Will We See a Woman President In Our Lifetime?
By Ani on November 22, 2008 at 9:45 AM in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Current Affairs, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Sexism
No.
Hey, if you don’t like the answer, folks, it’s time for a little soul searching.
In her article, The Glass Ceiling Holds Strong, the always en pointe WaPo writer Marie Cocco tells us:
It is time to stop kidding ourselves. This wasn’t a breakthrough year for American women in politics. It was a brutal one.
The glass ceiling remains firmly in place — not cracked, as Hillary Clinton insisted as she tried to claim rhetorical victory after her defeat in the Democratic nominating contest. It wasn’t even scratched with the candidacy of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee — unless you consider becoming an object of national ridicule to be a symbol of advancement. As divergent as these two women are ideologically and temperamentally, as different as are their resumes, they both banged their heads — hard — against the ceiling. Both were bruised. So was the goal of advancing women in political leadership.
Clearly, Senator Clinton is the first woman ever to win a primary and she also won 18,000,000 votes, more than any primary candidate in history. But even as the winner of all the big states, save Illinois, all the battleground states and the majority of the Democratic base, the prize was still denied her by cowardly super delegates. If Barack Obama were likewise a woman, or a white male, running against Hillary with his resume, he would have been laughed off the stage.
Even if President-elect Barack Obama chooses Clinton as secretary of state, no ground will be broken. Clinton would be the third woman to hold the post. And there is no longer anything extraordinary in a president naming women to his Cabinet. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it first, when he appointed Frances Perkins as labor secretary in 1933. Since then, every president but Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy has named women to the Cabinet or to Cabinet-level posts, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Bill Clinton holds the record: He appointed 16 women overall, and at one point about half of those serving in Clinton’s Cabinet were female.
Thank you, President Clinton.
But, we are invariably told, surely there are enough women moving through the “pipeline” of lower offices so that someday, some woman from somewhere will win the presidency or the vice presidency.
Uh, how exactly? We are so focused on a woman’s pantsuits or clothing allowance, or how dare she run for the office in the first place and “What does she want anyway” and what kind of a mother is she and why didn’t she leave her husband and why does she talk like that and why does she laugh like that? This kind of insulting nonsense would never be leveled at a man. Did anyone bother Joe Biden about his obvious eye lift? Did anyone ask what kind of a father Obama is? No? *Crickets*?
Barack Obama is one of the most inexperienced candidates ever, with no governing experience, no executive experience and barely any legislative experience, and what he has is exaggerated by mentors padding his resume. Did anyone ask him if he is qualified for the job? Did anyone ponder: How he dare run for this office, particularly at this most difficult and challenging time in our nation’s history? Never mind what he dared to do – no one would dare ask him. Charges of racism would certainly have ensued.
The markets are tanking horribly. While it is not a constant that the markets rebound after an election, it is certainly more the norm. Gee, maybe business is terrified because they have no idea how this man is going to govern or what his fiscal policy will be going forward. It would have been nice if our press had bothered to ask. They certainly asked Senator Clinton. And they actually got a concrete and well thought out answer.
…Eight women will serve as governors in 2009, the same as this year. The proportion of women serving in statewide elective office actually has dropped since it reached a high of about 28 percent in 2000; it is now about 24 percent, according to the center.
The Senate will add one woman next year, bringing the number of female senators to 17. Ten newly elected House members are female. This means that as the class of 2008 enters the Capitol’s marble halls, it will include less than half the number of women who first won office in 1992 — the so-called “year of the woman.”
Including incumbents and newcomers, a record number of women will be serving in Congress, but still only 17 percent of its members will be female. This is where that record places us: on a par with the legislative representation women have achieved in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. The United Nations, which tracks women’s global political advancement, says that at this rate, it will take women in the developing world 40 years to reach parity with men.
17%? We are 52% of the population. I’m not even asking for parity, but surely, a slightly more accurate representation of the electorate wouldn’t hurt.
Those who watched the media’s sexist hazing of both Clinton and Palin often rationalize this treatment as the result of these two candidates’ particular personalities and the legitimacy — or presumed illegitimacy — of their campaigns. But Barbara Lee, whose Boston-based family foundation has conducted extensive research of gubernatorial races involving women, routinely identifies the same undercurrents in state campaigns. Voters demand more experience of a woman candidate, and judge her competence separately from whether she is sufficiently “likable.” Male candidates typically must clear only the competence bar to be judged — as Obama indelicately put it during a primary debate — “likable enough.”
That is always the excuse. Hillary got a snoot full of that nonsense this year: it isn’t that she’s woman, it’s just THIS woman. Right? The most brilliant, prepared politician to come along in ages who has forever raised the bar and that was not good enough, or likeable enough, apparently. Obama clearly didn’t even need to clear the competence bar. As his supporters were fond of telling me throughout the year, “oh, it will be fine, he’ll surround himself with really good people.”
Apparently so. He is surrounding himself with lots of Clintonistas. That’s really good. And now he’s trying to “surround” himself with Senator Clinton as his Secretary of State. Well, Obama’s supporters should be glad to know he took their advice to heart. But I guess the electorate just couldn’t make enough of a leap to put the real thing at the head of the line. Rather they would rather have a male figurehead, with Hillary pulling the strings.
“We heard that over and over again — that no woman is ever right,” Lee says of her focus groups. “They like the concept of it but when it comes to a real, live, breathing candidate, they don’t.”
It was fine for Obama’s campaign to put 30 lawyers on the ground in Alaska to go rummaging through Sarah Palin’s garbage. Palin’s education was ridiculed regularly, but we still can’t see any of President-elect Obama’s college records, state senate records, articles, medical records or birth certificate. Surely, if this information were anything to be proud of, it would be plastered across the front page of the NY Times.
Some have said we need to let bygones be bygones and stop “rehashing the political arguments of this last year.” How convenient. It is very kind of those who got what they wanted in this ridiculous election to tell the rest of us to “get over it.” No dice.
Lee summarizes the disparate assessment this way: “There are no female Arnold Schwarzeneggers.” That is, no woman will ever burst into politics, capture the voters’ imagination and be catapulted into high public office without a lick of experience.
Schwarzenegger was an action star, arguably a good businessman when it came to securing his own fortune, but otherwise had no qualifications for elected office. He won handily, despite his inexperience and reported sexual harassment of women over the years. He is now in his second term as Governor of California, the fifth largest economy in the world. By all accounts he is not doing a great job, to put it mildly. But he’s still here. Never mind why men would vote for him, why would women vote for him?
Lawrence Summers is under consideration for Treasury Secretary. This man was forced to resign from Harvard for his sexist attitudes towards women. A 50-ish single working mom said to me – “well, if he’s good otherwise, so he has a problem with women, so what?” Well, my dear, if you are the go-to girl and the bottom line for the support of your family and have been for many years, and you’ve got no problem with a man who says you are ‘less than,’ I really don’t have a response for that. This is a woman whom I respect and her resigned “that’s just the way life works and what can we do about it” attitude was painful. Why should people not be held accountable for sexist behavior?
…American women are a majority of the population and a majority of the electorate. They earn more than half the bachelor’s and master’s degrees, a level of educational achievement far exceeding that of women in developing countries. There must be some reason we don’t do any better than women in impoverished, rural regions of the world where cultural norms oppress women.
Maybe it is because our culture isn’t so different after all.
Why do we judge women more harshly? That is a question most do not want to answer. It makes us uncomfortable. We know there is a double standard for women sexually in this country. No, we are still not over that one either, believe it or not. The madonna/whore complex still exists. There is obviously a double standard in business and certainly in politics. Religion plays a part as many religions have assigned subservient roles to women. Those habits die hard.
I still maintain that if the male ego cannot tolerate a woman having the last word in any circumstance, he will not vote for a woman. Men who are comfortable with themselves don’t seem to have this problem. And if a woman does not trust herself, I doubt she is going to trust another woman to be the final word, either. I do not want to “rehash” but frankly, if we are ever to have competent female leadership then we need to stop trashing competent women. How do we do that?
Forewarned is forearmed. It requires not only vigilance towards the media, but punishment of the guilty parties. It requires calling them out from the highest hill for the biased fools they are. I could give a damn if any of these reporters were lying-in-wait for Hillary because of their past experiences with the Clintons in the 90s. That is no excuse. It’s 2008. If you can’t do your job objectively as a journalist – a job for which you are paid – then retire. Get out. Period.
It also requires a willingness to speak out against any male candidate who uses sexist attacks to defeat women. Holding candidates’ feet to the fire to campaign without shenanigans of other sorts would help, too. If the electorate sends the message it will not be tolerated, guess what – it might stop. Or these guys will get voted down.
Most important, it requires us examining our own private biases and preconceived notions.
As Hillary once said, she only wanted to be judged on the merits. I would never ask for anyone to vote for a woman simply on the basis of gender just as I would never expect anyone to vote for a candidate simply on the basis of race. I mean, we don’t do that in our country, do we?
We have the president-elect we have. Got it. But that does not mean the debate about women in politics is going to stop; nor should it. Unless we want the travesty of woman-bashing we witnessed this year to continue.
Keeping this debate front and center, demanding parity for women in terms of pay, civil rights, reproductive rights, and enforcing a zero tolerance policy for violence against women are the only ways we are ever going to be able to answer “yes” to the title question.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
I made a comment earlier to my gf, telling her that I’m still royally pissed about the election. This year, we had a choice:
– put the first “black” president in office OR
– put the first First Lady to ever advance to the Presidency in office.
Which one did I think would’ve been more historic? What do YOU think? No former First Lady has ever gotten to be president before. This would’ve been a massive milestone in American History, but the Obamatrons and their Dear Leader f***ed it up bigtime.
And now it’s likely to never happen. I am still PISSED. ROYALLY PISSED. And for what? So a half black, in experienced, no-nothing, corrupt piece of crap could do it “because he could”. We had GOLD in our hands and we gave it up for cheap tin. We had a massive 60-inch flatscreen and we gave it up for Door #2 (a shoebox full of horseshit). And now that sleazy bastard is filling his cabinet with CLINTON people. Why the f*** do THAT when we could’ve had the REAL THING? I am disgusted by this country and its willingness to buy into a brand that has nothing behind it.
And think of all the money he had to spend to get it! He could not do it on his own merit but needed a huge marketing campaign and money, gobs of it to defeat her. All this election means is that if they can prop a guy up with a teleprompter and make him deliver his speechwriter’s lines, all else like his experience, his resume, and his fxxking accomplishments if any, are irrelevant. The fact that a majority of women voted for him is another travesty — they deserve him but we are all being dragged down as well in the process. The women who supported him will pay for their actions. The shame of the sham primary will live on.
it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the MSM can elect whomever they want to.
You nailed it!
I am in complete agreement. The only thing that keeps me sane is knowing that That One (TM) will sorely disappoint his followers (given that he is a prevaricating four-flusher), which will give me the opportunity to laugh at them derisively.
‘my gf’?
that’s a big part of the problem right there — the complete and total expectation that this possessed piece of humanity is there mainly to just listen to any rant or rave its possessor might indulge in
lotta disrespect in that tiny wordcluster right there, and we gotta look at it all if we are ever going to get to ‘yes’ in the answer to Ani’s question
gf = shorthand for girlfriend. What the shit is this:
She is my girlfriend. She is not my roommate, she is not my wife, she is not my fianceé. What would you have me call her, “my woman”? My partner? Gee, sorry that the shorthand offends your oversensibilities, but that wasn’t at all the point of my rant. Get over your PC self for a moment, will ya? She has no problem being referred to as my girlfriend, nor do I take offense to being called her girlfriend.
I guess this comment was held up in moderation or something, because when I saw that it hadn’t posted, I’d assumed it was censored, so I posted the next one. Sorry for them spam!
Yes, my gf, as in my girlfriend. She doesn’t seem to have a problem with me referring to her as such, since I am her boyfriend. What’re you going to do, pick on the possessive parts of my sentences now (her, his, oooo, possessssssions?) G-d forbid you don’t at all focus on the REAL issue at hand here, and it’s not how I refer to my girlfriend (who is not my wife, not my roommate and not my fiancée).
It is not demeaning to refer to someone who is your girlfriend, “your girlfriend”. Get over your PC self, will ya?
John’s other option would have been to say “this female/woman that I’m dating”. Between the two, the possessive pronoun is far better. The possessive pronoun, at least, indicates a level of feeling and emotion; the other is far too clinical and detached.
I believe he wanted to point out that he was, in fact, commenting to a woman with whom he’s involved, as opposed to some random woman he saw at the mall.
LOL, actually that makes me chuckle a bit. Makes me think of aliens or a robot trying to sound human or something. “This female human lifeform I am having relations with…NEENER NEENER…*blip*”
Kal, you are totally off-base here. In online vernacular, it is common to reference girlfriends and boyfriends as “gf” and “bf.” I have regular written “my bf” in emails and chats. It’s a shorthand. Don’t get all bent out of shape about it.
I have to say I don’t understand what is wrong with ‘my gf’ either. Does it mean something else I am not aware of?
No it doesn’t. Kal just read waaaaaaay too far into one reference and blew it up to massive significance in order to characterize me as some kind of Neanderthalian sexist.
Perhaps Kal would’ve been better pleased had I said “I made a comment earlier to the superior female force whose presence I live amongst, telling said omnipotent being that I’m still royally pissed about the election…”
Ok, so now you have all had your little tantrums over having your unconscious use of possessory terms questioned for sexist impact —
Now let me tell you what I see in your comments:
Real anger at not being sensitive enough to women’s issues — ‘how dare you question me’ self centrism
Refusal to stop and think that a woman from outside your safe little world, populated by people who automatically think of each other as possessed nouns instead of human beings with just as many real big feelings as you, might actually have something of value to say
Abusive language — way over the top in light of what was actually said
Ganging up, as who knows who all jumped on the bandwagon to affirm the cultural acceptability of this term
Claim that the big problems (unequal pay, sexual harassment, violence, lack of political empowerment, etc.) need to be solved first before pesky little things like ‘my gf’ need to be addressed
In other words, male privilege being enacted and reinforced, on a systemic basis, by complete strangers, some of whom may well be women in thrall to the system, even though the topic under discussion is how to overcome sexism and misogyny in public life and policy.
Until people like you get this, and get that YOU are part of the problem, the answer to Ani’s question is likely to be ‘no.’
PUMA!!!
