Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The Double Standard and the unbreakable glass ceiling in 08

By

Like Hillary or not. Be swept up by the Obama Express or not. Be duped by Mittphoney or not. Support McCain, Huckabee, Edwards, Thompson, Paul, Gulliani, Richardson or not, one thing that has emerged (brought to light for me from the follow up commentary from the Debate last weekend where Edwards was said to be passionate while Hillary was stern) is there is clearly one set of rules candidates are judged by for the men (regardless of race) and a different set for the woman. In a piece on a local news broadcast many women interviewed (who support Obama) said that well it just isn’t right for a woman (Hillary) to behave that way. See this U tube clip from last night and think if any of the men have this to deal with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

So much for the election of change.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. RealClearPolitics.com has posted the article from today’s NYT that echoes what many women already know to be true…worth the read…

    <

    p>NEW YORK TIMES Jan 8, 2008
    Op-Ed Contributor
    Women Are Never Front-Runners

    <

    p>By GLORIA STEINEM

    <

    p>THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father – in this race-conscious country, she is considered black – she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

    <

    p>Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

    <

    p>If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

    <

    p>That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

    <

    p>If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style – or Bill Clinton’s either – without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

    <

    p>So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

    <

    p>I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

    <

    p>I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

    <

    p>But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

    <

    p>What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

    <

    p>What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

    <

    p>What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old – for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, though Senator Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton – while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

    <

    p>What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

    <

    p>This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

    <

    p>Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.

    • that liberals continue to insist upon seeing every piece of the world through the lens of identity politics.

      <

      p>Seems to me that the only broad based racists and sexists (aside from the occasional boor) are those who continue to insist on judging peoples merit by their race and/or gender.

      <

      p>

      • Any one paying attention here knows that there’s a serious double standard for men and women in the public eye. To dismiss concern about this as “identity politics” is simply wrong.

    • But that is true on every country on earth, yet many other countries offer more opportunities for women, and have had more women in positions of political power, than we do here.

  2. in the media, and it’s not acceptable whether one prefers her as a candidate or not.  Keith Olbermann’s comments last night about Hillary’s “some of us are right, some of us are wrong” were wrong because Keith was illogical and he was definitely using a double standard.  If Hillary shows emotion in a campaign speech, it’s a perfectly valid way to campaign–theatre is always a big part of this.  Obama and Edwards are very theatrical themselves.  And when Keith says she can’t be a candidate to enact change because she’s been involved in Washington for 15 years, he’s illogical.  LBJ had been in Washington for longer, and was more powerful as a Senator than HRC, and he brought sweeping progressive change.

    <

    p>And that’s just Keith being a little stupid.  Others on NBC, like Chris Matthews, seem to be fountains of misogyny.

    • Olberman’s coverage last night really bothered me as well. It wasn’t nearly as bad as a Chris Matthews, but I expect much more from Keith.

  3. were plants of the Hillary campaign staff.  The Clinton’s will stop at nothing to regain power.

      • Would it be OK for a POTUS to shed a tear at a 911 memorial?  At Arlington?

        <

        p>Few if any want a wimp… but being moved to tears because of high emotions, whether positive or negative — well, Jimmy V taught me that it should be a part of every day.

      • I agree with Steinem’s analysis that America would be more likely to elect a black man than a woman of any hue.  I am a feminist who believes that women are as capable of leading as men.  I do not support Hillary Clinton for issue-based reasons.  I didn’t support her when she was supposedly the most electable and I don’t support her now.  I do think that crying or tearing up (what Hillary actually did) in public or in politics is acceptable.  What bothers me is when people only tear up when it’s about them.

    • The Clintons will stop at nothing unlike the modest and always fair Mr. Kenneth Blackwell of Ohio.

    • Imus may have been the one to call her Satan, but you felt the need to repeat it here and on RMG.  Why?  

      <

      p>And why was she the only candidate you singled out for personal ridicule?

      • Kucinich, plus he’s got a hot wife.

