“Well- behaved women seldom make history.”

A friend of mine is a well-known author with a decidedly liberal bent who, like me, was for John Edwards all year.  She's been floundering around in the days since he split the race, looking for someone to support.  Her sympathies veer between Hillary because she is a feminist and Obama because she respects and enjoys watching the great Youth Awakening to the possibilities of politics.

Just now she called me and said she is firmly back in the Hillary camp.  (She knew this would make me happy, 'cause so am I.)  A friend emailed her an essay by the pioneering feminist Robin Morgan entitled "Goodbye To All That #2," which was published on February 2.

In a sequel to her famous essay "Goodbye to All That," Morgan makes a strong, striking, and controversial case for Hillary Clinton -- and against Barack Obama.  You can read the whole essay here.....

I've done a search and haven't found any diaries specifically about Morgan's essay, although there was a diary attempting to rebut its major tenets.  If there was a diary summarizing this article already, I apologize.

Among the more incisive things Morgan says:

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .

—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s "cooler" to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.  Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts "entitled" when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.

Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.  

Goodbye to the phrase "polarizing figure" to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, "We are becoming the men we wanted to marry." She heard us, and she has.

Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as "likeable" as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t "control" him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement.  She’s running to be president of the United States.

•  I really do love

  strong-minded women who aren't afraid to say what they think.  Even if they think Obama is the best candidate!

  by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:30:47 PM PDT

  •  I respect your strong stance behind Clinton,

    and I don't think anyone who thinks that highly of her should jump ship because of the insulting way she's been treated over the years. On the other hand, I've never supported her for President, though I do support her continuing to be my Senator.

    There are plenty of reasons to support Obama over Clinton, though, and I hope you don't try to sully all of us who vote Obama with the smear tactics of the media and the Republicans.

    by jeff in nyc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM PDT

    •  Not trying to sully anyone.

      She just makes some important points that I hadn't heard made.  Everyone is different and sometimes we don't even know what our own deeply-buried prejudices are.  (I include myself in that.) I hadn't heard about the Nutcracker or the South Park episode, but those are some pretty startling cultural markers, don't you think?

      by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:39:17 PM PDT

    •  sullying Obama supporters...

      There are plenty of reasons to support Obama over Clinton, though, and I hope you don't try to sully all of us who vote Obama with the smear tactics of the media and the Republicans.

      Obama supporters need to start sullying the worst offenders in their camp, however, particularly the ones who are already using smear tactics and GOP talking points against the Clintons.

      HRC supporters also must call out the shrill voices in their camp as well.

      by YatPundit on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:51:54 PM PDT

      •  Hear, hear

        we have to stop feeding on our own.

        by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM PDT

•  I'm not a woman

  but the fact that Hillary is makes no difference to me.  I'm far more influenced by her votes, her attitude and her campaign style.

  My blog. Come visit.

  by hekebolos on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:35:34 PM PDT

  •  If you read the essay

    you may find that all of us hold certain sexist assumptions so deeply that we don't even realize it.  

    by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM PDT

    •  That my really be true, and it's been demonstrate

      by Harvard's implicit associations tests. However, it find the implicit associations even more strongly negative to blacks.

      Apart from that, though, there are a great many reasons to want the kind of change in DC that Obama represents, and which Clinton simply does not.

      by jeff in nyc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM PDT

      •  The thing I find most extraordinary

        is that while the press revels in the "race-gender" battle in the Democratic party, the total whitemaleness of the Republicans gets a complete pass.

        by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:42:15 PM PDT

        •  Amazing isn't it?

