacing the cash they literally destroy. Going to a gold standard removes the government and fed’s ability to twart deflation, which is a much more destructive economic force than inflation. The Great Depression was caused by deflation. This nation got off the gold and silver standards and the Fed was created specifically so that the government would have more power fighting these disastrous economic crisis (which free unchecked market forces can create just as any poor policy decision can). This scares me that Ron Paul does not grasp this. In fact most of his policies leads me to believe that he is not a student of history, human psychology nor sociology.

   That said, I do believe that Habeas Corpus is in peril. But I feel bad economic policies like “unregulated unchecked free market” or “gold standards” are dangerous things as well.
8. 8 Ravi Kumar on January 8, 2008 said:

   (Sorry for being off-topic)
   To babar:
   I believe your political beliefs coincide more with Kucinich (who’s a strong defender of Habeas Corpus) than Paul. I may be wrong though. I’m afraid of Paul’s libertarianism. It’s too primitive for me.
9. 9 gillard on January 8, 2008 said:

   I’m not sure how I stumbled on to your page, but this was an excellent post.

   It really bothers me to see the feminists I know and talk with throw so much support behind Hilary. I am all in favor of a woman as president, and quite honestly would probably give a female candidate a few extra (positive) points on my imaginary rubric of candidate choosing simply based on her gender, but the fact of the matter is Hilary is just a terrible choice for all the reasons you’ve listed, and more.

   It really bothered me in the ABC debate that she claimed she was the candidate who would embody change because she would be the first woman President, and that would be a huge change. Did she dismiss or just forget that having a black President would be just as big of a change?

   Hillary’s tolerance of Bill is an interesting point I hadn’t heard before. In the end I hate to say it because it gets me in trouble most of the time, but I feel like Hilary just uses the fact that she’s a woman to her own advantage. She grabs up the feminist vote just like Bush grabbed up the Christian Right’s vote. Bush surely hasn’t embodied Christian values, and I don’t see Clinton embodying feminist values in her hypothetical administration. I wish more people would see it the way you do.

   Thanks for pointing out that article.
10. 10 Mel on January 8, 2008 said:

    I think your perception of Gloria’s essay — most of which I agreed with — is similar to a lot of people’s. It’s almost impossible to not take feminism and civil rights personally.

    But I don’t think Gloria was saying “ALL women voters do this …” I think she meant some or most depending on the argument point or statistic.

    She wasn’t suggesting we (you, me, everyone with a vagina) are betraying our sex for not voting for her. She was implying that we are perceived that way. And we are. I’ve heard Bill Maher (a funny mysogynist) come at female guests on his show from exactly the same angle (why aren’t YOU voting for her, you vagina owner?!).

    Barack Obama himself pointed out on a ‘60 Minutes’ interview months ago that it was condescending to assume that black people would vote for him.

    How condescending to assume that women should vote for Hillary. And I think that is what Gloria was pointing out.
11. 11 OpEdna on January 8, 2008 said:

    Gillard,

    Thanks for your comment. I hope you stumble by again. You are right on about Bush’s relationship to the Christian right. Hypocrisy at its finest!

    Mel,

    Thanks for your insightful comment. I disagree that Gloria was pointing out that it’s condescending to assume a woman should vote for Hillary. I think she was expressing her disappointment that more women aren’t. She points out her fears for Hillary:

    “What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.”

    I get a sense of urgency from Ms. Steinem’s editorial that she is subtly pleading with young women not to abandon the cause to which she’s devoted her life, to which she thinks Hillary Clinton can bring some sort of completion.

    “This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “’I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.’”

    I think she is worried that Americans are taking more pride in breaking the race barrier than they are in breaking the gender barrier. But until we stop grouping everyone in these identifying categories, we’re not really breaking any barriers; we’re building more.
12. 12 Inspoken :) on January 8, 2008 said:

    I agree with Mel. I don’t believe Ms. Steinem is saying, “Vote for Hillary because she is a woman!”

    I believe she paints a very real picture of how our culture’s sexist views are so tied up with nature that we unknowingly project our own sexist views and attitudes onto women like Hillary.

    For example, I know a lot of women who get passionate about things get emotional- they cry. I don’t see this necessarily as a weakness, but because emotion, a natural tendency, has become defined as a “bad” or “weak” behavior in a male-dominated society we have a hard, or impossible time looking at it any other way. Rather than saying “she cares so much about this issue and that will make her a good president”, we say, “How can she expect to run a country if she tears up over a campaign?”

    Many people criticize Hillary by saying, “She’s only where she is because of her husband.” I’m a Hillary supporter and I, sadly, believe that statement is true. Hillary has worked for more than 35 years on progressive change.

    How many people know that when schools were being desegregated she posed as a young white mother in her twenties, interviewed private schools to “make sure blacks couldn’t get in” and when she had enough evidence, she reported the school to the proper authorities?

    But, without a husband, a man to validate all the work she has done, the experience she has, her solid grasp of the issues, her perservance against the GOP she wouldn’t even be where she was and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a sad reality. Consider that for a moment.

    Then you have a young African American candidate who has less experience and less of a record (I’m not knocking him, just stating a major difference) and he is where he is- at the top, not needing someone else from the other sex to validate him as a respectable candidate.

    Try to imagine when we will have another woman candidate. I am not suggesting, as I don’t believe Ms. Gloria Steinem was suggesting that you vote for Hillary because she is a woman.

    I do support Hillary, because she has proven herself to be an effective leader that makes change and can work with the other side. And, because, frankly, I am terrified of having another Republican in office and she has been tested against them.

    Obama has not. He is a politican and he does have skeletons- all of them do and the Republicans will find out what those skeletons are and they will rip him apart. And then we may have just positioned ourselves for another 4 years of Republican administration- something I am not willing to let happen without a fight.

    Otherwise, I think he is a smart fellow who would probably be a good President, but I’m not willing to take the chance that he might be (I don’t feel I have enough evidence) and I’m not willing to take the chance that he probably won’t make it past the GOP machine.

    But, that is my belief, not everyone elses.
    ———-
13. 13 OpEdna on January 8, 2008 said:

    Inspoken my left foot!!! =)

    In all seriousness, I’m not saying Hillary’s some little housewife. I’m not questioning her experience. I am questioning Gloria Steinem’s motives, however, in her editorial.

    Inspoken, would you vote for Obama if he is the Democrat’s nominee?
14. 14 Brian on January 8, 2008 said:

    I completely agree. As your commenter Mel also touched on I was thinking about the same thing in relation to Obama a few weeks ago when I kept hearing all the political commentators talking about Hillary attracting African American voters and then asking questions along the lines of “When are the black voters going to come home to Obama?” While as a supporter of his I obviously hope as many people as possible vote for him, I, like you cannot fathom why so many people this election cycle continuously tell us how historic and momentous this election is for race and gender equality due to having both a female and an African American candidate, while at the same time ignorantly suggesting that we as voting Americans do so based merely on race or gender. What disturbs me the most is the fact that it generally seems like the media legitimately believes their own words and underestimates the American public enough to assume we’d ignore any actual ‘political’ traits about our politicians and just vote for whomever has a skin hue closest to our own or whether they sit or stand to pee.
15. 15 Leslie on January 8, 2008 said:

    What a fun discussion! When you said “For me, it’s not about electing a woman president. It’s about electing the right woman president.” you had it almost right. It is really only about electing the right president. Period. So where I am, right now, is that I like all three democrat candidates. I am leaning toward Obama because I like his worldview and his tendency to be civil and to not inflame. However, if Hillary gets the nomination I will vote for her. I am an “Anyone but Bush” supporter turned into a solid Democratic voter. So, if by chance Hillary gets the nomination, I will be fine with the fact that she will be ” The first female American president (who) will represent American women to the entire world and go down in history books.”
16. 16 spokenin on January 9, 2008 said:

    Yes, I will definitely vote for Obama if he is the nominee. We need a democrat in the White House!!
17. 17 OpEdna on January 9, 2008 said:

    Glad people seem to be enjoying this! Thanks, Leslie, for the kind words.

