The gender elephant

The issues of experience and race and "working class" (I mean, don't we all "work"?) have obscured the real elephant in the room, and that is gender. Until gender issues are addressed, the Clintons will continue to exploit them, and the danger of fragmenting the party will persist.

In some not-so-obscure ways, HRC represents the plight of literally millions of American women, who have sacrificed careers for family, who have bumped up against the glass ceiling, whose husbands have cheated on them, who have seen male bombast and "charisma" trump thoughtfulness, consensus building, and loyality.

She is an icon, not a person.

MORE

And what does Barack Obama represent to these women? more charisma, less experience, and possibly racial stereotypes of useless "sports", misogynist rappers, missing fathers....

Hillary Clinton is a symbol, an icon to many women, and her flaws matter little, because this isn't about Hillary Clinton. This isn't about Michigan, or Florida, or 3 am. This is about gender, not about the candidate.

The sooner Obama addresses this issue, the better off we'll all be. And I think he will, because he is a very smart man, and an exceptional person. It almost goes without saying that he must select a woman as his running mate. The idea that Bill Richardson or some other man can help capture some border state is dwarfed by the influence of gender on this race.

Hillary can't be that running mate, unfortunately. That is water under the bridge, and anyone with a grain of sense knows it. In a weird way, hubby Bill has "screwed" her again.

Obama supporters should recognize the problem, stop lambasting Hillary, and start taking positive steps to heal.

This means you.

update: Armando/BTD at Talk Left nails it, by linking to this pathetic post.

•  tips/incoming n/t

  by seesdifferent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM PDT

  •  This has never been about women...

    it has been about a woman seeking power, trying to drum up votes by appealing to the desire for a female president.

    Give me a leader...if she happens to be female, so be it.

    But, don't try to tell me that I have to accept a woman who is not a leader, just because we have not had one before.

    by David Kroning on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM PDT

•  as a feminist, i reject your premise wholesale.

  feminism isn't about women-no-matter-what; it's about aligning with other like-minded people of both genders to effect gender equality.

  this diary insults women and their choices - and frankly, HRC has failed to dominate the female vote in any significant way until you surpass the age of 60.

  by jj24 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:55:19 AM PDT

  •  Thank you - EXACTLY

    Feminism sets out to remind us that we are individuals, with individual identities. We're not all alike.

    As a lifelong feminist, I have been outraged at Clinton's horrible campaign and the false claims of misogyny. Posts like this set us back. She is not a symbol. Some women like her and some don't, and that's that.

    by BetterTogether on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:00:25 AM PDT

    •  Feminists ought to be ashamed of Ferraro/Clinton

      by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:11 AM PDT

  •  Hillary has never been about feminism

    She's been about victimhood and the grit to overcome it.

    That isn't feminist at all. It's a 12 step program for battered spouses.

    by Glinda on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:08:59 AM PDT

    •  Hillary has been about Nepotism not feminism.

      She is where she is only because of whom she married.

      And we can say much the same about McCain and his sugary baby who has supported his career.

      by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:15:09 AM PDT

    •  and HRC one of its unrecovered examples.

      by jj24 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM PDT

  •  I agree, I have been a strong feminist when it

    wasn't cool.  I don't assess men or women on their reproductive equipment but rather how well-suited they are to the job at hand.

    The women who supposedly are going off on some pity party because Hillary is losing the primary are not true feminists.  They are all about getting even for everything they think has been done to them over time - they are bitter dead-enders, even more so if they actually are entertaining the idea of voting for McCain in retaliation.  Smart, real smart.

    If they were the strong women they like to think they are they would suck it up, go on to the next challenge and learn from the mistakes of following a woman who doesn't have what it takes to win even though she has had a massive advantage from the get go over her opponent.

    Like Obama said, the chances of a black man with his name running for president is a true testament to the power of this country when the people engage.

    Hillary is like Paris Hilton.  She has had all the advantage over time building name recognition, having her husband precede her as governor and then president, and now a well-thought-of former president, but she herself has managed to become a bad joke.  She has lied and conived to the point she simply has a credibility problem.  Now, as she continues this pointless campaign, she reinforces the meme that she has lost all sense of propriety and good sense.

    by importer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:24:31 AM PDT

    •  Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas: Great feminists?