          Good call.

          by discocarp on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM PDT

        •  whitemaleness...

          is what got John Edwards passed over by the MSM...

          by YatPundit on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:52:59 PM PDT

          •  Naw...that "economic populism" thing

            didn't help him...

            by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:57:47 PM PDT

            •  made too much sense for the MSM?

              it really boiled down to a three-way horse race with one of the horses being a rich white guy just didn't work for the teevee.

              by YatPundit on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:00:17 PM PDT

              •  It boiled down to one guy who talked about

                taking the money out of the media and the money out of our elections...and then he was conveniently not covered any longer ;-)

                by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:09:45 PM PDT

                •  Remember

                  Every dollar that you take out of the electoral process, is a dollar that the media don't get.  Taking money out of politics means taking it out of the media's pockets.

                  by Tybalt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:57:47 PM PDT

          •  honestly

            he was getting in the way of history.

            It just isn't his time. It's Obama or Hil's time.

            Sorry but there it is.

            by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:16:35 PM PDT

            •  Nothing gets in the way of History...

              History occurs every moment of every day in the ins and outs of all of the decisions - large and small - that we make.

              Nothing "gets in the way of History". History is who we are.

              by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:19:29 PM PDT

              •  Do you understand what I meant,

                even if I said it in an awkward way?

                by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:28:22 PM PDT

                •  I do, I just disagree with it because I don't

                  view "making history" in those terms. The gender or race of our leaders matters less to me than working to make our society less racist and sexist (and I don't believe this is accomplished by just electing someone).

                  "Making history" is something we do, not something our leaders do for us.

                  by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM PDT

                  •  then we disagree

                    I think having a black or woman candidate is very important.

                    by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:32:39 PM PDT

                    •  We can disagree on that ;-) n/t

                      by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:38:37 PM PDT

                  •  Yeah grannyhelen,

                    I gotta disagree with you there.  If you'd left it up to "us," my hometown in Alabama would still have White and Colored signs everywhere and only white kids would be swimming at the pool.

                    It takes leaders.

                    by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:37:03 PM PDT

                    •  breaking glass ceilings is always

                      important and noteworthy

                      by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:38:22 PM PDT

                    •  But the leaders who broke those barriers

                      weren't Presidents, or even elected officials.

                      They were union organizers, and pastors, and teachers who got into the civil rights movement.

                      That is my point- we are history. We are change. Not the folks we elect to run our government.

                      by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:40:33 PM PDT

                      •  Because those barriers have not yet been broken

                        but one of them will this year.

                        Obama and Hillary benefited from past fights, but they are people too, and deserve credit for what they are doing ALONG with the union organizers, pastors, teachers et al.

                        Do you think it takes courage to run for office..any office?

                        I do.

                        by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:46:15 PM PDT

                        •  This is what I was responding to

                          ...hometown in Alabama would still have White and Colored signs everywhere and only white kids would be swimming at the pool.

                          To answer your second question - I think it takes ambition to run for the Presidency. I expect these folks to be ambitious, otherwise I would question how effect they would be in a general election.

                          by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:03:51 PM PDT

                          •  fair enouigh

                            sorry for butting in

                            by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:40:24 PM PDT

    •  yes, kevvboy

      you're right.  The only reason I've been opposing Hillary Clinton is because of my own deep psychologically based sexism.  I'm actually campaigning for Obama because he's a man.

      Of course, the same thing has been widely said about racist assumptions too.  Which really means, I guess, that I'm secretly going to cast my ballot for John McCain in the general.

      WHITE MAN POWER!!! BOOYAH!!!

      Get a life.

      My blog. Come visit.

      by hekebolos on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:43:15 PM PDT

      •  Rec'd for "Booyah!"

        by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:04:22 PM PDT

    •  i have a theory

      that i can't prove, but that people are cautious about hillary for legitimate reasons. They don't like her management style, she's only an above-average speaker, and they fear the continued Hillary vs VRWC fight that she will generate. (Not to mention the war vote)

      Those to me are legitimate reasons to not support her. I think what happens, though, is that the way those concerns bubble out is through a sexist lense. She's shrill, bitchy, whatever.