    For those of you following the NH Primaries tonight, the fastest updating result site seems to be: http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=NH
18. 18 babar on January 9, 2008 said:

    I do not see any evidence what-so-ever that Hillary is an effective leader. I see plenty to the contrary. She voted for the war, she is solely responsible for setting the debate on health care a decade because of her heavy handed tactics, and she’s obviously playing the gender card. Do you see Obama playing the race card?

    Tuning in a school is not evidence of leadership, only evidence that she’s not a slacker and anyone campaigning for President is not a slacker. Leadership is about what she gets others to do, and so far she’s failed miserably at it.

    Obama passed campaign finance reform and transparency laws in the most corrupt state in the union when they said it couldn’t be done because that’s just the way business is done in Illinois. Clinton failed miserably passing health care when the public wanted it. Obama won a state with over 70% of the vote drawing more Republicans to his side than the Republican nominee. Clinton historically only draws Democrats. Female Democrats at best. Clinton’s ability to drive laws through the Senate is one of the worst, she can’t even get them out of committee. Obama is setting precedence as a freshman senator in his ability to attract top advisers and drive sponsored laws.

    Clinton has a mile long track record of scandals to answer for, Obama is fresh. She will get eaten alive in a general election, the same any man would with a track record such as hers.
19. 19 babar on January 9, 2008 said:

    One last comment I want to make. You can talk about gender all you want, but in the end it’s about results. Hillary has had 35 years to produce them, but is dwarfed by someone with 14 years less.
20. 20 deborah smith on January 9, 2008 said:

    I’ll vote for the Democrat, regardless of who that nominee is. I like Obama and everything he represents, but I recognize that he has no real track record and that his main charm (aside from his eloquence) is his outsider status re: his African American heritage. I don’t see how anyone can insist they’re voting for Obama solely on his (nonexistent) record. If he were a white man (or white woman) with the same political history, would we even be talking about him as a serious Presidential candidate?

    I’m not enamoured of Hillary personally but I respect everything she’s been through, her toughness, and I think she’s an astute political operative who can probably get things done as well as possible in the corrupt political system. Some women say they won’t vote for Hillary just because she’s female, but they’ll vote for Obama just because, uh, why? Because he’s black and handsome and wouldn’t it be a kick to see a black man as President? Is that a valid reason to vote for him?

    Many politicians are, by all accounts, horndogs and hardasses who play the system with all the glee of a corrupt cardshark trying to scam the farmboys. But those are the pols who get things done, warts and all. Maybe Hillary is of that type. I can envision her accomplishing more as President than most of the other candidates. Since the majority are toadies for corporate interests, there’s not a great choice. The outcome has little to do with gender or race, and more to do with who the money boys support.
21. 21 OpEdna on January 9, 2008 said:

    Debb:

    “but they’ll vote for Obama just because, uh, why? Because he’s black and handsome and wouldn’t it be a kick to see a black man as President? Is that a valid reason to vote for him?”

    If you feel that’s why I’m voting for Obama, you haven’t been reading your daily dose of Op-Edna.
22. 22 Jinda on January 9, 2008 said:

    I cannot help but feel that Gloria Steinem’s article was dishonest. I fear she used her influence with women for a purely political agenda.

    I cannot see where she has much reason to see Hillary Clinton as significantly more “experienced” than Obama. I also wonder if she was worried about Bill Clinton having ZERO experience in Washington politics when he first won the Presidency.

    I do not see Hillary Clinton’s positions as being all that “progressive”- especially considering the manner in which she has aligned herself with the Right in order to become more “palatable” in anticipation of her run for the Presidency. I, and others, have little doubt that Hillary vote on the war was politically motivated.

    As to some of the comments in the article:

    “what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.” – Hillary is not seen as divisive solely because of her “sex”. She is seen as divisive because of her divisive use of partisan rhetoric, her propensity for vilifying those across the aisle when it suited her own needs. Here Steinem ignores the very Hillary Clinton “history” she touts as something to be considered in deciding on whom to vote.

    “What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.” – To assert that the same types who accuse Hillary of “playing the gender card” perceive Obama bring up civil rights confrontations as “unifying” is laughable. Quite the opposite, those offended by criticisms of the old boys club are even more offended and indignant at mentions of the civil rights era confrontations. They ARE the old boys club and they WERE the civil rights confronters- on the side holding the rope.

    The fact that Gloria Steinem is “worried that women, especially younger ones hope to escape the sexual caste system” is most telling. Steinem has declared that attempts to escape the sexual caste system are “worrisome”. Sounds lot like some men who also declared attempts at escape were “worrisome” and “futile”, no?

    “This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees.”- But we should choose leaders from a talent pool based on “powerful husbands” and years spent in the White House as a result of having a powerful husband?

    “We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”- this statement is just plain sexist. We have to be able to say “I’m supporting her because she is THE best candidate, and it has NOTHING to do with the fact that she is a woman”.

    Steinem cannot make such a declaration. She looks for a “great president”, not the greatest possible out of the choices available. She almost concedes that “great”, not “greatest” is good enough because, after all, Hillary is A WOMAN.

    I am afraid that, with help from Steinem, many women of NH have made a great mistake. Especially when I hear some of them say “i don’t think the nation is ready for a black President, and besides, the first female President would be huge!”- thus, in one fell swoop, repeating both the sexism and racism they decry.

    What Steinem ignores or denies is that Obama’s appeal comes from that intangible something- from his confidence that make comparisons to his 8 years in that government body versus Hillary’s 8 years in this government body shallow and irrelevant.

    I fear that what causes Steinem to favor Clinton over Obama is not the nature of his 8 years experience vs Hillary’s 8 years experience or any legitimate knowledge that one would be more of a “great President!” than would the other but rather that Obama is a HE and Hillary is a SHE.

    If true, she is a hypocrite and much of her own work to move beyond such gender based motivations has been undone.
23. 23 babar on January 9, 2008 said:

    deb:
    Obama has a track record. If you count any experience as a state Governor, then you have to count experience as a state legislator. He’s had 14 years as a state senator. During that time he passed campaign finance and transparency reform that was completely non-existent in the most corrupt state in the union.

    What’s Hillary’s track record, honestly? Failed Healthcare, little to no bills passed in senate, vote to authorize the Iraq war, white water scandals, the most polarizing political figure in office today? How about ditching her state of Illinois because we weren’t good enough to launch her presidential hopes? She keeps referring to this experience, and talks about Obama not having substance, but she can’t produce any herself. So what you’ve been doing this for 35 years (of which she’s only held office for 5 and won one campaign), where’s the beef?
24. 24 Jinda on January 9, 2008 said:

    “What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.”

    I get a sense of urgency from Ms. Steinem’s editorial that she is subtly pleading with young women not to abandon the cause to which she’s devoted her life, to which she thinks Hillary Clinton can bring some sort of completion.

    __________________________________________

    OpEdna-

    Am I misreading Steinem? I see “what worries me is that some women hope to escape the sexual caste system”. Why is Steinem “worried” that some women hope to escape??

    I read that as “oh, you poor fools! you will NEVER escape the sexual caste system! you are SO naive. “
25. 25 OpEdna on January 9, 2008 said:

    Jinda,

    I am right there with you! That bothered me.

    By the way, your comment was excellent:

    “”what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.” – Hillary is not seen as divisive solely because of her “sex”. She is seen as divisive because of her divisive use of partisan rhetoric, her propensity for vilifying those across the aisle when it suited her own needs. Here Steinem ignores the very Hillary Clinton “history” she touts as something to be considered in deciding on whom to vote.”

    Do you have a blog I can add to my blogroll? I’d love to keep hearing your thoughts on this race.

    Thanks,

    Op-Edna
26. 26 montana_urban_legend on January 9, 2008 said:

    I’m happy you wrote this, Op-Edna. I, like I suppose many independents and Obama supporters, was trying to figure out what happened yesterday in New Hampshire. I found the link to the Steinem editorial here, and I have to agree with how short-sighted this sentence was, even if for the exact opposite reason as well –

    “what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.”