      McCain says those are the sort of judges he will appoint.

      by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:26:27 AM PDT

      •  it's hard to take that argument seriously

        when HRC is pandering to the same base who approves of those judges.

        by jj24 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:33:56 AM PDT

        •  The "feminists" threatening vote for McCain will

          set back feminism by a whole generation, if they win. Luckily McCain will lose because Obama is too brilliant a candidate.

          by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:43 AM PDT

          •  all five of them.

            by jj24 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM PDT

            •  lol

              by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM PDT

  •  I respect your opinion

    but I disagree.

    by seesdifferent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:27:31 AM PDT

    •  what - that it's all about the vagina?

      please.

      by jj24 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:33:05 AM PDT

•  No reconciliation while she's being racist

  And no Vice-Presidency given her having been racist.

  We start there.  Now, your suggestions about reconciliation are welcome.  I'm happy for Obama to spend a week going around fundraising for her in July while they retire her debt.  That is a concession.

  (P.S. Is the gender elephant like the tooth fairy?)

  by Seneca Doane on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM PDT

  •  I've rarely seen so many people here agreeing on

    this point.  I am very happy to see this.

    by David Kroning on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM PDT

    •  The Senator from the Great State of Denial

      Soon to be Anger, Resentment, Regret and finally acceptance.

      by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:11:09 AM PDT

      •  Those changing goal posts

        Bargaining.  Big time.

        by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM PDT

        •  She is in the State of Incoherence today

          In the radio interview (where she quoted the AP story on white supporters) Clinton sounded confused, hesitant. Could she have been ashamed of what she is saying? Does she in fact have some sense of shame?

          by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:24:13 AM PDT

  •  it's not about her anymore

    its about reconciliation with her supporters.

    by seesdifferent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:28:18 AM PDT

    •  For Sen. Clinton it IS all about her. Sensible

      Clinton supporters are already returning to the fold.

      by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:44:56 AM PDT

    •  Her supporters are going to have to take stock

      of what they care about: their feeling of being slighted, or everything they profess to care about, from the Supreme Court on.

      I'd consider Ted Strickland for VP, though, bobbing head and all.

      by Seneca Doane on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM PDT

•  Experience? She's Lost Her 3rd-Ever Campaign

  She's still learning how to talk in public in her own voice.

  Watching a lot of important things up close for years is not the same thing as doing them for yourself.

  by Gooserock on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM PDT

•  Hillary is not an icon. She is a real person.

  A lying person. A racist person. A delusional person. A person out to destroy the democratic party.

  After she concedes she can be an icon. If she doesn't say nonsense like Ferraro and be more like Elizabeth Edwards.

  by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:58:44 AM PDT

•  Is "elephant" a dig

  at Hillary's posterior?

  /I kid

  by Gator1980 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:46 AM PDT

  •  No its a reference to a closet Republican

    by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM PDT

  •  not helpful imho n/t

    by seesdifferent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:28:46 AM PDT

•  The worst divisions that keeps us most apart is

  economic divisions, not gender or even race.  Those are the coverups for class divisions.  While is am sympathetic to the completely unfair and rediculous discrimination displayed toward women, as a woman, I fight for the rights 'people' and for better treatment for everyone, not just women and girls.  With resource wars and nuclear weapons threatening society, I worry about us all.  Every one of us is precious.  (Plus, IMO, the non-elite men in this country have almost as big a deck stacked against them as any woman.)

  by Silverbird on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM PDT

  •  Agree totally with you.

    by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM PDT

  •  better treatment

    Here's the elephant you seek:

    Gender equality is a major dimension of human development. In many societies, impoverishment is deeper in female-headed households and among women, particularly older women. Women also often have fewer economic and political opportunities to improve their well-being and that of their families.

    http://www.undp.org/...

    when you improve the plight of "women and girls" around the world everyone benefits.  

    it is disengenuous to diesregard this aspect of the world wide condition in an effort to be "fair".

    by educonfidential on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:25:39 AM PDT

    •  Earth in the Balance

      In his terrific book, Al Gore addressed the issue of overpopulation.  Said education for women correlates very closely with reduced birth rates.  He argues, and it makes sense, that education for women is the most direct path to addressing population issues.

      by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:33:40 AM PDT

      •  it makes sense

        and studies prove it.
        as the condition of women improve the health of the planet and chances for everyone improves.

        by educonfidential on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM PDT

•  I agree with you

  A large number of the women who have been the most passionate about Hillary seem to have that victim thing down pat.

  by Glinda on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:11:00 AM PDT

  •  It would be patronizing not to treat Sen. Clinton

    like the tough opponent she is politically. Why not ridicule her as we would any other delusional loser who doesn't know when the game is up?

    by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:13:05 AM PDT

  •  this is

    extremely funny:

    victim thing

    by educonfidential on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

•  Hillary reminds me of...