      Which would mean that we are sexist, but that she isn't losing due to sexism. If we had a female candidate with a different profile, her femaleness would be more of an asset.

      by SeanF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM PDT

      •  Well there will certainly be

        a fight with the GOP, but I have to say, Hillary made a great Senator (I have since moved), and I will back her if she gets the nomination.

        Meanwhile, I remain undecided: the PA primary is April 22.

        by Youffraita on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM PDT

      •  I hear what you're saying

        but Morgan does a great job of presenting the conundrum facing any female leader:  if she's strong she's a "bitch," if she's weak she's "just a girl."

        Or as she puts it, better:

        Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

        by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:59:34 PM PDT

        •  it may be that we're closer

          to accepting a black man than a woman for the WH. I dunno. I just think Hillary is a bad example to test that though, cuz of her built-in negatives. It becomes impossible to parse out anti-feminism vs. just not preferring Hillary with BO on the scene.

          I'll be happy when we have our nominee, so I know who I like!!

          by SeanF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM PDT

          •  But Morgan's point is that

            90 percent of her "built-in negatives" are BS themes that sexist Republicans have used to try to defeat a strong woman who threatened them.

            by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM PDT

            •  so any woman

              who achieves real power will be turned into that, and hillary is just an example. ok, i get that.

              disagree, and think hillary is a horrible case study for this argument. but i get ur point.

              by SeanF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM PDT

          •  I think it's close

            here's the thing, though: Obama has done a better job of being "not black" than Hillary has done of being "not a woman."

            In fact, he started out his campaign by not identifying as black, and there were certainly lots of words spilled over whether he was 'black enough,' whereas she has never not used gender as part of her campaign.

            That being said, there are some things that have been used against her and have worked against her because of her gender. Mention being bitchy, shrill, etc; those are sexist terms for some characteristics that many people applaud in women.

            She is accused of being too militaristic, but like any woman candidate, if she weren't she'd run the risk of being called 'soft.'

            It works both ways. And sexism, especially subtle sexism, is still more acceptable in our society than racism.

            by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:14:41 PM PDT

            •  Great point

              I completely agree that our society tolerates sexism more than racism.  Most people probably that Obama had a bigger hill to climb by being black than Hillary had by being a woman.  It's not playing out that way.

              by Fortschreitend on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:34:09 PM PDT

              •  But the hill he has had to climb so far

                is just the little molehill called the Democratic Party.

                If he wins, he'll be facing a great big mountain called the Right Wing, and that's where all the racists really are.

                by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM PDT

                •  Damned straight

                  and it's going to come from directions they're not even expecting.

                  Obama is a Muslim, you know, and he hates Israel.

                  You get the picture.

                  Their camp, and the rest of us, need to start defusing this now.

                  by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:13:48 PM PDT

      •  Every time I hear she's "shrill"

        that's a signal to me that folks just don't like to hear a powerful woman. imho, of course.

        And I disagree - if she had a different profile she wouldn't be a candidate. She would be something else.

        by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:59:36 PM PDT

        •  exactly

          if she had a different profile she wouldn't be a candidate. She would be something else.

          That's why I'd rather have a governor or someone be the first female candidate, rather than a former president's wife. It's not fair, but it's still always gonna be there.

          by SeanF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:09:01 PM PDT

          •  Completely misunderstood my point...

            strong women are never going to be "liked". Ever. Strong women who are ambition and want power will come off as "shrill", and "abrasive" and as "bitchy" as HRC does.

            Unless they do the whole Elizabeth I Virgin Queene thing, and turn themselves into their own icon (probably a long shot in American politics).

            by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:11:53 PM PDT

            •  "ambitious" sorry

              by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:12:16 PM PDT

            •  goes right to the title of the diary n/t

              by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:15:31 PM PDT

            •  ok, but

              this makes it impossible for hillary to lose for any reason other than sexism. Seems to me like a sexist argument, cuz it takes her humanity, her strengths and weaknesses out of the equation. It could be that she's great, but her attributes as a human being aren't lining up with the Zeitgeist quite right.

              p.s. I do think sexism is part of the mix, though. just not the whole enchilada.

              by SeanF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM PDT

              •  I disagree...