    What this misses is that Obama was not embraced by blacks for what counts as an eternity in campaign primaries. So no, he didn’t unite the black vote. They shied away from him out of fear that he wouldn’t be taken seriously by whites or assassinated. Once whites proved they loved him on his own merits, then blacks started crossing over. The fact that his election might put race issues behind us is incidental to his being a good leader first and foremost, which is the reverse of the set of priorities that the Steinem crowd has given in binding everyone to Hillary lest they be deemed a “sexist”.

    I am glad to be a part of a generation that, like you, sees gender as only a part of our identities. I think that embracing that notion is something that people like Steinem are afraid of.
27. 27 OpEdna on January 9, 2008 said:

    MUL – I have to agree with you about her short-sightedness. Regarding unifying his race, I think we have to wait until the primaries move south to see for sure that large populations of black people are rejecting his candidacy out of fear for his safety. I think that may be a theory that the media is blowing out of proportion, like everything else in this race. But you make a very good point, I think Steinem is afraid of young women embracing their feminism as a part of their identity and not all of it.

    I think people who see Obama and Edwards ganging up on Hillary in the debate need to keep the incident in perspective. She basically trashed the both of them for their records and policies and the mission statements of their campaigns (hope), and then got all the sympathy when Obama joked back, “you’re likeable enough, Hillary.”

    Women who think the male candidates need to treat Hillary more delicately are operating under the assumption that men need to treat women differently in the workplace, and that doesn’t do anything to help our gender or the case for equality.
28. 28 gillard on January 10, 2008 said:

    I hope you don’t mind me linking to this post, but it (plus discussion) summed things up so well! I used to here:

    http://gillard.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/my-favorite-responses-to-gloria-steinems-hillary-op-ed/

    You might be interested in the other response to Steinem as well.
29. 29 Chris Custer on January 11, 2008 said:

    Bravo to Gloria Steinem! I agree with everything she stated in her article, and since I am male this concurrance is not gender-bound. She never states that all women should team up and vote for Hillary because she is a woman; she herself will vote for Hillary, only because Hillary is more experienced while the two candidates positions are nearly identical. What’s wrong with that. In addition, even as a man, I am astounded at the negative press and mysogeny she has to deal with–both from men and women. As Steinem says, Hillary has the near impossible task of trying to be both likable and tough-minded. Go Steinem, go Hillary, and go new voters!
30. 30 OpEdna on January 11, 2008 said:

    Chris,

    I don’t believe Hillary’s experience is vastly more substantial than her opponents. Nor do I believe being likeable and tough-minded is “near impossible.” If you act on your principles, stay true to your original message, and rise above mud-slinging, you tend to be more likeable. Hillary and her campaign have stooped to intolerable lows in this campaign, and it has turned off many voters. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. As a woman, I don’t want the first woman president to earn votes because people feel sorry for her. She gives as good as she gets in stump speeches, on the trail, and in debates. She shouldn’t act all wounded when Edwards and Obama respond to her vicious attacks on their records and beliefs.
31. 31 Brian on January 22, 2008 said:

    Clinton’s experience/record IS more substantial than her opponents’

    She has been working at the federal level on policy making for almost 3 decades.

    I also want to know WHY, specifically, all of you think she is a “terrible” choice. Her votinh record is actually QUITE socialist, with a SMALL handful of exceptions.

    You’re wrong when you say that her record of getting legislation out of committees is one of the worst in the Senate. She’s been one of the more successful Senators in rallying senators from both sides of the aisle to write and support legislation. She has supported many PRO-Populist bils that have become law.

    Many of her detractors jump on the band-wagon of HILLARY-hate that was originally started by the right-wing. They hate that she’s been as resilient as she is. They hate that despite how they try to distort her record, or make her seem like a corporate whore, that she remains a powerful leader, with, not only a high domestic level of respect, but also an even more substantial international level of respect. That’s important now in a leader.
32. 32 justsayNO on January 23, 2008 said:

    What fight has Hillary ever entered and won?

    As someone said above, her heavy handed tactics set the issue of Healthcare back a decade.

    In her many years in the Senate, she’s accomplished nothing but some symbolic and trivial bills. She has laid low and played it safe, not wanting to blow her shot at what she as seen as her destiny since she was a young woman. And is there any doubt that her tolerance and near enabling of Bill’s skirt chasing was all about her own bid for the Presidency?

    Until she won her Senate seat, she had never held any elected office- not even a lowly State Representative seat. She wasn’t even challenged in her Senate race since Rudy was never a factor.

    She’s a fighter? Where? She’s against the war. Did she stop it? She was against Alito’s nomination, she lost that fight. Same with Roberts.
    She has shown appalling judgment such as when she adopted that patronizing “black accent” when reading that poem. She has failed to unite disparate groups on ANY thing. She waffled on the war in Iraq because she was intimidated by the wave of nationalism and afraid to risk “her” destiny to be President. Obama voted for what he felt was right, not for what would best help his political career.

    I would love to see a woman become President. But i don’t think I could think of a less experienced prominent female politician, a more divisive female politician, or a more self-serving female politician than Hillary Clinton.

    Geraldine Ferraro, yes. Hillary, no.

    Putting a woman in the Oval Office would be a huge milestone, but putting the wrong woman in the Oval office just to say we put a woman there would set back female politicians for decades to come.

    We’ve already made a similar mistake with Nancy Pelosi, let’s not compound it by blowing the “big one”.
33. 33 Sheri on January 29, 2008 said:

    I have read most of the blog on the subject of Gloria Stienam’s article and Hilary.

    For me, I tend to agree with Chris and Brian’s reply and I agree with the article at the heart of this blog. Obama’s experience is not the same as Hilary’s. She may have not held an actual government position until recently, she has been the incredibly effective woman behind the man. For whatever its worth, her husband would not have been as effective a leader without her, to me she’s an Eleanor with the possibility of showing how good she is own her own.

    We need that kind of political finese, intelligence and cunning because globally our last eight years have left us incredibly weakened and vulnerable. We have just had 8 years of the poorest example of leadership in Ameirca’s history. Gender is the least important aspect of what makes her the right canidate for me. We need the strongest, most decisive leader with the most political experience, not just the most charismatic, eloquent, OPRAH backed and yes male candidate. She knows what needs to happen in the next 4 years in EVERY aspect of the presidency.

    She won’t let us down like Polosi.

    As for the Healthcare issue, her previous proposal for that program are what is needed now at this point in time. Having a GOP controlled Washington is what prevented any type of progress in this area, not Hilary.

    And it may not be GOP controlled in the house or senate, we still have the bozo at the top in place.
34. 34 montana_urban_legend on January 30, 2008 said:

    Please allow me to refute the contention that just because Hillary is presumed capable of manipulating certain men (and likely many women) to her own or even to what is said to be their own personal benefit, that she would either be the most decisive leader or the one best equipped to strengthen the country’s standing globally.

    Point 1. Where she is decisive, her stances are only appreciated by the segments of the electorate that seem to cheer on her divisive tactics – in much the way Bush’s whopping 20% base constituency continues, against all odds, to appreciate his. And where the electorate requires strong, unifying consensus and rational leadership, she doesn’t have a clue where to go:

    “In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama’s response before showing her own.

    When Bush warned the Iranian government that “America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf” Obama jumped up to applaud. Clinton leaned across Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), seated to her left, to look in Obama’s direction before slowly standing.”

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-obama-steal-bushs-final-show-2008-01-29.html

    2. The ally that is both our strongest in terms of traditional military support as well as our formerly closest and now most disillusioned, Europe, sees Hillary’s tactics in the campaign and has trouble wondering why she wouldn’t act this self-righteously – and equally wrong-headed – on the world stage as well:

    “Many Europeans saw the rise of Hillary Clinton as a beacon of decency in US politics and a sign that Americans are finally catching up with Sri Lanka, India, Ukraine, Israel, Argentina, Britain, Germany and Pakistan. But the sleaze and racial and religious undertones of how she hits at Obama is souring European perceptions.

