Tag Archives: Feminism

Quote of the Day: Chelsea Clinton

Sunday, March 30, 2008

From a campaign rally yesterday in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina:

I didn’t really get how much sexism there was in our country until I was at a rally with my mom in New Hampshire, and someone came up to me and said, “I just can’t see a woman being Command-in-Chief.”

See “Hillary Clinton:  Does anyone really care about electing a woman President?” posted earlier today on WordFeeder.


Site Meter

Hillary Clinton: Does anyone really care about electing a woman President?

Sunday, March 30, 2008

“Why aren’t more women supporting the Clinton candidacy with something approaching the levels of black support for Senator Obama?”

In the midst of the most recent news about Pastor Jeremiah Wright, his preaching, publications and relationship to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton managed somehow to divert the attention of the media, and the electorate with it, by her confusion over conditions when she visited Bosnia as First Lady.  This had to be a moment of legitimate confusion.  To consider it purposeful misrepresentation, in light of how easily the facts could be checked, is ludicrous.  Not surprisingly, fraudulent campaigning is how the Obama campaign would have us see it, and the way the media tended to report it.

I get the feeling sometimes that many ordinary voters, professional politicians, and pundits are looking for any excuse to find fault with Senator Clinton’s campaign.  Barack Obama has the temerity to defend his 20 year affiliation with the likes of Pastor Wright and walks away, figuratively speaking, unscathed.  If Hillary Clinton so much as burps in public, it’s breaking news.  She’s down two points in the polls.  Her campaign, so she’s told, is a losing cause.  Why not give it up for the good of the Party, and to make Howard Dean happy?  Democratic process is apparently only a good thing if it nominates Senator Obama without the mess of an open convention.

Whether or not he’s in the lead, Senator Obama’s affiliation, by close proximity if nothing else, to the opinions of Pastor Wright, his spiritual advisor until he became too much of a political liability, should have crushed him in the polls.  That he would claim to have been generally unaware of these offensive beliefs during 20 years of attendance is a ridiculous notion that laughs at the gullibility of his supporters, and mocks the lectures he continues to give us on the new politics of Obamism.  And yet the effect of all this on his standing in the polls was minimal, and only temporary.

What’s going on?  Is it Hillary or, heaven forbid, that she’s a woman?

It’s one thing to wonder whether there are men out there who, consciously or subconsciously, might feel uncomfortable having a woman President.  It’s another to ask the same question about American women in general.  My mother, sadly no longer with us, was a big Bill Clinton fan but would have never bought into the notion that his wife – however accomplished in her own right – or any woman should ever be President.  It was an idea that was, at best, on the periphery of her vision, limited as it was by the times of her upbringing.  I’ve got to wonder if there aren’t still remnants of the same mentality in women of my generation and younger.

Barack Obama has gone out of his way to remind us, at every opportunity, that he’s black.  He’s using his race in a way similar to how JFK used his Catholicism in 1960, to shame some voters, and galvanize others into voting for him.  (See my own “Channeling JFK” posted March 14.)  He wants people to vote for him because he’s black – black people because he is of the same color and shared experience, and white people because, to do otherwise, would be evidence of prejudice.

Don’t believe he’s using the issue of race?  Consider Senator Obama’s recent speech about race.  If I may borrow an observation from Professor Walter Williams’ recent column in The Examiner, the question to which the speech was supposed to be responding had nothing to do with race, per se, but with his long term affiliation with Reverend Wright.  (See “Quote of the Day:  “Is Obama ready for America?” posted March 27.)  Instead, what Senator Obama chose to talk about race, race, and more race.  Okay, I get it.  He’s an American of mixed ethnicity who identifies with the black experience while, at the same time understands all things white.  (I’m exhausted by his omniscience.)

So why isn’t Senator Clinton opting for the same strategy based on gender?  She’s also an American of mixed parentage – one man, one woman – who identifies with the female experience.  It’s perfect.  And haven’t women suffered their own struggle for equality?  Women are half the population.  Black Americans, only 13%.  Even considering that black Americans are almost universally Democrats, there are still more white women Democrats.  You’d think there would be no way she could lose.

Why aren’t more women supporting the Clinton candidacy with something approaching the levels of black support for Senator Obama?  Possible explanations include:  They’d love to support a woman, but not Hillary.  They believe it’s more important to nominate the right candidate than a one of their own gender.  The latter would be nice, but they perceive the differences between the two candidates to be too great in Senator Obama’s favor to vote their gender.  They’ve arrived, so to speak, and don’t feel like they have anything, in particular, to gain or prove by electing a woman President.  Or, yikes, a significant number of them are not all that keen on having a woman – any woman, not just Hillary Clinton – in The White House.

Maybe electing a woman President just isn’t that big of a deal after all.


Site Meter

Voter Advice for Women From a Male Feminist

Sunday, February 17, 2008

A few days ago, I wrote a piece (“Endorsement,” 2/13/08) in which I made the argument that, if a white woman and a black man were perceived as equally qualified to be President, it was incumbent upon black voters to vote for the black man, and women to vote for the woman.  (I didn’t address the quandary of black women.  For the sake this particular piece, I’m going to assume that race trumps gender.)  I said, without the least hesitation, and still believe that to do otherwise, would be “illogical and irresponsible.”  Since then, a friend, whose opinions I respect, has commented that my argument is, basically, prejudiced.  Even if the two candidates were equally capable, which he argues they can’t be because two people never are, a voter’s choice should be random.  At the time, I gave him the last word, and moved on.  Now that my candidate (Senator Clinton) is struggling, I feel the need to get back into the game, and make my point clear and more emphatic.

The objective of any decision is to maximize the benefit derived by the entity making it.  Which entity is that?  Could be Congress, a PTA, or Board of Directors, superficially at least, but it all comes down to the individual, to you and me.  If, for example, we are a Senator highly motivated to promote the common good, then that will be our personal objective when we vote – even if it is against our own, personal best interests.  Senator McCain actually campaigns on precisely that point, that he puts his country first, himself a distant second.  Impressive in an emotional way, but it’s all semantics.  His spin notwithstanding, Senator McCain is still maximizing his personal benefit.  As my father once taught me, all decisions are selfish.  The focus of the decision may be the public good, but only because, in the mind and heart of the decision-maker, maximizing the public good was the most important objectlive.

Alright, I am a black or white woman voter.  There are differences between the candidates.  One is a more experienced government policy “wonk,” admittedly with baggage, the other is an inspirational newbie.  All things considered, you say to yourself, the country will be in pretty good shape whichever one wins, as long as the Republicans are out of The White House.  (I happen to think Senator Clinton’s experience and policy development skills make her the superior candidate, and that I can always vote for Senator Obama 8 years from now when he’s more seasoned, but my personal opinion isn’t what I’m arguing here.)

So, you rationalize, Senator Clinton will make a good President.  What she lacks in oratory, she’ll make up in productivity.  We’ll be okay, and not appreciably worse off than if you elected Senator Obama, your feel good candidate.  Well, ask yourself, which decision maximizes your personal benefit?  Vote for Obama, or vote for Clinton and shatter, once and for all, any notion that women can’t manage, can’t do anything to which they aspire?  It depends, doesn’t it, upon how much you care about the common good, about the half of our society that still commands less respect, in business and in government, that the other half.

As I argued in “Endorsement,” it could be a while before another woman, as qualified as Senator Clinton, is this close to being President.  To those of you women out there who are undecided, and especially to those of you who were planning on sitting out the Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries because you didn’t think it made that much difference, think again.  It’s perfectly logical and responsible for black voters to support Senator Obama.  What are you waiting for?