                ...it is her humanity and her gender which might actually help her win this thing.

                Women are, after all, the numerical majority in this country.

                But let's not be blind about the chance of any strong, powerful woman not being attacked for being "shrill", being "a bitch" and having jokes made about her that she's either an icequeen, a lesbian or both.

                Those arguments won't stop women for voting for her, or at least not most of us who've been around the block and back. It may stop some men from voting for her.

                But like I said - we're still the majority ;-)

                by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:34:46 PM PDT

            •  My professional experience bears this out.

              I am a woman who had amazing women mentors in my early professional life. And now I am an executive in my company and there are some amazing women and men who see my intelligence and experience and knowledge and respect me.

              There are also people, men, who tell me that when I disagree with them that I am being arrogant and trying to make a power play, I still don't even know what that means other than I disagree with that person and me being a woman and disagreeing is bad. I have been called a bitch for being a person of conviction, my bosses have called me weak and sided with the man who is calling me a bitch. One boss did tell the man who hates my authority to knock off the sexism and respect me and my report then made a complaint to HR about me, not the man that told him to knock it off, but to me, because I told him to knock it off first. There is sexism in my workplace.

              To balance this, I am still working there and there are some awesome men and women that respect me and my knowledge and authority. It is better now than it was 20 years ago. It is still not good enough. It also breaks my heart that the man that is being a jerk is a person that I once respected. He didn't like it when I  was promoted above him and became his boss.

              by Caoilainn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM PDT

    •  I supported Michelle Bachelet

      to the utmost when she ran for president of Chile.  I supported Cristina Fernandez wholeheartedly for president of Argentina.

      Margaret Thatcher I hated.

      It's not about gender.

      It's about politics.

      by litho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:55:18 PM PDT

•  Your poll sucks.

  It lumps together her Democratic and Republican opponents into "the opposition to Clinton". While it's true that the Republican opposition to Clinton, including their representatives in the media have engaged in sexist themes and smears, that is not true of Obama's campaign nor the other Dem candidates' campaigns.

  by ubertar on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:35:47 PM PDT

  •  I concur completely. n/t

    by jeff in nyc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:37:39 PM PDT

    •  You know, now I can

      see how you could read the poll that way.  I wish we could edit polls after feedback on them.  I would add another two sets of possibilities, which specified the REPUBLICAN opposition only as the source of the sexism.

      by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:40:30 PM PDT

      •  that wouldn't make sense...

        to allow editing of polls.  if you change it, you change what people are responding to, thus making it meaningless since some people will have responded to the original poll and others to the modified one.

        even if respondents could change their answers, there's no way to make sure the early responders ever see the poll after their initial responses.

        by TrollKing on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:47:46 PM PDT

        •  Yeah I know...

          Like, maybe there should be a ten-minute delay on the publication of your poll, or a period in which no votes would be counted where others could critique your poll and you could edit it.  Maybe in Kos 3.0!!!

          by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:49:23 PM PDT

  •  lumping together...

    It lumps together her Democratic and Republican opponents into "the opposition to Clinton".

    given the GOP talking points and freeper attacks I read daily here from Obama supporters, sometimes it's hard to tell the bloody difference.

    by YatPundit on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM PDT

•  I don't deny sexism has been rampant

  in this campaign, but some of these points are just baseless smears.

  so that it’s "cooler" to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

  This one, in particular pisses me off. The whole reason  I chose Obama over Clinton is because he does understand these. I don't think Clinton does. I think her aumf vote and Kyl/Lieberman votes are particularly damning. This is just a smear.

  by discocarp on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:39:55 PM PDT

  •  there seem to be a lot of hurt jealous

    feelings out there over Obama's celebrity. And they come out like that--smears.

    by SeanF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM PDT

    •  There's no denying his personality

      is amazing. Frankly it scares me a little (spoken as an Obama supporter). I think the mistake people make is assuming that's the quality we're all attracted to. Really, its just a nice bonus in his potential from my POV.

      by discocarp on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:58:27 PM PDT

      •  But here's the thing

        and I recognize it's totally off topic for the diary, but I was just talking to another friend who is like me and still mulling over her vote tomorrow.

