Because of Hillary, I can be president?

Buried (rightfully so) in all the talk today about Scooter Libby and Walter Reed and the U.S. attorney firings has been Hillary Clinton's appearance before EMILY's List today.

Yet after seeing this in the Note today I just can't resist commenting on it here:

EMILY's List has endorsed Clinton and will mobilize its activists and donors in support of her candidacy.

A key piece of the grassroots effort will be an online initiative called "I Can Be President." The Clinton campaign plans to launch an "I Can Be President" web site to invite women across the country to express their support for Clinton's candidacy

After reading this... I'm curious what others think about the idea of equating Hillary becoming president with your chances of becoming president. I think this approach will totally work with my mother, who grew up in a Chicago suburb not far from Hillary's and is about the same age and already supporting her and has long been fond of her.

But am I the only woman who finds Hillary's campaign theme as a breakthrough for womanhood unappealing? Is it a generational thing?

Maybe because I am more than 30 years younger than Hillary, maybe because I have "Clinton fatigue," maybe because I'm already enamored of Barack Obama and thus biased... but I just don't see Hillary's campaign for the presidency as a crusade for women that I need to be a part of simply because she shares my gender, and nor do I think if she loses it should be considered a terrible loss for women.

First of all -- believe it or not -- before reading about her "I can be president" campaign it simply never crossed my mind as a woman that I am supposed to think I can't be president - at least that I should think I can't be president simply because I'm a woman.

There are too many other reasons for a person like me without an Ivy League education, without connections to the nation's biggest power brokers, without much of the top candidates' intellect and charm and wealth to think I can't be president that I didn't much consider the whole gender thing before this.

But there's another reason that her "I can be president" statement for woman's solidarity doesn't ring true for me and is not enough to get my vote -- because Hillary is not every woman.

True, the symbolism of having a woman president could be great in terms of changing perceptions about women and fighting sexism in the workplace.

But if that woman is Hillary, will it have the same effect? I'm not talking about her intellect or personality which I think is fine enough, or even her character here (which I question).

If Hillary wins the presidency, it won't tell me as a woman that some day I can be president.

It tells me I can be president... if my MRS degree links me with a former president and he cheats on me making me a sympathetic victim who people pity and empathize with thus making me non-threatening to men.

Unfair? Probably.

But I am just putting this out there because I am genuinely interested in what people think Hillary's presidency would mean for women in this country... and if those opinions are quite different for older women than for younger ones.

Because at this point I find Barack Obama's rise to political power much more inspiring to me even as a white woman because of the way he's broken through and exploded beyond Illinois politics. He fought against but then cultivated the black establishment on the South Side of Chicago despite being too young and too much an outsider. He fought against but then cultivated the entrenched Chicago Democratic machine despite being too young and too much an outsider. And now he is fighting against yet simultaneously cultivating the Washington establishment despite being too young and too much an outsider.

Similar stories exist for all the other candidates as well.

Yet how did Hillary become the Democratic frontrunner? She married well and became popular because despite protests to the contrary she did a lot of "standing by her man" and then finally gained elected office with Bill's help by parachuting into New York for an easy Senate win.

I'm sorry, Hillary. This doesn't tell me "I can be president."

•  With Warner gone...

  ... she's out best hope. I expect kos to back her soon.

  by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 06:57:22 PM PDT

  •  Shirley you're not serious!

    by Trix on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:04:19 PM PDT

  •  Really?

    I'm still betting that he's just playing hard-to-get with Kucinich.  You know it's love.

    by Major Danby on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:08:03 PM PDT

    •  I love his cookies

      

      by Trix on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:11:49 PM PDT

•  Yesterday she spoke in favor of gays.

  Today it's women.  She must have unterior motives for doing this.

  by rserven on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:01:16 PM PDT

  •  ulterior motives, even...

    ;-)

    by Trix on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:05:31 PM PDT

    •  Typos R Us

      My hands are still frozen from traveling between work and home.

      by rserven on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:07:59 PM PDT

•  I'm much older than you...