  ... a gambler who is losing.  But obsessively keeps going back to the table for one more try.  Perhaps some similarity between the two narratives.  But I think I'll stick with the gambler one.

  by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:56 AM PDT

•  This is tragic....

  You write: HRC represents the plight of literally millions of American women, who have sacrificed careers for family, who have bumped up against the glass ceiling, whose husbands have cheated on them, who have seen male bombast and "charisma" trump thoughtfulness, consensus building, and loyality.

  I'm a middle aged woman, working class, living in a state that went for Sen. Clinton; I fall precisely in the demographic that she claims for herself, BUT I do not get it.  You emphasize 'thoughtfulness, consensus building, loyalty' none of which is apparent to me in Senator Clinton.

  Consensus building? Every campaign speech is about what "I will do for you, I will fight for you, I know how to get things done..."  That's not a consensus, but a party of ONE.

  Thoughtfulness? Who is she thinking of? NOt the party. NOt women like me. And not our country.

  Loyalty? To What? To whom? Certainly not to the good of the Democratic Party. And certainly not to me. She doe not speak for me.

  She embodies the old style of leadership, which is hierarchical, top-down, masculine decision making, which proclaims: "I know best for you."
  Which is NOT feminist.  Just because she claims to be feminist doesn't mean she 'gets' it. She can't 'talk the talk,' nor 'walk the walk.'  
  That is why so often she is characterized as being
  masculine: she is using the typical masculine role as her image for her campaign.

  This is not a gender issue. This is a character issue. I would be proud to vote for the first woman president. But Senator Clinton is making it very difficult for thinking women to follow her.

  She had several opportunities to show us how 'thoughtful,' and how 'loyal' she was.

  At the first debate with SEnator Obama, at the end, she made a point to say: "I am so proud to be here with SEnator Obama..." and then she went on to assure us that 'no matter what happens, we will be all right.' She got a standing ovation because she revealed that she saw the greater good in what was occurring in this election. She almost had me! But the next day, she was campaigning hard, saying: "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" And I thought: What's going on? She's a different person!
  Where's the thoughtfulness?

  She could have had me if she'd have stood up in the midst of the Rev. Jeremiah WRight controversy, she could have said: "Bill and I know Rev. Wright.. he's very outspoken, and we don't always agree with him, and his words have nothing to do with SEn. Obama's candidacy, so this has got to stop!"
  She said nothing, but "I would have walked out of that church." And fed the fires. Loyalty?

  Icon? Please. An 'icon' is perfection. An 'icon' is an idol that is worshiped. I certainly see nothing worthy of worship. I don't worship Senator Obama, but he admitted he was a 'flawed messenger.' I don't hear Senator Clinton admitting to any weaknesses. Is that a gender issue also?
  No, more likely an issue of ego.

  And please do not accuse me of 'bashing' Sen.Clinton. There is far too much hypersensitivity in regard to any criticism of her. I did not call her names. I did not blot her out by being sexist.

  I think its time to open your eyes, and truly see the situation as it is. This overweening, pandering loyalty will not assure the Democratic party a victory in the fall. There is too much at stake.

  by noel711 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM PDT

  •  Well put noel711.

    by organicdemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

  •  I think

    what the diarist meant by the quote you highlighted is that they refer to these qualities in their own life/experience and not necessarily that they see them in Sen. Clinton.
    When you change how you look at it, from the voter's perspective and not whether you find those qualities in Clinton perhaps you can see the point.
    It is less of a defense of Clinton than a defense/perspective from a particular shared experience among voters.  
    and defense might not even be the right word....just pointing out a possible perspective on a situation

    by educonfidential on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:42 AM PDT