Longform Links - Gender & Privilege, Whiteness at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture

Longform Links - Gender & Privilege, Whiteness

The sexism/racism comment is hokum, and has been roundly dismissed as such, but there is something deeper here. Why the hell was Hillary Clinton, and many of her allies, “shocked” by the sexism she encountered? I’ve been wondering this for months. I mean think about: Nobody black is “shocked” that Clinton won West Virgina and Kentucky 2 to 1. Nobody black is “shocked” that there is a Curious George tee-shirt of Obama. Nobody black is shocked that a Kentucky Congressman called Barack Obama “boy.” Black people can’t afford to be shocked. If anything we’re shocked Obama won Iowa, Oregon and Idaho. In other words, we’re shocked that America is evidently less racist than we thought it was.

I think this reflects how gender interacts with privilege–and arguably white privilege. No black woman who has to walk down Lenox Ave. and endure the cat-calls, who has to deal with the latest ho-slapping Snoop single, who has to function in a culture where “pimp” is now a postive word, is “shocked” by sexism.

Tim Wise for LiP Magazine - Your Whiteness Is Showing

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama’s defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama’s sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women…

Your whiteness is showing.

When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point–the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny–you couldn’t be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation–the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity–you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what’s worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.

If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women–you know, the ones who aren’t white like you and most of your friends–but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here’s the first question: What the hell is that about?

And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please…

Misplaced Baggage - Got War?

To be made an orphan by the war on the Vietnamese, allowed a segment of the American population to take pity on my predicament. In my mind, the predicament is really this: how does one bring in and raise a child of the enemy? What sort of mental calculations had to be made to account for the fact that these people who brought me into their community to live and become a citizen among them were the same ones who did nothing to end their government’s willful killing off of my countrymen and women?

Well, I think I can offer one educated guess as to how they accomplished this feat: They gave me a second chance. And, I could take it or leave it. My survival, my well-being and my happiness were placed squarely on my shoulders.

My family, my community and the people of the United States could then sit back and pat themselves on the back that at least one good thing came out of that war: I was alive due to their charity.

Now, all I had to do was forgive and forget.

Trackbacks & Pings

season of the bitch » The Saturday Morning Links Edition on 14 Jun 2008 at 10:33 am

[…] Linking to Racialicious’s links. but they’re good. So read […]
A Quick Guide to Government Graft at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 18 Jun 2008 at 8:17 am

[…] of government, so we citizens can hold our elected officials accountable. As I found out in this thread, there is a gulf of difference in between how government is presented and how things actually work. […]
Three Things That Probably Only Go Together in my Mixed-up Head « Off Our Pedestals on 24 Jun 2008 at 2:18 pm

[…] start with the Tim Wise article Joan discussed. I had a different initial reaction when I saw it excerpted at Racialicious: I thought, “Damn, he gets to say it and I […]

Comments

Renee wrote:

These HRC feminists don’t actually want solidarity with WOC, what they desire is to have the same kind of power that white males do. They wish equality with white males so that they can oppress others…POC are only the tools to be used to achieve that equality.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 10:10 am ¶
Ejunco wrote:

Agree

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 10:51 am ¶
dnA wrote:

All due respect to Ta-Nehisi, but I don’t think Clinton was actually “shocked” at the sexism, I think she was just saying that so it wouldn’t seem like she was a self-defeatist whiner, which is how the media treats anyone who complains about discrimination. Unless they’re a white man.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 11:36 am ¶
Tiffany wrote:

“what they desire is to have the same kind of power that white males do. They wish equality with white males so that they can oppress others”

I 100% agree with Renee

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 12:03 pm ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:

I have wondered, myself, why feminists are expressing such shock at the sexism that Clinton experienced in the media. I understood their anger, but not their wounded surprise. Haven’t they learned to expect prejudice the way that I have? Ta-Nehisi Coates’ piece provides a framework for me to understand this reaction.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:

Renee,

I would at that it’s not equality they’re after. It’s entitlement and if that comes at the exclusion of women and groups they don’t deem to be on their level then so be it.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 3:16 pm ¶
juju wrote:

@Renee

That pretty well sums up much of mainstream feminism.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 3:53 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

I don’t think feminists are shocked at all. They just say they are because that’s the appropriate media-friendly response.

If they didn’t say they were shocked, that would mean that either a) they’re not surprised because they hate men and they’re cynical about the world - which might be true but is bad for PR, or b) it’s okay, that’s just what was expected and life proceeds as normal - which is kind of like excusing it.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 4:14 pm ¶
shah8 wrote:

I really liked the second post, but all three links are truly excellent…

Compare it with this woman who runs…
http://globalsociology.edublogs.org/

She seems pretty interesting and quite liberal, but has *such* bitterness over Clinton losing.

http://globalsociology.edublogs.org/2008/06/08/a-win-win-win-situation/

I really don’t think much of the feminist blogosphere has really comes to terms with what oppression actually is, and how much one just has to “suck it up” and play the game despite the catcalls, the groping, the put-downs…

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 6:51 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:

Tim Wise wrote a wonderful piece on this called “Feminists: Your Whiteness Is Showing.”

It’s a worthwhile read.

he pulls no punches.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 7:23 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:

Nice generalization,Renee. I am one of many brown women who voted for Clinton in large numbers in the primary. I am an “HRC feminist” Or are the only feminists that matter white?

I have sometimes been shocked at the amount of vitriol thrown at HRC for having the temerity to run for office, thinking she was qualified. Shocked because I thought that progressive men were, to a greater degree, my allies. Shocked because never before has the press as a whole mobilized to force one popular candidate out of the race. Shocked because this makes us worse than many countries who have not done the same to women leaders.

The Dems have not earned my vote and Obama has done little in his career to show that he is going to represent my concerns as a working-class minority woman. Here he is defending the appointment of John Roberts, in his own words:
“a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design.”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165

I have not yet decided whether I will vote for Obama or Green Party or write in HRC. I live in a solidly blue state anyway, so it’s unlikely to matter. What I do know is that Obama has been happy to profit from sexism and has actively promoted it through his words and those of his surrogates.

Other progressives like Tim Wise keep saying that I have no better option than to vote for him. Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd agree that women will have to “come home[to the Dems]” because we have nowhere to turn. Chris Matthews calls us “low-hanging fruit”:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/06/in-case-you-were-wondering.html

If we do not have the ability to combat this bigotry in the voting booth, what voice, as citizens do we have? If our elected officials are content to ignore us, it’s our right to hold them accountable. Our anger is justifiable and it’s laughable to suggest, as Wise does, that we should mount some sort of ineffectual picket line but still vote for the candidate we don’t support, who doesn’t support us.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 7:26 pm ¶
Kirk Van Irvin wrote:

Hello all: This article is similar to the one done by Thea Lim a couple of days ago, I’m going to repeat it:

Black Canseco brought up what I thought was a good point:
” “Women” might be the biggest problem here… Who defines “women” in the feminist movement? ”

I agree. From a Black guy looking in from outside it seems that the biggest obstacle to feminism are other women. I remember when they were trying to ratify the ERA and WOMEN were fighting against it! Black people as a group don’t agree on everything, But if there is a issue that affect us for either good or bad , we will rally around it, regardless of sex ,class or political affiliation. Even Black Republicans are going “it’s about time” as far as Obama’s concerned. When Condoleezza Rice broke out with that speech on slavery being a “birth defect”, I was like , WHOA!!” Didn’t think she had it in her! It just proved my point, a point that’s been touched on in this blog, as well as other places , until all women stand together, feminism as a whole is not going to be taken seriously by men.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 7:35 pm ¶
Britta wrote:

Exactly Renee! That’s plantation feminism
IMO, anyone who is threatening to vote for McCain never was a feminist, because anyone who cared remotely about women’s issues wouldn’t vote for a man with his record.
On to the Obama thing, I think that most “feminists” who are so outraged aren’t really upset with Obama himself, they’re upset with the situation in general: an older white woman, after working hard most of her life, gets passed over for a younger man. That’s a situation a lot of older women are familiar with, and understandably, it rubs them the wrong way. It especially rubs boomers the wrong way, because they’ve been waiting since the 60s to get political control, and after only two presidents, they’ve been told to get out of the way, their time is passed. Their parents had decades in power, and now their younger siblings and children are asking them to stand aside. That’s why I think much of Hillary’s entitlement is baby boomer entitlement.

Of course, one problem is that *no one,* no matter what they’ve endured or what they’ve been promised, is entitled to the presidency.
Another thing that makes this so problematic is Obama isn’t just any handsome young man: he’s the most talented politician in a decade, and one who’s managed to run probably the best campaign in generations. To call him “an empty suit” denies all of that, and also denies his 11 years of legislative experience. Part of that is done so he better fits into the narrative of “unqualified younger man stole my job,” but it’s made even easier because of his race. His blackness makes it easier to pass him off as nothing more than a pretty face, because we’re used to black people in the mainstream media being entertainers or athletes–all pretty faces of little substance. After years of angry white people claiming that unqualified POCs “stole” their job, or their admissions spot, it’s easy for Hillary and her supporters to adopt that meme. And by combining dislike of sexism with racial resentment, she’s able to get even deeper support from certain white women, who might otherwise have switched to Obama. She’s also allowed them to justify their racial resentment by disguising it as dislike for sexism. That way, it can go unexamined even as it played a powerful force in our election. Of course, to maker her narrative work, she had to make Obama, who is as white as he is black, blacker. It’s harder to argue the unqualified black man narrative if you’re opponent is running as “post racial,” or even multiracial.
The sad thing is, while Hillary didn’t succeed in beating Obama, she did succeed, in the minds of certain voters, of making Obama “the inexperienced black candidate.” When North Dakota and Minnesota voted for Obama, my jaw dropped and I got really excited and proud. But when, after several months of Hillary’s campaign at its worst, South Dakota went for Hillary, I felt that on some level, her campaign had worked. People willing to vote for a multiracial uniter weren’t willing to vote for an “unqualified, maybe angry, black man.”