        <

        p>If I were to ridicule Obama I’d be called a racist, even if what I said wasn’t race based.

        <

        p>I have ridiculed John Edwards in the past for being a rich spoiled phony who says one thing and lives his life a completely different way, much like Al Gore.  They both rail against global warming and have the personal carbon footprint of a small third world nation.

        <

        p>Bill Richardson I respect even though I disagree with him. He’s an intelligent man.

        <

        p>On the Republican Side well let’s just say I practice the 11th commandment. Yes It’s partisan but well I do.

        • Hillary is the only one you reverted to kindergarten tactics on.  “Satan” isn’t quite as childish as “Shrillary” but both are hateful rather than funny, especially when repeated.

          <

          p>I think your comment on Kucinich’s wife speaks for itself.

          • You can’t deny that.  The only thing is that she is an Essex girl, and while I lurve me some Essex girls, it’s only a matter of time before she shows up at a rave wearing plastic stilettos and going after men closer to her age with more money. 😉

            <

            p>Then again, she could end up like Posh. 😀

          • The fact is, they were not as dumb as they appeared to be.  They were smart enough to conceive outrageous stunts, but stupid enough to pull them off.  And they (well, Mike Judge) came up with insightful remarks on musical trends.  I imagine that “Office Space” was more to your liking, but hey, you can’t win ’em all. 😉

        • I don’t buy your excuse about not ridiculing Obama, Eabo. Perhaps you aren’t creative enough ridicule Obama without it being construed as being race-based?  

  4. Glad the MSM noticed.

    <

    p>His platform addresses the root problem to women being able to achieve equal treatment and status in our society.  Economic injustice.

    <

    p>

    “Building One America means ensuring that women can make choices in their lives with dignity and can participate in our society fully, as equals. The reality of women’s lives today is still something far less. They are expected to do more, and they receive less. That’s not right.”

    — John Edwards

    • From Matt Stroller:

      <

      p>

      Several people have passed me this video of Clinton getting emotional about politics, with sneering comments.  The headline on the ABC News piece is ‘Can Clinton’s Emotions Get the Best of Her?’  When Edwards almost gets choked up and talks about how personal XYZ person is on the trail, he’s just passionate.  When Clinton does it, she suddenly becomes a hysterical weak woman.

      <

      p>Edwards’ response:

      <

      p>

      Edwards offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton’s ability to endure the stresses of the presidency.

      “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,” Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.

      <

      p>I’m with Stroller’s last line in his post.

        • I read first person statements by Edwards not Hillary bashing. The priorities of the candidates' policies are what I am scrutinizing. Wage inequality is the toxic underlying economic injustice in our society and an enormous contributor to child poverty and even more egregious economic injustice to women of color. Edwards is addressing these issues….fortunately it is changing the debate as Obama catches on. BTW, I'm fine with tears. I often tear-up when I think about our pathetic current president.

  5. Look, I like Clinton. I have supported her to this point. I think she would guide the country in a way closest to my desires.

    <

    p>I am concerned, however, that she is just not as “inviting” as the other candidates. I have frequently felt uneasy saying in a public situation, “I’m with Clinton.” I really do not know why. It was easier for me in 2004 to walk into a mixed Democratic setting and say, “I’m with Dean.” Love him or hate him, but I felt it was easy for other people to see why I supported him. With Clinton, I feel like Edwards and Barak present all the magnetism, and Clinton makes you connect with her on logic alone.

    <

    p>I hope this is not viewed as off-topic from the diary’s main point of sexism. I am not denying that as an issue in coverage of Hillary. Of course it is. But I also think Hillary legitimately needs to work on her vibe.

    • I’m not not with her… I’m leaning JE.

      <

      p>Please say you support Clinton with pride.  Be confident.  You’ve thought about it, and you’ve made an educated choice based on your priorities and life experiences.

      <

      p>Don’t let the VRWC taint her name.  She’s a good candidate, and you should not be the least bit ashamed of supporting her.

      • I am not trying to pump her up and show my Hillary pride. I am telling people how I feel about her, which is a mixed bag.