  ..actually, I'm probably Hillary's age, and I would really prefer if she were not running for president.
   I used to pay attention to Emily's List, but when they started asking me for $200+ as an initial donation, I decided they were too rich for my blood.
   It's not Clinton fatigue.  It's not your age.  It's Hillary.

  by drchelo on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:01:19 PM PDT

  •  And it's cheesy

    I have to admit, this slogan spews cheese.  I fear what her general election campaign would look like.

    by Major Danby on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:09:17 PM PDT

    •  The Battle of Selma gives you a clue

      Ill timed, hastilly concieved, no concept of collateral damage.

      Because a "program" was suddenly quadrupled in complexity, a march scheduled to hit the Pettus bridge at 1:30, didn't step on it till 3:40.

      Blame Billary.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:19:23 PM PDT

•  but hillary is with me on all the issues

  the top two for me, flag burning and video game violence, are pretty well covered.

  i wouldn't say i am a single issue voter, but those two lock me squarely in the hillary camp

  by Stampy51 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:06:47 PM PDT

  •  LOL (n/t)

    by Trix on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:07:24 PM PDT

  •  What is wrong with her flag burning stance?

    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:19:51 PM PDT

    •  Did she really rope off a "free speech zone"? nt

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:24:34 PM PDT

      •  I'm not exactly clear how that answers

        my question.

        by tigercourse on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:35:32 PM PDT

        •  Quashing free speech, keeping hecklers at bay:

          by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:38:11 PM PDT

          •  Would you have prefered a Constitutional

            ammendment against Flag Burning? Clinton, Boxer and Durbin helped head that off. She did the right thing.

            by tigercourse on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:39:54 PM PDT

            •  My PT. is- U can't have one without the other

              Trying to convey my meaning using "nt" doesn't alway work, just little bumperstickers.

              I HEARD, a couple of weeks ago, that the Hillerahandlers were roping off folks that asked hard questions about the "war vote", to keep the photo op "bushyclean".  Building a Demo Bubble.
              Yest. I was posting reflections about how badly she LOST the Battle of Selma.

              I still haven't found the proper way to communicate my extreme disappointment in her/or her "camps" leadership in the Billaryfiasco.

              My Post in Progress will be finished tonight, but don't want to put the political implications in the mb.com forum.

              http://www.motoredbikes.com/...

              God you are the dimmest (0 / 0)
              poster here! Hate is strong in you bucko! She leads by doubgle digits in all polls....thats like being sixty points ahead in a football game, what a shame you cant actually understand what you think you know
              by Tim Howe on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:16:22 AM PST

              Note to Mr. Howe: I talked to 13 white Alabamians yesterday about Obama, convinced about 9 of them.

              WTF did YOU do yesterday???

              The FACT IS- 50% of the crowd "walked away" within moments of her second outside speech AND her clever ploy delayed the march by at least 90 minutes, pissing off another 5,000 waiting on the Pettus Bridge.

              Ill timed, no IDEA about collateral damage.

              NOT leadership, but "listening to bad ideas" and invading Selma WITHOUT A PLAN FOR WINNING.

              Iraqi Freedom in miniture......

              by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:21:16 AM PDT

•  the vagina dialogues? somebody had to say it! ;)

  ducking for cover...

  by PhillyGal on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:09:35 PM PDT

  •  Hoo ha!

    by ablington on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:53:33 PM PDT

  •  A four

    for chutzpah!

    by HarveyMilk on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:48:04 AM PDT

•  Excellent diary.

  I totally agree with your views.  I think the first president of any kind would be a great accomplishment but that in itself is not the reason to support a candidate.  I think Hillary would be a very competent president, however, there are better ones to choose from this current field.  I'm sure everyone here knows by now that I am squarely in Obama's camp.

  by lovingj on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:24:00 PM PDT

  •  thanks

    even though I just started commenting, I've been lurking for a while and I've enjoyed reading a lot of your posts

    by modemocrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:40:36 PM PDT

    •  The feeling is mutual.

      by lovingj on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:14:37 PM PDT

•  What would it mean?

  How would Hillary's election affect American women?  I am certain for the rest of my life it would be discussed with dewey eyes as the breakthrough moment of the 21st Century.  And I am sure I would gag a lot over all the treacle.

  What it would mean in tangible terms is probably a moderate acceleration in the career paths of many women.  I am sure many more women would be posted at various levels through government.  Some businesses would certainly seek to curry favor by doing same.