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 7:59 pm ¶
Monie wrote:

Hillary Clinton’s so-called White Feminist supporters ought to be more upset that Clinton aligned herself with an abject misogynist, Bob Johnson (Founder of Black Entertainment Television).

Hillary Clinton used Feminists to try to achieve her goal of getting back into the White House. I, for one, do not believe that Hillary Clinton is actually a feminist, opportunist, yes.

But of course Bob Johnson’s and BET’s misogyny was/ is aimed at African American women so I’m sure they aren’t too concerned.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 8:03 pm ¶
juju wrote:

@Kirk Van Irvin

“From a Black guy looking in from outside it seems that the biggest obstacle to feminism are other women.”

Feminism may have loads and loads of problems, but its biggest obstacle is the sexist society that necesitates its existence.

“Black people as a group don’t agree on everything, But if there is a issue that affect us for either good or bad , we will rally around it, regardless of sex ,class or political affiliation.”

I can’t say that I have ever seen this happen. And not all African Americans support Obama. I know diehard Black Clinton supporters, Black McCain supporters, and even a couple of Ron Paul supporters. I see people supporting the causes that they believe will personally benefit them.

“until all women stand together, feminism as a whole is not going to be taken seriously by men.”

This will never happen. The billions of female humans that walk this planet will never come together on one singular platform, that is not really the point. And this is not about men. Feminism exists primarily for the betterment of women, not to be deemed worthy by men.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 8:36 pm ¶
MistressBeatz wrote:

I am curious what percentage of white women truly feel this way. I don’t. And I don’t know any that do, though I am sure a few do. There are always those that need to scapegoat. Most likely this is another media hoax to provoke that age-old diversionary tactic “divide and conquer”. Maybe we can write them letters politely requesting themy keep their delusions to themselves and start reporting the news. Something they seem to have forgotten to do!

And why does the media insist there are only two candidates? Mr. Wise needs to wake up to the fact that Obama is not the only non-white running in this election. And one of them is a woman!

Historically, political change happens when third party movements become popular. Not necessarily getting elected, but by gaining substantial support. If the socialist movement hadn’t gained momentum in the 20’s & 30’s, most of the New Deal never would have occured. The fear of the rise of Communism and the overthrow of the Capitalist system forced concessions. If the civil rights movement hadn’t gained support from a vocal majority, where would we be now? Movements from outside the status quo effect real change. It is a primary factor in my decision to continue voting third party, especially since 2006 proved that the Dems are unwilling to effect real change.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 9:02 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:

Monie,

there have been many hypocrisies throughout these primaries and the involvement of Bob Johnson was one–one in which virtually no one outside the black community/over the age of 18 was willing to call it for what it was.

Britta/Marge,

not to rehash this but i continue to be amazed by people who champion HRC for “working hard most of her life, gets passed over for a younger man.”

HRC could’ve ran for office in the 1970s. She didn’t. Could’ve done so in the 80s and the 90s. Still didn’t.

Instead she became a politician’s wife–no cakewalk to be sure. But her claim of “35 years of experience” was largely based on being married to a career politician.

What man of any ethnicity could claim his spouse’s work history as his own without being drowned out in laughter?

Yet Barack was labeled an “empty suit” despite his career of accomplishments? Or as Hillary so noted: “i have 35 years experience, John McCain has 30 plus years, and Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

And anyone who criticized her outright lies from her being “instrumental” in bring peace to Northern Ireland (try explaining that to the folks who won the Nobel Peace Prize for said accomplishment) to her “standing up to the Chinese govt over human rights (one speech to one women’s group is not standing up to a govt.) to her being against NAFTA (she’s on record supporting NAFTA until 2006) to INSERT LIE HERE gets called a sexist or a misogynist.

As irate as many were in 2000 with the notion of a Bush dynasty, and politicians running simply because the see the presidency as “their turn”, yet we celebrated HRC’s run and Bill’s 3rd term as “progress”?

Progress for who? political insiders who leverage gender/privilege when it’s convenient

Marge as for who you vote for, the point folks like myself and Tim Wise have made is that there were candidates out there with more legislative and political experience than Clinton (everyone including Obama whose state and US senate experiences trumps HRCs); there were candidates who trumpeted issues impacting women of varying classes and poor—Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards; there were candidates who’d break glass ceilings–McKinney.

but no one’s voted for them.

Instead people bought into HRC’s pseudo-feminist condescending BS-filled campaign; because the package was far more appealing than what was underneath; and now folks all hurt that it didn’t fly high enough to win.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 9:13 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

“Mr. Wise needs to wake up to the fact that Obama is not the only non-white running in this election. And one of them is a woman! ”

Um, McKinney was mentioned in his article. Did you even read it?

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 9:13 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:

@Britta: Yeah, I’m angry at Obama, not just at the situation in general or what it represents. And I’m a 25 YO brown feminist; no skeptical quotation marks necessary. As for Obama being the best choice for supporting women’s rights over McCain, that’s really questionable. See my first link in my earlier post. Obama started his career by stealing it from his former mentor, Alice Palmer, a black woman:
http://octogalore.blogspot.com/2008/05/election-games-circa-1996.html

“That’s why I think much of Hillary’s entitlement is baby boomer entitlement.”

Sorry, but it’s a sexist idea, though popular among progressives, that her acting entitled to the presidency is a problem. Noone(male) ever won the White House without ambition and entitlement. Obama acts entitled to it, too. As he ought to. The implication here is that women aren’t entitled to powerful office. I’ve encountered this attitude many times in my work life. Men don’t like working under the weaker sex. Some men don’t even like working on an equal level with us.

“*no one,* no matter what they’ve endured or what they’ve been promised, is entitled to the presidency.”

Do you believe the right-wing smear that Bill and Hillary made a long-ago pact to make them both president? Were you there in that smoke-filled room? Do you also believe that women only voted for her because they sympathized with her public humiliation? Clinton did what all candidates do, only “backwards and in high heels” She traveled and made speeches and made her case, laying out a platform for bold change, earning millions of votes from many different groups and coming in extermely close to winning the nomination. She out-performed Obama in debates and in ad-lib Q&A sessions. All the while she faced ten times more scrutiny and calls for her to drop out and make way for the truly entitled candidate since March.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 9:26 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@Marge Twain
“Our anger is justifiable and it’s laughable to suggest, as Wise does, that we should mount some sort of ineffectual picket line but still vote for the candidate we don’t support…”

Actually, they have a word for people who do this: “Republican.”

That is why they win elections. So don’t kid yourself–tossing your vote away because you are angry is casting a vote for McCain. You are entitled to your feelings about HRC’s loss, but think long and hard about voting “against” Obama.

If you and legions of other HRC supporters successfully cripple Obama’s bid for the presidency out of spite you will only be hurting yourselves…unless you think no woman is going to need an abortion any time in the next 30 years or so.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 10:35 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

“From a Black guy looking in from outside it seems that the biggest obstacle to feminism are other women.”

I’m sorry, what?
That’s great, start absolving yourself as a man from any relation or responsibility for the challenges that women face so that can relish male privilege guilt-free, because it’s not patriarchy, sexism, and chauvinism that hurt women, it’s the women themselves!

If this site or reading about feminism teaches you anything, please let it be to teach you that feminism is about sharing both responsibilities and benefits.

Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 10:59 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

Werd, slush. Also, just like there’s a such thing as internalized racism, there’s also internalized sexism… some women hold unfavorable opinions of their gender/adhere to sexist beliefs and will use these opinions to curry favor with and gain influence/power among the kinds of men who agree. Oh, and “crabs in a barrel”: everyone does it.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 12:00 am ¶
Joseph wrote:

@Marge Twain
“Clinton did what all candidates do, only “backwards and in high heels” She traveled and made speeches and made her case, laying out a platform for bold change, earning millions of votes from many different groups and coming in extermely close to winning the nomination.”

…But she didn’t win it. She lost the nomination. She competed hard and she lost. “Extremely close” to winning is losing. That is the game. Keeping this “her vs. him” debate alive is not helping anyone but John McCain. You and I disagree about Hilary Clinton’s character and her values but there is no arguing this point. The nomination was not stolen or assigned: it was won. By Barack Obama.

I’m sorry to seem glib here–I am not trying to diminish your feelings about Clinton’s loss. But the conversation is no longer about Hilary Clinton and her high heels and which direction she walked in them… the conversation is no longer about her qualities vs. his in any way. That has been decided. It is about whether we–as a country–want a Democrat or a Republican President appointing supreme court justices and making decisions about the war in Iraq and the impending war with Iran.