        We can't figure out what Obama stands for, in specifics.

        I know that bugs many of you Obama supporters, but I've said it before and I'll say it again, both here and in real life, whenever I ask an Obama supporter why they support him, apart from personality, I never, and I mean never, get an answer.

        Believe me, I would love to be proven wrong on that. There's a part of me that would really like to support him, but it just hasn't hit me.

        by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:19:40 PM PDT

        •  The most common answer I get is

          either 1/ Hillary is all wrong or b/ he made his speech against the war.

          by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:27:23 PM PDT

        •  I keep seeing this objection.

          And I keep seeing it answered, completely and in great detail. The person voicing the objection generally says, "Oh." But then in the very next diary, sometimes in the very same comment thread, someone else pops up saying plaintively, yet again, "But I don't know what he stands for."

          As far as I can tell, in the definiteness of their policy positions there isn't any difference at all between Clinton and Obama. Not one iota. They've both been extremely specific on some questions, and, yes, a teensy bit vague in other places. This is pretty much normal procedure. There's nothing out of the ordinary happening with either of them.

          It's time to recognize that the whole "don't know what he stands for" meme is a media storyline. People pick it up by osmosis, I guess, and don't realize that it slipped unchallenged into their set of opinions when it should have set off their BS detectors.

          by Canadian Reader on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:40:00 PM PDT

          •  Not quite so.

            I've watched quite a few of the debates.  When she is asked a question, Hillary gets so wonky she can barely spit out all the acronyms.  She drills on in there and lets you know everything you didn't necessarily even want to know about the detailed plans she has for that issue.  Obama, in my experience, tends to talk in these debates about the process of politics, the kind of politics we need, and his ability to transform the process.

            Which seems to be a winning theme for him.  Of course you can go to his website and hers, and read the staff-prepared position papers.  But in person, in real life, she seems a lot more interested in detail than he.  And he even fessed up to it in that debate (Nevada?) when he talked about his lack of interest in details.

            by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:44:01 PM PDT

          •  But see, I do see differences in their policies

            and where there are differences, I tend to favor her, although not always.

            And there's the level of detail, where she wins hands down. Being someone who loves politics and policy as a spectator sport, I love that: she is a master at that game.

            So, maybe, if I'm really truthful with myself, maybe I am asking for an explanation of the ineffable: why he is so charismatic to people. It just hasn't hit me. Sorry.

            by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:48:45 PM PDT

            •  Some people are just swept away

              by Widespread Panic, or fusion jazz.  Neither style does anything for me.

              I keep thinking this too:  Obama plays the music very well, but it's just not a tune that speaks to me.

              by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:01:36 PM PDT

              •  I guess that puts it about as well

                as anything I've read.

                by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:11:12 PM PDT

              •  His style hasn't captivated me

                but I think it's because he'd adopted the So Baptist preacher cadence and that just gives me hives.  It's nothing personal, just a hold over from growing up in a evangelical church and just not over it yet.

                I'll happily vote for him in the GE.  Just don't ever make me listen to him give a SOTU.

                by DMiller on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:15:53 PM PDT

•  Sure...

  Robin Morgan is full of shit. Her essay (and I've noticed that you've left out some of the more offensive crap in it) is a long rant about why people who don't support Hillary can't be good feminists. That sentiment is offensive and counterproductive. The essay reads like a frat-boy parody of the worst excesses of second wave feminism.

  by Pd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:41:48 PM PDT

  •  I'm not really sure that

    "full of shit" constitutes any kind of effective argument.

    by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:43:09 PM PDT

    •  Eh...