  But honestly, I think that effect would be a lot smaller than people would credit it for having.  All signs seem to show women are progressing rapidly.  I don't think a President Clinton is needed for this.  Or put another way, if not a President H.R. Clinton, the wait will not be long until a woman does occupy the Oval Office.

  On the downside, I think you may be right.  She seems to be tilting against a dragon already dying of old age.  Her election might, oddly, sort of validate that old dragon.  I think you are onto something with your observation that she might not be the best glass ceiling buster.  Would this candidate be a candidate, were she married to someone else?  Is her career that exemplary, without the belittling qualifier 'for a woman'?  

  Prhaps its best to shatter that glass ceiling when the Real Deal comes along.  I do not see Senator CLinton as the Real Deal.  But I expect the waitwill not be that long.

  One thing god to come out of the Iraq War and the Bush Criminal Presidency, is America will do a lot of soul-searching and changing.  The first woman President is not that far off, Senator Clinton or no Senator Clinton.

  by Quicklund on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:27:39 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately for Emily's List...

    ... they've lost any potential support from me.

    Ms. Clinton holds a number of policy positions that are in direct contravention to my personal interests.  And I've informed the "Friends of Hillary" folks (by returning their mailers with comments and without contribution) of same.

    Being a woman is not equivalent with representing all women.  Phyllis Schafly should be sufficient evidence.  Heh.

    by FlyingToaster on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:31:55 PM PDT

  •  I don't really see that many other women on

    the horizon who have a shot (or would be better than Clinton) at the Presidency.

    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:32:17 PM PDT

    •  Kathleen Sebelius

      Kathleen Sebelius Governor of Kansas.  Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona.  On the bad side, Olympia Snowe, Senator from Maine.

      Just to name a few.

      by HarveyMilk on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:50:26 AM PDT

      •  The Michigan Governor?

        As I recall the sitting (or recently sitting) Michigan Governor has received some good press too.

        by Quicklund on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:07:04 AM PDT

        •  Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.)

          My Governor cannot run for president as she was born in Canada.  But for that, I think she'd have a great shot.

          by HarveyMilk on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:10:52 AM PDT

          •  Yeah that's keeping me out of the White House too

            being born in Canada.  Gotta be the reason.  lol

            by Quicklund on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:51:12 PM PDT

    •  Nancy Pelosi

      Impeach Bush, hope the defibrillator battery breaks and Nancy is President.

      by suse on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:12:41 AM PDT

      •  Or impeach Dick & Bush both! n/t

        Wouldn't that annoy Senator Clinton to death?

        She votes to impeach ... another woman beats her to the brass ring of First Woman President.

        She votes against impeachment ... into the basement goes her approval ratings and so long brass ring.

        Quite the subplot to the drama.

        by Quicklund on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:09:48 AM PDT

  •  thanks for the thoughtful response

    You are so right about the soul-searching and changing and that being what the country seems to want right now. Yet as changing as a woman president would be, I just am not sure if it is tied to the Clinton dynasty it would be changing enough... that is forgetting her stupid war vote and all the other baggage from the 90s.

    But it's funny... as much as it insults me that as a feminist Hillary and her team is expecting that I as a am supposed to vote for her simply because she's a woman, there's another part of me that should she be the nominee (without my vote in the primaries) will be really proud to have the chance to vote for a woman in the general.

    by modemocrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:38:05 PM PDT

  •  There is a certain amount of mythology to the

    "All signs seem to show women are progressing rapidly."

    It is definitely the popular perception, and we all want it to be true. But the wage gap stopped shrinking sometime ago, and may actually have started to grow again. And across the board, women are underrepresented in the high ranks of the high status professions: science, politicians, executives, law and medicine, I'm sure there are more.

    We like to make "pipeline" arguments, and say it is just matter of time. But closer analysis shows that this isn't true. Women are going to school, and getting the credentials, the law degrees, the Phds, they just aren't getting the good jobs, and they aren't progressing through the ranks.

    Women are stumbling on the way to the top. The reasons are complex, work/life balance issues are important. The american workplace is not family friendly, and women bear the disproportionate burden for this. There is also a culture that doesn't expect women to excel, and these expectations become self-realized.

    The playing field hasn't been leveled just yet.

    by heartofblue on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:38:11 PM PDT

    •  Clarification

      I tend to speak in generational time scales.  When I say a woman president is around the corner, that basically means within 30 years.  I suspect it will be far sooner.  But even if it is 30 years, eh, that's progress.  Your kids will see a different world.