I have no illusions that Barack Obama is a saint. He is a politician. Just like she is. And I agree that there are many things we do not yet know about Barack Obama–so I would like to focus on learning more about him and trying to understand his vision for the country. But that is not possible if this endless armchair quarterbacking of Hilary’s failed bid for the Democratic nomination continues to dominate the discourse around Obama.

So I will say again:
Voting for a third party candidate is voting for McCain.

“Sitting out” this election is a vote for McCain.

And voting for McCain is…do you see where I am going with this?

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 1:15 am ¶
Black Canseco wrote:

Slush,

“…please let it be to teach you that feminism is about sharing both responsibilities and benefits.”

At what point did Kirk say he was absolving himself from responsibility? He simply stated his gender to let everyone know where he was coming from in his opinions.

I state mine not to absolve or bully but to inform. A lot of people have pretty gender-neutral screen names so you have no idea who’s saying what.

marge/britta,

when any man runs for president claiming to be qualified to lead 200-300 million people, his ego, his sanity, his moral code and his competence/ qualifications are questioned. (unless you’re a Kennedy.)

yet people are supposed to roll over and cheer Hillary into the White House lockstep without challenge?

i don’t think so.

HRC’s problem wasn’t her arrogance or entitlement. It was that both of these things outweighed her record, experience and qualifications.

Keep in mind, HRC is the same person who despite not being elected or appointed took it upon herself to go after the insurance companies and try to ram a couple insurance reform bills through congress in Bill’s first term.

Last i checked, if you want to draft legislation, pass bills, vet lobbyists, etc. you need to have been elected or appointed. She was neither. she was simply someone’s wife using said status to tell others what to do.

not sure where either of you work, but if your boss’/client’s wife shows up and starts telling everyone what they better do with no position other than as said person’s wife, you’d tell them to got to hell or go get hired to a position that carries the necessary authority.

but no. Hilary wanted all the power of being appointed/elected but none of the vetting or accountability.

As i said before, she could’ve run for office like any other woman before her, during and since. but she chose to take the backdoor into power–thru marriage.

that’s the biggest problem most folks with her–that kind of myopic sneaky behavior combined with blame games and condescending to all opponents would make anyone unlikable. Just look at GWB’s cabinet: We hate them all for the precisely these reasons.

Anyone out here think Michelle Obama will get a pass if she starts trying to draft legislation and change laws having no allowable position under the laws of government other than being President Obama’s wife? No. She’ll get raked over the coals for 4-8 years. and she should. And my guess is McCain’s wife would catch some heat (tho not as much) if she pulls the same power trip.

But Hillary gets to blame, “sexism”, “boys’ clubs” “republican hit pieces” and “rightwing conspiracies” for calling her out on the obvious and everyone blindly accepts this.

Whatever fits your views and helps you slept at night, I guess.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 1:34 am ¶
marge twain wrote:

@Joseph: According to you, I may be the first Socialist Republican.
I said I haven’t yet decided who to vote for in Nov. but it isn’t helping when people who never cared about supporting the primary candidate who has been unequivical in her support for reproductive rights harangue me to vote Obama or give mine up. Did you even read my whole comment/links? Obama has not been progressive on this issue and the party I belong to, which keeps asking me for money, doesn’t think it needs to do anything to get my vote but dangle this threat to my uterus over my head year after year after year. Meanwhile, they voted Alito and Roberts onto the Supreme Court and Obama spoke out in Roberts’ favor, as I quoted and linked to above.

Here’s Obama doing his best impressions of a Rorschach test on reproductive rights:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/28/words-mean-things-part-2/

Also, Clinton hasn’t just talked, she’s actually done things to further women’s reproducutive rights (e.g., sponsoring legislation to overturn the global gag rule and to expand family planning services for poor women, having an instrumental role in making Plan B available OTC).

Here’s a pro-life anti-contraception Catholic man endorsing Obama
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=27820

Like I said before, I live in one of the bluest states there is, so if I vote for anyone but the Reagan-admiring Obama, all Electoral College members from my state will still be pledged to him. That’s how our electoral stystem works. My hope with a protest vote is that the Dems will take notice. I’m not “low-hanging fruit”

The right-wing meme that Clinton is synonymous with her husband and they are a dirty, scheming, lying monster called The Clintons is one of the reasons we now have the worst president in our history. Obama has co-opted it for his own purposes now, feeding the lie that HRC ran on her husbands record(she didn’t, she ran on her own) and diminishing her real accomplishments.

“you and legions of other HRC supporters successfully cripple Obama’s bid for the presidency out of spite you will only be hurting yourselves…”

When women did picket outside of MSNBC the white men on the air kept their jobs and laughed at them. And I don’t recall Tim Wise being there.
My vote right now is Obama’s to lose. This election is his to lose.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 2:56 am ¶
Rosanne wrote:

While it is undoubtedly true that the vast majority of forms of sexism are experienced more acutely by women of colour than by white women, white women do still have to cope with sexism in a very real way, from the very most privileged to the very least. All women endure catcalls at some point, particularly city women. Hip-hop is an extremely popular genre of music which is not restricted to any one racial “community”. All women have to deal with double standards of sexual morality, with a world capitalising on the objectification of women, with pressures to adhere to strict standards of beauty, with lower pay, with the risk of experiencing the tragedies of violence and rape… All of those things impact more viciously on the lives of women of colour, but they still affect white women too. It is not enough to talk of racial privilege, and however divisively some women are presently acting, and however much they are ignoring the crucial racial element of sexism, we shouldn’t let ourselves fall into oppression olympics games. We should be better than those particular white women.

I think the reason some people, some white women anyway, were shocked at the sexism Clinton drew forth, is because sexism sometimes manifests itself in more subtle ways in the lives of white women than racism in the lives of people of colour. A lot of white women aren’t willing to recognise that sexism even exists, and in my experience the same can not be said of people of colour and racism. That doesn’t, of course, mean that sexism against white women doesn’t exist. When a woman puts herself forward for high office, suddenly that sexism which is usually so subtle in the eyes of many becomes startlingly clear. It happened with Segolene Royale in France, and it happened with Clinton in the US.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 3:36 am ¶
Kirk Van Irvin wrote:

First off, I apologize for what I wrote on 14 June saying that other women are the biggest factor against feminism; it’s not . But it is A factor.

@ Juju:

If you had finished reading my post, you would have read that I said that Black people DO NOT agree on everything, I use the early Civil Rights movements as examples. Black people had in-fighting in the NAACP, CORE and SNCC, but they were not divisive to the point where it was seen that they were fighting each others best interests. Another example was the Primary. If Hillary would have won the delegates, Who do you feel that the majority of Blacks would have voted for? I believe that the majority of us would have still voted Democratic. I do not believe that they would run to the Republicans and vote out of spite, like a lot of feminists are very vocal about doing. I’ve read other women make this point. Is there something wrong with a guy saying it?
You wrote:
“This will never happen. The billions of female humans that walk this planet will never come together on one singular platform, that is not really the point. And this is not about men. Feminism exists primarily for the betterment of women, not to be deemed worthy by men”

You’re right –Feminism does not need men’s “blessing” for it to happen and I apologize for the “feminism as a whole is not going to be taken seriously by men. That was not what I meant to say. I was making an observation that feminists camps are divided , and they are getting in each others way. And various factions will use that against them (if they haven’t already).

@Slush; patriarchy, sexism, and chauvinism are the main factors. Why have infighting be another one. That’s something that feminists CAN control.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 4:11 am ¶
Britta wrote:

Wow, getting it from both sides!

@ Black Canseco
Um, Where did I say I supported Hillary, or her “35 years of experience?” Did you even *read* my post? It actually makes most of the points you are making. Next time, please read my post before you reply to it.

@Marge
Look, I understand you are upset, this has been a very long grueling primary, but I have a hard time really understanding where you are coming from. I can try to explain my points, but I’m not sure if you will agree. And honestly, if you can’t see the difference between a 100% pro choice guy who does a feminist fist bump and an anti-choice, pro-sex discrimination far right Republican who calls his wife a “cunt,” I’m not sure we can really have a conversation. But, what the heck, I’ll give it a try.

First of all, I’m glad Hillary ran. And if this primary had been different, I would have been glad that she was our nominee. But I think she came in expecting to be the nominee (as did everyone else), and because of that, she ran an arrogant, entitled campaign. She wrote off everyone and every state who didn’t vote for her as “not counting,” or “not being important.” That’s arrogance, and it doesn’t matter what her gender is, any one who does that is not going to get my support. She also didn’t bother to campaign in multiple states, assuming she’d win them on name recognition or they wouldn’t matter. That’s arrogance. When, after losing 11 straight contests, she merely upped her negative racist campaigning, that was putting herself and her sense of entitlement before the party. If the situation had been reversed–if Obama was losing and running an increasingly sexist campaign, I’d call for him to step down in a heartbeat.

Secondly, and I am asking this question in good faith–what sexism came from the Obama campaign? What are specific sexist acts committed by Obama? What, aside from his maleness, makes him so much more offensive to you than a guy who called Hillary a bitch? I live overseas, and get lots of US election coverage, but nothing involving sexist acts from the Obama campaign, even though it’s pro-Hillary central down here.