PS/tiny hint as to why ‘my gf’ is sexist and even more so when some people claim that ‘my bf’ is just the same:
‘girl’ refers to a female person under the age of majority
unless you are all juveniles associating with age-appropriate partners, you are infantilizing your partner and creating an implicit adult male-minor female image of your relationship
probably because having that sense of age and cultural superiority is important to you (as evidenced by your comments)
and probably because you have not yet paid close attention to why US culture seems to unrelentingly infantilize women as much as possible, keeping them ‘girls’ long after they are adult women, even mothers, refusing them any honorifics, and then, when challenged, turning around and acting like the racist term ‘boy’ which is used in a totally different context when paired with ‘my bf’ is somehow morally or politically equivalent
there is lots more where this came from but maybe you want to think about this one for awhile
you could prove that you are not actually male privilege junkies by stopping the ranting long enough to actually think this through
Abusive language — way over the top in light of what was actually said
Exactly what you’ve done to my comment. Ruined it with stupidity instead of focusing on the real issues at hand, i.e., the insanity of electing an unqualified black man over electing a perfectly qualified woman. Who the f*ck cares (besides you) whether I refer to my girlfriend as my girlfriend? That’s what she is, for this eensy weensy reference. What the f*ck do you WANT me to call her? What the f*ck did you WANT me to say? I’m not going to reform the way I retell a story because some moron online got offended because some person had the gall to refer to his girlfriend as his girlfriend. You behave as if I called her “my bitch”, which I certainly did not. If you have SUCH a G-d awful biting need to carp about how people reference each other, go start writing your letters to the greeting card companies to tell them that it’s inappropriate to categorize their cards via gender pronouns. And by G-d, do NOT argue gender pronouns with someone from the GLBT community (like me). You will not get anywhere.
I am not a sexist. You, however, are absof*ckinglutely batsh*t insane, and for the love of G-d, stop crying out PUMA, because you give PUMAs a bad name.
Hey, John. More proof!!
And, how very interesting — you think calling yourself a member of the LGBTTIA communities allows you to use swear words and abusive language because someone trying to raise gender awareness about the use of language ‘ruined’ your comment?
!!
As a card-carrying member of the LGBTTIA communities myself, I don’t buy that, not for one teenyweeny second.
Abuse is abuse, and if the ‘my gf’ reference means that you are LBTT or I, then wow, hate to break it to you, but any LBTT or I person can be just as outofcontrol abusive as straights, Gs, or As.
Really, you ought to take what you can from the point that was made, and leave the rest instead of spending the whole daaaayyyy on a protracted temper tantrum!!
PUMA!!!
Oh G-d, you’re one of those morons–the kind who’s forever seeking to cause strife and more ambiguity by adding on more and more categories to the fold until the acronym is a massive joke (and I sure hope you realize that–the mainstream world that you so seek to demolish only balks at your absurdity).
CALLING SOMEONE THEIR GIRLFRIEND IS NOT ABUSIVE. PLEASE STOP HARASSING ME WITH YOUR BATSHIT INSANITY.
Hmmm. This is more serious than I had originally thought. You can’t read either:
Your overall tone and choice of words to use when defending your right to thingify a (probably) female person you say matters to you is abusive.
That doesn’t mean that the word clump ‘my gf’ is per se abusive, but the correlation between your do-or-die attitude and your militant use of the term certainly is suggestive!!
Wanna take a break to do some thinking yet? Might be good for both of you!!
PLEASE STOP HARASSING ME WITH YOUR BATSHIT INSANITY.
I have already asked ONCE, this is the SECOND time, and the next time I’ll just ask someone else to stop this harassment.
Hey, fine. Ask away. All I’ve ever done to you is ask you to think about the meanings of word bits like ‘my gf’ in the context of a detailed discussion of sexism in public life before getting all swearing and pleading privilege of various kinds.
If you need to invoke not only language usually considered to be swearing and unpleasant, and name-calling, and appeals to authority to get ‘your way’ on a comment, then I don’t know how much you can really contribute to a genuine discussion about sexism!
How ’bout you take some time to do some thinking about the original point, and about the way you have been reacting to it?
Sounds reasonable to me, JH.
PUMA!!!
There’s nothing reasonable about what you’re doing. You’re policing someone’s language and not in any kind of productive way. Saying it one last time here: “My gf” is not a sexist term. Get the f**k over yourself and your idiotic agenda. You’re not going to change my mind about this, nor have you changed others’ minds, nor are you going to succeed in browbeating anyone to accept your definitional standards of What is Sexism/What Are the Roots of Sexism. You didn’t just “ruin” my comment, you’re ruining the cause that you fight against by behaving like an abominable absurdity. Your LGBTIT-headed fringe is what makes non-GLBT people point and laugh at the entire GLBT community whenever you open your mouths to speak and actually get some coverage/exposure. You’re the Andy Dicks of the GLBT community. Your only accomplishment here has served to steer what I really wrote about so far off topic that I suspect you’re NOT a PUMA like you say you are, but a disgusting Obamatronic troll: After all, the LGBTITTIES are SO FAR LEFT and SO politically correct that they would’ve been enamored by the Hope Dope and the media protection of his Golden Balls. People like you don’t support Clinton or party disunity, they support asses like Obama. People like you wouldn’t ever have considered voting McCain/Palin.
And you’re a little bit slow on the uptake, aren’t you (since you’re not the one I’m asking to stop this sh!t).
Stop it.
Stop what? Speaking out against sexism?
On a thread about sexism and misogyny in public life?
No, not in this lifetime!!
PUMA!!!
What would you prefer in lieu of “my gf”? Just asking, not trying to get in the middle.
Thanks for asking, Ani. I don’t see you as getting in the middle — I’m assuming we are in free speech zone, thanks to you!
My objection to ‘my gf’ is to the use of any version of ‘girl’ to refer to an adult (presumably adult) woman. It is the same denial of adult personhood that is illustrated by, e.g., calling an AA adult male ‘boy’ or an adult female ‘baby.’ I made the point in the context of this thread re the depth of misogyny in public life and have stuck with it to emphasize that we can’t just decry what happened to Hillary, but need to take a close look at how pervasive it is, and what it says about getting to ‘yes.’
There are still lots of choices of terms for everyone!
There are no hard and fast rules about feminism. But most of us here recognize the disrespect of sexism when we see it. I hardly think a male referring to his girlfriend as gf is worth insulting a man who ‘gets’ our utter dismay about Hillary being denied what she earned.
As one earnest man said once, “I’m a feminist who’s trying.” Many feminist women understand that, John. Thank you for your heartfelt comments.
FranSC — I totally agree, except for one point: If you read the exchange, I just raised a fairly mild linguistic issue, and if there was any ‘insulting’ going on, I think you will find it in JH’s language.
PUMA!!
Or to put if different, we could have had a V-8, but chose the aspertame Kool-Aid instead.
that is, “differently” . . .
If I had a dime for every time since Nov. some mental midget has said “MLK’s dream is now a reality”, I’d have as much money as BO used to buy this election.
Oh Pulleez… the dream was to be judged by the content of your character!
Right on Ani. It will take women to change this. I am sorry to say that it does not seem that the majority of women are aware of what seems so obvious.
There are so many good points in Ani’s article, it’s difficult to know where to start. How about this:
And lest we forget the stellar governorship of one Jesse Ventura, who picked up his marbles and went home when the job stopped being fun and he had to deal with a legislature, and all that icky stuff.
Ani, you are probably right: it is doubtful that we will ever see a woman president in our lifetime. If we do see a female chief executive, it is unfortunately most plausible that she will enter the White House through the back door: I am thinking of someone such as Nancy Pelosi. Unless the vile MSM changes drastically, they will continue to present a huge obstacle for any woman trying to achieve the presidency through a national election. And as long as we have lots of women in the media like Katie Couric who are happy to back-stab other women, the chances are slim.
Won’t be in my lifetime I bet, and I am not all that old. Got another 50 at least by the actuarial tables Matt Damon immortalized.
I predict the first one will be a social and fiscal conservative. Somehow that sort of “church” woman gets better support from her base, no idea why.
If women don’t get it now, they never will. This election, this charade, exposed the hateful underbelly of this society’s true attitude toward women - we now know our place in this culture - NOT AT THE TOP.
To put an unprepared, inexperienced man - EVEN A BLACK MAN - at helm of this country at this frightful and fragile time is suicide. This particular man is woefully inadequate as a leader and corrupt to his core - and yet, there he is - Mr. President with the most prepared politician of all time relegated to be his “secretary” - to do his bidding - to carry his water - to cover his mistakes.
Yes. I am as pissed as anybody can be about it. And we need to start somewhere right now to end this degradation of women in the United States of America in the 21st century - so that we can stop lagging behind third world countries in our acceptance of women as whole human beings.
I say start where it hurts. BOYCOTT THE PRESS - every one of them who participated in this mass maligning of women candidates. To hell with their smug excuses for themselves. Let’s see how they feel about women’s abilities when they’re standing on a street corner looking for a job.
I’m mad as hell and want no part of hearing how wonderfully women did this year. What happened to Hillary is a stunning example of the very worst of discrimination against women. What happened to Sarah Palen is the press - high on their drubbing of Hillary - taking their (until now hidden)inner hatred of women to even greater lengths - absolute, unfettered RIDICULE.
One big problem: Women turned on women in this election. Not just any women, but the very leaders who should have been screaming bloody murder over how the press was treating Hillary and Sarah Palen.
New leadership is going to have to emerge from this to move respect for women into the mainstream. And it’s obvious that you can’t appeal to the better part of the human psyche to prevail. That means grab the power that we, as women, already have and use it like a 500 pound club.
Start with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.
Let’s start with Pod Feminists like Pelosi, McCaskill (sp?), Huffington, Steinem, etc.
Let’s also hold all of the racial minority female politicians for their reverse bigotry.
And let’s not let young men and women accountable too! (Begin with your own family, friends, and in the workplace. I know as an instructor, I will emphasize the gender question from now more than I have in the past.)
Shit we have so much work to do — again! I’m exhausted just thinking about it. Didn’t we go through this in the sixties and seventies? F@#$k!!
“Let’s start with pod Feminists like Pelosi, McCaskill, Huffington, Steinem, etc.”
Other than Steinem, I would hardly call the other three ‘feminists’. They got through the glass ceiling and have no doubt become part of the good o’l boys system and at this point don’t want the competition of other women who could take their positions.
The difference is when a woman is a feminist, she is always trying to advance the cause of women, in addition to other things. She certainly does not do what Pelosi did this year and that was do everything known to mankind to defeat a woman who was brilliantly qualified when Pelosi’s choice was laughable in comparison. Again, Steinem has certainly done her part over the years to advance women, although I’m still having trouble with her easy switch from Hillary to Obama.
Because a woman is pro-choice does not necessarily make her a ‘feminist’. There are many facets to feminism - equal rights, equal pay, electing women to political office, and putting women in the board rooms of corporate America to name a few.
Obviously we would not always support every woman. But what this election year should teach people in general and women in particular is when a woman is running she should be judged on her stands, beliefs, convictions, policies and (in most cases) anything else a male counterpart would be judged on. Neither male nor female should ever have to face questions and comments about their hair, bodies, clothes, parenthood, etc.
Primarily, women should be very careful about critizing a female candidate she doesn’t agree with.
Bill Clinton did it right when he talked about Sarah Palin. He said, “She is a candidate that should not be underestimated.” He spoke admiringly about how she had risen to power as well as expressed warmth toward her husband. He did finally add, “I would never vote for McCain/Palin because I have fundamental differences with them.”
Rosie O’Donald had initially been very critical of Sarah Palin, but eventually got it right when she said, “I think she is someone I would like to have a beer with.”
These are important lessons from 2008.
[...] Will We See a Woman President In Our Lifetime? No. Hey, if you don’t like the answer, folks, it’s time for a little soul searching. In her article, The Glass Ceiling Holds Strong, the always en pointe WaPo writer Marie Cocco tells us: It is time to stop kidding ourselves. This wasn’t a breakthrough year for American women in politics. It was a brutal one. The glass ceiling remains firmly in place — not cracked, as Hillary Clinton insisted as she tried to claim rhetorical victory after her defeat in the Democratic nominating contest. It [...]
I agree with you on so much of this and your post is powerful enough to start lighting fires under many asses, especially female asses. This was the year in which in-your-face, undisguised sexism was made legit. In poll after poll, sexism took a back seat to racism, a seat way in the back of the room. Because of the history of racism in this country, it became impossible for anyone to criticize Barack Obama with any lingering effects. One by one, the mainstream media giants abandoned what remained of their responsibility as a free press and crawled into the Obama propaganda tank. Even Obama’s association of 20 years with a raving Jeremiah Wright, which at first appeared to be his real Achilles heel, fell by the wayside and even John McCain would not be budged from his position of not going near “the Wright issue.” He knew it would cost him his Senate seat in 2010 if he lost the election. (This is why Janet Napolitano is being shifted to Washington as she would have been challenging Mac for that seat and she is extremely popular.) Barack Obama with firm control of the “racism” issue, became the only person the Democratic Party could use to steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton. His never to be investigated crimes of caucus fraud, fundraising fraud, and his unpublicized major role in Operation Board Games, not to mention his odd behavior over his “vault” birth certificate, continue to roll off his suit. Nothing will stick. But he made a mistake with Clinton. If she’s confirmed as the SOS, her face will be right up there alongside his and while some choose to interpret that as the portrait of a lady rival who was finally taken prisoner and paraded alongside her master, I see it as an inescapable thorn in the side of Obama, who tried and ultimately failed, to destroy her. Unlike the history of racism, the history of sexism in this country remains, for the most part, buried. Maybe it’s time we all picked up a shovel. There is hope. The Summers “consideration” was derailed, perhaps with the help of a new group called “The New Agenda.” This was reported in the Washington Post recently. There is hope. Not the kind Obama sells, but the hope that comes from opening up our eyes and seeing what we might accomplish if we work together for this cause. Hillary Clinton has never lost sight of that. We might take a lesson.
Mandalay - Great comment. I would love to find hope here. But you are right, it is going to take everybody picking up a shovel to get there.
I’m likewise moved by all the comments above. We must keep this discussion front and center.
Yes, Ani, front and center from now on!
Mandelay — sorry for my misspelling above!
I don’t have much hope; it’s 1970s all over again. When even feminist leaders won’t stand up to sexism and participate in the blatant misogyny against Palin, it seems very hopeless. As for Summers, his appointment as Treasury Secretary might have been derailed, but he is now on the economic team. Just a quick side shuffle and he’s in.
I’d like to educate my family, but whenever I try to point out anything about Obama they don’t care, go on a rant about Palin, Clinton, Palin’s children, etc. etc. Nothing logical, nothing rational, just good old fashioned misogyny and sexism internalized in the women in my family. Gawd, what an uphill battle this will be.
“If she’s confirmed as the SOS, her face will be right up there alongside his and while some choose to interpret that as the portrait of a lady rival who was finally taken prisoner and paraded alongside her master, I see it as an inescapable thorn in the side of Obama, who tried and ultimately failed, to destroy her.”
Clinton as SOS will be no more than a puppet for Obama, just as Rice and Powell were no more than the puppet mouthpieces of the GOP administration. Powell as a puppet, lied us into the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps Hillary as SOS will do Obama’s bidding and lie us into the invasion of Pakistan. Just when I imagined nothing could have been worse than Hillary parading around the country campaigning for Obama…I was wrong!
SARAH PALIN 2012!!!!!!!
Yes Linda, this is exactly where to start. They have BOTH GOT TO GO! We have got to purge the misogyny from television news first and foremost–and unfortunately some of those who must go are the females who are willing to join the boys in bashing women.