    Her campaign managers probably think they are creating a perception of her as a bold, decisive and humane woman with the extraordinary intelligence required to cope with America’s and the world’s problems. To non-Americans she appears to be a mean street fighter who might be a vindictive and war-mongering President if her pride is crossed. She looks like the caricature ugly American who will stoop to anything to win. If she does this now, she might do so in foreign policy as well.”

    http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/17361/europeans-watch-democratic-primaries-with-trepidation/

    And as for that health care issue, indeed, let’s talk about it. The way it went down in flames after her back-door and backhanded chicanery, her threatening to “demonize” fellow house members REGARDLESS OF PARTY who didn’t go along with a secretive and highly controlled plan that would have mandated everything from where doctors could go to practice to how medical school admissions would be structured. I don’t see how having a Democrat-controlled congress would have prevented the failure of this fiasco, seeing as how the congress was, uh, controlled by Democrats at the time. In fact, it was her manipulative tactics that were so important in leading the Republicans to a subsequent take-over of the congress in 1994. And this was not forgotten by either party in Washington, but apparently by many who you would think might want to understand what happened at the time.

    Many women are so excited about the prospect of electing a woman – any woman – president, that they seem incapable of seeing the difference between electing another George Washington and another Richard Nixon. Just remember that there are two parties in this country, and two houses of legislature, and that the president must work with both of them. And remember that a win for women that ends up letting down both America, as well as many other women and men who would hope for better in the first female president, won’t end up being much of a win for anybody in the long run.
35. 35 Anna A. on January 30, 2008 said:

    What on earth is wrong with banning flag burning? Really. Think about this. That has to be the stupidest premise for not voting for someone that I’ve ever heard of. First of all, every shred of research shows that flag burning is a counterproductive form of protest. When you do it you alienate the very people it’s most in your interest to win over. Hell, you know what? I’m going to vote for her now. Otherwise we’re going to be left with Obama and his merry league of flag burners. I know that’s ridiculous, but not nearly as ridiculous as citing Hillary’s flagburning vote as a negative. Grow up. Oh, and good luck in the boardroom with the boys still in charge.
36. 36 OpEdna on January 30, 2008 said:

    Oh my, Anna.

    “First of all, every shred of research shows that flag burning is a counterproductive form of protest.”

    I’m sure at some point, research showed sit-ins and bra burning were ineffective too. The point is, you don’t start cherry-picking which parts of freedom of expression you’d rather not tolerate, or you end up in a country like Saudi Arabia.

    But clearly, if all you took from the blog and dialogue were that I’m pro-flag burning, you didn’t come here to read and partake in any form of discussion. The fact that you hate flag burning doesn’t make you a better patriot than I am. In fact, those with literal interpretations of our Constitution might argue it makes you a worse patriot.

    By the way, unless you have proof of Barack Obama and his “merry league of flag burners” actually setting fire to an American flag, you may want to watch your mouth. That could be considered slander, even by Bill Clinton’s standards.

    As far as good luck in the board room, I don’t need to work in a board room to make a good living; I’m a writer.

    Peace,

    Op-Edna

    P.S. – I’d rather burn a flag than vote to authorize a war in Iraq. Perhaps Hillary has her priorities out of whack?
37. 37 OpEdna on January 30, 2008 said:

    P.P.S. – Respect for freedom of expression is one of the reasons that many bloggers don’t delete readers’ posts simply because they disagree with them, or don’t enjoy being told to “grow up.”
38. 38 montana_urban_legend on January 30, 2008 said:

    I think Edna would do very well in a boardroom, Anna – regardless of whether she or “the boys” are in charge of it. Actually, in a boardroom shareholders are typically in charge, and they tend to appreciate honest, transparent deliberation. Sneaky tactics and retributive mindsets are counter-productive to any healthy organization that I can think of.

    Again, it can be somewhat dismaying to know that there are people out there who seem so motivated by such mindsets. It’s much easier to “win over” people who are shown a more productive sense of motivation than that. But I agree with Edna; it’s important to know that stuff like what you express is out there. And speech or expression in and of itself can only hurt a not very well thought-out idea.
39. 39 RIS on February 11, 2008 said:

    Um..Hello? Did anyone read the article all the way through? I’m sick of people saying blah blah I don’t have to vote for her just because she’s a woman. That’s right, you don’t. The last line SAID “I’m voting for her because she’d make a good president AND because she’s a woman.” The whole article was about what you are saying- feeling it necessary to vote for someone based on their gender or race. I feel that women are strongly moving in opposition to the feminist movement because they feel their femininity defines them.

    Hillary would make a great president. That is why I am voting for her. Maybe you should spend more time reading the article/attempting to understand it.

    And you know what? In 20 years no one will remember these nuances that make you dislike Hillary. Little girls will just know that there was a female president and that they might be able to be the same one day.
40. 40 OpEdna on February 11, 2008 said:

    RIS –

    Perhaps you should spend more time reading my blog before criticizing it. The second sentence of this entry says:

    “I encourage you to read [the article] before reading my blog.” Followed by “A new page will open if you click the link above.”

    The rest of the blog is about my reaction to the Steinem piece, how it made me FEEL. I felt that by writing the piece, Steinem was making gender an issue when it shouldn’t be one. That was my point.
41. 41 Melissa on February 20, 2008 said:

    I think you may have missed the overarching point of Steinem’s article. After reading it, I did not feel she is implying women are doing a disservice to themselves by not voting for Hillary Clinton. Her point is that while gender and race are being evaluated in this election, race is being looked at in terms of unity, and gender is being looked at in terms of division. By stating, “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president AND because she’s a woman” I do not think Steinem means that you should support her BECAUSE she’s a woman, but instead, you do support the fact that she’s a woman running for office (that is, you aren’t negating that.)

    I also really like your criticisms towards Hillary Clinton, and why you are choosing to vote for Barack Obama. While I am torn between both candidates, I really think your points are valid. I applaud you for criticizing the article in a valid, constructive way, and not without any reason as I have seen others do.
42. 42 sandi on February 28, 2008 said:

    i past got line two and vomited then came back to write this. Um white men DO vote for eachother! What rock have you been under for the passed couple of thousand years? Men support men, no matter what color they are, over any female. It’s stunning how dumb women are. It’s not surprising to me men laugh at us. I’d laugh at us too because we are one dumb ass sex!
43. 43 OpEdna on February 28, 2008 said:

    Sandi,

    I know several men who happen to be voting for Hillary, and made that decision prior to Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson dropping out. So spare us the condescension. Good luck with your stomach issues.
44. 44 Sarah on February 28, 2008 said:

    Re No. 43 – Several? How many might that be?
    Re No. 42 – Right on. The most telling was the vote in Wisconsin, where the women’s vote was equal with women for Obama and Clinton, and the men’s vote was 63 percent for Obama, or more definitve, against Hillary–most probably older white men. Not until this group dies out will we have a vote that is looking at the merits of a candidate rather than the gender. This doesn’t just mean Hillary, it means any woman with the confidence and capability to “act like a man” (as they see it) – that’s the real threat to men. It’s totally emasculating to older males, and threatens their power. And let’s face it, no one wants to lose power once they have it. They are going to fight to keep it.

    I’m one of those older women who are said to be on the side of Hillary and voting for her because she’s a women, and my sympathies are with our history of being shoved to the back of the line. I remember the backlash to women marching for their rights, and it was nasty. Then it got more subtle over the years, as they learned how to quietly shove us to the background and discredit what we said on a daily basis – usually with that dismissive smirk. Don’t tell me that women have had it easy – we have had to work twice as hard to prove ourselves, and the good old boy network is still very much alive and well. That said, am I going to vote for Hillary just because she is a women? No, I like them both equally and don’t know yet who I would vote for. Sadly, this is not the case with men.
45. 45 montana_urban_legend on February 29, 2008 said:

    Umm… apparently someone has pointed out that this is the first election where we should finally understand that when we condescend to other consituencies, any constituency we do so at our own peril.

    Sarah is apparently right that white men have a lot of power right now. Just not the kind of power she’d like to admit to. White men have very little interest in deciding whether the black man is white enough or whether the woman is male enough, or any other silliness. They have an interest in someone making a credible case regarding other issues, even if that gets in the way of various obsessions that others project on them when it comes to biological identity as a some sort of grand overarching political theme, to blot out the sun with.