And finally, I don’t think Hillary was promised a backroom deal. What I mean is the president is a very prestigious job awarded to a very tiny fraction of people. That one woman doesn’t get it doesn’t mean, necessarily, she was deprived due to sexism. I’m not saying that sexism isn’t a factor, of course it is. Women are half the population, but have been 0 women presidents. Something’s going on there. But, that doesn’t mean that people, even feminists, can believe that there are other people genuinely better than one particular woman for the job. I genuinely believe Obama would be a better president than Hillary. I also genuinely believe Hillary would be a better president that Wes Clark. That’s the true with a majority of democrats. Hillary, if you remember, beat out all the white males running for president. She then lost to Obama. To say that’s only due to sexism and not due to Obama’s superlative political skills is to diminish both candidates (and deny the considerable racism Obama had to struggle against). They ran hard, and won/lost fair and square. There’s still honor in running hard and losing. I think if Hillary does a little soul searching and apologizes for the racism in her campaign, she could easily run in 2016.

I don’t care who you vote for. If you want to vote for McCain, go for it. If you want to vote for Nader or some other 3rd party candidate, knock yourself out. Just don’t call yourself a progressive or feminist while you pull the lever for McCain.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 6:56 am ¶
Britta wrote:

eek! sorry that’s so long, everyone.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 7:11 am ¶
Celeste wrote:

I’d like someone to actually tell me how John McCain’s policies are better for women than Obama because I just don’t see it.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 7:21 am ¶
Persia wrote:

If you’re skeptical about Obama’s policies, he has a website which talks about them. In detail. Here’s a link.

He’s also the only candidate of the three to support full repeal of the DOMA– and yes, for me gay rights are a feminist issue.

So far all I’ve found on McCain’s website about these issues is this, on “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life,” here: Be sure to read the bit on the evils of porno.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:25 am ¶
drydock wrote:

1. Tim Wise writes:
“If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama.”

The National Election Pool (NEP) estimates that the Latino vote for Bush in 2004 was about 44%. Left-leaning Ruy Teixeira puts that number at 39%. On super Tuesday Clinton got 63% to Obama’s 35% of the Latino vote– which seems pretty similar to the percentages of white voters in Appalachia.

Anyway you slice it, I think it is safe to predict that the the numbers of Latina women voting for Obama will in fact not be “overwhelming.”

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:37 am ¶
J wrote:

@drydock, I don’t think using the Super Tuesday numbers to predict the general election works for a few reasons.

First of all, just because latino voters preferred Clinton to Obama, doesn’t mean they will prefer McCain to Obama. We can talk about McCain’s immigration stance and how that my play with that demographic, but that is a much more nuanced point than vis a vis Latino voters, Clinton=McCain.

Second, on Super Tuesday Obama was still a bit of an unknown entity, especially with Latino voters. Polls in California show increasing support for Obama from Latino and Asian voters.

Finally, there is considerable evidence that race was a significant factor for white voters in Appalachia voting for Clinton/against Obama. I haven’t seen any evidence that latino voters are similarly motivated. There were a few black v brown articles insinuating as much, but they weren’t very well done. I think Obama has a much better chance of making progress with Latinos than he does whites in Appalachia.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 10:46 am ¶
juju wrote:

@Kirk Van Irvin

“If you had finished reading my post, you would have read that I said that Black people DO NOT agree on everything, I use the early Civil Rights movements as examples.”

I did read your entire comment. When you said: “Black people as a group don’t agree on everything, But if there is a issue that affect us for either good or bad , we will rally around it, regardless of sex ,class or political affiliation.”, it suggests a greater degree of accord than I believe actually exists. It can also serve to question the blackness of those who have a different POV. Also, I think you would be hard pressed to find any issue that effects all Black people as either good or bad.

“I’ve read other women make this point. Is there something wrong with a guy saying it?”

You are actually suggesting that you are being singled out for having a penis? I challenged the idea where I read it. White women accuse WOC of giving MOC a pass for their sexism, and MOC accuse us of being overly focused on their problematic issues. I guess I can’t win with either camp.

“I was making an observation that feminists camps are divided , and they are getting in each others way.”

True, women have been saying this for as long as there has been feminism. That’s pretty much a standard for any social justice movement, especially when you factor in the more conservative versus the more radical branches of movements. Perhaps the focus from outside on the dysfunction within feminism, versus the issues within other movements, has to do with the perception that women can’t work together, have too many jealously issues and will resort to “cat fighting” in a conflict. In short, perhaps its sexism that allows some to see the problems within feminism, but not so much the problems within other movements.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 10:52 am ¶
juju wrote:

I think I need to clarify this point:
That’s pretty much a standard for any social justice movement, especially when you factor in the more conservative versus the more radical branches of movements. Perhaps the focus from outside on the dysfunction within feminism, versus the issues within other movements, has to do with the perception that women can’t work together, have too many jealously issues and will resort to “cat fighting” in a conflict. In short, perhaps its sexism that allows some to see the problems within feminism, but not so much the problems within other movements.

I am trying to put the issues of feminism into a larger context and am saying that many of these problems are not unique. Also, I think we need to keep in mind the role that sexism plays in the critism of feminism. And this is not directed at any particular individual.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

@Kirk

Clarification accepted and appreciated. Sorry for the kneejerk reaction. I would not deny that intra-feminist disputes are real challenges. Just not the ‘biggest’!

I also agree with you that the black voting bloc, to wantonly generalize, would have voted for Clinton over McCain if she’d won, just like many Clinton supporters will still vote for Obama.

Those of you diehard Obama supporters could encourage that kind of behavior by not propagating the misery of the last several months by talking about how HRC was not a viable candidate or ‘rode on her husbands coattails.’ Come on, she didn’t just hang around, she tried to revolutionize the national health care system in the 90s, got attacked and visciously ripped apart for it by the Republican machine, and managed to pick herself up, get elected to the Senate, and run for President. She is an amazing woman, feminist or not, ambitious opportunist or not.

All other politicians are ambitious opportunists but only HRC gets called out on it like it’s a flaw. That pisses me off like nothing else.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 12:34 pm ¶
kiki wrote:

Anyway you slice it, I think it is safe to predict that the the numbers of Latina women voting for Obama will in fact not be “overwhelming.”

I disagree. With Hillary out of the race all of my friends and I are now voting for Obama unless he chooses to make concessions to the rabid anti-Latino xenophobes.

I think that if Obama speaks to his experience of being mixed he can win the hearts of many Mestizos who have struggled with identity and assimilation in the US. In my SW corner of the country I’ve found that the more people get to know Obama, the more they like him. And I know that she’s not running for president but Michelle is awesome and she is quickly gaining support as women get to know her better and see that she embodies so many of the things we admire. I think that she is very inspirational to any woc.

Don’t count us out.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 1:22 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

I dunno about that… sources posit that the Latino vote on Super Tuesday was driven by a strong affinity for Clinton more than any antipathy towards Obama. Just because the Appalachian white & nationwide Latino numbers are similar doesn’t mean that the motivations/ideological points of contention/political “leanings” are similar, and there’s great folly in making such an assumption right away.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 1:39 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@Marge Twain
“…the party I belong to, which keeps asking me for money, doesn’t think it needs to do anything to get my vote but dangle this threat to my uterus over my head year after year after year.”

You sound like a very young woman. That is not meant as an insult–I’m just saying you seem like a woman who has always lived in a world where you could have an abortion if you needed one, who probably had sex education at school and could get fist fulls of free condoms at Planned Parenthood…

You have no idea how tenuous all of that is. None at all.

I am older than you are (you have said you are 25, right?) and I remember a time when the president of the United States would not speak the word “AIDS” out loud, even as friends and colleagues of mine were dying all around me. Even if some days it feels like a hundred years ago it wasn’t. This is recent history.

I hope you do not think I am patronizing you when I say this but there is much more at stake than your bruised feelings in this election. We are a single Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Roe v Wade. Do you have any idea what would mean for this country? A statement like “As for Obama being the best choice for supporting women’s rights over McCain, that’s really questionable” betrays a purposeful ignorance about the political history of this country. And based on what? Based on the fact that he bit the political hand that fed him–and that hand was attached to a person who has a vagina? If you want a world where women compete in politics with men as equals then you cannot cry over the fact that it is a dirty game. I guarantee that Hilary Clinton knows this. You should know it too.

On a personal level of course you are right–you a person, not a giant, walking uterus. But my point is that we have moved beyond the personal here. The shift into the general election means a focus on larger themes and issues. It requires long term thinking. And a strong stomach for compromises.

As I have said I have no interest at all in hearing anything further about Hilary Clinton’s positions vs. Barack Obama’s–that horse has left the barn. And yes, I am quite familiar with her record–I am a New Yorker and she is my Senator. I also have no illusions about Bill Clinton’s presidency. I was among the young progressive activists who ushered him into office who he promptly threw under the bus (along with the gays, welfare mothers, environmentalists…it is a depressingly long list). My biggest fear about Obama as a centrist is that he will do the same.