        <

        p>The position of “editing Will’s posts to show his real feelings” is not open at the moment, please do not apply.

    • Have actually put a bumper sticker on the car, which is a first.

      <

      p>And it is for logic alone, as I don’t trust the magnetism.  While I would like to think that Obama transcends identity politics, and can move us beyond the what-did-you-do-in-1968 culture war, I don’t actually have a lot of confidence that he can pull it off when the race gets nasty during the summer.

      <

      p>I don’t want hope or a dramtic change to our grassroots blah, blah blah.  I would like for the next President to hit the ground running (rather than spending 9 months overwhelmed) and to (i) not mess things up, and (ii) put out fires where possible, (iii) mend fences where necessary, and (iv) not mess things up.  This is right in Clinton’s wheelhouse.

      <

      p>To the extent that the nominee is not Clinton, and tries to pretend, like Edwards, that the major issue is “corporate greed” rather than implementing a sensible and sane security policy (and re-establishing diplomatic relations with the entire world), then I will be in a dilemma come November.

      • you’re using a common viewpoint for Deval Patrick’s first year in the corner office to shape your choice.

        <

        p>Interesting.  [and from me, judgment free]

        • I think Deval has immunized me to the togetherness and hope thing.

          <

          p>For elected officials of the executive branch, the first 100 days is the most important of the entire four-year term.  In it the official can capitalize on the momentum from the election, or lose it.  Things are then accomplished for the first year and a half, then there is a year of maintenance, and then there is campaign time.

          <

          p>Deval was so inexperieced that he blew the momentum, and now it is gone, and isn’t coming back.  We don’t need a President that is overwhelmed by events from 2009-2010, we need someone to hit the ground running.

          <

          p>The “Now what?” phenomenon sank the Carter administration, and nearly (but for foolish tactics by Gingrich 1994-96, and Clinton’s own skill at playing defense) sank Clinton.  Of all of the candidates, I think HRC is the least likely to start out by tripping over her own feet.

      • …you don’t think that ever-widening inequality in income and wealth, ever-decreasing class mobility, and a political system awash in mind-boggling quantities of money, are serious problems?  I’d argue that their long-term consequences are potentially much more dire than any other issue facing us, with the possible exception of global warming (about which, of course, I doubt much can be done unless we can establish a less dysfunctional democracy in the first place).

        • No.

          <

          p>Ever widening income and wealth– goes in cycles.  I would prefer politics based on something other than envy and malicious class warfare.  Leave that stuff to Europe.

          <

          p>Ever-decreasing class mobility?  Something for the Marxist sociology professors to rail about, along with the neo-Huey Long set presently running around in New Hampshire. Pretty clearly contradicted by my own family and that of every single family that lives on our street.  The formula is simple: work hard, get an education, and don’t make stupid choices, such as getting married or pregnant before you’re ready, along the way.  People who make the effort to improve their own lot and that of their children generally do, and those who want a politician or government to do it for them, don’t.

          <

          p>Money in politics?  I’d be more concerned about this if I weren’t convinced that every solution to it is unconstitutional.  I’d eliminate all restrictions, and require disclosure.

          <

          p>As far as I am concerned. the single greatest task of the new President is to devise a sane, long term, sustainable strategy for confronting the jihadist threat in a manner that doesn’t sacrafice our own liberties.  Bush is right that this is a priority, but has not come up with a sensible or sane solution to the problem.  Implicit in this task is to find a way to un-isolate us in international affairs, to mend some fences where appropriate.

          • “envy and malicious class warfare,” the swipe at Europe, “Marxist sociology professors … rail[ing],” “neo-Huey Long set”…

            <

            p>I apologize.  I made the mistake of assuming you were arguing in good faith.

            • Because anyone that thinks that John Edwards’ smarmy schtick does not reflect the priorities for the new President is acting in bad faith.