    The Journal article also captured this impulse to assume the worst in white males. One theory floated: because white males are trending toward Obama it proves that they are more sexist than they are racist.

    If that speculation holds, why were white men initially with Clinton? Prejudice is, after all, a vice of instinct.

    Like all Democrats — female, male, black, white, brown — Democratic white men’s first instinct was to be with the frontrunner. But unlike white women, as Obama became more widely known, white men had no stake in the symbolism of her candidacy. Therefore, they were more willing to swing to his electoral coffer.

    Many of these men casting Democratic ballots today are of the 37 percent of white males who voted for John Kerry in 2004. Yet neither campaign understands exactly how to reach out to them. This is true in part because Democrats have largely ignored white men as a constituency.

    But if broad swaths of the population like Hispanics or women are a constituency, surely white men are as well. And a look at the 2004 Election Day exit poll provides a telling lesson for Clinton and Obama.

    This post keeps coming back to life. Read the whole article if you want to understand what Steinem doesn’t get, no matter how obsessed others are with her way of seeing things.
46. 46 OpEdna on February 29, 2008 said:

    Very well put, Montana.
47. 47 Sarah on February 29, 2008 said:

    I agree, points well taken. Reading back over my statement, it does strike me as being written with more emotion and personal experience than statistics, which Montana has generously supplied.

    Speaking of emotion, this is exactly what has propelled Obama so far ahead, and which may be the decisive element in this election. Even the media was swept up by it, and Obama seemed to be getting a free pass all this time, while Hillary was being dissected daily on every move she made. Only recently, when it seems too late for Hillary, have the analysts been asking whether they have been unfair in not examing Obama’s record as closely as Hillary’s.

    I did not agree with all of Ms. Steinem’s statements, especially the last phrase about supporting her…because she’s a woman. When it comes to a vote, it will depend on who appears to be the most qualified, not on emotion.

    I’ve seen every dabate. I listen to all the analysts, both neutral and radical, though I must admit with the radical, such as Fox, is difficult to stay with through an entire program. And befoe I’m labeled a liberal, let me say that I don’t like the radical elements in either party, and believe that the majority of Americans are centrists, and are fed up with the divisiveness it has caused in this country.

    Obama seems to have hit that nerve, and the response shows that people are full of hope that the divisiveness will end with his adminstration. Hillary puts a damper on this hope when she tries to get us back “down to earth,” and many people don’t want to hear this when someone is throwing out the message that it can be done. We want to hear that things can change, and it’s his voice that is carrying this message more effectively.

    At the beginning of the campaign, I was excited that a woman who also had the qualities of leadership and experience was in the running. Then Obama came on the scene, and I remembered the inspiring convention speech he’d made, and how I’d thought at the time that he was someone we would not hear the last of. Following this speech, he was easily elected to the Senate, and after his first year there he decided to run for the office of President. I remember thinking at that time that it was all moving too fast, that he should be giving himself some more time before jumping into this race – did he understand enough about how Washington works; was he savvy enough to trust the right people, did he know enough yet about the rest of the world? I didn’t know.

    Realizing that he may be the winner in this race, I found myself hoping as well – hoping that he did have the qualities to govern well, that he was a quick study with issues he had not yet dealt with firsthand, that his rather short residence on the Washington scene would be overcome by other attributes credited to him – good judgement, diplomacy, cool reserve. I don’t feel that not being in Washington gives one an advantage, as you have to understand how it works to get anything done – you just can’t let it work you. Will he have the good judgment to select advisors he can trust? I find myself hoping for the best, because I really don’t know that much about him yet – except for his extraordinary ability to draw people to him. Maybe this will be his asset in dealing with Washington and the rest of the world. I hope so – there’s that word hope again.

    On the other hand, we don’t know for sure how Hillary will govern. We have her record to turn to, and it has been thorougly dissected. She does have baggage, and she has a number of “Hillary Haters,” which could lead to even more devisiveness in Washington, and may not let up until she is out of office. Interesting that she is thought of highly by both parties in the Senate, and able to work well with both sides of the aisle. So who is ruuning this “Stop Hllary” campaign, and encouraging Republican voters in Texas and other cross-over states in the primaries to vote her out?

    It may well be that my initial feeling and response to Ms. Steinem’s article is that I was picking up on the imbalance of negative press toward Senator Clinton, seemingly propelled by a wave of positive emotion toward Obama, that seemed unfair to her. And in that negative press, some of the remarks were frankly becoming sexist; in fact, some have had to apologize for their remarks. So, for a woman who has been part of the working world for several decades, who has seen many changes in the workplace, but who knows firsthand that there is still a long way to go in changing the mindset with regard to women in power, I have to admit that it struck a nerve. Ms. Steinem may have leaned too far in her last statement, but from the beginning she was the one who made the most sense in discussing the situation of women in this country, and has been their most admirable advocate. Women had to understand that it would take time, but maybe at this stage some of us have become a bit impatient.

    And I still don’t know who I will vote for.
48. 48 montana_urban_legend on March 1, 2008 said:

    Sarah,

    Regarding how Clinton has been portrayed in the press, you have to keep in mind that the way a public figure manages their relationship with the press is not all that dissimilar to how other relationships are maintained – i.e. it is a two-way street. Oftentimes, the press has become accustomed to not receiving answers that they find very forthcoming from Clinton, when they’ve asked questions of her or of her campaign. The appearance of frank honesty is an incredible asset in a candidate, one that has become so rare in U.S. national politics that it is unremarkable that the Obama phenomenon had grown the way it did.

    Now, some say that Obama hasn’t been vetted, and I’m not quite sure what to make of that assertion. Obama’s a pretty forthcoming person, having admitted to seeking solace through cocaine and marijuana in his own biography. And his track record in public life is not as long to have accumulated the not-so-nice details from Hillary’s record that either: 1. stand out (all the scandals of the Clinton years), or 2. that she won’t explain (why won’t she release her tax records, why did it take so long for her to come up with a credible explanation for what she thought was right, or wrong, about her vote on Iraq, why all the foreign donors to her campaign if she defends her lobbying money on the basis of it being contributed by “Americans”, etc., etc.), even if his consistent record in public service is at least as long as hers if not longer – depending on whether one views the First Lady as a public servant.
49. 49 montana_urban_legend on March 1, 2008 said:

    And thanks, Edna
50. 50 KGN on March 2, 2008 said:

    The issue that Ms. Steinem addresses seems to be clear: we live in a world of unequal division of power between men and women, with unequal pay, unequal respect. Ms. Steinem’s life ambition of bridging that gap and creating equality is also well known. So why are you suprised by her perspective? Your reasons for supporting Obama clearly represent your view that he will benefit our (America’s) power struggle (or ease it, given your anti-war sentiments) with the rest of the world. However, Ms. Steinem supports Clinton because she believes her Presidency will benefit her, and all women’s, power struggle inside our own country. And I don’t think she is easily faulted for that.
51. 51 jerry on March 3, 2008 said:

    Your comments are simply genius.

    If you apply that you should vote for you own, I need a white, male, christian, liberal, blue eyed left handed steelers fan. Do you know any of those?
52. 52 montana_urban_legend on March 4, 2008 said:

    KGN,

    I think another view is that only a female candidate who has appeal broad enough to unite the country, or perform some other comparably presidential, rather than symbolic, achievement, will “(bridge) that gap and (create) equality” or “benefit her, and all women’s, power struggle inside our own country”. There have been plenty of male presidents. I don’t see how ambitious male presidents, who were mediocre or divisive in other respects, have benefited “all (men’s)…power struggle inside our own country”.

    On the other hand, a female candidate, who comes from plenty of privilege, who detracts from another candidate and the party they both belong to by prolonging her defeat and going incessantly negative against that candidate, is clearly not fighting for her country so much as she is for herself. The trade-off in that idea seems increasingly poor when you factor in Obama’s strengths in bringing the admiration of others across party lines and challenging the way politics is done so that national achievements and honesty in governing become more important than waging the battles that are fought in the name of those things.