But, while it is perhaps a minority view on a site devoted to racial matters but in reflecting on the contest between Obama and Clinton I have come to believe the true pivots away from her and toward him had little to do with his gender or her race: She voted for the war and he opposed it–giving a weight to his call for change that it would not have had otherwise, given his status as an unproved quantity. She not only voted for it but continued to support the war even after many in the Democratic party began to question what we were doing there. Then, during her campaign she tried to wash down that bitter pill with a giant glass of “let’s go to war with Iran.” Yeah, no thanks. Simply put–if Hilary (and Bill for that matter) had opposed the war, which has dangerously destabilized the Middle East and ravaged the American economy, with the tenacity they brought to her Presidential bid she could have a vagina in the middle of her forehead and she would be the Democratic nominee right now.

Despite my distaste for her politics I celebrate the fact that Hilary Clinton well and truly shattered the glass ceiling with her campaign. There was sexist rhetoric yes, but it was not of the type that presupposed she was not qualified because of her gender. Even her most vocal detractors consider her a worthy opponent and a respectable candidate for the presidency, irrespective of her gender. That is huge! She did it and, just like Obama’s historic bid, it can never be undone. A precedent has been set.

That is why, frankly, I do not take the cries of sexism from her supporters that seriously, even though I oppose sexism–like racism– as a matter of course. Were there dumb-shit sexist things said about her? Sure. Just like there were monkey t-shirts made featuring Obama…and, so what? Both attacks serve to prove the point that these politicians had entered the world stage as serious competitors for the most powerful position on the planet.

But even if Hilary Clinton’s uterus is beside the point, yours isn’t Marge. In this election, whether you like it or not, yours is on the table. Protect yourself and the women of your generation. Reproductive freedom is not a battle that has been fought and won. It continues to be fought and must continue to be won.

I’m sorry.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 2:33 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/06/15/angry-white-women/

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 3:12 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:

Another thing that bothers me about some white feminists grieving Clinton’s loss and that they won’t see a woman president in their lifetime is the lack of empathy. It’s like they can only be happy for themselves. Would it take that much of a lack of self-centeredness to be happy for those who never thought they’d see a POC as a president in their lifetime? For some reason, the joy of other marginalized groups isn’t enough. I mean, I do get to have my cake and eat it to since I’m a female POC. But still, they should be happier for us, not hating on us.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 5:52 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:

@Britta: My issue with your earlier post is that it mischaracterizes HRC supporters, like Tim Wise does, as a bunch of racist entitled older white women. Not true, but it’s a great way to leave a white HRC supporter confused/embarrassed into silence. That’s the goal, isn’t it? Well I’m not one and I’m offended by your insistence on adhering to a reductive character study. You perpetuate the sexist, ageist view that I couldn’t have a legitimate reason for me to not vote Obama in November and I must not even exist because I’m not your stereotype. For the record, my husband voted Obama in the primary but he says now he shouldn’t have, having seen the kind of campaign he’s run.

Since you insist still on repeating the talking point that Clinton was inordinately entitled(a charge that fits so neatly into existing patterns of sexist dialectic that I’m amazed you’re actually questioning MY feminist credentials and not your own) I have to question you on this:
“But I think she came in expecting to be the nominee (as did everyone else), and because of that, she ran an arrogant, entitled campaign.”

Huh? so she expected, as all the men did, that she’d win but she’s worse for it? Are you for real?
I’m just going to offer you this as clarification and hope it makes an impression. Melissa said it best:

“It is, simply, not the duty of any person who is repeatedly subjected to alienating language, images, behaviors, and/or legislation to nonetheless never complain and pledge fealty from the margins. ”

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/feminism-101-calling-out-fellow.html

You ask me what examples of sexism have come from Obama and how I could prefer McCain over him. This is a straw-man argument because I don’t prefer McCain, I’m not going to vote for him. Like I said, I haven’t yet decided if I can stomach ratifying Obama’s views, or if I should vote my conscience and choose a truly progressive third-party candidate or write in Clinton. The Democratic party has not faced pressure from it’s base, as Republicans have. It’s because of this attitude on the left that we have to anticipate which way the majority will go and vote with them, principles aside, that we’ve been moving ever rightward.

As for sexism from Obama, that you are so unaware isn’t a credit to your credentials as the feminism police. It’s been hashed and rehashed, here and elsewhere. That you haven’t read about it says more about the fierceness of the backlash than about it’s absence. For the most part he uses his surrogates to say the things that are really egregious and the media, eager to push his opponent out, never held him accountable on that. For a few examples of sexism directly from him, here are a couple of articles on this topic:

http://lisalexicon.typepad.com/how_dare_she/2008/05/obamas-sexism-c.html

http://lisalexicon.typepad.com/how_dare_she/2008/02/obamas-sexism-s.html

“That one woman doesn’t get it doesn’t mean, necessarily, she was deprived due to sexism”

Yeah, it’s so hard to pin things down in a hypothetical world. But she was the more experienced candidate, one who had a record of taking a strong stand on many progressive issues. And she was held to a different, sexist standard, the only one expected to walk a tightrope of correctness and had more quotes taken out of context(like the one on the seating of delegetes from MI and FL) from people who were sure she was the least entitled and must be stopped. If you call it a fair win, you must think it was a level playing field. I’ve seen nothing to indicate the next female candidate would face any less.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 7:45 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Some thoughts:

1. For the HRC supporters - if Clinton had one the nomination, how would you react to the angry Obama supporters who felt that the race baiting tactics of HRC and her campaign made her impossible to support in the election? What would you have said to us?

2. “It is, simply, not the duty of any person who is repeatedly subjected to alienating language, images, behaviors, and/or legislation to nonetheless never complain and pledge fealty from the margins. ”

Yes, exactly. And yet for some reason, three groups that have been marginalized and shit on during this election seem unable to find common ground or any form of understanding. Well played, establishment, well played.

@Marge -

I read both articles you sent me. However, I do not think we arrived at the same conclusion. Obama did not steal the election from Alice Palmer - the article and Palmer herself both say as much. Obama did employ some cutthroat tactics in that election all by the letter of the law. Was it fucked up? Yes. But he played the game best. And considering how things went down in 2000, I’m actually *more* Pro-Obama now than I was before I read the article.

That you haven’t read about it says more about the fierceness of the backlash than about it’s absence. For the most part he uses his surrogates to say the things that are really egregious and the media, eager to push his opponent out, never held him accountable on that.

Same could be said for HRC and race baiting. Though, the more I read on the final analysis, the less I think much of that was her doing. I think HRC committed a cardinal sin. Not of ambition (because that’s a bullshit charge) or arrogance, but because I think she doubted herself. And when the people in her camp gave her flawed information, she went with it instead of going with what she knew. I may write more on that later. I may not. I have election fatigue again.

3.

@Juju -

White women accuse WOC of giving MOC a pass for their sexism, and MOC accuse us of being overly focused on their problematic issues. I guess I can’t win with either camp.

Nope, we can’t.

4. Every time I get another link to yet another election post (on either side) I have to physically restrain myself from typing “it is just a fucking election.” Kind of like the way some people drop 100K on the perfect wedding and then end up divorced because they forgot to plan for their life afterwards, people freaking out about the primary makes me wonder how involved they are at the ugly, unglamourous level of government. Do they know how things really work? Are you this involved with your local judges, representatives, senators, school board members?

My day job is a bureaucratic one. I’ve actually had an irate person call me a bureaucrat. And I had to refrain from calling him a dickhead. But anyway, like I said, I am knee deep in the ugly, unglamourous, utterly lucrative parts of government and policy. Some of the people I work with have worked in Washington for 30 - 40 years. No one even discusses the election. Why? Because they don’t care - in the grand scheme of things, the president just sets the tone. Even a fuck up as enormous as GWB couldn’t have wreaked all this havoc by himself - there were a lot of complicit parties to get this much done.

So, I’ve been wondering why this election is bringing up such righteous indignation. Then I happened upon this post:

I’ve stayed pretty quiet about the Democrat nominating process this year, both here and out “in real life.” The general quiet was for several reasons; first, I knew that I would support whoever actually won the nomination in the end and I would have been happy with either Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton; and second, as a I wrote a couple of times, the tone of the conversation around the nominating process and the candidates disturbed and saddened me, and honestly, I was afraid to get involved. I was afraid I might write something and then see it twisted somewhere else, and much, much more shamefully, I was afraid of making a mistake or offending people.

[…]

I was so shocked and sadden when Kerry lost the 2004 general election (and Bush won the popular vote). I had been involved in Kerry’s campaign as a very low-level volunteer in Pittsburgh and I have to admit, that though many people weren’t moved or motivated by Kerry, I was. But it wasn’t because “my” candidate had lost that I felt devastated that night; it was because of the story that came out of that election. For weeks after Kerry lost, the story that dominated the airwaves was that the people that had voted for Bush (or rather, against Kerry?) had been motivated by “family values.” LGBT groups were told that they had cost the democrats the election because they had “pushed” the “gay-marriage issue.” In addition to being code for homophobic, I felt (knew?) family values also stood for “pro-life,” “believes strongly in enforcing gender differences,” and “transphobic” among other things.

What the 2004 election brought home to me was that people hated me and hated people like me. This was a significantly different realization from knowing that people disagreed with the things I thought and the way that I saw the world. When I saw the presidential election as a war of ideas, as in we all get together and vote for the person with the best ideas, it was easy to keep myself out of the equation or at least keep some distance. Sometimes republicans would win, sometimes democrats would win; it was a serious game, but still a game. When, however, I came to see the presidential election as an opportunity for a public referendum on whether or not, I and the people I love, are truly equal in the eyes of their fellow citizens, whether or not we are hated, I realized that it was my body and my future that was at stake (along with the bodies and futures of people I care about), not (just?) my ideas. Not a game.