      ... it's probably no less effective than Morgan's offensive anti-feminist ravings.

      Yeah, that essay really got to me. I'm very committed to the feminist movement and get testy when people make complete fools of themselves under the banner of feminism.

      The whole thing reads like bad parody.

      by Pd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:51:10 PM PDT

    •  "FOS" is not an argument, it is a conclusion.

      With which I agree.

      FYI, "FOS" = "full of shit"

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:02:46 PM PDT

  •  This line is particularly classy

    Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her.

    Implying that young women inspired by Obama are doing it to please their boyfriends? That's straight-up mysoganistic crap that discounts the lives and experiences of millions of young Obama voters are smart, independent, and committed feminists who represent the future of the movement.

    by Pd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:47:24 PM PDT

    •  some women do that

      it's not a pleasant mirror, but it is descriptive of some women.

      I voted for Obama, and I am comfortable with that as a woman. I don't see why you have to put words into Morgan's mouth.

      by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:59:29 PM PDT

      •  Yes, but if you read the whole essay...

        This particular statement is sandwiched between a line attacking Obama's resonance with the youth of America and one celebrating young women who identify with Hillary. It's very clear who she's referring to. I'm not putting words into her mouth.

        by Pd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM PDT

        •  I did read the whole essay

          and as a woman who voted for Obama, found nothing at all wrong with MY OWN actions or what Morgan was saying.

          In fact, I identify with Hillary, but still voted for Obama. I am capable of such complexities and Morgan would understand that, I feel sure.

          What Morgan is talking about IS the sexism that DOES exist, not sexism that can be somehow projected on someone for supporting a male over a female.

          by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:22:53 PM PDT

    •  I tolded my wife to vote fer Obamer or...

      she can sleep in the yard /s

      by demotarian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:10:04 PM PDT

      •  LOL

        she'd probably prefer that!

        by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM PDT

      •  Well, I told my husband

        if he didn't vote for Hillary, he'd have to sleep in the garage. With the raccoons.

        So there.

        Pfffbbbt.

        by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM PDT

        •  That's where I normerly sleeps anyhoo /s/nt

          by demotarian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:29:40 PM PDT

          •  Hubert? Did you register

            and not tell me?

            Shame on you.

            by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:31:35 PM PDT

            •  time for a beating.

              by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:37:15 PM PDT

              •  OH Goody!

                Time for the whips, time for the chains, time for the whips and cha-a-ains!

                by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:39:48 PM PDT

                •  lol

                  by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:43:12 PM PDT

                  •  O Reilly tomorrow night:

                    "The hate-filled site DailyKos, where admitted s&m freaks ply each other with sexual taunts while discussing their hatred for Hillary..."

                    by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:46:00 PM PDT

                    •  b-b-but

                      I don't hate Hillary!

                      How'll he deal with that?

                      by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:49:58 PM PDT

                      •  If it doesnt fit his Talking Points

                        he won't.

                        by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:51:57 PM PDT

    •  wait, wait

      she's not saying that women inspired by Obama are doing it to please their boyfriends.

      She's saying that they're avoiding Hillary Clinton to please their boyfriends.

      There is a significant difference there, one which in no way demeans the commitment of the people you describe.

      by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM PDT

  •  Robin Morgan

    has a long history of great writing and a huge reputation for pushing buttons. I, for one, am glad she's still out there pushing those buttons.

    I don't think she's FOS, but I don't agree with her on everything. You cannot deny that she makes you at least think about cultural assumptions.

    OTOH, as I said to someone in another diary the other day, I wish Molly Ivins were still around (for oh so many reasons) to take this on. And you know she would. There was no woman stronger than Molly Ivins, and she certainly had a very different opinion of Hillary Clinton.

    Unfortunately, there are few prominent voices out there to take her on. But I'd bet Robin Morgan would love to debate this.