              • Anyone who rattles off a list of trigger words like “class warfare” and “Marxism” (not to mention “the jihadist threat” and the standard Horatio Alger song and dance) is arguing (please note that I did not in fact say “acting”; I have no doubt that in general you do act in good faith, and indeed most of the time on BMG you appear to argue in good faith as well — but here, no) in as bad faith as Jonah Goldberg.

                <

                p>If you want to provide substantive arguments for your position that security policy and international relations are more important than fighting corruption and inequality (I certainly think your priorities are important, I just disagree that they’re most important), I would welcome them.  But if all you’ve got is “yeah, well you’re a commie!” then I’ll leave this discussion where it lies.

          • What exactly makes you think that? I know some people like to argue that giving a candidate counts as a speech act protected by the first amendment, but by that logic giving money to anyone for any reason should also be protected, and that would  destroy the entire basis of our tax system.

            <

            p>Even if you thought the Constitution would prevent us from fixing the problem, then it can be amended. There are plenty of people who are eager to propose amendments for frivolous reasons such as “protecting the flag”. Why not amend it to fix our political system?

            <

            p>In the end, our system does not get fixed because those who have the power to do so don’t want it to be fixed. I am not sure what we can do about that.

            <

            p>  

            • What exactly makes you think that? I know some people like to argue that giving a candidate counts as a speech act protected by the first amendment, but by that logic giving money to anyone for any reason should also be protected, and that would  destroy the entire basis of our tax system.

              <

              p>It was unconstitutional to tax income at one point in time.  

              • It still is unconstitutional to tax income ,,, doesnt stop it from happening though … I got my brandy new tax booklet from the internal revenue SERVICE this morning …. nice portrait of Lady Liberty on the cover, lighting the way to all the fun filled forms and tax tables inside ..
                Three cheers for the constitution.

              • Well, maybe it still is for wages.  “Income” is interest and capital gains, whereas wages are a net zero gain, money comes “in”, but an exactly equal amount of labor goes “out”, because it is a trade.  But interest and capital gains are not a trade, there is nothing going out, so it is just income.

                • Just remember that it’s the Court that interprets the constitution, and the Court has found time after time that the income tax is, despite the wack jobs tax protesters’ arguments, constitutional.

                • The ammendment that the court claims to explore was never actualy ratified by the required number of states.

                • So, you’re right and Courts are wrong with respect to the “the 16th amendment wasn’t ratified” argument, an argument that started from a book called “the Law that Never was”.  The argument is the equivalent of a “spelling flame” on the internet.  i.e. you spelled a word wrong therefore you’re wrong.

                  <

                  p>Here’s a good refutation of your particular argument from the 7th circuit, in US v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):

                  <

                  p>

                  [in The Law That Never Was (1985), Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

                  Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

                  “Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and–taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems–advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

                  “Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”

                • Next time you file any paperwork with the courts, assesors office whatever beourocracy …
                  there is no need whatsoever to be careful with format, spelling, whatever as you can rest assured that you will  be easily able to explain away discrepancies as unintentional and certainly your petition will move forward unimpeded.

                • Unless you actualy enjoy paying an income tax on your labor then what is so wrong about using a valid technicality? Do you for a second believe that any government agency would hesitate to do the same….
                  This is the flipping Constitution of the United States and when the powers that be choose to deface it by placing unintended burdons on the populace than one might think that they would at least take the time to get the format and spelling correct.

                • If you can convince the jury that you didn’t break any laws, they also regularly set people free.  That Alan Russo movie makes a stink about lower courts not following Supreme Court rulings.  Are courts not bound to follow Supreme court rulings, or is he just doing his own interpretation of those rulings?

            • Which is the goal of most “campaign finance reform” is, in my view, a rather clear violation of the 1st Amendment.  The most obvious means of supporting a political party, candidate, or cause that is available to everyone is through donations.  Restricting donations is a means of restricting that advocacy.  I vote for lots of disclosures, but no restrictions.

              <

              p>The pro- “reform” argument always seems to confuse the right to free speech with a non-existent right to be heard.

  6. I think this was a ploy by Clinton, frankly. And, if it wasn’t a ploy, my advice is to suck it up or get out of this business.