Don’t forget Rachel Maddow, Campbell Brown, and Randi Rhodes.
Men who also are horrified by the misogyny against HRC and SP also need to take these Pod Feminists to task. Lou Dobbs’ show would be an excellent venue in which to feature such women and their gender bias during this election cycle.
I remember in the early seventies, at the beginning of the second wave of feminism, when television broadcasters and other journalist were terrified to even mouth discriminatory words against women - or even imply feminism, or even make a facial expression that could be misconstrued to be sexist.
WTH HAPPENED?
Oh yeah, Carter and then the backlash to Reagan and his John Wayne culture - and feminists leadership who just couldn’t get it through their heads that far-left feminist socialistic exclusion crap would never fly in this country.
How did we terrorize the media in the early seventies? We challenged their FCC licenses for violating our civil rights by using discriminatory language against women.
HELLO? HEEEEELLO???
There are no FCC licenses for cable. Back in the 70’s it was all network (public airwaves) television. Cable has wrecked all of that.
The exit polls on November 4th had high marks for Hillary, she scored a higher margin of victory than obama against McCain. Recent SoS opinion polls all gave very high percentages to Hillary and that was among Republicans as well - who overwhelmingly wanted a Democrat they could TRUST as SoS and picked her in droves.
This year an oft repeated phrase:
“if not now, when? if not her, then who?”
kept on ringing for me and stirring me deeply.
HRC ‘12 or —> not in our life-time.
While I have respect for Senator Clinton, shes not running in 2012. Obama won and will be his party’s nominee again in 2012 barring his demise or dismissal from office.
So, not in our lifetime unless Obama tanks and some Republican woman does it. I am sure that if one does, she will not have the support of her sisters on the left, and thats just how it goes. Lets just hope the women of America can keep it to policy differences and not help the press with its over the top ad hominem attacks on all female candidates. In this I do not have great optimism. Women are not obligated to help each other, but must we cut each other down so much?
Frankly HRC lost some points with me by singing the Obama song so loudly and for so long. I went from not liking her much 2 years ago, to really developing a sense of respect for her in spite of my policy differences with her. She was very impressive in her campaign. Now I am lukewarm and have lost a lot of faith in America.
Right. Perfect example — women have to be ultra-perfect for everyone at all times to merit the kinds of positions that even the most flawed men get handed over and over during their lives certainly without deserving many of them (except, of course, in their own eyes).
Hillary asap!!
Hillary in 2012 or 2016!!
PUMA!!
I would be really happy to see Palin v Clinton in 2016.
I think this is what it will take to get a woman, but watch out, America will probably write in Ron Paul or Jesse Jackson Jr. just to not elect a female.
Arg.
Maybe you missed the part I wrote about the exit polls and the strength Hillary has now?
She had the nomination stolen from her.
As we often said this year, never count out a Clinton, and although Hillary has said she may not run again, there is no doubt to anyone who watched her run with all she had that she was in it to win it.
She worked her heart out as promised and she did it for many reasons that are obvious and some that we might only learn about in the far future.
I have not one iota of faith that obama will be more than a one term - if that long - Prez.
Hillary is in for the long run and she is going to continue to make fans along the way.
and yes, as Kal said - PUMA! and Hillary!
Amen.
thanks, Ani, for this great essay. This paragraph really struck me:
Obama Sexism and the frenzied misogyny of his supporters was nothing so much hate speech against women. The target may have been Hillary, but it raised the bar for all women, a bar which keeps getting moved.
[...] Continue here [...]
We may get a woman president, but not the kind of transformational leader that we would have gotten from Hillary. I honestly believe that she would have been incredible. (and I still hold out the hope that it can still happen. 68 is the new 50!!) My only solace in the SOS thing is that she will make a real difference in the world generally and for women and children especially. Power to the PUMAs.
change.gov should be changed to clinton.gov.
Black men gained the right to vote in 1870. Women gained the right to vote in ALL STATES throughout America in 1920. So if history is any indicator it will be another 50 years before we have a woman for president. NOPE, I will never see that day.
I did not hear from one of my lifelong women friends on “election day”. They are perfectly fine with what happened to Hillary and by extension all women. Hillary was just not “electable” one told me from the beginning with no touch of irony in her voice. Women such as her were complicit in that very declaration she sarcastically uttered.We stopped discussing the election after an urgent e-mail telling me to vote on whether Palin was qualified! This friend is an episcopal priest. I believe a woman is at the helm in that church.Good for the episcopal church.
The other friends of mine said either Hillary or Obama would be fine because they had similar policies and were both”democrats”.
I truly believe many women were uniformed about key issues this election which made it easy for the msm to bury Hillary’s actual accomplishment in the primaries beneath a barrage of incessant criticism.
My college aged daughter said she thought both adults and college friends of her were very much in denial during the election.All she heard at school was Obama was amazing and would change everything.
Interestingly, my kids are handling the injustice of this better than their mom. They both act and have seen plenty of times how the most talented singer or dancer or actor doesn’t get “the” part. Always a reason- they are a freshman ; you don’t want to outshine the lead. That is always the best one and really is exactly what happened with Hillary and Obama.My only question is why does Obama want her on the worldstage?
Obama needs her - that is the only reason. Hillary beings a credibility, gravitas and commands great respect around the world. He will be so busy with this tanking economy and despite what lies he told about her lack of foreign policy experience, Obama knows the opposite to be true.
TomInPaine has an interesting blog up about this too — that in order to get Hillary’s support to drag O across the finish line, this was her demand. She was never interested in VP. I don’t know if this is true or not, but it is certainly a valid theory.
Yet another injustice. She will do all the work and he will
takesteal all the credit.Lauraks wrote:
Interestingly, my kids are handling the injustice of this better than their mom. They both act and have seen plenty of times how the most talented singer or dancer or actor doesn’t get “the” part.
I think this phenonmenon, the overlooking of the most talented, most capable, in favor of the cutest, tallest, sexiest, most loyal, etc. is beginning to take a toll on our country.
This blip may upset some on here, but what in the world are you doing still supporting Hillary…
1. She lost the primary…It doesnt matter to HER that BO cheated her out of it…
2. She campaigned for the BUM and HELPED him get elected, even tho during the primaries, she was cheated out of the nomination which apparently doesnt bother her…
3. She is now pondering and probably going to accept the SOS position, even tho she was cheated out by the BUM for the DCP nomination which doesnt seem to bother her…
You cannot tell me at this point that Hillary has ANY credibility LEFT…
If she can stomach being cheated out of the Nomination, campaign for a chisler and bum who cheated her, and still wants to work for the bum, THEN she is as classless and worthy of rancor just as BO is…
So if you all can still support her, what can you say about yourselves? Classless I say…
Perhaps she is thinking about country over her own personal situation. Maybe she thinks she can do more good by making an honest attempt to keep him from taking us over the precipice than by sitting on the sidelines. Just my take on it.
If you are, in fact, trying to make a legitimate argument here…
Politics is bigger than: I didn’t get my way so I’m just going to fold up my tent, take all my marbles and go home. And Hillary is bigger than that, too.
She has been fighting for the rights of children, first responders, women, veterans, education and health care her entire life. If she has an opportunity to continue, with diplomatic efforts around the world, or in any capacity, she is going to do that - no matter how much it sucks, or how unfair it is that she is not going to be POTUS.
She is not a child. She is a professional and she’s not just going to say “I’m not playing” — it is up to us to keep the fire turned up about this issue so that we don’t stay with this kind of injustice.
Classless? No credibiility? You don’t know what those words mean. She is showing a great deal of class and grace, as usual, by stepping up to the plate for her country and making it very clear that she will not go quietly.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Yess all those very nasty things happen to Hillary and by extention all of us. And I mean ALL of US.
What is a thing of grace is seeing that after all that has happened, she knows it is not about HER!
I see like the stars on the wall at Langley, they have names attached to them but who and what they did most will never know.
Service to ones country IS the highest calling. So it will not matter where Hillary can find a niche to do this. It will only matter that a “scary smart” person can advance the cause of all that is good.
What I find interesting is the prospect of the plight of women across the globe being given attention by Hillary if she takes the gig.
So yes the odds are slightly better than even money, that Some positive developments will occur with Senator Clinton at Foggy Bottom.
Thanks Ani, for keeping this out front. So many cultrual attitudes to change…so little time.
i hear what you’re saying, but i think that ObamaNOT has a point, in that when women go along with this shit, and even actively support it, they are allowing it to continue.
i also understand the desire to “put the country first,” which i’m sure hillary wants to do, but that’s just the problem. misogynists *know* that when the dust settles they can always count on women to sit down, shut up, do what they’re told, and be good “team players.” they know that they can count on women to put everyone else’s interests before her own, and thus there are no consequences for the misogyny. if there are no consequences, why would anyone ever stop doing it?
Actually, class of ‘61–a vintage year.
Don’t you kind of feel like we’re all on the outside looking in, and don’t really have a good fix on the wheeling-and-dealing that is going on behind the scenes? I sure feel that way. The points you describe are reasonable conclusions, given the obvious appearances of what is going on. And yet, and yet, I can’t help but feel that we don’t know the whole story behind Hillary’s motivations.
Looking at it on a much smaller scale, what if you went for a better job in a corporation and you were shut down? You can either pout and whine and withdraw and eventually be fired, a self-defeating act, or you can go for a different job. Hillary is a class act and she deeply cares about this country and her place in the Dem Party. She’s doing what she has to do for herself and in my opinion I’m very happy that she’ll be on board as SOS. We need her.
The BUM needs a lot of help.
I am sure she will be a fine SoS. She would have been “historic” as President. As SoS shes just a bureaucrat has run, working for an idiot in the Oval Office.
She is likely to be an Obama fall guy just like Powell was for Shrubby. I wouldn’t take the job. I am sure she will.
what you are saying is that a woman should do what is in her immediate self-interest, rather than doing something which may hurt her, even if it accomplishes something in the long term.
i can understand that, but look at it this way, if every woman who worked at corporation X accepted the sexism and just took whatever job at whatever pay she could get, and did the best she could to contribute to corp x, then what incentive would there be for the corporation to change? on the other hand, if every woman who worked there quit and convinced other women not to work there or buy their products, that would have an impact on the country. it is the classic dilemma: should a woman put her own immediate self-interest above doing what it takes to make a change? i guess that’s up to every woman to decide for herself, but when women go for the short-term personal solution it just passes the misogyny on to their daughters and nothing changes.
Um, no, I’m saying that you don’t pout when you don’t get the job you want. You take another avenue, and that’s what she’s doing.
I find myself agreeing with NoBamaNoWay and ObamaNot. Hillary has to make her own decisions of course, but continuing to pander to the DNC and agreeing to be SOS is condoning the misogyny that occurred in this election, IMHO. If it is truly country first and not Party, I’m perplexed by her exertion to pull The One over the finish line. It’s also amazing to me that this wonderful, wonderful article can have such a varied response in the comments here. What I got from it was that we, as women, have to step up to the plate and help each other. If we don’t agree on policy, stick to policy, not hairstyle or clothes. What I’ve also gotten loud and clear from this election cycle is that by supporting the DNC (which we PUMAs did NOT do) was condoning theft, fraud, misogyny, and sexism. Now how exactly is it different when Hillary condones their behavior? I don’t really understand how her willingness to serve in That One’s corrupt administration is putting country first? If people hadn’t been covering Dubya’s ass so blatantly (like the MSM) perhaps he wouldn’t have gotten us in such a mess. Frankly, I’m disappointed in Senator Clinton, and will be more so should she accept the SOS position, which seems a certainty right now.
HRC is a realists, I say. Whether you agreed with her campaigning for BO or not, this is how the game is played (e.g. McCain supporting Bush in 2004). Had she not, she would be a political pariah now and considered a cry baby, instead she IS STILL IN THE GAME and will most likely be SOS.
Politics is a dirty business, unfortunately.
I certainly agree with this essay; what we witnessed, the blatant sexism to which the media and Democratic Party pretended to turn a blind eye, while they fanned the flames and the all-too familiar double standard that HRC was subjected to.
For me, what was even more disturbing was the active participation of women, of all ages. From the senior stateswomen of various faminist groups [their gleeful savaging of Sarah Palin and how easily they jumped from HRC to "The One"] and younger women, who apparently don’t believe that sexism is even an issue–give them a few years!
Any woman who could run around with a t-shirt saying Sarah Palin is a Cunt hasn’t the foggiest notion of why their mothers and grandmothers put themselves on the line for equal rights and consideration under the law. But, eventually they’ll find out when being “one of the guys” isn’t nearly as much fun as they thought or when they’re no longer the “cute, young things” they are now.
I fear you’re right, Ani. We will not see a woman POTUS in our lifetime. The best and brightest of my generation was rejected. And now, we’re all going pay for that mistake as the Pope of Hope takes the throne.
Woman hatred is universal.
It crosses cultural lines and racial barriers.
Even many women hate themselves for being born female.
That is one of the thoughts I am beginning to have that women don’t trust that some other woman can actually do the job. They project their own inadequacies on the woman who has risen to the occasion even when it is through her own merit and intellect.
Newly Independent: Woman hatred is NOT universal. There are cultures where sexism is not built-in. Take my native land for instance–the Philippines. Gender discrimination is not coded into the languages. E.G. no word for husband or wife (just a word that means espouse. To indicate whether wife or husband, one simply specifies male or female espouse.) There is no word for brother or sister; just a word that translates into sibling. We have no he or she pronoun. Inheritance due the eldest child passes to the eldest, whether male or female, unlike in other male chauvinistic cultures. As advanced as the U.S. is in many areas, in this matter, it is closer to the bottom.
Religion, whether Islam. Judaism or Christianity is largely responsible for perpetuating sexism. Malayo-Polynesian societies have been largely matriarchal.
I’m glad to know that I’m wrong about societies like the Philippines and Polynesia (which I hope to see before I die!) Thank God for the few societies in the world that do truly love & value women.
It’s very sad, however, that these societies are in the minority in the world.
This election has stirred feelings that are both familiar and foreign.
I agree, that Hillary was our best chance. But women will do the hard work of keeping other women down when a man isn’t around to do it.
You look at the female genital mutilation around the world. It is women subjecting the ‘cultural norms’ on their female relatives. Knowing full well the impact and horror show to come.
We’ve (not the people here) have stood by and let the mutilation continue in America as well. In all levels of society from the home to the work place. In the courtrooms and the classrooms to our entertainment. It is no wonder that DC holds the same ills.
Hillary and Sarah were made into jokes while Obama was propped up.
The dog and pony show of politics revealed too much this year…..to those who bothered to watch. Truthfully, I am pondering if my vote even matters. This thing was clearly fixed long ago. Which begs the question. Are they all fixed?
correction… ‘We’
Excellent observation Karma. And what is so horrifying about this participation of women in the mutilation (or subjugation) of other women, is that it is done in the service of perpetuating the “cultural norms” of a patriarchal society. Women often sell out their sisters and daughters for the approval of men in a man’s world. Which brings us back to the subject of some women in the MSM such as Katie Couric . . .