    You should learn to distinguish between Mrs. Clinton’s power and her overwhelming appetite for it, and the sustenance she receives as a symbol of it, and that of your own or of women generally as a class of people. If men know power so well, as your post seems to suggest, then surely they might be expected to be more familiar with its limits and downsides. I think that is why Mrs. Clinton turns more of them off while more often women are attracted to her ambition for power in itself, regardless of where it takes her, or us as a country.

    And lastly, the whole idea of a democracy is to restrain the power of elected officials. I admit that it is strange to run across so many people this year who feel so differently about that notion and are apparently more interested in justifying the reduction of the highest elected office to a thing of power, rather than in recognizing it as a vehicle of opportunity for what our country can accomplish and a symbol of our country’s most noble ideals. Power in itself is a very base and corrosive idea to focus on.
53. 53 Sarah on March 5, 2008 said:

    Power is the hallmark of Capitalism, and power = money, and Americans seem to admire, more than many other country, those who have it. It’s not an attractive quality, but it does exist for many. Our country’s most noble ideals almost went out the window during the Consitutional Convention of 1787, because the members of that esteemed group had their own interests in mind, and they only came to a conclusion when George Washington locked them in the room and told them they couldn’t get out until one was made, which led to compormise; and until Benjamin Franklin told them to come to some decision, though it may be flawed, because it was a beginning – not perfect, but in enabled the country to move on. That convention was a typical power struggle. Fortunately for us, there were enough members in that group with ideals that went beyond individual interests – or maybe they just wanted to get out of that room.

    Power is the ability or capacity to act or perform effectively (from the dictionary). Without power, we would not have become, as every president terms it, the most powerful nation on earth. It is inherent in the dictator (Hitler) and the benevolent dictator (Roosevelt), and it is a necessary factor in geting anything done. It’s there, but the key is how they wield it. I don’t agree that Hillary is in this race for the sake of power alone. I don’t doubt that any of the three candidates have the country’s best interests at heart. They all have ideals, and dreams of what this country could be. The problem is how to achieve it, and there has to be enough power (or influence, or authority, whatever you want to call it) to make a decision and start moving others in power in the same direction, and compromise is usually necessary to achieve those goals. All three candidates have the ability to compromise, which is something we’ve been lacking in this administration.

    So the candidates find themselves saying and doing things that they are clearly uncomfortable with, feeling forced at times to appeal to the most radical elements of their parties. I feel that many of them are somewhere in the middle, as I feel most Americans are. We have elements of both parties in us – how many times have we wished that there was an independent candidate who embraced none of the radical elements of either party? We may not find out what a candidate is really thinking until they have the ultimate power of the presidency. It may be a matter of luck that we have chosen the right person.

    I don’t feel that “dragging out” the primary elections are a bad thing at all – it seems to be the media that is pushing this thing. In the past, most of the primaries lasted through June, not through February or March. Time gives the voters a chance to know more about the candidates, and that is not a bad thing. Politics and the elction process has never been a pretty sight, but many politicians are able to move on after an election and work well with the people they’ve been squabbling with for months during a campaign. I would trust those politicians who are able to move on without rancor, as I feel they have a higher purpose in mind and won’t get bogged down in petty slights – and we benefit from that. Many Americans find this difficult to understand, though we know it is in our best interests to have represantatives with these resilient qualities.

    We might have noble ideals, but we also need someone who will fight for us to attain them and to keep them – and that does take power.
54. 54 Ericka on March 5, 2008 said:

    I as a feminist have looked up to Gloria, for many years now. Ive done enough research essays all of it on this woman. A woman. I as a woman believe That Hilary Clinton should be president. She has tons of experience,and some pretty good fuckin points and think of it when Bill Clinton was out getting it on who was backing him up. Mrs. Hilary Clinton herself. All good is coming from Gloria in that essay. I cannot believe the fact that you would not want Hilary Clinton to become president. That is what us feminist have fought for how many fuckin years now. For a woman to be able to do what a man can do and know that there is one woman that is going to be able to run this country you guys are apposing. THAT IS SOME FUCKIN BULL. I as a feminist, and a god damn proud one wants Hilary Clinton to become the first woman president.
55. 55 OpEdna on March 5, 2008 said:

    Ericka,

    As a woman, and a feminist, I don’t believe “we” fought for years so that you could instruct me how to cast my vote. As an educated woman, I’m exercising the right that woman fought for in the early 20th century and voting my conscience. You can vote yours, but don’t tell me its “Bull” that some women have opinions which differ from yours.
56. 56 montana_urban_legend on March 6, 2008 said:

    Sarah,

    Not to get technical, but capitalism is actually about property rights, not power.

    So it is about rights, once again. Although power tends to become a backdrop or easel upon which people project many different things and forget entirely about other, more important things – the things that are actually the substance and should be the plot of the narrative but that more often are relegated to scenery. Things that revolve around principle. Washington and Franklin did not fight power struggles for their own personal political future or for what others would think of “men like them” – other than for the examples they set in political application of their ethical character. They did not fight to win more power – especially not Washington, although Franklin never became a president. They fought the battles they fought because they believed there were greater principles at stake that they wanted to advance. They were not battles over their own personal or symbolic power. And certainly not for primarily their own personal power.

    The rest of your three paragraphs basically amount to an apologia for the way many politicians in the modern era have taken power and focused on it as the only way of getting things done – even when nothing was really getting done. Oh, we’ll wait until the next round of political battles, and the next, and the next. The electorate (the non-hyper partisans) is sick of it and knows that this drama has overshadowed the business of governing. For some reason, you don’t mention how easy that mindset flows into one where the outright abuse of power is justified. The electorate knows that there are enough who will respond to reason, principles (or purpose) that goes beyond oneself or the self of the politician in question, and glide on the momentum that powers those things. It’s not as if there’s a magic rule that says unless you make a big fight out of something then nothing will get done. But this is not the way Clinton does it because she’s more obsessed with the fight involved, the fights that allow the Clintons to see themselves as martyrs and victims when they, inevitably (especially with their approach), don’t get their way.

    As for compromise, if you think Clinton did a lot for the country in proposing a ban on burning the flag or by commemorating things, etc., then maybe you have a smaller vision of the principles of national greatness and what it means to govern in a way that exemplifies them than many others do. Personally, I think Obama’s bipartisan successes in making government more transparent, less beholded on special interests, and tracking loose nuclear material around the world are greater bipartisan achievements. But maybe that’s just me.

    As for Ericka’s assertion that Hillary was running the country just because Bill was cheating on her, well that’s just laughable. But not as laughable as Clinton’s Freudian slip here! Note to Bill: That’s not the electorate you’re hearing, just your projection of the sounds you imagine in your own egomaniacal head.

    I realize that there are men who have no standards or scruples for the people they would elect and here I am learning that there are quite a few people for whom there are no scruples or standards for the woman they would elect. Seriously, can’t there be a female politician better than Hillary for the job? Someone who can actually beat the field that Obama’s wiped the floor with her on: in delegates, in elections, in demographics, in cross-over appeal, in being able to understand that they’re not running against George Bush, in an interest in abiding by the Constitutional law that he teaches, in conveying a sense of national purpose moreso than a sense of symbolism and entitlement? It’s really pathetic, but then again, Hillary does pander to the pity vote – as limited as the traction that she gets for it, is.

    I’m looking for one single Hillary supporter to explain their feelings on the limits of power. I do not think I will get it. I haven’t yet. Which, I suppose, is to some degree an admission of having no ethics or morality. And it allows for the justification of just about everything that George Bush or Richard Nixon or any other president who’s abused their power has done in the name of their campaigns and presidencies. They all believed they had good, justifiable reasons. But not once the lengths that they were willing to go to were revealed. And that’s what happens when symbolism and entitlement are used to substitute for principles.
57. 57 montana_urban_legend on March 6, 2008 said:

    And as for whether dragging the primary out is a good thing or a bad thing, I think that depends on whether you agree with Clinton’s decision, (among others) to frame Barack Obama as the worst of three possible options between her and McCain. She’s certainly not leaving the door open for her fellow Democrat to win should she lose the nomination. But maybe that’s a new kind of bipartisanship “compromise” that I’m just unfamiliar with. Or a new kind of idealism.