It occurs to me that there is a fundamental disconnect between what people who know government think and what the average citizen thinks will change the government. And I think the press has really dropped the ball on this one.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 8:38 pm ¶
William wrote:

On another note, has anybody thought of what poc would do if privilege fell in their court? How much do we truly want an equal society? What do we define as as breaking the constant privileged-oppressed paradigm that we blog and comment about?

Granted, part of the problem is perception, assumption of power by white, male, heterosexual, and Christian institutions, but what is it that we envision in our discussions? What kind of uptopia or ‘progessive’ era are we searching for?

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:00 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:

@Joseph:
I’m not the one who first impugned HRC or her supporters here. It started with the post that sparked this whole discussion. And you’re not the first person here to think we maybe have some legitimate issue, but that we should shut up about it.

I mentioned my age to combat the “bitter-old-racist-white-woman” lie that people have been fomenting here. Though my age has surely shaped my perspective on things, you can’t possibly think I have less of a stake on women’s health issues than you do. Yet you wrote this:

“You have no idea how tenuous all of that is. None at all.”

Yeah, I do. 25 is old enough that I have already faced issues unique to women that you never will, however old you may be, dude. It’s real and it’s personal for me, not for you. You can’t offer a disclaimer that you hope not to be patronizing and then immediately characterize me as a choosing my vote out of “spite” and “bruised feelings” when I’ve outlined my unemotional reasons already.

You say we’re a single Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade. No, we already have a conservative majority. That’s been the common argument used by progressive men who care little about women’s rights until they want to threaten women to vote for the Democrat, however uncommited he(the candidate) may be.

Well, you’re surely not one of those guys. Surely, since you understand how tenous my rights are, you must already know that Clinton led the fight to block the nomination of Roberts and Alito in the Senate, arguing against Alito that his appointment would “roll back decades of progress for women” She spearheaded the fight to overturn the “Global Gag Rule” and vowed to devote her “very first days in office” to overturning that decision. As I quoted and linked to before, though Obama personally voted against Roberts, he strongly opposed blocking his appointment and saw no reason we shouldn’t trust Bush to appoint a fair judge. You must already know that she has a comprehensive agenda for reproductive health care but he doesn’t.

Since you’ve always been such a strong advocate on this topic that you can explain it to a little woman like me, I wonder why you wouldn’t have voted for her in the primary and why you’d begrudge me my small effort to affect change in my own party when it wouldn’t result in a Republican win. Maybe because I’m so young, I imagine there are other issues at stake, things like health care, poverty, foreign diplomacy that she’s also stronger on. You think I’m not looking long term? Your long tem strategy for me is to do nothing, no matter how many fundamentally progressive values they compromise, we owe them our vote. The Republican base through conservative and evangelical advocacy groups hold their candidates’ feet to the fire. Progressives don’t, instead scaring one another on how much worse it could be. Thus the party moves ever rightward. Reclusive Leftist says this:

“If Barack Obama and his supporters become the new Democratic party, then the Democratic party will no longer be the party of women’s rights. There will still be women in the party, naturally, but basic respect for women as citizens will be a dead letter. It will be the party of John Roberts and anti-choicers and the most virulent outbreak of public misogyny I’ve ever seen. All the sexism of this campaign will be rewarded instead of repudiated. “

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:01 pm ¶
shah8 wrote:

Man…

I think I’m must less constipated for the fact that I *do* type out variants of “It’s just a fucking election”, in terms antagonistic to clinton supporters. Being irritated about all the feminist oxygen taken up by clinton-support/idealization is helped by typing therapies and rhetorical but imaginary slaps.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:01 pm ¶
jsb16 wrote:

If Hillary would have won the delegates, Who do you feel that the majority of Blacks would have voted for? I believe that the majority of us would have still voted Democratic.

Early in the primary season, Clinton came out and said that after the primary as over, she was sure her supporters would back whoever was the nominee. Obama, on the other hand, said that he wouldn’t bet his supporters would vote for Clinton. Was that partly because Clinton was the confident front-runner at the time? Undoubtedly. Does that mean I don’t believe that, had the delegates fallen the other way, there would be Obama suporters vowing to vote for McCain rather than Clinton? No way.

As for being shocked about the sexism shown by the media during this primary season, I confess I am. I’m shocked both by the sexism and the racism. Not because I didn’t think it was there, but because I thought we’d gotten to the point of keeping it better hidden.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:28 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@ William -

Good question. I don’t know if there is an answer to that as some PoCs hate certain parts of the system and not others. And I am sure some people would just like an inverted power dynamic and not equality. And most of us don’t even have a frame of references for what a utopia would look like, it is so far out of our area of current understanding.

As an anti-racist, the world I envision for my kids is one in which race is an interesting part of their identity and not a hindrance to them in anyway. I’ll think a little more on that though…

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:32 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

Your bed Marge.

Luckily it is big enough for you and all of your “unique issues.”

Want to have a nice lie down?

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 9:37 pm ¶
EvilAngelfish wrote:

@ Marge Twain -
I’m actually glad that you provided those links in your last post because that was the first time I’d seen actual quotes from Obama that were sexist. They weren’t as blatantly sexist and egregious as calling his wife a vulgar epithet but still, it is undeniable that Obama would never have characterized a male opponent in that way. I’m disappointed but I’m still going to vote for him.
Had Clinton won the nomination, I would have voted for her despite some of the offensive things she has said (that “hard working Americans” comment being the most thoughtless and offensive, in my opinion) so while I understand your uneasiness about him, I really don’t understand what it is about Obama’s words and the words of the people affiliated (both officially and unofficially) with his campaign, when compared to her words and the words of people associated (both officially and unofficially) with her campaign, that would be so hard to stomach. I don’t want you to feel as if you have to defend your choices or opinions anymore but I would like you to consider that not everyone who was not pro-Hillary is of the same mindset as Chris Matthews et. al. I think Tim Wise was addressing white women who, because of legitimate frustration, sour grapes, disillusionment, whatever, pledged not to vote for Obama because they are unhappy that the woman candidate did not get the nomination. While I fully acknowledge that people can vote for whomever they want for whatever reason, I find it absolutely unacceptable that some women would vote out of spite and claim that it is in the name of feminism. While it isn’t hundreds of thousands of women, I’ve read enough blog posts to see that there are women who have done exactly that.
Of course not every Clinton supporter is a white woman and not every Clinton supporter will switch their support to Obama simply because he’s running on the party ticket. However, given the similarity of their campaign issues, unless Cynthia McKinney has an even better platform, I’m not sure who would be more palatable to Clinton supporters than Obama. Have you decided which third-party candidate you’d support?
I’m also not sure what positive effects a write-in vote for Clinton would have, since she is, for better or worse, no longer in the running. I think it would be more productive to send her letters of support or get involved with her future campaigns and political endeavors than to miss your chance to decide who will lead the country for the next four years. You certainly don’t have to vote for Obama but please vote for someone whose name is on the ballot (unless it’s McCain – please don’t vote for him).

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 10:03 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:

@Latoya: I’ve been wondering what your thoughts were on all this so thanks for offering them. I hear you on election fatigue, believe it or not. I just couldn’t stand to let pass another post mischaracterizing HRC supporters followed by affirmative comments slamming us and also telling us we need to get behind BO, that party unity’s more important than having a place in the party.

On that note, you ask how, if the situation were reversed, would we feel if angry Obama supporters left the party, as Roland Martin claimed black delegates would if BO didn’t get the nom. Yeah, I take what Melissa Mc Ewan said and also what I said in the above paragraph to heart on principle and it does go both ways.
Back when Roland Martin said it, it was unclear who would win. I did think it would have been their right to withold their votes if as he said, the superdelegates “steal” the election from Obama. So now Obama’s secured the nomination with superdelegates and a DNC court decision, like either of them needed to do, and I doubt Martin feels now that it was stolen.

I think it’s important to honor what actually did happen. Polling data indicated that more Americans were unwilling to vote for any woman than were unwilling to vote for any black man and that more HRC supporters claimed they would stay home or vote for another candidate over BO in Nov. than vice versa. While she was held to an almost impossible standard because of her sex, he was held up as the great hope for postracial unity and we can now only imagine how it would have played out on a level field.

“I do not think we arrived at the same conclusion. Obama did not steal the election from Alice Palmer - the article and Palmer herself both say as much. Obama did employ some cutthroat tactics in that election all by the letter of the law. Was it fucked up? Yes. But he played the game best. ”

You’ve expressed genuine confusion before as to why a WOC wouldn’t be an Obama supporter and why WOC would see affinity with Clinton and not Obama. Well, here’s one more answer. I don’t bring this up with the expectation that you’ll automatically reject him, but it’s not hard to picture what opinion people here would have of Clinton had she done the same to a black woman who had paved the way for her. Would you not have posted it as proof of her racism? This may have been legal but in my opinion, it’s truly unethical and shamefully telling about the man’s character. And it wouldn’t have been ignored by the media if they weren’t playing cheerleader. That said, we all see things to like or dislike about our chosen candidate. I think we have both had to calculate what we can tolerate for what we hope to gain. It seems to have affirmed for you that Obama has the guts to fight and win and that’s fine. But it’s highly hypocritical of him considering how he and his supporters crowned him “the uniter” in opposition to Clinton the “dirty politician”

“Same could be said for HRC and race baiting.”