Karma, I think since 2000 the elections have been pretty much decided by the media and the powers that be.
This is why it is important to see who is behind these selected presidents.
Excellent essay, Ani. Thank you. I’m highly pissed all over again.
There is so much work to do. My biggest fear is that most younger women are happy with the status quo, given their gushing over the zero candidate. They won’t even recognize the backslide into a true 1950s mentality until it smacks them between the eyes.
People project onto Obama all that they want to see in a President. This could last his whole presidency, just like it did with Reagan, the idea of the man was not really the man. Some of the adoration and willingness to profess that adoration is really reaganesk. So is the “you are with us, or you are against us” mentality. We are all in for a long painful journey for those of us who don’t see anything in Obama beyond that of a average man.
Yep.
I keep telling myself, “I survived eight years of Bush - so I can endure four years of Obama.”
But it’s already making me sick.
Sick and tired of enduring the stupidity of most Americans. Sick of too many Americans being so shallow, uninformed and short-sighted. I can’t believe that we’re once again stuck with an “empty canvass” President when we could have had a REAL damn President in either Hillary or even McCain. It is all so Reagan-esque.
No truer words have been written lately. The power of monumentally stupid people in large groups has been amply demonstrated during the last three presidential cycles. These dumb people think putting a different coat of paint on a structure lacking a solid foundation is a valid solution to the problem.
The “two”-party system is so rotten at its core that there may be no way to repair it without razing it first. The same powers that brought us Chimpy McFlightsuit have now installed That One. Same delapidated structure, different coat of paint. The powers who brought us these unqualified morons are mocking the bots, both of Bush and That One and the rest of us, for good measure. We have been had once again.
Absolutely Ferd!
The sickest part is that the wise and informed Americans (like the fine regulars here at NQ for example) have to suffer right along with the foolish ones!
We have definitely been had again!
While I agree that Clinton was treated grossly unfairly by the media, and agree with many of your points (such as many men in this country having issues with seeing women in positions of power, such as many women having issues with the same - I’m looking at you Phyllis Schlafley, Ann Coulter, Camille Paglia), I think a bigger point is missed if you don’t acknowledge that in running for public office, particularly the presidency, experience and qualifications are not the only considerations or even necessarily the most important ones. I’m speaking in terms here of “in determining who ultimately gets the job”, not in the sense that those things don’t matter. As we saw in 2000 and again in 2004, the candidate best suited for the job doesn’t necessarily win, thanks to the need to put together an effective campaign and strategy. The biggest reason Hillary Clinton didn’t win the nomination is that she was poorly served by those who were running her campaign, not because she was viewed as a bad candidate or because people in this country are just too sexist to vote for a woman.
As I see it, the biggest two factors in Clinton’s loss were 1)Mark Penn’s initial strategy to concentrate only on those big blue states (the ol’ 50% + 1 Democratic play that had lost 6 of the previous 8 elections for the Democrats) and 2)Patty Solis-Doyle’s failure to control the spending in Clinton’s last NY Senate race, which crippled her campaign financially when it became clear that they were going to need to re-tool for a new campaign strategy. They were simply out-flanked by another candidate’s strategy that they failed to anticipate. There were a lot of reports floating around out there that Penn had never even done the delegate math to see that this was a possibility - if that’s true, that’s a shocking lack of competence on his part.
Regardless of what legitimacy you personally may assign to the results of the caucuses and red-state primaries, the fact is that the Democratic Party had assigned X number of delegates to them, and they were to be counted in the total to determine the nominee. Once Obama swept up most of those states to gain the delegate lead, putting Clinton back in the lead via superdelegate support never really was an option. Again, you may feel betrayed by the superdelegates’ failure to back Clinton when she was behind, but these were folks who looked at the whole picture and determined - correctly, I believe - that the general election was not going to be won by turning off the party’s biggest and most historically loyal voting bloc - African-Americans. I think you stretch the limits of loyalty to the breaking point when that show of loyalty looks like it will result in defeat, so I don’t think you can blame the superdelegates for acting as they did.
There was a lot of talk during the primaries about how the superdelegates were choosing to turn off white women over 50 rather than offend the African-American base. That may be so…but had I been standing in the superdelegates’ shoes in making that decision, I don’t think that it would have escaped my attention that in 6 of the past 8 presidential elections, that was a voting bloc that crossed over and supported the Republican candidate. Given that, I don’t believe I would have considered it a good idea to cast a vote that would turn off a voting bloc that has supported Democrats consistently by margins of 85% or more in favor of one that had not been consistent in support, and when it has been supportive, by much smaller margins.
In short, I don’t buy the case that sexism cost Clinton the nomination. There was plenty of it out there and it was reprehensible, but it’s not why she didn’t win.
As for Palin, I’ll just note that most of the scorn directed her way was due to a perception - one that she was the biggest factor in creating - that she wasn’t knowledgable enough for the job. She’s not the first vice-presidential candidate to face that perception. Remember Dan Quayle? Personally, I found it insulting that the Republicans would put her forward thinking that women disappointed with Hillary’s loss would just automatically support their ticket if a woman was on it, as if just having a candidate of the same gender was just as good as having a well-qualified candidate of the same gender. I’ll note here that the Republicans have a history of believing that women vote on the basis of superfluous factors such as a candidate’s looks. It’s why they chose Dan Quayle in 1988, it was one of the reasons they chose George W. Bush in 2000, and according to published accounts, it was a big part of the reason why Bill Kristol and other Republican pundits put Palin on the radar screen this time around. If you’re looking for blatant sexism, I’d say look to the pick of Palin as running mate - which was based primarily on two things - the idea that women would vote for anyone who had lady parts and that men found her physically attractive. It certainly wasn’t because she had more experience than other potential female running mates.
In short, I don’t agree with your central thesis, that we will never see a woman president in our lifetimes, because I don’t agree with the idea that her gender is what cost Clinton the nomination. I think it was failed strategy and a failure to recognize that this was the year when we would finally stop deciding elections based on who constructed the most effective 60’s culture war narrative - but that’s another issue entirely.
My .02, make of it what you will.
Naive arguments, all due respect.
If women supported one another the way men do (and that’s something boys learn to do at a verrrry young age), Hillary would have won. Campaigns be damned. Even with the unfair edge BO had, Hillary got the votes.
The shock at the idea of voting for a woman based on gender makes me barf, forget the fact that she was the most qualified. Why shouldn’t she have had the votes of all women? Men have indiscriminately rallied for centuries REGARDLESS of other men’s qualifications, likability, or integrity. Women will not be in power until they learn that crucial component of the game.
I think the argument that women should support other women regardless of whether they agree with the positions they support is, with all due respect, quite a bit more naive.
I’m a woman. I’m a woman who is in fact a construction project manager and supervisor, if we want to talk about how well acquainted we all are with sexism. There’s no way I was going to vote for a female candidate who favored overturning Roe v Wade or one that seemed incapable of answering even the simplest questions I could easily answer myself. I don’t own anyone that support just because they have the same plumbing I have or because they have two x chromosones.
Hillary I would have gladly voted for. Not because she’s a woman, but because she’s a woman with whom I agree and believe to be capable and experienced.
You made my point. Men have NO compunctions about going for gender. It’s so ingrained in our society that we don’t see it. Obviously I’m not talking about voting for Paris Hilton, but come on, Hillary? All women should have had the balls to go for her.
And Roe v Wade is another false issue that entraps women when they’re in the voting booth. If it were going anywhere, it would have by now. It’s safe to say that there would be bipartisan outrage if Roe was in danger.
Implying that being angry about mysogyny is equivalent to saying “women should support other women regardless of whether they agree with the positions they support” is really starting to get old.
Its like my other fave. “its not the right woman”. Or the one where female candidates are “divisive”.
This post is not saying vote for any woman.
Its saying, among other things, that given American attitudes and the ridiculously high bar set for females, there will probably never be a “right woman” for America.
“There’s no way I was going to vote for a female candidate who favored overturning Roe v Wade or one that seemed incapable of answering even the simplest questions I could easily answer myself.”
The Roe argument is valid if oversimplified, but the second half of your comment is exactly what I am talking about.
I have met Governor Palin. I have policy difference with her but she can answer questions and in fact appears to be quite bright. But by all means, run around calling her stupid based on (I assume) her Couric interview.
It just proves the authors point.
HC, great comment. I agree.
‘…the way men do…’ — nonsense, men support men out of an unspoken perfectly well understood and clung to sense of entitlement to participate in age-old systems of male privilege, heteropatriarchy, call it what you will.
Women can’t do that automatic ‘we’ll all get each others back against the women’ thing because women as a class can’t exist to protect female privilege as a core organizing principle of society. Women are colonized in classes created and run by men, and as colonized individuals have to answer to their masters all the way up the power chain. There will always be exceptional women who live free from some or even many of those structures/strictures, but they can’t change realities for all women wherever situated.
What women can do, however, and have started to do more now, I believe, is to see themselves as they are personally situated and begin to take steps to life free of those feudal relations. That is the consciousness raising that took place in the 1950s-60s-70s, and I believe it is the consciousness raising that began all over for me the night of the Iowa primary, when all the dickheads (male, surprise, surprise) on CNN were sitting around gloating over how Hillary had lost, how that meant that Hillary would lose everything, etc., and then one jerk, Blitzer, I think, snarkily said to the panel ‘well I wouldn’t want to be in Bill’s shoes tonight’ or words to that effect, at which point a riff of ‘wow yes its going to be hell for the man this woman comes home to tonight’ in a totally male-bonding ‘poor bill’ way that was the epitome of male bonding around the various little life tasks involved in keeping women down.
Consciousness can and does rise, and it is what we do with that new articulation of knowledge when it does rise that makes the difference.
Women now have many more tools than in 50 years ago. More women have access to $ that they actually directly own and can control (albeit not enough of it), are more organized, have documentation, shared experiences at several generations, ngos, etc.
The answer can be yes –
And it is not women’s fault that it is not ‘yes’ yet!!
PUMA!!!
Well said, and nice rhetoric, but until women rally in their politics and voting, zip will happen. Not blaming women, simply urging them.
Hopefully we can do it by taking the high road, not the smarmy low road that we saw this year.
Still, though, if a woman takes the low road to win, she’s a horrific wretch; when a man does it, he has run a phenomenal campaign. Not sure how you change that entrenched crap.
Well Detractor, I found lots to agree with in your comment. I do think, however, that you underestimate the basis of the appeal of Sarah Palin, and unduly belittle the factors that caused McCain to pick her as running-mate. It was not “the idea that women would vote for anyone who had lady-parts,” or that “men found her physically attractive.” Many women, and many men, felt that misogyny had once again triumphed when the MSM conspired to defeat Hillary. When McCain gave Palin the nod, there was an emotional swell of gratitude to McCain, as if he were saying, “misogyny stops here. Women will have a place in my administration.” By reducing that to a consideration of “lady-parts” is like reducing a woman to the “C” word. Moreover, Governor Palin was not comparable to the pathetic Dan Quayle. Governor Palin had a record as a maverick, and she had fought powerful opponents on their own turf and won. Moreover, she was an electrifying public speaker, something that Mr. Quayle certainly was not. Dan Quayle got the nod because he “looked like Robert Redford.” Sarah Palin was a powerful force to be reckoned with. Her good looks were in part a bonus, but also in part a liability: she was stereotyped as being just another empty-headed pretty face.
funny how her good looks are “in part a bonus but also in part a liability”. Wonder if that was ever said of JFK or Clinton or Obie.
Well, actually, it was said about all of them — but it had a different quality: ‘ok, good, they are not disgusting looking, we can back them’ — which is very different from the minute scrutiny women receive and the not-so-surprising fact that none of them seem to have yet met the very high standard being imposed.
If Caroline Kennedy is sent to replace Hillary in the Senate, she might make the mark — pedigree, traditionally ok looking, has spent her whole life avoiding taking any real positions on anything of importance, and willing to read from a script someone else writes. While holding Teddy’s elbow for him.
“While holding Teddy’s elbow for him.”
Classic! How many ds in Chappaquiddick?
Excellent point Torland. It seems like being handsome is never a liability for men. “Intelligence” is allowed to co-exist with being “handsome,” but “beauty” and “brains” are problematic.
But male candidates seem to get really bad dye jobs, somebody ought to do something about that.
Sheesh.
Hmmm . . . I just thought of an exception to this–Benazir Bhutto, stunning beauty coexisting with great intelligence that nobody doubted. How odd that this phenomenon occurred in the Moslem world.
Oh, really. Except that she just so happened to be allowed to get shot before the election could even take place. I don’t think that shows greater respect for her by the people in her country.
Or is this the ‘dead woman are best’ school of thought? We’ll happily sing their praises once they are safely dead?
“I’ll note here that the Republicans have a history of believing that women vote on the basis of superfluous factors such as a candidate’s looks. It’s why they chose Dan Quayle in 1988, it was one of the reasons they chose George W. Bush in 2000, and according to published accounts, it was a big part of the reason why Bill Kristol and other Republican pundits put Palin on the radar screen this time around. If you’re looking for blatant sexism, I’d say look to the pick of Palin as running mate - which was based primarily on two things - the idea that women would vote for anyone who had lady parts and that men found her physically attractive. It certainly wasn’t because she had more experience than other potential female running mates.”
This paragraph right here shows either your incredible lack of political understanding or your blatant partisan bias. Republicans have a history of believing woman vote on superfluous basis and you sight Dan Qualye? The party that nominated GHW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and where you think that GW Bush as a “good looks” candidate is almost stunning. Never heard sexy, attractive, etc. linked to him. Although that is exactly what we have heard about JFK, Clinton, Gore, Obie.
Palin was never nominated BECAUSE she was pretty, she was nominated because she was conservative and would energize the conservative base that McCain lost, because she was an executive, because she was a woman and would bring a buzz and interest with that (not because anyone believed wholesale Clinton supporter would change, but some TRUE feminists would, feminists who support the advancement of women). Your demeaning attitude to a VERY accomplished woman like Palin is offensive. She deserves to be respected for what she has accomplished and not dismissed and demeaned because of a couple, highly edited interviews.
I agree with Camille Paglia who said those who think Palin is dumb are actually the stupid ones.
I suggest you go back and look at Republican talking points in 1988 and 2000 before dismissing out-of-hand the idea that looks played a role in the selection of Dan Quayle and George W. Bush. Heck, even your nemesis Tweety gushed all over W’s codpiece and how appealing it would be to women. I’m reporting what actually was said when these people were selected for the ticket. You may think it’s balderdash, but Republican talking heads were out there on the airwaves talking about how Dan Quayle and George W. Bush would appeal to women because they were good-looking. Inform yourself on what actually transpired before trying to refute that it did.