    And I'd buy ringside seats.

    by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:25:53 PM PDT

•  I think that their has been sexist

  themes in this race but I don't think that they are a major factor. I think people are smarter than that.

  by Barrus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:45:23 PM PDT

•  Ouch!

  Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as "likeable" as they’ve been warned they must be,

  by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:46:26 PM PDT

•  More

  Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our "land of opportunity," it’s mostly the first pathway "in" permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.

  by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:47:25 PM PDT

  •  Not True

    Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (president of Liberia) was not a wife, daughter, etc of a great man of power.  She did not make it by her bed partner.  Also, don't forget the great Margaret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of UK0 (she did not get hers by her husband, father, either).

    Don't forget Shirley Franklin (Mayor of Atlanta), and Kim Campbell (former PM of Canada).  

    Please do not play these true women Pioneers small.

    by straightpol on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:59:09 PM PDT

    •  almost all.

      is what the woman said.

      And the point is that they aren't bad (or good) leaders because of it.

      by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:00:40 PM PDT

      •  Almost All

        is an over exaggeration of an inaccurate point.  Some women have, but the great majority of women, were truly strong-willed, women who had to make it by taking on major hurdles without the entitlement afforded being married to a dictator (Aquino,etc.) or wife of an ex president, of the daughter of a King. Overwhelmingly, Kay Baily Hutchins, Napolitano, Gregoire, Feinsten, Mukulski, Patty Murray, Norton, Shirley Chilsolm, Barbara Jordan, and Barbara Lee.

        So Almost all may not be indicative of the complete picture.

        by straightpol on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM PDT

        •  how many of those women are leaders of

          a country? THAT is what we are discussing here.

          (And frankly, it's pitiful that so few are in power in both houses....just an aside)

          by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:15:06 PM PDT

          •  Indeed, let's not forget that the initial reason

            for educating women in this country in the context of Republican motherhood was not to have them do anything other than be able to teach their children.

            Women becoming leaders of nations in a democratic setting, imo, has been harder than in hereditary monarchies because of entrenched sexism. Not saying impossible, but harder.

            by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM PDT

•  I'm a little confused

  If you don't support Hillary than you're sexist? Or being a woman is a major reason we should vote for Hillary?  If that were true, I guess I should have voted for Elizabeth Dole.

  by davidkc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:51:46 PM PDT

  •  nice way to reduce the essay

    please read it (the linked essay, not the diary). It's powerful.

    Robin's conclusion:

    Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly "uniter" with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

    As for the "woman thing"?

    Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

    I voted for Obama, but this is a really powerful pro-Hillary essay.

    by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:55:00 PM PDT

    •  Thanks, Coigue.

      I think so too, and I think even if Obama wins the nomination his supporters should be aware of the issues she raises.

      by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:01:44 PM PDT

    •  I think you are awesome for posting this comment.

      I really like both Obama and Clinton. I have decided to vote for Clinton tomorrow in a state that Obama will most likely take because I think that her Iraq plan is a lot more practical than Obama's although both of their plans leave me wanting more details. I made a choice. I respect everyone's choice and I respect the fact that there are other people out there that do see both sides of this thing that is looking like a schism in the Democratic party and are not just backing a candidate and the hell with the consequences. Thank you for that.

      by Caoilainn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:05:23 PM PDT

      •  Oh yeah. ... my decision was tough.

        It took lots of thought.

        Thanks.

        by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM PDT

        •  Well fine.

          I was not being sarcastic at all, and this comment is what you respond with? If you have an issue with me thinking that you are being objective about who you chose to support and not being sexist about it? I have nothing to respond to about that.

          Not all of us out here that vote have made an easy choice. I would hope that you would respect me like I respect you. I will still comment to people that I think make good comments, but you taught me a lesson. Me being genuine is apparently something to be snarked at. I won't thank you for that, but you did show me that what I will get snarked at. Good to know.

          by Caoilainn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM PDT

          •  I wasn't being sarcastic either

            Jeez....

            by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:25:50 PM PDT

            •  it's too easy

              not to be able to read the sense of comments. Especially when everyone's emotions are high, as they are right now.