I agree with this, except for the media’s role. As a Clinton supporter I see an imbalance in media coverage, a parsing of her statements for indicators of racism(some true, some unlikely) while his are more often taken at face value and with trust in his motives. That’s why I think some Clinton bloggers have felt the need to explain what’s not being discussed, what so many more will not acknowledge exists.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 10:25 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:

I said this:

“Polling data indicated that more Americans were unwilling to vote for any woman than were unwilling to vote for any black man and that more HRC supporters claimed they would stay home or vote for another candidate over BO in Nov. than vice versa. ”

and I forgot to add that on CNN and MSNBC (I don’t watch FOX, so who knows?) I watched pundits discuss this data, uniformly concluding that the threat of black people leaving the party was a real one that the DNC should pay attention to but that women for Clinton didn’t really mean it when they threatened to leave ’cause where would they go? Women are used to taking a backseat and would continue to do so, it was assumed.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 10:38 pm ¶
Kirk Van Irvin wrote:

@Joeseph:
You know you’re about to get the hounds released on you, right?

@ Juju: you wrote: “You are actually suggesting that you are being singled out for having a penis?”

You know if I said anything like that to you , I would be figuratively beat down here, If not given a warning…

@ Slush: Thanks.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 10:39 pm ¶
EvilAngelfish wrote:

@#45
It is a triple salchow of a leap to imply from a couple of quotes about Clinton’s “claws” and feelings that because of Obama, the democratic party will suddenly become overrun by virulent misogyny and basic respect for women will be “a dead letter”. If you agree with Reclusive Leftists’ quote, I really don’t know where you’re coming from.

And, as a future doctor, I must point out that behavior and decision-making ARE influenced by feelings - in both women AND men. It’s a cheap shot to level at a woman as it so often is, but people need to stop saying it like it’s not a basic fact of the mental physiology of every human being.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 10:41 pm ¶
Britta wrote:

@Marge, I really don’t want to get into an acrimonious debate over the finer points of the primary campaign. Thankfully it’s over, and I’d be really interested in discussing the broader implications.

I am aware that Obama, like all men–like all people really, raised in a patriarchal culture, has sexist tendencies. And I am aware of a few sexist gaffes on the campaign, like the “sweetie” comment. But, and we can differ on this, in Obama, I see a man who struggles to fight against his sexist tendencies. I see a man, when called on his sexism, who apologizes immediately and works to do better next time. I don’t think Obama is, or ever will be, a perfect feminist. But I do see someone who intellectually is in the right place, whose policies are in the right place, and who is working on the rest. As a white anti-racist activist, I can sympathize. I have racist tendencies. Being raised in America, it’s impossible not to. But every time they come out, I work to overcome them or minimize them. I will never succeed in being truly anti-racist–I can’t. But I can work on being less racist, on having my racist prejudices be less hurtful. And policy wise, I can fight to dismantle institutional racism, which does far more harm than my individual racism ever could.

In terms of feminism, Obama will never be the same as a female president. His presidency will never have the same symbolic weight, just like no white president, even if it were, say, Tim Wise, could have the same symbolic impact on racism as a president of color. I guess for me, my sanguine feelings about not nominating a female candidate comes from optimism. Like you, I am 25. I have many years of voting ahead of me, and I expect there to be plenty of female presidential candidates I can vote for. Heck, I might even be one of them

I guess where we really differ is in thinking whether or not Hillary would be a great president. I think Hillary would be an ok president, and certainly far better than our current administration. But as someone who has been routinely disappointed by her over the years for her capitulations to Republicans, I have a hard time seeing her as “the” progressive candidate. When she voted for the war, she really let me down. When she refused to admit she regretted that vote, she let me down even further. Of course, all the male Democrats who voted for the war let me down as well, and I would not hold her to a higher, or different standard, because she was a woman. But when there is an option between an anti-war candidate and her, that plays a big part in my consideration.

Reading back on my post, I think I misspoke when I said it was all about arrogance and entitlement. Instead, I think Latoya is totally right when she said its about confidence in her beliefs. Linked to that, of course, is judgment. From the Iraq war vote to her campaign, I don’t see Hillary exercising good judgment. Every time she’s had a choice between principles and political expediency, she’s chosen expediency. She’s let people tell her that this is what she needs to do to win, to get the democrats in power, to get a progressive agenda passed. I get that she might have only the best interests at heart. But time and time again, she’s let people like Mark Penn tell her to do otherwise. To me, actions speak louder than beliefs, and I don’t see much good in a progressive politician who acts conservative because that’s what her consultants tell her to do. 15 years ago, that may have been necessary. Democrats may have had to be pragmatic Republican lites to stem the overwhelming conservative tide. I am grateful for the 8 years of Clinton between Bush, but it’s not a time I want to go back to.

Finally, I’m not a particularly huge Obama fan. I voted for him in the primary, and I’ll vote for him in the election, but I don’t see him as the progressive messiah either. I understand, if you’re coming from the left, that you might be disappointed by him. As a former socialist party member, I would never criticize anyone from voting for a 3rd party candidate over a democrat. Ever. That’s what democracy is about. But I honestly don’t see how Obama is any worse, any more sexist, than, say Ralph Nader. I don’t see how Obama is any less progressive than Clinton. I just feel like Obama, by nature of running against Hillary, has become a lightning rod for anger dissatisfaction that is out of proportion with who the person really is. I genuinely do not see how voting against Obama is a protest against sexism. I know we will probably never agree, and maybe never be able to actually have a conversation because our world views are too different. But here’s my 2 cents.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 10:46 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

“I find it absolutely unacceptable that some women would vote out of spite and claim that it is in the name of feminism. While it isn’t hundreds of thousands of women, I’ve read enough blog posts to see that there are women who have done exactly that.”

I agree with that, except that they haven’t done it, because the election is in November, and it’s only June. They’ve announced their intentions, and good for them for making the Democrats feel anxious and maybe a little guilty about it. How many of them will really vote for McCain? I don’t think many. Obama is a much more moderate and palatable candidate.

So as much as I want the infighting and bickering to stop, I simultaneously really appreciate those women for not letting everyone else shut them up about seriously legitimate criticisms of the sexism within the Democratic party. I’m not talking about Obama necessarily, I’m talking about the entire treatment of Hillary Clinton in the last six months. It was totally fucking outrageous! (And no, not particularly shocking, just particularly epic). Can anyone seriously call themself a feminist and just let it go like it was no big deal? Hell no! Whether or not you wanted her to win, speak up and speak out. Many of us have, many times. Why should we stop the critique now as if the problem went away after Obama won the nomination? If we just let it go we’re setting a bad precedent, and Michelle Obama is already next up in the ring.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 11:11 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:

@EvilAngelfish: Thanks for reading my links. I sometimes feel like I’m flogging a dead horse here, but I sometimes feel it necessary to correct the information imbalance perpetuated by the media and pro-Obama bloggers. Not to force my point of view, but to fight the invisibility.

Tim Wise addresses women HRC supporters but assumes we are white. We aren’t even all female. And he calls it a function of white privilege, as a silencing tactic, as if he even knows, as if all women aren’t an oppressed group. Sorry for ranting, I know you know. That’ s why women have been behaving like crabs in a bucket on both sides during this election.

I have written my concerns to the DNC. My hope is that between now and November Obama will pledge to be a true advocate for progressivism and make my decision easy.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 11:19 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:

Marge — that’s a great substantive comment, and while I do agree with you on the substance, I also think those who don’t should be hard pressed to argue that you haven’t considered the merits.

Also, re the “Supreme Court” argument and Obama’s view of Roberts, see this article on his own website:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/27/the_outsiders_insider.php

Operative section:

“It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator — still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office — was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. ”

Hillary Clinton did not have to “think” about her “no” vote on Roberts.

Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 11:25 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Marge -

No prob. For what it’s worth, I only choose links based on the commentary about race, not intentionally to slam HRC. I think Ta-Nehisi has been pretty good about being specific about who he is criticizing. There are lots of HRC supporters who do not hold these views - but as I said before, these are the people held up before the media as representative of all HRC supporters. Especially in terms of Tim Wise’s piece - what I took from it was very specific. Wise was discussing a certain type of HRC supporter, and made some observations I thought were apt. Most of the people here - and in other places I frequent - have mentioned many things in reference to their vote, but none have mentioned voting for McCain in the name of feminism.

IMO, it is your right to vote as you will. Be it third party, write in, or sitting out. But the “we’d rather vote for McCain” crew (who I’ve been sent links to, mostly) also tends to couple their protests with non-feminist statements and/or racist ones. So I find it hard to think that they are basing their decision on anything but prejudice. Other options don’t really bother me.

Part of the reason they don’t bother me is that those were the options I weighed when it looked like HRC was going to try for Denver. If I felt that strongly about the race baiting,* I would not have been able to pull my lever for her in November. I am puzzled as to why some HRC supporters are so offended by what Obama said, particularly if you compare what came out of the two camps, but it doesn’t matter what I think.