I agree that Palin was picked partly due to her appeal to the conservative base. As for “highly edited interviews”, I don’t think that explains why she was unable to answer a simple question about her reading materials. That interview was not cut and spliced together, nor was the question, as she later characterized it, “hey, what do you folks read up there in Alaska, being as how you’re so isolated from the real world down here?” Couric’s question was, “what things do you read that inform your ideas and opinions?” There was no condescension in the question - that was fabricated by Palin herself as an excuse as to why she so badly flubbed the answer. That defensiveness alone would be reason enough to conclude she’s ill-suited for high office. So excuse me for not getting down on my knees and praising the woman who can’t even tell us what she reads. And that’s just an example…I can’t think of one question she was asked by anyone that she answered coherently. So, no, I don’t owe her my vote because she’s a woman, or even because she’s a governor, and I don’t owe her my respect either when she repeatedly behaved disrespectfully to others. Because I don’t think she’s suited to the job. Unlike Hillary was.
Every candidate since the Nixon/Kennedy debate has been evaluated on their looks, the point I am making is RARELY/NEVER do Repubs make decisions based on it. Repub over the years have chosen the most experienced (and “entitled”) not the most articulate or best looking. (nixon, ford, 68 year old Reagan, GHW Bush, Dole, GW Bush, some real underwear models in that bunch) Those superfluous standards are left to the Dems.
And as far as Palin goes who cares how she answered that question!!!????
This is what I judged Palin on: She started and ran a successful business, she ran for mayor and won twice, she was chairperson of a energy commission that was responsible for billions of dollars and she ran for and won a governorship which in the 2 years she served was able to personally negotiate a multi billion, multi national pipeline deal that NO ONE could get done in 30 years. In addition to that I watched about 12 interview with people who were surrounding her over those 15-20 years and by all accounts she did a great job.
I watched 5 seperate interviews with here while Governor (3 on energy, 1 general and 1 on women in leadership) she was great to awesome in all. I read the transcript of a speech she gave on energy at the Governors conference. I watched 3 debates she had while running for Gov. by all accounts, and by what I could see she won them all. I watched 5 speeches, 3 town hall meetings (one live) and watched her answer questions with knowledge and grace.
But your right her stumbling on the question of what she reads proves she is dumb and unqualified. Sheeple believe the narrative the media feeds them, apparently your one of those sheeple.
All I can say is BRAVO!
Your point about Republicans “never/rarely” taking a candidate’s looks into consideration would have more weight if they hadn’t run around in 1988 and 2000 talking about how their candidates’ good looks would help win over women voters.
As for Palin’s successful businesses, I’ve seen the tax returns - those “successful businesses” seem to have been tax writeoffs rather than even nominally profitable ventures. She ran for and won the office of mayor twice, in a city where, according to the current mayor, the responsibilities mostly boil down to holding a staff meeting on Tuesdays and signing checks on Thursdays. Let’s note she found the duties of running a city of 6,000 so overwhelming that she found need to hire a city manager, also, that she left the city with a large debt thanks to mismanagement of her biggest initiative. By all accounts, she won that office by injecting a partisan rancor that had never been a feature of mayoral races in her city. She negotiated a pipeline deal that looks likely to never come to fruition. Nothing has been built and there are no current plans to build anything.
Stumbling on the question about what she reads may not prove that she’s dumb, but her subsequent inaccurate portrayal of the question and why she flubbed it does indicate a defensiveness not well-suited to high office. As for qualifications, I don’t think her record in office thus far indicates readiness for being second-in-line for leading the entire country. YMMV, but after the past 8 years, I’m not willing to overlook what looks to me like a shockingly shallow resume.
Almost everything you just said indicates not a foot in reality but a mind in partisanship.
As such any further discussion with you is a lost cause. To not acknowledge the consideration that Democrats having taken in regards to the looks of candidates ever since JFK and point solely at the Repubs shows your partisanship and lack of historical accuracy.
I dont even have the time to consider ALL the stupidity in your Palin response. Suffice to say if you applied the same standards of success, resume, and accuracy/honesty/intelligence to questions to Biden and Obie (without your partisan bias) they wouldnt quite measure up.
You’re taking this entirely too personally.
Democrats may well have considered candidates’ physical attractiveness in determining nominees. The point is, they didn’t go on television and broadcast the idea that because their candidate is good-looking, it will win over the women voters. It may be part of the calculus, either consciously or unconsciously, but they haven’t advertised it - at least not in any campaign during my lifetime. You may consider that a distinction without a difference, but I see a very large one there: one party isn’t even cognizant of how insulting it is to state aloud that they believe women voters can be won over on the basis of a pretty face, while the other one is.
As for my supposed bias against Palin because she’s a woman and not applying the same standards to Biden or Obama, first I’ll note I’ve never heard Obama answer a question as ineptly as I heard Palin answer virtually all questions, and Biden, while he is known to misspeak frequently, has a thirty-year record in government. I know who he is without hearing him speak. With Palin, the resume is thin - very thin. There were more experienced, more articulate, and more well-informed women in the Republican party that McCain could have chosen - Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Liddy Dole - all of whom I disagree with on matters of policy to one degree or another, but all of whom I can’t argue are well-qualified for higher office.
Women candidates are not interchangeable. I looked at Sarah Palin and didn’t see anything there I could get behind. If you see that as proof of sexism or misogyny, then I’d say that’s a problem of your perception rather than a personal character fault on my part.
Really.
Palin is the leader of a state & has been for years. Before that she ran a city.
Yet she stumbles a little bit in a maliciously slanted MSM interview and all of a sudden she’s a dumb and unqualified bimbo.
Only in the minds of hateful, misogynistic people. They truly sicken me.
“Years” implies “more than one”. To date, she has been a govenor for one year and 10 months. Of a state with barely over a half million people. The “city” she ran was a burg of 6,000 souls, and the available evidence suggests she didn’t do such a great job in running it.
I find her resume thin and completely unpersuasive, and would have the same opinion if she was a man.
As for her being unable to cite what she reads being a “narrative fed to sheeple by the MSM”, that’s baloney. She was asked an innocuous question, failed utterly to answer it, and then claimed - falsely - that there was something condescending in the way the question was asked. The clip is available online; no one suggested she was an illiterate rube in posing that question, and it’s not an “MSM narrative” that her response was wholly inadequate - it’s an accurate description, instead, of her actual response.
“What kinds of things do you read, that inform your worldview?” “Oh, everything.” “Well, what are some of the papers or magazines that you regularly read?” “All of ‘em.”
I mean, come on. Imagine Bill Clinton, former governor of a famously hick-rube state, being asked that question. They wouldn’t have been able to get him to shut up. After 5 or 10 minutes of reeling off the newspapers, journals, and other periodicals, he would have been off on his favorite historians and fiction writers.
It was a stupid answer, and it can’t be put down to being an unfair or condescending question - though she may have interpreted it that way. Which would be a problem in and of itself.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sexist pig alert
Northwest Rain…that is one of the vilest of Obots. Stay the F away or your head will explode from the stupidity and the snark. Ughhhh…They’re NOT sending the best and brightest from Camp Cockroach these days LOL.
Spoken like the true scholar you are. Don’t give up your day job for a writing gig.
I will compare IQs, knowledge, education, etc. with you any day detractor. Any day. You should know who you are dealing with before you mouth off. I can’t stand your posts and wonder why you are still here, as you insult everyone you post to. I have said before, I feel sorry for you because boy is your world going to tumble down when your boyfriend Fraudbama implodes. And if you are claiming to be a woman, shame on you for being an embarassment to our gender. I can’t believe the intelligent people here are bothering with you. Maybe you should do what you told Wildchild to do yesterday - “dial up the maturity.”
You’re a FEMALE? Good lord. I guess that just proves that smarts, manners, and a lot of other things are not gender-specific attributes.
You probably don’t want to compare vitae with me - it would probably make you feel inadequate, and essentially, it would be useless since it will do nothing to prove that either of us is right or wrong in our opinions. So I’ll give you the out on that.
I know you hate my posts. I also know why. It’s because they are based on logic and rationality, and they include facts which quite often show up the folly of your emotional outbursts and to which you are not well-informed enough to intelligently respond. And probably, they’re much too dry for your taste, since I don’t use “LOL” in every other sentence to cue others in to the idea that what I’ve just said is supposed to be funny.
As for why the intelligent people here bother with me, I suspect it’s because I say some things that make some sense, even if they don’t agree with me on everything or even most things. And probably because, unlike you, I make an attempt to be respectful in my disagreement, rather than making personal attacks. You end up being the exception to that rule, because your first response out of the gate is always to issue a personal insult. Probably because you lack the facts or logic to make a pertinent response that addresses the topic. I’m like Bugs Bunny - I don’t initiate conflict, but when you pop up with your crap, you have to realize “this means WAR.”
But I’ll make you a deal - you can ignore my posts or respond to them in appropriate ways (this means dropping the personal insults, if you can manage that) and you’ll never get another insult from me.
Otherwise, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
If I were a “sexist pig”, I guess it would mean that I’m a misandrist, sexist against men. Since I have a vagina and all.
You don’t get asked on many dates, do you?
Oh, women can be just as sexist and demeaning towards each other as men can be sexist towards them. Women who are sexist/cut down other women are weak subordinates to male superiority, they just express it in unconditional acceptance. I saw what you wrote–you’re trying to say there was no fraud, no hate, no blah blah blah, but the facts about Barry and his minions’ behavior during the primaries state otherwise. When are you going to open your eyes and stand up for strong women? Only when you can become strong.
It’s all black and white to you, isn’t it? I mean, the only reason why anyone, male or female, could have supported Obama over Clinton is “sexism”. That’s a very simplistic take on things, as simplistic as if I were to say that the only reason anyone, white or black, supported Clinton over Obama is “racism”. I haven’t said that, and I won’t, because it isn’t true. Just as your simplistic construct isn’t true.
But you folks aren’t in the habit of asking questions - you’re all about making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Otherwise, you might see that people had reasons for supporting who they supported that had nothing to do with gender or race. You might not agree that they were good reasons for determining support, but at least you wouldn’t be so blinkered in your thinking as to reduce everything to “you didn’t support the woman so you’re a sexist”. Likewise the attempts to paint with a broad brush everyone who supported Obama as a “hater”. Do you really believe that the half of Democratic voters who supported Obama for the nomination hate women? If you do, there’s no helping you.
I would never have answered the question about reading materials. The Couric interview was a minefield and in her first month in the national spotlight.
This is the same Ms. Couric who nodded and smiled while Biden flubbed every possible fact about FDR, television and the depression. Where was the outrage? Nowhere.
You clearly dont like Palin and thats your choice.
But if your argument is “she is illiterate” try again.
I met the Governor in a (large) round table setting and she answered question after question clearly, concisely and more intelligently than most others on the panel. The questions came right from us, they were not pre-certified, edited or massaged. She had no notes with her and no visible handlers feeding her “intel”.
More proof that the author is correct right here: “I can’t think of one question she (Palin) was asked by anyone that she answered coherently. So, no, I don’t owe her my vote because she’s a woman, or even because she’s a governor, and I don’t owe her my respect either when she repeatedly behaved disrespectfully to others.”
You don’t owe anyone a vote, but you might owe it to yourself to honestly examine your prejudices.
I have honestly examined my prejudices. They are against people who are inarticulate, do not present themselves as particularly well-informed, and are caught in the open making dishonest statements and worse yet, continuing to repeat them even after they’re proven to be dishonest statements.
And too, I must admit, I’m prejudiced against people who have themselves blessed by ministers whose claim to fame is purging witches from third-world villages. I think that’s nuts.
Those are all prejudices I freely admit and do not apologize for holding.
Note that none of them describe Hillary, which is why you or anyone else would be wrong to ascribe my lack of support for Sarah Palin to sexism or misogyny rather than non-gender-based attributes of Sarah Palin. But feel free to continue putting down my objections to one woman as proof of objections to them all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sexist pig alert
And Obama is articulate? The bar was lowered so far for him that he had to have teleprompters at a coffee shop. Please.
That One is horrible. He puts together a lot of pretty-sounding words that ultimately are bereft of any true meaning–gobbledegook–all format and zero content. Without his alter ego, Mr. Teleprompter, he is a stammering, bumbling fool. Has our system of education fallen into such disrepair that his clatrap passes for articulate, reasoned oratory? FDR could speak; Martin Luther King could speak. That One just reads what is put in front of him all the while posturing and posing like a bantam rooster. He is the human equivalent of the infomercial, albeit more excruciatingly dull.
Detractor, your standards of perfection for women (and not men, see Obama), are exactly why we’re screwed until we change our thinking.
In spite of everything you say were her shortcomings she still got more votes than he did. That tells you who people wanted. The point we are all trying to make is that the two groups that distorted the picture and played favors against people’s choice including stealing primaries (think MI and FL) were the corporate media and the party bigwigs both of whom are run by middle aged white men. It was a sham primary with no vetting of Obama — if media had done its job like it did of any other candidate he would have been out before Super Tuesday. But again we have all gone through this before. You’re just repeating the same old well packaged reasons/lies that are sold to faithfuls and uninformed voters like you. One last thing, Nov 4th exit polls indicate she would have won with a bigger margin against McCain than Obama and even with his close to a billion of all your dollars (and a few stolen votes here and there)and a Dem year with Repubs staying home, the best he could do was what?!
There was no “theft” of FL and MI. The rule going into both of those primaries was that their delegate counts would not be counted towards the total needed to win the nomination. If you stick with that ruling prior to the contests and don’t consider those primaries, he still won more delegates than Clinton did. And that’s how the party determines its nominee. You can’t “steal” something that was, according to the rules, never supposed to be part of the equation going in, so can we please drop that shibboleth? Maybe things would have turned out differently if FL and MI had not been disqualified before the vote, but they were - those were the rules, full stop. We don’t change the rules midway through a baseball game or any other contest, because then it becomes impossible to ever determine who won. The same applies here.
I don’t buy that there was a big party collusion against Clinton for the simple reason that there’s no evidence of it. She was the favored candidate of the DLC, which has been the power base of the party for the past 20 years. This was not a “man vs woman” struggle within the party - it was a DLC vs other struggle within the party.
As for “being out before Super Tuesday”, that’s a fanciful notion, given that Iowa isn’t won on media buys, but on organizational skills. And no candidate who wins IA is ever out before Super Tuesday.
Exit polls aren’t elections. You can’t extrapolate what voters said when emerging from the polls on Nov. 4th to what the actual outcome would have been in a Clinton vs McCain race, for the simple reason that the entire dynamics of the race would have been completely different. McCain clearly wanted to run the typical Republican presidential campaign based on 60s culture war issues. Would Clinton have been more effective at shifting the ground away from that? We don’t know.
Last but not least, this “uninformed voter” may be the only person here who has ever managed - and won - several statewide campaigns, lobbied in a state legislature for 10+ years, and been on a first-name basis with all the big players in Democratic Party politics in their state for over 10 years. You may not like what I have to say, but you’re mistaken if you believe it comes from a lack of information or experience with how this stuff works.
Clearly you do not know this site very well because I can *guarantee* you this statement is untrue.