      You pointed to the trends.  Women are getting the education.  Now incubate for a generation.  Who is left to 'man' the glass ceiling?  Women.

      If I thought things would advance faster, I'd say so.  But biases die hard.  How do they time?  Time eventually claims the bigots.  Younger with differernt wolrdviews people replace them.  Profound change takes time.

      That trend, I will go out on a limb and claim, is irrevseable at this point.  On the time scale of the 2008 or 2012 or 2016 Presidential election, perhaps not.

      by Quicklund on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:55:41 PM PDT

      •  issues aren't strictly about bigots

        I too am patiently waiting for a generation of bigots to die and thus stop being an issue. However, this isn't enough. Some of the issues are structural, and won't get better unless we make some structural changes. We need a more family friendly workplace, we need reliable access to quality childcare, we need universal healthcare, and we need parental leave policies that actually work.

        As the years go by, these become less and less women's issues, and more and more family issues. But at the moment, it is women that are bearing the brunt of the problem.

        I am glad that you feel confident that the progress of women's rights is irreversible, but I am less confident. History shows that significant imporovements in women's rights has happened before, and these dramatic gains have been lost, repeatedly. This modern period will be different from the past if it is accompanied by fundamental institutional changes, no less.

        by heartofblue on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:34:37 AM PDT

•  Thanks modemocrat

  I've written before on why I think that having Hillary as President doesn't 'reflect' much in terms of womens' status in society (just look at Pakistan, where a woman, Benazir Bhutto, has been elected twice as President. And yet this is the country where legalized rape was only repealed last month), let alone ability to be President. No ordinary American should think to themselves that they can be the President, because it's like dreaming about being a famous actress or a Fortune 500 CEO. We all know this.

  Nonetheless, I still think having a woman as President would make a huge difference, in the effect it has on society. That's the difficult to qualify but most true idea that a woman can and is leading the country, is commanding the armed forces, and is, in George Bush's words, "the decider."

  We like to say today that women are equal in society, but that's just not true. Look at just about any industry or organization and men are overwhelmingly at the top. Instead, society seems obsessed with victimized, dead, or objectified women like the Michigan woman, Anna Nicole Smith, or Paris Hilton. Is this what we want for our daughters? And is it a good thing that our politicians have to compete for who is the most 'manly man' and who is the toughest? I think it skews politics conservative, if you ask me.

  I was taught to value and expect a world where men and women were equal and am disappointed that is not the case. I don't think that's a good thing simply because I don't believe that such a morally arbitrary thing such as gender thought to play such a determining role-- as it still does.

  by Beet on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:43:06 PM PDT

  •  very good points

    especially about the lack of women in politics skewing things conservative.

    by modemocrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:27:06 PM PDT

•  I am Hillary's age

  And yes if a women were presidient it would be a very big deal in this country because that means many more would follow...everywhere... in congress and other significant positions of POWER.

  Politically women in America are much fewer in number and influence in the US than women in Europe and even other parts of the world.

  And I think that one thing Barack Obama said in Selma is something you need to take to heart.  That he wouldn't be where he was without the work of trailblazers like King, he was standing on the "shoulders of giants"

  He understood very well the role of trailblazers and was appreciative their role in his rise.

  So why don't you see that in terms of the women who 30 or more years ago blazed trails of accomplishment. He can see it for him in terms of race and I think we need to see it in terms of gender.

  The hatred toward Hillary in the netroots blinds too many of you to really important things.

  The year she and I graduated college, she went to Yale Law School (that was rare then and she has always held more than her own).

  I went into the job market.  I remember going to an employment agency and there were the jobs for women and the jobs for men; there were classified ads which said Women's Jobs and Men's Jobs.  As I filled out the form and saw the menial, clerical jobs offered I asked to look at the men's jobs; they were all mangerial positions. I said I wanted to apply for those. I wasn't allowed.  I walked out, though not after giving the poor female receptionist a talking to about inequality; she was furious with me.  Women sometimes don't see their own self interest.

  And I think your attitude toward her blinds you to your own self interest as well as all women.

  by debcoop on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:44:48 PM PDT

  •  perhaps there is an unfair standard being applied

    He understood very well the role of trailblazers and was appreciative their role in his rise.