    <

    p>Over at another posting board, a person asked people to reverse genders and think about what would happen if Obama or Edwards had gotten all teary-eyed with a similar question. Think of what would happen to them for a moment.

    <

    p>Let’s say Obama or Edwards choked up about that. Not because of something moving that he heard on the stump, like Edwards talking to the medical industrial complex victims, but because oh what she said: Paraphrasing, it so hard, it’s politics, the nasty things they say about me, why won’t people let me save the country, I’m passionate about these things and everyone is hard on me, putting me through the rigors of a campaign instead of coronating me, holding back tears … Obama and Edwards would be LAUGHED out of the campaign. Think about that for just a second.

    <

    p>I think that is a pretty accurate assessment of what would happen to those candidates. I don’t think it is a gender thing at all. It’s a gender thing that they aren’t pummeling her for choking up. The media seem to be fawning all over her.  

    • Call me cynical, but the crying moment seemed just a little too staged. Especially after being plastered across the news all day. A good campaign answer to those people who feel that she’s not “human” enough.

      <

      p>Look, I respect Clinton for the work she has done, but I have not supported her from day one for the simple reason that she could not beat the GOP in the general election. Living in several parts of the country I feel like I’ve been able to get a pretty good feel about how people react to her. Also, her performance in debates have left something to be desired in my opinion.

      <

      p>And with Romney now switching gears and playing the “change” card, the above statement is even more true.

    • right after he tells us how hard he will fight for the middle class…after he injects a heartening story about one cripple or another that he helped save…they don’t call him weak, he’s compassionate and passionate, right?

      <

      p>pah-leeze…all men cry (for a reason).

    • Romeny cried three time sin the last few weeks…yet, where’s the lights, camera, and action that followed the miniscule show of emotion that Hilary showed?  

      <

      p>This whole thing is ridiculous.  The woman won the damn primary.  Suck it up and try to beat her in Michigan.  Personally, I was with John Edwards until this cheap ass crap started.  All of a sudden…this long-time, former elected city official decided….to vote for Hilary.  I suspect that I am not alone.

      <

      p>Nothing like energizing the “base” by picking baseless fights…so keep it up, boy wonder.  It the Pats can use “disrespect” for bulletin board material…so can we.  

  7. *I don’t care what pundits think or say, Hillary’s best moment during this entire campaign was yesterday, when she got weak in the voice talking about how her biggest concern in this race is that America is going in the wrong direction and she just hoped she would get a chance to change it. Pundits may have pounced on that, but it not only shows that she cares, it shows exactly what she cares about. I learned something that I didn’t know before – to Hillary, this isn’t just about becoming President, she really does want to make America better.

    <

    p>I’m still supporting Edwards because I don’t think Hillary has the right vision for this country, but if she does come back to beat Obama, I’ll definately be excited for a Hillary campaign.

    <

    p>*I used to talk a lot about how one of the biggest reasons why women lag behind men in elected positions is because of incumbency. Many men are still around from when the country was far more sexist and the divides between men and women were greater. I still say that’s mainly true, at least at the US legislative level – and would point to a whole host of women who have been successful in open seats, facing male opposition, winning upwards of 50% of the open races.

    <

    p>That said, I’m modifying my theory: there’s an exception for the office of President. It really does appear that many Americans, including women, want a “macho” President. Or at least the punditry thinks that’s what a majority of the country wants. People and pundits may largely overlook the gender stereotypes when it comes to the legislature – or even find them boon – it clearly isn’t the case for POTUS. What I took as an incredibly geniune and awesome moment for Hillary, pundits are quick to label as a weakness. It’s sexist and should be condemned by all. That said, it’s my hope and belief that most Americans will view that Hillary moment as I have: one that’s entirely endearing and shows that Hillary really does care about what happens to Americans.

  9. It’s particularly difficult for a woman to become POTUS because the President is commander-in-chief in a country that defines itself (to a significant extent)as a military power.  That sets us apart from most other countries.