“Last but not least, this “uninformed voter” may be the only person here who has ever managed - and won - several statewide campaigns, lobbied in a state legislature for 10+ years, and been on a first-name basis with all the big players in Democratic Party politics in their state for over 10 years. You may not like what I have to say, but you’re mistaken if you believe it comes from a lack of information or experience with how this stuff works.”
We all get it. You are woman, hear you roar. The rest of us are just whiners. That Palin is retarded and cannot even read. You can tell, you are an expert, case closed.
Your posts make the author look better and better.
You’re welcome to fill me in on your political expertise. I’m all ears.
Dear detractor,
If you weren’t in the blogosphere trenches supporting Hillary during the primary, you’re probably wondering why 1) we think we know how and why Obama succeeded and 2) why we, putting it politely, can’t stomach him or a majority of his supporters.
Most of us were good little Democrats excited in the knowledge that we not only had the most competent and talented candidate for president; this candidate was a woman. We saw her wonkingly but clearly discuss the issues in interview after interview and in debate after debate. We had not given her our support, she had earned it.
Imagine our surprise when, looking to progressive sites for unbiased news, we found only irrational hate for this candidate. And I do mean Hate. Hate for our candidate and vile, unabashed hate for us.
Who were these so called Democrats we asked each other? We’re supposed to be the good guys. Oh, their reason for the hate was Hillary’s “vote on the war” and later that she embellished a twenty-year old story. They said she represented corrupt politics as usual, that she was an insider. They wanted something fresh and new.
They fiercely defended their choice by citing “facts” from his website. It didn’t bother them that all he had ever done in his political career was get elected. Or that his inspiration speeches were rehashed from others’ campaigns. Or that he had been brought to us by the most powerful and monied of political machines. Or that his grasp of the issues was seriously lacking.
They were in love.
We followed this debacle every inch of the way. We heard eye witness reports of bullying and fraud at the caucuses. We watched the MSM make a mockery of their profession (can you cite the ratio of positive to negative news stories for each candidate? We can). We watched the DNC become openly corrupted by his money machine. We had to research this candidate on our own, and the more we learned the worse it got…
We don’t care about your experience with other campaigns, it’s not relevant here. It’s not only that we don’t like what you have to say, sorry, we just don’t believe it.
No, I completely get that you’re disappointed that the candidate who you felt was the best qualified didn’t win the nomination. I felt that way in 2004, and for the record, I would have been quite happy with Clinton as the nominee, though she wasn’t my first choice for several reasons, none of which had to do with her gender or the reasons you’ve cited. I think, however, that you are inaccurately projecting when you ascribe the rancor in the progressive blogosphere to the larger nomination battle. The blogosphere is made up of hard-core political junkies who not only hold opinions on a lot of things most people have no opinion on, but hold those opinions very strongly. There was unfair crap on both sides of the split. But that had nothing to do with the basis for my preference, and it shouldn’t be an excuse for you to have it in for people who supported the other candidate, as opposed to those who running the blogs that were actively attacking/defending either candidate.
You reference a number of things that, from my examination, simply do not hold up. The “bullying and fraud at caucuses”? This was alleged in Nevada - where else? Take away half of Obama’s delegates in Nevada, he still won the nomination delegate totals. You reference the “DNC becoming openly corrupt by his money machine” - in what way, and how did this cause Clinton to lose? How does that square with Clinton being the party establishment favorite going in? Was the DNC unfairly giving money to Obama that it wasn’t giving to Hillary? Explain how this allegedly worked in his favor and to her detriment. The media was unfair to Clinton, as I’ve said from the beginning - but you haven’t explained how this was the fault of Obama or the result of nefarious action by his campaign. News flash - the media have ALWAYS had it in for the Clintons, and I do not believe that she would have been treated any better by them had her opponent been John Edwards or anyone other than Obama. The media are assholes when it comes to the Clintons. That isn’t Obama’s fault, though I’ve no doubt it worked to his advantage. What would you have had him do about it, though? Campaign for media fairness to Clinton? And what good would it have done?
See, I keep hearing you say these kinds of things over and over and over again, but I never see you support them or formulate a persuasive argument as to why these external factors were a bigger determining factor than the internal factors I cited in my initial post. This is a show and tell - you can tell me anything, but to convince me, you have to show me. And you haven’t succeeded, or even attempted, in doing that.
Beyond that, you haven’t managed, or even attempted, to rebut the idea that Hillary was ill-served by the people running her campaign. What’s the excuse for Mark Penn not doing the delegate math? Did he really believe that “some states don’t count” was going to cut it as a stand-in for not winning a majority of delegates? Why did Solis-Doyle mismanage the huge financial war chest Clinton had in 2006?
So, you can “not care” about someone else’s prior experience in politics, consider it “not relevant” and “not only not like what they have to say and not believe it”, but none of that is a satisfactory substitute for actually proving what you allege. Which you haven’t done. You’ve made the claims; you’ve simply failed to support them or to demonstrate why the things you allege were the reason for Clinton’s defeat are more important than the things I’ve alleged were the reasons for her defeat. I’ve made my points and you’ve not only failed to address them, you’ve made counter allegations that you’ve failed to support. I would entertain them were you to do so, but unless and until you do, you haven’t made an argument.
^^^^^^^^^
Sexist pig alert
Remember the code
experience = penis
Could you be more stupid?
^^^^
Sexist pig returns.
No — just honest.
You obots keep coming around trying to rewrite history.
Your messiah is a sexist — and so are you.
You entirely missed the point.
The point is, please don’t try to tell us what we experienced this election cycle. Don’t tell us we don’t know the difference between people who hold “opinions very strongly” and vile, sexist, and in some cases even racist thugs.
Don’t tell us we have to justify our positions for your sake. You supported someone we consider an embarrassment, are we at pro Obama sites asking the same of you?
We’re not trying to change your mind, please don’t think you can change ours.
Feel free to make any comments you like, but expect to be dismissed by many here. I hate to be blunt, but we’re here to get away from people like you.
Sorry about that, but hey, KOS will welcome you with open arms. Just make sure your devotion is equal to theirs. They can hold opinions very strongly.
He is a legend in his own mind. I never believe anything coming from the trolls who frequent this blog, leaving their
droppingsrubbish behind.Funny how anyone who comes here and makes a serious contra argument is, according to you, a “troll”. Generally trolls show up only to disrupt, do not make serious arguments, and simply insult those who do. Though I suppose it’s easier to simply dismiss anyone who says anything that doesn’t conform with what you want to believe as being a “troll” than it is to make a serious effort to rebut any substantive points they make. For future reference, calling someone who is behaving respectfully and making a serious argument against what you want to believe a “troll” does not constitute proof or evidence that your viewpoint is correct. You establish that by, you know, addressing the points the person has actually raised.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Sexist pig alert
Remember the code
experience = penis
????
Only those with penises are experienced? I disagree.
Or experience and penises are both bad things? I disagree again.
Do you have a point, other than the one atop your pin-head?
^^^^^^
Sexist pig returns.
You are trying to jam your messiah on us.
He is a chauvinist pig — I have NEVER see such immature and sexist behavior from a male in his position.
He is NEVER to be trusted — and he is the enemy of ALL women and all his followers are also sexist pigs.
Blah, blah, blah ….
Let’s just say you’re right, Detractor, about HRC being out strategized, etc. This does not discount the fact that there was indeed sexism and misogyny in Obama’s campaign. Had HRC “won” the nomination I would still argue that gender bias reared its ugly head during this election cycle. We saw the ugly replay with Sara Palin, for crying out loud!
I am right in that Clinton was out-strategized, and you are right that gender bias reared its ugly head during the election cycle, as I said in my initial post. I’ll have to disagree with your claim that the Obama campaign was a primary perpetrator - that honor goes to the media.
As for the ugly replay with Palin, sure there was media gender-bias there as well. But that wasn’t her biggest problem, and to the extent it was a problem, it was one that she reinforced through some of her own actions. I haven’t brought this up before - but who convinced Palin that it was a good idea to wink repeatedly during the debate? Who thinks that was a good idea? You’re out there doing a debate to try to convince voters that you’re knowledgable and capable, and you’re muddying the message by flirting with the viewers? Isn’t that the opposite of what you’re trying to achieve? You know, it’s kind of hard to object to being reduced to a sexual object if that’s what you are projecting when you’re supposed to be showing how serious and well-prepared you are for a serious job. So should we vote for you because you’re capable and well-informed, or because you’re cute and flirty? Talk about your mixed messages.
Out-strategized is a PC term for cheating. I was a delegate for Washington State. I saw first hand what happened. Believe what you want. I was in the trenches. The funniest part is now that the backbone of the democratic party in Washington state has left, no one is around to do any work. Obama supporters are nothing but a lazy bunch of blowhards. We keep getting letters and e-mails to please, please, please come back. We’re needed now that you and your ilk have taken over. God knows you don’t know what hard work and sacifice is. Sorry, detractor, get off your fat ass and go stuff the envelopes, set up the meetings, and make the phonecalls. After all these years we’re done. You and Barky are on your own.
Instead of just throwing out an allegation about “what you saw first hand”, why don’t you tell us what it was, exactly?
I find your tone entirely offensive, by the way, particuarly considering that I haven’t addressed you at all. What’s your excuse for calling someone you’ve never met a “fat ass” simply because they have respectfully stated ideas you may not agree with? Is that how you approach everything? If that’s how you approached the caucuses, by coming out and insulting people on the other side rather than trying to persuade them to see things your way, maybe it’s why you failed to win people over to your side, rather than anyone on the other side “cheating.”
Totally cheating. Theft. Fraud. Abuse of public trust and political position.
Beyond acceptable.
Not. acceptable.
Again, anyone can make an allegation. Where’s the beef to back it up?
Psst….Doesn’t that ALSO negate your boasts of superior political knowledge?
Anyway, here are some people willing to openly discuss it.
Some have names included others have been harassed for being eyewitnesses.
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm
Guess he’s filled with Beef and won’t be back to spew more bull.
You know, being a jerk doesn’t score any points with thoughtful people, though it probably makes you popular with other jerks. FYI, I was fully examining the information on the link Karma posted, to his (or her) credit the only person in this very long thread who has bothered to do anything other than make claims without supporting evidence.
Unlike yourself.
Thank you for the link, Karma. It does indeed appear that there was gaming of the system in at least a few places. I’m not sure that those instances alone can account for Obama’s primacy in caucus states - it is a fact that caucuses rely on strong ground organizations rather than media campaigns, and there’s no doubt that Obama had a huge edge in his on-the-ground organization. That doesn’t excuse or make gaming the process ok, however…but given that it’s politics, not beanbag, it’s also not entirely unexpected. As I noted in my initial post, this is where Penn’s failure of imagination and Solis-Doyle’s profligacy with spending in the 2006 Senate race really hammered the nails into the coffin. This kind of stuff could have been adequately combatted had the Clinton campaign had the cash on hand and even nascent on-the-ground organizations in these states that could have geared up to push back against caucus shenanigans and to stop the hemorraging of pledged delegates.
I think my major objection to the carping about how caucuses aren’t “fair” is that it arose only after the fact, when it became clear that caucuses weren’t producing the outcome some people wanted. I’ll agree with you that caucuses are not the most democratic means of selecting a nominee, but the fact is, the Democratic Party has been holding them ever since the days when nominees were selected in smoke-filled rooms (Republicans likewise) and whatever weaknesses that system has were also in place in all past elections, and yet there was no move to do away with them then. It’s up to the party members in each state to challenge the caucus system and change it if they do not feel it is producing an accurate reflection of the will of party members in their state. I suspect the reason that most of the states who hold Democratic caucuses still do things that way is that they have been Democratic-minority states, with weak state party organizations, that have lacked the resources or demands from a large number of supporters to switch over to a primary vote system. At least that’s what it looks like looking at a map of caucus states.
But for the election just passed, the caucuses were what was in place during the nominating process, and you can’t change the rules of the game when it is already underway. Under those rules, the Obama campaign was able to put together a strategy - albeit one that apparently included some decidely hardball tactics - that allowed them to take the lead over a candidate who was the odds-on favorite going in, with the support of the party power-brokers, a strong donor base, and enviable name recognition. To me, that underlines all the more how badly Clinton was served by the people she counted on to run her campaign.
Again, thanks for posting the link - no one else here who I’ve asked for supporting information has bothered to provide it, and I did watch all the videos and examine the information in the links provided on the site.
^^^^^^^^^
Sexist pig alert
Remember the code
experience = penis
Excuse me? Are you trying to say something intelligible? If so, why not say it rather than posting gibberish riddles?
YOU are a sexist pig.
ANYONE who comes to defend 0-zero is by definition a sexist pig.
Your guy is a cheater, a con man, a thief and a liar. He should be in jail with his best buddy — Rezko.
He is also a narcissist who only loves himself.
He is still a National security risk.
All of these are fake posts — if you had bothered doing any real reading, you wouldn’t be acting like anybody has to prove political misogyny every time they refer to it.
That’s a dead giveaway.
“Fake posts”? They’re here aren’t they? You read them, right? That would make them “real”. Did you bother reading the “fake post” you replied to? I’m not sure you did, because otherwise I can’t imagine that you would do something so foolish as describing classic hardball politics as “political misogyny”. It isn’t. It’s hardball and it would have been played the same way against a male candidate.
You folks here have developed a rather bad habit of putting down to “sexism” a lot of things that belong under “politics”. Do you really believe that the caucus strongarm tactics used by Obama were a “sexist” ploy that wouldn’t have been used against any other male candidate? Did you sleep through Florida, 2000? Was Al Gore the victim of “sexism” or of hardball?
And Palin, poor Palin - the woman who attempted to flirt her way through her job interview on national TV - it’s “sexism” to point out that when you’re interviewing for a serious and important job, winking at people kind of muddies the waters with regard to your seriousness? I noticed no one ever bothered to respond to that, because there’s not a good response. Women who rely on sex appeal - in whole or in part - to get the job, win votes, etc, really don’t have much of a leg to stand on to complain about being reduced to a sex object, do they, when that’s how they’ve encouraged others to view them. Or am I wrong about that too? Maybe so. I’ve never tried winking in an important interview. Then again, I’ve never had an army of people at my back ready and prepared to scream “SEXISM!!!!” when I employ such mixed messages, who are ready to insist that if I don’t get the job, it’s just because I’m a female. Maybe if I had this kind of support, I could have it both ways, too, and play cute and flirty when I’m supposed to be playing smart and capable.
The great irony here is that by ascribing to “sexism” a lot of things that are unrelated, you reduce the women you are claiming to support to the status of victimhood. Which is a weak position, akin to the position of females in traditional society. Women needing “protectors”.
As a woman who has been working in a man’s world - politics, architecture, construction - for the past 20 years, I’m pretty sure I’d be speaking for most women in similar positions when I say “thanks but no thanks”. And I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton would agree. This is the kind of “help” and “support” we can do without.
Exhibit A.
I rest my case!
PUMA!!!
Hillary asap!!
Hillary rising!!!
Suuuuuure - just like Al Gore was by George W. Bush in 2000, right?