              I got a lot out of the discussion from both you and Caoilainn. Thank you both.

              Peace.

              by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM PDT

              •  I certainly overreacted. Thank for your comment.

                No snark here. :)

                by Caoilainn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:41:12 PM PDT

            •  I apologize.

              It was the ellipses that made me think you were being snarky. I obviously don't know you and I messed up. I am sorry.

              by Caoilainn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:34:45 PM PDT

              •  No problem. I was actually

                really touched by your comment. (no snark or sarcasm)

                by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:36:18 PM PDT

          •  PS

            if you look to my comments history, you will see that I defend Hil all the time, and have just recently made my decision.

            by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:35:16 PM PDT

            •  again, I am sorry.

              I have known some people on other sites that use ellipses for sarcastic purposes and if you had posted your comment without them, I would have taken it at face value. You hit one of my irrational biases. I am very sorry.

              by Caoilainn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:39:11 PM PDT

              •  not irrational

                just cultural (as in web site culture) ;-).

                And damn! facial expressions don't translate well to the computer screen.

                I use this.....to emphasize.

                Sometimes for snark too, I guess.

                by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:42:23 PM PDT

                •  Now see guys?

                  That's how a couple of women solve a problem.

                  We need more of them in charge.

                  by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:47:32 PM PDT

                  •  Clinton/

                    Napolitano!

                    by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM PDT

                    •  Clinton/Obama

                      or Obama/Richardson

                      are my hopes.

                      One or the other, and I am good.

                      by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM PDT

                  •  stop.

                    i know you are being tongue and cheek, but woman can be just as stupid as men on problem solving.

                    by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:51:24 PM PDT

                    •  Trying to respond to that comment

                      is an absolutely unwinnable proposition.

                      by Kevvboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:53:08 PM PDT

                      •  lol

                        by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:54:30 PM PDT

                •  They really don't translate well at all!

                  I am glad we cleared this up because I did think your comment was amazing. And I also learned that most of the time people are genuine, good to know. The sarcastic people have made me a bit thick skinned, but obviously they had an impact. Lesson learned. Thank you.

                  by Caoilainn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:47:45 PM PDT

                  •  they are common here.

                    true

                    by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:49:27 PM PDT

  •  no support for Carol Mosely Braun either

    despite her incredible accomplishments.

    The New England Ivy League "radicals" apparently thought it appropriate to just wait for one of their own.

    by Stroszek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:04:20 PM PDT

•  Clearly, I have deeply held sexist beliefs

  that I never examine or realize. Even though I am a woman. and not the sort of person to bow down to petty prejudice. Nor can I hold a nuanced position, like that Hillary-hatred may have some roots in misogyny, but a goodly chunk of it is rooted in her actual actions, like voting for a war which destroyed the lives of the women it touched.

  No, no nuanced positions like that.

  Black and white and all-or-nothing has been good to us so far, hasn't it?

  by terra on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:51:47 PM PDT

  •  Do you find these examples obviously misogynist?

    Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s "thick ankles." Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, "Citizens United Not Timid" (check the capital letters). John McCain answering "How do we beat the bitch?" with "Excellent question!" Would he have dared reply similarly to "How do we beat the black bastard?" For shame.

    Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

    Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan "If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!" Shame.

    Goodbye to Comedy Central’s "Southpark" featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

    Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not "Clinton hating," not "Hillary hating." This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison.  Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

    by coigue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:56:40 PM PDT

    •  as if her husband wasn't a running joke, too?

      as if Barack won't be made fun of on the comedy shows when he's president?

      as to the more vicious stuff emanating from the right wing, well, one of the two of O'Reilly or Limbaugh had a tune on their show called "Barack the magical negro."

      There's a lot of crap in the media, but there's a lot of it to go around. Not one famous political figure is going to evade it.

      by terra on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM PDT