    There could certainly be a less destructive way to do this. Or maybe this is just Hillary using “power” in a new and creative way. I don’t see who it helps other than her and McCain, the establishment politicians of getting nothing done. Even Hitler, whom you reference in a manner suggestive of being just the opposite side of the same coin when it comes to using power to get things done, made the trains run on time. I expect that once Hillary or John McCain are elected, then they can fix these decrepit roads and our nation’s crumbling (transportation) infrastructure. Somehow, I don’t see it happening though – as idealistic and noble as they (or at least Hillary) must apparently be.
58. 58 Ericka on March 6, 2008 said:

    Opedna,

    I do not beleieve i was trying to help you instruct your vote. You have your own opinion. And I have one of my own which I am going to support with all my logic and knowledge i understand and support which by my grandmother and my mother the ones that faught for all woman helped me understand. EQUAL RIGHTS TO WOMEN is all i believe in through the political movements, moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities, and equal rights for women.
59. 59 Ericka on March 6, 2008 said:

    montana_urban_legend:

    Maybe if you had a bit more knowledge where I am coming from you would understand til then i would realy appreciate if you did not criticize my thoughts.

    thank you.

    -yours and truly
60. 60 OpEdna on March 7, 2008 said:

    Ericka, if you believe in equal rights, then why can’t women in good conscience vote for the candidate they believe is most qualified?

    You (rather rudely) said: “I cannot believe the fact that you would not want Hilary Clinton to become president. That is what us feminist have fought for how many fuckin years now. ”

    A word of advice. People may try harder to understand where you’re coming from if you don’t resort to profanity when attempting to make a point. Montana has proven time and time again to be a thoughtful commenter on this blog. The argument Montana presented was another perfect example.
61. 61 montana_urban_legend on March 7, 2008 said:

    Hey, I never said I was perfect. But one thing I’ve found is that it’s a heck of a lot easier for someone to get where I’m coming from when I accept that and proceed to actually put some effort into what I want to communicate.

    This is the internet. We use a keyboard, words and language to convey our thoughts, not telepathy. And if someone misinterpreted your thoughts, Ericka, you could have always explained what you actually meant when you had previously said: “She has tons of experience,and some pretty good fuckin (sic) points and think of it when Bill Clinton was out getting it on who was backing him up. Mrs. Hilary Clinton herself.” But you didn’t. Instead you choose to scold me for not having access to some kind of privileged information on what you meant while also neglecting to explain whatever this nugget of insight of yours meant in the first place. Which is a good excuse for simultaneously being unclear and demanding someone either agree with you or shut up. But the only people who have anything approximating that right, really, are people who value being clear in the first place; people who are actually confident enough to maintain their own blog with which to express themselves in that manner and in which they can relegate those kind of undemocratic rules to their own turf.
62. 62 Sarah on March 10, 2008 said:

    I did not say that Washington and Franklin were acting for their own personal interests – Washington forced the group, many of whom WERE battling over their own personal interests, to come to a decision. Franklin encouraged them to compromise so we could move forward. They both had high ideals and the greater good in mind, and we are lucky that enough of them did.

    A Capitalist is (dictonary) a person of great wealth. Who has more power than a person of great wealth? I think many would agree that they are more in control of the country than our politicians – and some administrations have given them more ground to exercise that power. Capitalism is an economic system, and it takes a person of power, or influence, or decision-making, to run it.

    I think we both agree that it is the misuse of power we are referring to. I still believe that all of these candidates have the hope that they can make this county better. A lot of things are said by candidates that they will put aside when it is time to move on, and work toward the greater good. If they are able to get over it, I think we can too. They need to appeal to all their constituents, and some of their statements can be dismissed as pandering. But it’s easy to see what they are really passionate about, and their grasp of the issues, and I would urge people to keep up with the debates, and the non-partisan commentators (yes, there are a few out there), and really know what these candidates are about.

    Ms. Steinem may have become impatient with the attitude toward women in this country, and it may take a few more generations for the mind-set to change. Maybe what set her off was the remark tossed at Hillary in one rally to “Iron my shirt.” Maybe it was those references to her being a b***** or too shrill, that it may have been referred to as a great tactical maneuver or decisive statement if it had been said by a man. Being decisive, knowledgeable, capable, a “fighter,” are negative attributes to women by many who view capable women as a threat to the entire American culture. How long will it take to change those attitudes? I don’t see Hillary as someone who is power-mad, who wants only to win, I see her as an extremely effective politician who has equalled and bested many of her peers. If we were discussing a male candidate, wouldn’t we be praising those same qualities?
63. 63 montana_urban_legend on March 10, 2008 said:

    1. So we agree that the Founders were largely fighting over different principles rather than personal interests and that compromise could equally apply to both. Or neither.

    2. I’m not sure of where you got your definition. It’s not something an economist or a political economist would agree with. Someone of great wealth who belives in extensive economic redistribution on the part of the government is, by definition, a socialist. A capitalist might have originally meant someone who has much capital. As an adherent of an ideology however, it’s someone who believes that the means of production are best handled in a privately owned and operated manner. Language changes over time.

    3. If Ms. Steinem is impatient, I don’t know how that makes her essay any stronger. George Bush might be an impatient guy, what with rushing to war and all that and screw the UN inspections and Saddam. It doesn’t mean he dealt with that issue in an effective manner, regardless of how corrupt the UN is or was. And he certainly didn’t change the pace of change in the undemocratic cultures of the Middle East or re-set the priorities that set the agenda in the culture of the UN. Nor does it change anyone’s view on the merits of his impatience.

    I strongly disagree that my opinion of Hillary would change if she were a man doing the same things. I do not look up to men who say: “Look at me. I’ve lost more elections than you. I’ve less delegates. I’ve run in contests where you weren’t on the ballot and I want those results to count. Be my vice presidential nominee.” Men respect the idea of playing by rules that are agreed upon, you know. And a man can call another man a “dick” or another gender-specific term without it being sexist. Sometimes a woman might call a man a “prick” or another woman a “bitch”. I’m not sure that means they hate all men or all women. Maybe it does? I think “prick” is a harsher term than “dick”. But that’s because I’ve heard men refer to other men by the latter, but generally not the former. It doesn’t mean they have to respect a guy whom they think is acting like a “dick” just because he has a dick. And clearly there has to be a way make decisions of individual character or merit without lumping it in with some broad, blanket category that is just arbitrarily decided on by whomever decided to feel offended by that decision.
64. 64 Sarah on March 11, 2008 said:

    No comment. I’ll let your last narrative speak for itself.
65. 65 Ericka on March 11, 2008 said:

    Gloria Steinem

    Gloria Steinem is one of the most influential writers, lecturers, editors, and activists of our time. Gloria was a women activist during the time of the women’s liberation movement. Gloria got into feminist issues when she attended the Redstockings, a women liberation meeting. She had been touched by the women’s stories. Her experience in political issues was a great advantage for her new career as a feminist leader. It started of slow and soon developed to catching the national attention. This movement quickly grew and grew which gained strength from women all over the world. She was apart of many issues during this time. She attended The National Democratic Party Convention, She attended with other feminists to form The Women’s Political Caucus, she helped start the Ms.Magazine and wrote for the magazine until sold, and she helped found the MS Foundation for Women.
    While attending The National Democratic Convention she was fighting for abortion and wanted them to take a stand for abortion as a political issue. This drew attention to women politics and political problems for women’s lives. She was very active in the National Democratic Party Convention when she fought for an abortion plank in the party platform and challenging the seating of delegations that include mostly white males. Her hard work drew understanding to the issue of no woman in politics and the critical importance of political issues for women’s lives.
    Gloria attended The Women’s Political Caucus to encourage women to participate in an election. Gloria and many such as Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, and Myrlie Evers, congresswomen, heads of national organizations and others who shared the same act of power for gender equality. This organization is made up of three issues. For reproductive freedom which means a woman should be in control of her own body to have or not to have kids, affordable childcare, and a passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.
    She gained funding for her editorship in a feminist magazine Ms. This magazine drew mass attention to her not just as a feminist leader but an influential spokesperson for women’s right issues. Ms.Magazine is an american feminist magazine founded by American feminist and activist Gloria Steinem. Ms.Magazine has featured articles written by and about many women and men at the forefront of business, politics, activism, and journalism. This magazine took on many topics such as abortions, domestic violence, etc. Gloria’s articles and editorial work have helped to make the magazine an enduring voice of the principal of feminism.
    Gloria helped found MS Foundation for Women, where she raises funds to assist underprivileged girls and women. This foundation is a non-profit organization established by Ms.Magazine. Because of this foundation there is take our daughters to work day and take our sons and daughters to work day. This foundation makes grants to international organizations serving women, girls, and issues relating to women and girls. This foundation also give loans out to to the unemployed women who owned enterprises. This foundation has a program called “Public Voices, Public Policy: Realizing the Power of Women of Color” with the purpose to have different types of voices and leaders in public policy, and to help women of color leaders who speak or write in favor on behalf of their communities in national, state and local policy arenas.
    In conclusion, Gloria’s message to women is to be strong, self-reliant and proud. Through the act she was pleading for and writing for she has taken and carried from one place to another in her message to women of all classes and races and in places all over the world. I believe we all should be treated equal. There shouldn’t be any sort of different treatment threw males or females. I think everyone has an opinion and has a voice that should be heard and have a place in the world. In my perspective I think this is what Gloria Steinem was and is still fighting for all women all over the world.

    -ERICKA
66. 66 montana_urban_legend on March 11, 2008 said:

    Last “narrative”? Or did you mean to say last paragraph? Do keep in mind that no one here has called Hillary any of these terms that, to my knowledge, I’ve only heard other women publicly refer to her as (i.e. Newt Gingrich’s mother and the woman who asked McCain about beating her). So you can try a cute little guilt-by-association thing here on me for merely making an argument about something, or you can prove that you have a better argument to make – assuming you have one. But as it stands, as more women than men have been witnessed publicly, in a political context, using that reference to the person in question, the only way your mindset makes any sense is to assume that more women than men have publicly displayed sexism to Hillary when it comes to that language, which implies that women are more likely the primary purveyors of sexist limitations on Hillary. But then again, it would make sense to just dispense with a veiled and unjustified accusation against me if that’s the case. Because if it is, it makes your whole approach nonsensical.
67. 67 OpEdna on March 11, 2008 said:

    This is getting heated… again. I would love it if you would all weigh in on my recent post from this morning: Feminist Germaine Greer: Hillary “Bossy, Cold, Manipulative”.

    Ericka – I’m not sure why you felt compelled to post an entire biography of Gloria Steinem, as no one on here, to my knowledge, has ever argued against her commitment to feminism or involving women in politics… we’re discussing ONE editorial and its implications. That’s the point of this entire discussion. By the way, I’m taking it on good faith that your comments are entirely your words and weren’t lifted from any sites you didn’t source.

    Montana – Agreed that my opinion of Hillary wouldn’t change if she were a dude. But I do disagree with you here: “Men respect the idea of playing by rules that are agreed upon, you know.” I think it’s a little bit of a stretch to imply that, just because of one’s gender, he adheres to playing fair. Look at the most prominent corruption cases on Capitol Hill in recent years.

    Sarah – You conveniently took the third definition of “Capitalist” from Webster’s Dictionary to suit your needs, and ignored the other two: 1. One who invests capital in business, and 2. a supporter of capitalism. Personally, I know many capitalists who aren’t wealthy.
68. 68 babar77 on March 11, 2008 said:

    Sarah – some males like myself are very keen on acting ethical. Being ethical is not a gender specific trait. Hillary Clinton is HIGHLY unethical – and therefore, IMO, deserving of being called a bitch. If she were a man I would call her an asshole (which by coincidence is what I call her husband.)

    To think that HRC is anything but highly unethical is to have your head in the sand. The only “right wing conspiracy” that exists was to use the facts that she is an unconvicted felon for political gain instead of real justice. A 10,000% ROI on cattle futures is most obviously money laundering. Even Mobsters aren’t that arrogant to post that kind of ROI on something as mundane as usually stable cattle futures. They at least deal in things less obvious and ambiguous like art, rigging gambling, or moving money through Bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. For the record, Bill should be in jail for many things including is “pardon-for-sale” deals and perjury. If you think Bush should be impeached and jailed for Scooter Libby, the exact same logic applies to Bill Clinton for his pardons.

    This isn’t a gender thing. If you are a woman and think that woman are not capable of crimes because they are women, or do not put women under the same scrupulous eye that you would a man, you are a sexist, not a feminist. Defending a woman when she obviously committed crimes or acts unethically because she is a woman as wrong as defending a man for the same acts. Period.

    The worst part is, Hillary is obviously using the feminist cause for her own gain, instead of fighting for the cause and threatens to put it back a few years as she did health care. Sounds like this fits the definition of treason if you ask me. From Webster: Treason – the betrayal of a trust.

    Being a fighter is only admirable if you are fighting for something other than yourself or your basic rights as a human. I think even a lot men would agree with that. However, It’s hard to argue (especially given her recent campaign stunts and so called strategy) that she is fighting for anyone other than her personal ambitions and greed. That’s being a bitch, asshole, whatever. If she were fighting for anything other than her own ambition and greed, she would realize that Obama is fighting for the same causes as she is, is just as historic as she, and join the fight by stepping aside so history and the cause have a better chance. Then turn that political machine against anyone standing in the way instead of her own team. Instead she claims a man who would set everything she stands for back is better equipped to be president than a person who would fight for her causes. That’s as low as you get, and plain pathetic.

    As a man, I do not fear smart, competent, intelligent women – I’m marrying one.
69. 69 montana_urban_legend on March 12, 2008 said:

    Edna, you’re entirely correct that men are not immune from unethical behavior. Thanks for pointing that out in case I was not clear. If there was any idea in there that stands as a reference it would be in reference to competitive sports, where men (or women) will argue incessantly about violations, fouls, etc. Certainly men are not immune from bad apples who will break rules and other bad apples who will abet rulebreaking, and hence the intensity with which still many more will pursue corrections against that. As for the rest, I think Babar’s post is another effective way of pointing out what it means to have a level ethical playing field that applies equally regardless of gender in any given area. But I will do my part to try to help make sure that what’s posted is more clear than heated and hence, will read your new post.
70. 70 Sarah on March 12, 2008 said:

    OpEdna – you are right, I should have thought that first paragraph through before sending it so quickly. Thank you.

    I opted out of this “discussion,” as it was getting too toxic.

    Ms. Steinem is one of the most effective advocates of women’s rights in this century; not only because she is able to make her points with exceptional clarity and a great deal of common sense, but that she always stays cool. We could all learn from her.
71. 71 Katrin on September 7, 2008 said:

    Hey, I am not an American but only a visitor of this site … just let me say, while I wholeheartedly agree that it’s not enough simply to be a woman, it’s not as if you have the chance to vote for a woman every day. And I am absolutely shocked at the treatment Hillary received especially from feminists in the US. After all, people like Greer were using a terminology they themselves would call downright sexist had a male journalist used it. So, the person who wants the top job of the US president is a little “bossy”? This is just a denigrating synonym for being determined, for knowing exactly who you are, and for being not afraid to tell others that you are convinced of your opinion, and have the strength to take the responsibility for your decisions. Exactly what a good leader needs, if you ask me.

    Americans have gambled and lost the chance to vote for an extraordinary woman who has got harder balls than Obama, who is in the defensive right now because he has no idea how to respond to the lipstick pitbull. I’d say it’s your business entirely, but since US foreign policy affects as all, I am a little afraid. I want neither a cold warrior nor a wimp in the oval office.

1. 1 My favorite responses to Gloria Steinem’s Hillary Op-ed « Gillard’s Daily
2. 2 Feminist Germaine Greer: Hillary “Bossy, Cold, Manipulative” « Op-Edna