As I see it, the biggest two factors in Clinton’s loss were 1)Mark Penn’s initial strategy to concentrate only on those big blue states (the ol’ 50% + 1 Democratic play that had lost 6 of the previous 8 elections for the Democrats) and 2)Patty Solis-Doyle’s failure to control the spending in Clinton’s last NY Senate race, which crippled her campaign financially when it became clear that they were going to need to re-tool for a new campaign strategy. They were simply out-flanked by another candidate’s strategy that they failed to anticipate
So this is what you think Detractor, is it? Out of all the comments left by trolls, the kind I most despise are the rationalizations for this election which ignore facts. I refuse to go through those facts again since I and others here at nq have listed them ad nauseum in the last few months and there are none so blind as those who will not see.
I would be very surprised if you are female, but that doesn’t really matter. Both sexes among candidate Obama’s supporters were the worst offenders in the sexists attacks against both Hillary and Sarah Palin. What has taken mature women unaware is the lack of respect expressed by young adults who are pretending to be Democrats.
I don’t know about the rest, but I will not be forgiving of the insults. I have told myself, as an educated and experienced woman, that you are children and will learn the truth, in time, about yourselves and life. Or for those of you over thirty, you will never learn because you think yourselves superior in some way and supporting Obama was a self congratulatory exercise to make you feel better about yourselves.
I have to wonder how much you care about your rights or any of the real issues this campaign should have addressed or why it is so important at this point to know what he offers and who he is. You have a hell of a nerve. With your sanctimonious attitude, you are throwing away with both hands what is has taken millions of people over two centuries to establish to say nothing of women’s struggle forty years ago to achieve some semblance of equality.
Bravo! Encore! Wow, you hit a home run there.
That’s a very emotional response, but one that fails to address either of the points I raised. Rather than railing on me for being “sexist”, why don’t you refute those? Or do you believe that Mark Penn did a great job and Patty Solis-Doyle was a wise guardian of Clinton’s campaign funds? I personally don’t believe either of those things, and think they had more to do with Clinton’s loss than any other factors. Which somehow in your reasoning makes me a “sexist”. It’s an interesting take, but not one that follows from any logical path I can discern. So feel free to point out to me where I’ve missed the obvious links from points A - Z.
You really do like reading your own words. And you love dishing out lectures and amateur psychoanalysis. Your “I’m smarter than you neener neener” act is grating, like nails on a chalkboard. And I’ll save you the trouble: yes that was a cliche.
You know, personal attacks really are not a substitute for an argument. If you find it grating, refute the points rather than wasting time with the attacks.
You don’t like it when you are exposed. And spare us the holier than thou attitude. You are a hypocrite:
Well, that’s a cute - though transparently dishonest - attempt to make it look like I came in here insulting people rather than responding in kind, as I did to this:
Guess he’s filled with Beef and won’t be back to spew more bull.
Making an assumption that someone has pussed out because you haven’t waited long enough for them to review information that’s just been posted, and using that as an excuse to make a jerk comment? That’s jerk behavior, and no, I don’t apologize for calling it for what it is.
Again, feel free to refute either of the main points that I raised, or else, hypocrite, heal thyself.
No! If you are so obtuse you can’t see the outcome of this election had very little, if anything, to do with Mark Penn or Solis Doyle, you are not as informed as you would like others to believe. Perhaps, you do have the facts and are ignoring them.
As I said, I don’t believe you’re a woman. I do believe you have deluded yourself into believing you are better informed than others on this blog who have discussed and researched this election for months and have been subjected to the vulgar insults of the sexist “progressives”, most of whom do not even understand what the FISA court is and don’t consider it important.
We could write a long list of other important issues Obama supporters have ignored or don’t understand, but why bother? It’s clear you have no interest in the truth or depth of the abyss we are facing in this country.
Are you one of the educated and informed voters who believed Obama when he said Hillary had little foreign policy experience and just attended “tea parties” as First Lady? We listened to Obama’s speeches and debates and knew how little he understood. Did you bother to listen to Hillary and understand how much she did know? How many other of his deceptions did you fail to recognize?
It doesn’t matter anymore if people like you admit the sexism or even participated in the attacks. Many of us are aware in a way we haven’t been in decades and there is a movement building across the country that unites women of both parties and we won’t be distracted or divided by Roe v Wade again.
elise — This pig isn’t a female — typical semi educated male troll trying to write like a female.
Agree, NW rain.
Ok, so….your position is that winning campaigns has nothing to do with strategy. That’s a rather….interesting take on things, not one that I think many people who have ever participated in or followed campaigns would ascribe to, as is the belief that it doesn’t matter if a campaign has adequate funding to compete. Your long list of issues that Obama supporters either don’t understand or can’t refute then…how do you explain the fact that they don’t know about them? Could it, perhaps, be that they weren’t reached with the information? You know, the way an effective campaign would reach them? One that had the money to do it and a strategy that didn’t ignore entire swaths of the country? Are all those people “sexists” because no one ever bothered to reach out to them and deliver your truth, or are they just un- or under-informed because the candidate you supported didn’t have the capability to reach them thanks to crippling mistakes made by the people who were supposed to be serving her? See, I find this very interesting, that you find it easier to believe that half or close to half of Democratic voters are such die-hard sexists that this alone explains why Clinton lost, rather than that the candidate with solid support from party power brokers, a solid donor base, and name recognition that most politicians would kill for, was ill-served by the people she counted on to help her win the campaign. Seriously, how do you manage to lose a campaign with all those things going for you, when you have a good qualified candidate, if the people running your campaign are doing a good job? To me, the simplest answer is ususally the correct one - you have a few people who performed very badly, rather than millions of people who are such evil sexists that your candidate had no chance. But, you will go on believing as you will, just as you’ll keep believing that you can psychically divine other people’s genders over the internet. Word to the wise though - if you’re going to hold such beliefs, probably best if you don’t go around labelling others as “obtuse”.
George bush won his campaigns. Look around you at America today. It’s shit hole. Winning elections and governing a country are obviously not related.
That’s an entirely different topic, though, and I should point out, one that I addressed in my very first post on this thread. What we’ve been discussing all along on this thread is “what are the biggest reasons why Clinton didn’t win”, and the two sides to that argument are pretty well summarized in the last few posts.
Great article, I completely agree. However, she says we need to call out the people who prevent women from advancing. I say she needs to write an article titled “Katie Couric, an enemy of advancement of women”. She needs to write about how Katie is a jealous hypocrit who can’t stand any other woman being the “media darling”. Katie must be the media darling or she will tear you down. Katie herself was given a job on nightly news. She wasn’t entirely qualified, no woman had ever had that position and the first year was a disaster (I would argue more so than Palin) but yet she believes she deserved the chance (and 2nd chance, and 3rd chance) to succeed. She is a hypocrit to prevent and actually campaign against giving another woman who did have the experience a chance just as she did. She held Hillary and Palin to a higher standard than she was held to and demanded that they meet it. Katie’s interviews with Bide, McCain and her treatment of Obama reveal such contempt for other women.
Until people like Katie are held to task and stop tearing other women down by giving them a chance women will have a hard time advancing because it is unlikely that a real chance will come from the men. Look at Letterman, the best thing he can say about Palin is that she ‘arouses him’. She is a successful Governor for crying out loud and he isn’t being called on his statement. Katie just joked along with him………..She is a pathetic example of a female leader and should be called out in a very direct way.
I would like to see the author of this article do exactly what she is asking all of us to do.
Hi, I am the author and I have been calling out the media all year — including Katie, along with lying politicans who helped perpetrate this fraud — we also have many other authors on this site and others doing the same thing. Very loudly.
There’s a lot of people fighting the good fight — join in, please.
And Ani, thank you for the tremendous job you have been doing at this all year. Yours is one of the voices that has helped many of us make our way through this whole traumatic reenactment of womenhating.
Ani, you did a wonderful job, as usual. Not a day has passed in the last few months I have not thought about the subject you have articulated so well. Not accepting, but looking for a solution or hope it can be altered.
I will never stop hoping or looking. There has to be a tie that binds. Women of all persuasions have more in common than differences. We are the shoppers who keep the economy going and that gives us power that everyone understands.
Personally, I have not felt like shopping for several months. Boycotting the media may not work, but boycotting the malls etc would.
Yes, Ani, your post was wonderful and articulate as are all your articles. Thank you so much.
Mary Matlin (on Greta’s show) had a good response to Letterman’s “arousal” comment. She said it was “creepy” and revealed so much more about him than Palin, since his sexual prowess bravado came off as a kind of projection for what he lacks as a man of a certain age.
YES, we’ll see a woman US President in our lifetime. There are many women in our midst who can serve the country they love with honor and distinction if given the chance…
http://ontheseventhday.wordpress.com/
How are we going to get there when one this qualified and prepared was thown under the bus for an empty suit? And no one in the media or the DNC batted an eye. A lot of women didn’t find anything wrong with this either.
Hi Al.
Just saying it won’t make it happen.
Please get back to your leader with this important piece of information.
I’m for ‘yes’ too.
Ani, I really like your recipe for getting to ‘yes’:
‘We have the president-elect we have. Got it. But that does not mean the debate about women in politics is going to stop; nor should it. Unless we want the travesty of woman-bashing we witnessed this year to continue.
‘Keeping this debate front and center, demanding parity for women in terms of pay, civil rights, reproductive rights, and enforcing a zero tolerance policy for violence against women are the only ways we are ever going to be able to answer “yes” to the title question.’
In the meta-narrative, this may still turn out to have been the US’s real ‘year of the woman’ as we saw the old taken-for-granted narratives played and replayed endlessly in front of our shocked eyes. We have talked about it, documented it, decided we don’t like it, crossed party lines over it, debated the meaning and purposes of feminism because of it, begun looking at specific policy issues large and small through gender lens because of it, brought out daughters mothers sisters friends and strangers on the street into our emotional reactions over it, written about it, protested, organized, prayed, threatened, pleaded, and then — as it became clear that none of that by itself is enough — began to look again at the cultural legal political social financial basics of male privilege all over again: ERA, CEDAW, pay equity, sex discrimination, violence against women, abuse, feminizations, degendering –
This has been a revolution here, everyone!! This intense, detailed, and sustained level of discourse over the status and roles of women in US society has not taken place since the 1960s-1970s — and even then, it was still blocked by the likes of sexist SDS Weather Panther and other left men (and women).
This is a new era! With new women seeing the same things, embedded in history!!
If we stick with it, the answer can be yes, and it can even be ‘yes, we will see Hillary elected president in our lifetimes.’
PUMA!!
“Will We See A Woman President In Our Lifetime?”
YES!
To use a Biden phrase… Mark my words …Gov Sarah Palin Will be President of the United States of America in 2012.
Gird your loins. Four years from now the same thigs will be said about Palin that were said about Hillary. “She’s too polarizing. Her negatives are too high.”
I agree with the poster and this quote:
Obama’s win was a media creation, a fraud perpetrated on a public that still believes tv is a neutral information source. The win could just as easily been accomplished for HIllary and, in theory, for women, but apparently that scenario wasn’t useful. Neither “triumph” means a damn thing for the symbolic group. I was appalled, though, at the nasty, virulent misogyny used. It was inexcusable. I still can’t see this “election” as anything but a great loss for our country.
Then she’d better stay out front and center and keep doing great things for her state — not one error — not ONE will she be allowed — Dems under Barky and jealous Repubs are already trying to destroy her because they know she is a threat.
Women have to meet an entirely different standard.
That fact ain’t gonna change in 4 years. I wish it were not so but it is. If people don’t combat their own prejudices about what is an ‘acceptable, qualified’ woman, we will never get there.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton…
If she should choose to run for president again, I
don’t think the position would preclude her.
Wasn’t there “talk” of trying to encourage Sec. Rice
to run? Only she wasn’t interested.
Sen. Clinton, I beleive acts in what she holds to be
the “best interests of our country”.
We will all have to see how this plays out. I will
miss her as my senator from NY, she has served us so
well.
Healthcare would be better with her in the senate had
she been allowed to have a serious impact on its
development and implementation. The other view, those
who oppose it won’t be able to use “her” as their foil. Whatever, she’s of unique talent, intellect and
compassion, and will excel whereever she serves our
country. Oh, and yes we will have had two other women
as SOS but, only one is a former First Lady and
senator.
Let’s have an attitude of gratude… .
Happy Thanksgiving to All
Indeed! And the same to you, Happy Thanksgiving!
will there be a woman president someday….in our lifetimes?….perhaps .
but….
as long as the prerequisite for the job is being a member of the secret male societies that manipulate the system….not ever going to happen.
they do not admit women into their ranks. they never will. at least not at the level where it means any kind of real power.
what we witnessed in the dem primary was an abomination and manipulation of the foremost Democratic principle…the vote.
i love this country, and wish pres elect obama and his cabinet all the best. the fact that Hillary will be in the forefront of that makes me glad. my prayers are with all of us.
i am moving away from politics except at the local and state level. i am at peace with that.
i’ll be going back into the studio and getting my head back together.
as the bard has said…all the world is a stage.
i say…and i am not the director. for this i am mighty thankful.
have a great holiday season all you beautiful and bright NoQuaterites!
I hope so. The living female family I have include those born before a woman had the right to vote; it wasn’t that long ago, less than 100 years(88).
Really nice article and very right on.
The problem with your question though is not will we see a woman president in our time, but will we see honestly elected one again.
Sadly, women are going to suffer because the majority of Americans are uneducated and extremely ignorant. They don’t bother to look at the person they are electing with any more effort than it takes to turn on the TV.
P.T. Barnum was correct when he said, ” A sucker is born every day.” One only has to have a casual conversation with the average “joe” on the street to find out how amazingly stupid most really are. Obama is our first affirmative action president. Everyone, from the DNC, the MSM, and top Democratic “leaders”, all stood on the scales and made sure that relevant questions wouldn’t be asked and that information that would sink anyone else wouldn’t be reported or covered.
Now we hear how all the major news and TV stations are planning their Obama lovefest by releasing books, programs, and movies of the week all designed so Obama can bend over and they can bury their tongues deep within his @**.
Whenever concerned citizens have asked to see his birth certificate, college records, Ill. state senate records, etc. they’ve been shunted by the courts and anyone else. Why is it unAmerican to want to see the qualifications of a candidate?
We’ve suffered through eight years of Beevis and now we have Butthead. All so we can pretend to show how non racist we have become? In the meantime, the AA community votes to deny gays the right to marry and refuses to acknowledge that the gay rights struggle is about civil rights, as if theirs is the only claim to civil rights.
When we learn to stop sacrificing intelligence for imagery, then we will begin to make progress.
Prediction: If Sarah Palin runs for the GOP nomination in 2012—she will WIN (I will vote in a Repub primary for the first time ever amd many like me will also). If Barack Obama’s approval ratings at that time hover around 50% or below, she will defeat him. She will probably flipped nearly every red state that went blue, back to red…..and that’s how we get the first woman president in our history. If Hillary does a good job as SOS (and I believe she will) I say Palin telegraphs she’d keep her in that post during her administration. Hillary could be the first female SOS that serves both a Dem and GOP administration.