    So why don't you see that in terms of the women who 30 or more years ago blazed trails of accomplishment. He can see it for him in terms of race and I think we need to see it in terms of gender.

    Thank you for your thoughtful post.

    Interesting to bring Selma into this. I think just as the fight for racial equality lost its way along the way and many young people don't understand or revere those battles I know that I and other women of my generation fail to fully understand and revere the fight for women's equality and can take it for granted.

    I hate it when people ask if Obama is "black enough" to be president so it probably is unfair to apply the "is this a big enough feminist statement?" standard to HIllary.

    I still won't vote for Hillary in the primary because of her failure to stand up against the rush to war, but thank you for giving me more insight on this.

    by modemocrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:34:36 PM PDT

•  I became a founding member

  of the first women's rights group in the Boston area called Bread and Roses.  It was called Bread and Roses after the the 1912 women's textile workers strikes in Lowell, Mass in which they said they were striking for Bread and for Roses.

  They wanted the necessities of life but they also wanted more---And I thnk that Hillary does embody that.  

  That name was chosen to be in solidarity with what those striking textile workers represented.  Solidarity means identifying with those like you with interests like you.  

  Back then one of the thing we as women talked about a lot was how society divided women up into every other group that was for everyone's else interest but their own and how this kept them from uniting together for themselves.

  If Barack Obama can make to direct appeals to blacks based on race, tell me why having the first serious women candidate appealing to women based on gender is illegitimate.

  by debcoop on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:56:49 PM PDT

  •  Deb, I have no problem with gender appeals

    I just wanted to post this diary to see if others found it effective when Hillary makes the gender because of her unique position as someone who has a special advantage through marriage.

    Thanks to you and others who have posted here for reminding me me how amazing it could be to have a woman president, and while that thought isn't enough for me to forgive her the Iraq war vote in the primary it would make me feel better casting a vote for her in the general.

    by modemocrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:39:39 PM PDT

    •  thank you

      your thoughtful reply made my night a good night

      by debcoop on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:54:11 PM PDT

•  it matters that she is a woman

  I am a young woman (29yo), but this is important to me.

  (1) There is the very important symbolic first, it is concrete, it can't be undone. In those moments of doubt over whether or not this country is ever going to change, you can look at these concrete moments and say "yes, progress happens."

  Also, role models matter. It is a lot easier to imagine yourself being both a woman and a president if you've first seen someone else reconciling those two qualities.

  I am a scientist in a male dominated field, and this is very clearly a part of my job, to simply be a good scientist and a woman---both at the same time! It isn't some abstract thing, it is a concrete adjustment that my colleagues and my students have to make, to accept my being simultaneously a scientist that they must take very seriously and also a fairly girly creature (as I happen to be pretty fem).

  (2) Then there is the policy issues. Hillary just introduced legislation about "equal pay for equal work,"---she actually wants to do something about that pesky $.77 per every man's dollar thing, there is a statement on her campaign website. She is discussing work/life balance, and in general how to make work more family friendly.

  These issues, along with healthcare, are my personal political priorities, they are very high on my list of concerns. But, how many politicians have put these issues on the national agenda? There isn't any reason a man couldn't, they just haven't.

  by heartofblue on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:26:54 PM PDT

•  I Agree

  But for different reasons.

  If not for Bill Clinton, we wouldn't know who Hillary Clinton is.  Now, I think the reverse is also probably true, and I think Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president (although I will not support her in the primaries, mainly due to Iraq).

  So Hillary launching a gender appeal is great, but we all know she came to be of national prominence in a very unique way.  Ultimately, it's a "whatever," and I'm all for breaking glass/marble ceilings by any means necessary.  

  Empowering women is always a good thing.  But the "you're just like me" stuff embodied in the slogan "I can be president" just doesn't wash, in Hillary's case.

  by HarveyMilk on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:57:58 AM PDT

  •  The "You're Just Like Me"

    doesn't wash for Barack either with African Americans.

    How many African Americans come from families where Mom is a white anthropologist and Dad an African graduate student?
    How many African Americans grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii?
    How many went to Harvard Law School? Were Editor of the Law Review?

    Both Hillary and Barack are atypical for the groups they are trying to get to identify with them.

    by suse on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:17:48 AM PDT