    <

    p>Hillary Clinton has handled that issue with considerable success, but has run into another impediment: a woman candidate must “prove herself” to an extent that may actually prove detrimental to her chances.  Her appeals to her experience undercut her claims as a change agent, remind voters of her reliance on her husband, and sound like “entitlement.”

    <

    p>I also suspect that the unbelievable incompetence of the Democratic congressional leadership over the past 18 months has done huge damage to the prospects of Democratic presidential candidates by making “change” a bipartisan issue.  Obama has escaped to some extent because (like Deval Patrick in 2006) he is obviously differentiated from the “insiders,” and Edwards wasn’t there, but Clinton is bearing the brunt.    

  10. I have to say that I’m not a big Hillary Clinton fan (and I’m not actually impressed with any of them – I want Al Gore to run), but after seeing much of the reaction to her by the press and the condescending tone from the press and other candidates (like she’s the little girl at the big boys table and isn’t that cute as long as you sit there and shut up).  I have to say that I’m starting to think it’s about time for a real change – like a woman President.  While I don’t agree it’s her – I’m (sadly) thinking of going that route anyway.

  11. I do hope to one day cast a ballot for a female presidential candidate, but only want to cast a ballot for a female presidential candidate that I respect and trust on the issues and whom I would gladly like to see in the White House. For a variety of reasons that I have stated elsewhere for me, Hillary Clinton is not and never will be that candidate.

    <

    p>But Hillary Clinton and her surrogate Gloria Steinmen are asking us to overlook Clintons various faults and merely elect her because she is a qualified women. Obama has never been dismissed as an angry, black candidate like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton because he has moved beyond identity politics and has established a transforming and unifying politics of hope and cooperation. A female candidate that can do this will win, and clearly voters in Iowa and soon voters in New Hampshire will demonstrate why Hillary Clinton is not that candidate.  

  12. And they would laugh everytime I said “America will elect a black man before they will elect a woman of any race.”

    <

    p>It’s just never enough for these bigots.  Hillary built a reputation and an image as a tough, no-nonsense woman.  She didn’t even wear skirts, she was so tough and (manly).  She didn’t showcase her progeny, she voted for war, she supported war and still does against all reason.  Hillary toured upstate New York and made common cause with men and women all over the place.  She sneered at Laura Bush as a woman who bakes cookies.  Hillary was a career lady, and accomplished career lady, who played as rough as any of the men.  Hillary conceived and built a public face of granite.

    <

    p>And the second she chokes up, all the overgrown Lil Rascals pour out of their clubhouse screaming “sheeeeeeeeeee’sss a geeeerrrrrllll! Ewwwwwwww!!”  Pathetic.

      • When Romney teared up I thought it made him seem far less Stepford and much more human…( when he teared up the second day after that, i still thought it was okay, I will admit the thrid day in a row made me a little suspicious, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.)

        <

        p>There are big problems, there are tragic situations confronting us, heartaching stories…any politician that is so cold that they NEVER feel a lump in their throat or a mist in their eyes is just a bit too “tv perfect” for me….Republican or Democrat, male or female…there is plenty to cry about in 2008.

      • So, if he got misty-eyed decades ago when he heard about a concrete step forward to recognize the personhood of African American people, why didn’t he have similar emotions when Massachusetts recognized the personhood of gay people?  Because I recall him trying to overturn the decision to legalize marriage for gay couples.  Mitt may want to defend the members of the LDS Church from bigotry, but I don’t think he wants to defend other people from bigotry.  Especially not secular people.

        <

        p>I can believe that Hillary Clinton is near the point of exhaustion right now.  All of them must be.  The only candidate who might not be exhausted is Grandpa Fred because he’s not really clocking in the hours like the other candidates are.

        • my guess would be that the difference between “personhood” in terms of equal treatment for individuals might vary when you are talking about equal treatment for multiple people banded together.  

          <

          p>For example, how can you possibly support gay marriage if you don’t also support polygamy and perhaps also incestuous marriage?

          <

          p>

Archives