First, let me say that we didn’t welcome Dubya in 2000 or 2004 and say, “Oh well, he will be our Pres. so we will judge him on what he does.” We have always judged him on stealing the election. Why would we not judge BO the same? He did worse things than Bush, so why not judge him as a worse human? His race, his party affiliation should have nothing to do with it. So, I say, let’s start with a little honesty. If he does something right, then good for the country, but there isn’t anything he can do, from here on out that will erase what he has already done, or caused to be done in his favor.
Now, as to the position of women in politics…it will be very hard to get another woman to run, it costs too much and the media is an insurmountable obstacle when paired with the party apperatus. In either party it will be an uphill battle, the most we can do is to try to educate people for the next time.
That brings us to Hillary as SOS. Everyone seems so happy that she is getting a pay-off like Richardson, and the others. Don’t you realize that this is his way of ending her career? She is muffled as a member of the cabinet, has no ability to fight for those things she beleives in, and only promulgates the veiw of the President. She only goes where he tells her to go, and only meets with who he wants her to meet with. SOS is a high level gofer.
On top of that, if there is a problem in BO’s foriegn policy, the SOS is expected to fall on her sword to save the administration. Once she leaves that Senate seat, it will he hell for her to get it back. Particularly if she is willing to give it up twice, once to run for Pres. and again to serve as SOS. This is BO’s way of taking Hillary out of the competition for good, and everyone seems to think it is such a great idea.
Agree Warrior PRincess, both parties, I see to be equally guilty of the same hubris. I will never, ever be a party person again. I am now and forever will be my country first, according to what I perceive via our Constitution.
For Senator Clinton, I cannot form an educated opinion about this SOS position; as I am not sure which is going to be more difficult ala, the rock and hard place syndrome for Senator Clinton; the senate … or the SOS position? Either way it seems to be politically perverse to not honor and allow for the talents of this very gifted woman to flourish and serve as best she can, but always by her choice.
These are great points warrior princess. I will not and cannot forget that BO is an epic charlatan with no integrity. I have to hope for the good of my family, self, and country that the One does well - but I will never forget the fraud he perpetrated on the American people.
These facts cannot be escaped by any future actions on BO’s part.
Not everyone, warrior princess.
I think SoS a terrible idea, and your post is spot on.
I agree with you one hundred percent Warrior Princess. It still perplexes me that anyone would want Hillary to take the SOS position, much less is a cheerleader for her to do so. The guy is a crook - plain and simple. Like the guy before him, this one stole the election. I don’t expect greatness from his administration. Although I’m sure QVC and E-Bay will have resounding business selling the coins and plates with this Fraud’s face on them.
Likewise, I do not trust Obama. But politics being the ugly business that it is, I assume Hillary is looking at the larger and longer view, feeling that it is more important to make an impact and serve her country effectively than to sit on the sidelines.
Will she have enough influence working for Obama? I don’t know, but relegated to Jr. Senator status, relatively no chance of being Senate Majority Leader and not be granted any committee chairmanship, it may have been irksome for her to remain in the Senate and work with the other backstabbers. (And a prominent role in formulating Health Care policy being taken away). Sounds like a case of damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.
While, selfishly, I would prefer she not have anything to do with Obama, our country needs to succeed, I am not concerned whether his ‘name’ succeeds. If that is a by-product, well, for the moment we may be stuck with it. I cannot second guess Hillary and by her having such a global role, bing out there front and center — in addition to other good work she can do — her face and name is in all our faces constantly — and will continue to focus attention on the very debate we are having about a woman succeeding at the highest level.
Even if people are deriding her for her decision - it’s good in that it means we are still talking about it, angry enough to act on it and not sweeping it under the rug.
Misogyny ain’t going away. Since she cannot work effectively outside the system, where else should she go to change it? I don’t have the answer to this but I doubt she would take this on after everything she’s been through if she thought she were just going to be a lackey.
As the saying goes, more will be revealed.
Don’t lose your hope just yet. I’m sure after Barack’s 8 years, Michelle will run for her presidency in 2016. Yes, she is that ambitious. And yes, with the system being so ridiculous she could easily win.
Obama 2008-2024
Declare presidential term limits “racist” and we could have president for life. Now that is change I can believe in from an Obama administraton.
G-d don’t ever say that again. The thought of that woman being President gives me the hives.
When will there be a woman president in the US? When the political structural system gets changed and when corporate dominance gets destroyed. Let’s see what the economic crisis brings in terms of real change.
Fret not people, we might have a woman president sooner than you think.
I know this is a different point, but have you guys heard this audio on Mike In the Morning on November 21, 2008 where they called into the Kenyan Ambassador’s office. At about 12:00 minutes into the tape, the Kenyan Ambassador admitted 2x’s that it is common knowledge the Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
Here is the link.
http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
Of course it had to be a Black male first, and ONLY a Black male could have “defeated” Clinton - just one thing had to be destroyed: the fond feelings that Blacks had toward the Clintons. Enter the race-card - that foulest of plays by Obama/Axelrod that proves BO is without integrity and is, in fact, a charlatan of extraordinary caliber(not the only proof by far).
Maybe twenty years or so, and we will have our first woman president - maybe sooner. But it will very likely be a Republican, because of the simple fact that liberals have a VISCERAL HATRED for women. As messed up as the right-wing is (and they are severely screwed up, of course), they don’t share this nastiness toward women with which leftists are deeply imbued.
Edit: male AND female liberals have a VISCERAL HATRED for women.
I believe Sarah Palin will be our first woman president. I felt it when I first saw her at McCain’s announcement. She has some hurdles to overcome but four years of Obama may make people much kinder to her in 2012.
Heck yeah I totally agree. She already has my vote and the vote of most of my family. she just needs to get some foreign policy experience, go meet with some foreign leaders, write a book(Which I hear she is in the process of doing) and she will definately be our President in 2012(or 2016) whichever is better for her. I am glad that she didn’t become Senator, Washington is so full of crooks and corrupted people, she doesn’t belong there, she should finish her job as Governor, in 2010 see where life takes her, she can run for Senator then if she chooses or she can run for Governor again in Alaska, win of course, and see if she wants to run in 2012. It is very rare for a Senator to become President anyways, most of the time it is Governors, Obama was a rarity because the media kissed his butt for 19 months. The media hates Sarah because they know that she will run, and dethrone their beloved false prophet. Sarah has an energy that she brings to a room, something that only I have seen in Ronald Reagan, she will make a GREAT President!! I absolutely ADORE her. She has everything I want in a President, honestly, intelligence, spunk, and she speaks her mind, absolutely no fear at all, she is a regular person who wants to make this country better for her kids and for all of us
I am not a Republican, but I had this same feeling after meeting her. She has a very commanding and executive presence.
If the country slides downhill - Obama being Carteresque - maybe she is a female Reagan. Thats what she reminded me of, like him or not.
If not maybe we can have another good outcome, Palin v Clinton in 2016 - may the best woman win.
Long time to wait tho.
You are so lucky you had the opportunity to meet this great woman. She has the ability to lead this country to greatness if she could just be given the chance. She just needs to booster her foreign policy experience, go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, visit Israel, I know many Israelies who are very excited to meet her. She can meet with Tzipi Livni, She is a woman with great power, she could give Sarah advice on how to handle things. Sarah reminds me SO much of Reagan, the way she talks, the way she presents herself, remember, the liberal press hated Reagan too, and look what he became. The media is scared that Sarah will run and become the next Reagan. Liberals hated Reagan, they still have wet dreams about Carter. I would LOVE to see a Hillary Vs. Sarah for all the marbles in 2016 or heck, even in 2012, but I really don’t see Hillary running again, if she does become Secretary Of State(BIG mistake in my opinion) she would never run against the guy who hired her, it would not work, and in 2016, Hillary would be I believe 69 years old, Sarah will be 52 years old, Sarah would win hands down because the age factor cost McCain, it would cost Hillary too, plus people would want something new, and Sarah would bring in new leadership
I am thoroughly disgusted with the white women in this country. They are soooooo stupid. (by the way, I am a white woman, so I can say that). No woman is ever good enough. It will be 100 years before we have a chance again and I’ll be dead. I am so disgusted by the young women in this country. They are soooooo stupid. I guess I am worthless on this topic because I am so angry and disgusted with women.
Now, after seeing Obama’s appointments it is clear that the only reason he was selected was because he was a man. And being black gave him the black vote which the dems needed to win.
Look at all of the old white men, all Presidential wannabees, Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, Dean…they could not stomach the thought of a woman getting something they could not have so they found a man to push down our throats.
It will be one long cold day in hell before I vote for a democrat for anything…they can f*ck off (and I am not someone who cusses).
Yep!
It killed their souls to see that a woman had the best possibility of winning the one office that those losers fought hard for & couldn’t win.
I think you are right. The “losers’ club” — they were green with jealousy. She outclassed them all and still continues to do so.
Also, since they could never achieve the office themselves, their plan was to elect someone they felt would be a puppet king so they could find power by whispering in his ear.
How ironic that now Obama is asking Hillary to be SoS.
Obama bought the presidency with OPM.
I was not an initial supporter of HRC but once I watched her performance in the deabtes, I became a convert with the all the zealousness of the new borns.
Yet I have difficulty supporting her rumored acceptance of SOS position in the new administration. For one, I do not trust BO at all - it’s surely in his interest to remove all potential challengers to his second term. Secondly I’d rather soar and fly high as an indenpendent Senator than sit in a cage even if it is made of gold bars.
That said, my sympathies and prayers are and will be with the splendid Senator.
Hillary suffers from Stockholms syndrome, and most of you wont admit it…
First she submitted herself to Bill who repeatedly committed serial adultery against her, lied to her, and drug her thru the mud…..And still she stayed….
Secondly, BO beat up on her during the primary, stole the election from her, and disgrced her by cheating her out of the nomination….and she still campaigned for him and stands by him….
It appears she cannot function with out a strong dominate male influence in her life….and it is very unbecoming of her….she suffers from Stockholms,, and will do the bidding of the Alpha male in her life….
Proof is n the pudding, and this is her life and reality and RECORD’….
Stand by her dominate MAN….
She can’t single handledly take on all the backstabbers in the DNC, the media and Barky rolled into one.
She’s still got more courage and grit in her little finger than they have in their whole body. You want to insult her, if that makes you feel better, go ahead.
No one said she was perfect, but she is still going to stand up and serve her country — she can get a lot more done this way than by crying in the corner and giving up. You don’t have to like it.
I don’t think a woman can be elected either but my reasoning is that you can’t attach an anchor to women candidates and expect them to drag it to a win while their opponents are allowed to take a shortcut. There was nothing about this election fair to both candidates from primaries to nominations to elections.
And after hearing for 8 years that our worst president in our 230 years “won” when we all know the Supreme Court gave it to him; it goes beyond insulting and offensive for voters to be told that “Obama won” even though we know he did not! It is just what has become a typical undemocratic election in these United States.
But why are we allowing it to happen to us again? If your foundation is rotten, you have to rip it out and rebuild it, not just cover it with another coat of paint. We have such s short time to raise a ruckus and I know that We the People are not first in line for that “Obama change” because the Yugo of presidents has already replaced “Washington insiders” with “Washington insiders” who plan to repay their debts to their lobbyist contributors. The more things change the more they stay the same.
[...] Will We See a Woman President In Our Lifetime? : NO QUARTER Clinton would be the third woman to hold the post. And there is no longer anything extraordinary in a president naming women to his Cabinet. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it first, when he appointed Frances Perkins as labor secretary in … [...]
Gail Guardian writing at the blog, Insight Analytical, last week said that we will never see a Woman president in our lifetime.
My answer to your question is NO!
Hillary Clinton’s accepting the position of SoS has closed the door on the possibility of a woman EVER being President — forever.
It just will not happen.
This Nation has a large abundance of misogynists, both males and females. It is probably one of the most misogynistic counties in the world. Why else does the US ALWAYS side with the most corrupt misogynists countries in the world on UN policies regarding women.
Any efforts toward parity are a waste of time — mostly because this country goes out of its way to instill a hatred of women into children from birth. Misogyny is learned — it is not natural.
It was the Patriarchal religion of the middle ages which began the slaughter of women, and with them went the knowledge of the other time when women had more power. The Patriarchy brought in a new religion which had as one of it’s foundations — a hatred of women.
I personally see no hope of much improvement over the few gains women have made in the last few decades. Women may hold on to their few token gains — admission to colleges, education etc. But women will still be systematically blocked from achieving full equality as humans.
People would rather vote in a blatant inadequate misogynistic male then any woman.
This is the reality.
Will We See a Woman President in Our Lifetime?
HELL NO
Actually, extreme violence against women as a method of social control is clearly set out in every one of the earliest law codes in the world, going back to pre-Hammurabi texts, and has undoubtedly grown up alongside patriarchy and the notions of the ‘nation’ ’state’ and other conglomerations of male power.
Only on “24 Redemption” Sunday night on Fox at 8pm. I’m so excited about seeing how they’ll portray a woman president, I put a reminder in my PDA. Such a shame that we womenfolks have to envision such possibilities through television.
[...] Right now, many people believe that they will not see a woman elected president of this country in their lifetimes. The estimable Marie Cocco sums the situation up once again. One of my favorite blog writers, Ani, gives us her take. [...]
I was hopeful this year. We had Hillary and Sarah that had so much to offer. We all know Hillary was way more qualified than Obama. It made me sad to here women put down,these women be twice as hard on both of these candidates as they were on the men.
Marie Cocco was right on and my hats off to Marie.
Thank you
Great article! This year, for the first time in my life (I’m 32) I have thought that I may not live to see a female president. I think it will take at least new generation of voters if not several.
And for any posters who are still unfamiliar with how Obama stole the nomination, here’s a 98 page report to keep you busy. If we had any sort of unbiased media left, this would be common knowledge.
http://www.lynettelong.com/CAUCUSFRAUD/
John, Mandelay and Ani, many thanks for your most compelling posts. I cannot add to them in their completeness except to say that I appreciate posters like yourselves who are able to keep the focus on what’s important and continue to work toward our mutual goals. It is unfortunate that sometimes one or two peoples’ actions can reflect poorly on an larger organization and I hope that people are able to remember the overall quality of the PUMA Spirit and disregard some of the less productive rants.
[...] Right now, many people believe that they will not see a woman elected president of this country in their lifetimes. The estimable Marie Cocco sums the situation up once again. One of my favorite blog writers, Ani, gives us her take. [...]
Why doesn’t anyone ever mention how many times we’ve seen Joe Biden break down in tears. It was rehashed by the media over and over when Hillary teared up before the New Hampshire Primary. I’ve seen Joe Biden break down several times, in tears, crying. I’ve always thought it looked like someone taking too much valium or something. Valium is a depressant and is notorious for the “crying” side effect.
[...] “Will We See a Woman President In Our Lifetime?,” by Ani. “No,” answers Ani, who adds, “Hey, if you don’t like the answer, folks, it’s time for a little soul searching. …” (Do read all.) [...]