What matters is what people believe.

Well, here’s one more answer. I don’t bring this up with the expectation that you’ll automatically reject him, but it’s not hard to picture what opinion people here would have of Clinton had she done the same to a black woman who had paved the way for her. Would you not have posted it as proof of her racism?

Makes sense. From reading the article, it looked like he was acting consistently with his character (similar to when Michelle said there was only going to be this one run either he made it or he didn’t.) I got a couple emails talking about HRCs alliances, but nothing damning. A lot of what I got was Bill’s drama. Which, again, isn’t HRCs baggage to carry. But, as I said, it looks like we interpreted the article differently.

“It seems to have affirmed for you that Obama has the guts to fight and win and that’s fine. But it’s highly hypocritical of him considering how he and his supporters crowned him “the uniter” in opposition to Clinton the “dirty politician”

Less guts, more constitutional know how. It wasn’t gusty to jack Palmer’s seat - like I said, it was a dick move. But, it was a move he made after clearly asking about this seat and discussing his intentions, and then made a move based on those intentions. He knew the letter of the law and knew how to work it to his advantage, in a similar way as his 50 state, focus on delegates strategy. If the election comes down to the law like it did in 2000, I’m confident in Obama’s maneuvering.

uniformly concluding that the threat of black people leaving the party was a real one that the DNC should pay attention to but that women for Clinton didn’t really mean it when they threatened to leave ’cause where would they go?

Hmm. Now, I didn’t listen so much to punditry (they tend to annoy me, I prefer read my annoyances) but I do remember that discussion. I recall - but then again, I’m, in black circles so black bias applies - the issue was more about the most faithful party voters. Blacks have been really faithful to Dems, for little gain. (Similar to women, I suppose.) And more and more of us young’uns are choosing to identify as Independents and not Dems at the same time more and more blacks are finding more to like on the right side of things. (See the burgeoning black conservative political movement - I think a lot of black folks are waiting for the dixiecrats to die out before the switch.) So all those factors were at play.

@Slush -

simultaneously really appreciate those women for not letting everyone else shut them up about seriously legitimate criticisms of the sexism within the Democratic party. I’m not talking about Obama necessarily, I’m talking about the entire treatment of Hillary Clinton in the last six months.

I’m not mad at anyone protesting sexism. I am still confused at why all the blame is seemingly laid at Obama’s doorstep. A lot of us are angry about that too, but the mission always seems to get muddled. Are there any movements to hold the DNC accountable for promoting a progressive, pro-women agenda that do not involve Obama slams?

@Octo - Good find.

*When I say race baiting, I specifically think more about how she handled the situation and less about what was actually done. HRC did not distance herself from the damaging comments of others, she did not reject and denounce their comments or disassociate [as Obama did AND received some penalties in the Black churchgoing community] and she didn’t really fight for the black vote, which is most puzzling to me. I think she still would have lost a majority of the black vote to BHO, but it should have been 55/45, 60/40, not 90/10. Considering her popularity pre-primary, it just did not make sense to me. Which makes me think she second guessed herself.

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 12:19 am ¶
Donna wrote:

“It’s because of this attitude on the left that we have to anticipate which way the majority will go and vote with them, principles aside, that we’ve been moving ever rightward.”

You have heard of triangulation, the Clinton’s signature move? In case you haven’t, you have just described it, and yet, this is the person you supported? Republican lite DLC pro-corporation Clinton…oooookay then.

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 1:26 am ¶
marge twain wrote:

@Octogalore: Thanks for the link and for the compliment, on which comment of mine, though, I’m not sure. As a way of explanation, periodically, when I’m feeling down, I get a little spiteful with my bruised feelings. I’m surprised you see substance in any of them though ’cause I’m a very young woman and…Oh! Are you on your periodical too? Mine makes my brain hurt if I use it

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 1:26 am ¶
shah8 wrote:

Latoya, about the sexism conflation with Obama, issue…I think it’s pretty simple.

People think in simple terms:

Racist==Clinton Voter

Sexist==Obama Voter

Such people haven’t really caught on to the fact that racist people can be sexist and vice-versa. Or followed that line of thought to the traditional “feminization” of democratic party canidates, regardless of sex. Or realize that sexist people are perfectly capable of concluding that Bill will be the power behind the throne irrespective of that actual lines of power in a H. Clinton presidency and vote for *Bill Clinton* rather than Hillary Clinton in their minds.

Such people have thought that well, Obama *must* have benefited from the sexist vote, when that may truly not be the case. But the logic is too simple to chase.

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 1:29 am ¶
juju wrote:

@Kirk Van Irvin

“@ Juju: you wrote: “You are actually suggesting that you are being singled out for having a penis?”
You know if I said anything like that to you , I would be figuratively beat down here, If not given a warning…”

Say what?!? You are going to have to explain that one to me. Is “penis” the offending term? When you wrote: “I’ve read other women make this point. Is there something wrong with a guy saying it?” you are saying that you are the victim of some sort of “reverse sexism”, which is absurd.

You say you “would be figuratively beat down here”, and Joseph would “get the hounds released on [him]”. Is this a trend?

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 6:37 am ¶
Slush wrote:

@Latoya

“I am still confused at why all the blame is seemingly laid at Obama’s doorstep”

I think that’s because he’s candidate for chief executive of the country. And supplemental to that, now he’s also kind of chief executive of the Democrats. Because aside from writing angry letters, voting is how people are expected to express their political opinions. And he’s up for a vote. Sure, many former Clinton supporters will vote for him happily, but I think it’s pretty appropriate for feminists to demand he earn it from them. He could stand to pick up some more feminist values.

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 7:53 am ¶
J wrote:

“Sure, many former Clinton supporters will vote for him happily, but I think it’s pretty appropriate for feminists to demand he earn it from them. He could stand to pick up some more feminist values.”

This is one thing I’ve never understood about Clinton supporters and their hesitation to support Obama. Clinton is a moderate, right of center democrat. However, she has also consistently described abortion as sad and tragic, and has said she would never have one. I happen to agree with her positions, and I greatly admired her for fighting for emergency contraception. However, she is certainly not as progressive as say, Cynthia McKinney, and she started out the campaign as the inevitable, establishment candidate. She and Obama have the exact same voting record in the senate, and they both have 100% ratings from NARAL. The bottom line for me was always that she voted for the war. Other than the fact that she’s a woman, and has faced a lot of sexism, I don’t understand how she is seen as holding more “feminist values.”

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 11:11 am ¶
Joseph wrote:

@ Kirk Van Irvin
Eh. It’s okay, I stretched first.

@Marge
I am sooo not interested in being the special guest- penis in the little bus and truck production of Oleanna you have going on (and I’m going to guess off) this thread.

You say you mentioned your age to distinguish yourself from the myth of the “angry old white woman” Clinton supporter. Okay. In an important sense you are right that age proves nothing. Some of the most insightful folks on this site are around your age while some posters who are a lot older than I am have posted some complete nonsense. But I think in the context of this discussion there is a generational component that plays an important role.

So yes, I think that you, like a many, many other third wave feminists have no real sense of the battles that have been engaged on your behalf even as you profit from what has been earned. And yes, I think that those of us who lived through the plague years have a much different sense of what a conservative government will and won’t do on behalf of marginalized populations.

I should have cosigned Latoya (#43) earlier re: the “ugly, unglamorous” work of government. I have done this sort of grunt work on the activist side with a progressive lobby and her description about the way the American machine runs is absolutely right. I have seen too often that the way things change in this country is at the bureaucratic level. It was the willingness–no, enthusiasm–of conservatives to embrace this fact and begin stacking the deck as far down the political food chain as school boards that led to their eventual ascension as a major political force in this country. And while the left bickers amongst ourselves they will help themselves to another election. Do the evangelical Republicans like John McCain? No, they do not. They have serious ideological reservations about him–just as you do with Obama. But will they vote for him to keep their party in the White House? Hell. Yes.

You do not seem to understand this. And you are so blinded by–yeah, I’ll say it–your privileges (won for you by the generations of activists who preceded you) that you are actually arguing that throwing away your vote (!) is an expression of your political power. This is Botox logic: you know, where paralyzing your face into a placid mask is promoted under the motto “It’s about freedom of expression!”

“Well played, establishment, well played…”*

*Quoted for truth.

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 12:56 pm ¶
Bob Simpson wrote:

There is is some very perceptive commentary about the intersection of gender, class and race in the Coates article. The section on how the black and white elites differ was brilliant. It certainly helped my understanding. If you haven’t read the whole thing, please do. It’s worth your time

No, I don’t think Hillary Clinton was shocked at all by the sexism that she encountered. That was simply propaganda for her campaign. In fact for her to say that she was shocked dumbs down the debate over how we dismantle our ugly racial and gender caste system.

She’s saying that a smart politically experienced white woman has learned nothing over the course of her lifetime about how this shit works. If she’s learned nothing, where does that leave the rest of America’s white people?

I realize that white privilege dumbs down and clouds the judgment of white people but for cryin’ out loud, they’re not all as dumb as Hillary Clinton implies.

When will America’s public figures begun talking about race and gender in an honest way?

Bob Simpson

Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 2:50 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:

some of Slush’s Greatest Hits: I couldn’t say it better, so thank you

“I also agree with you that the black voting bloc, to wantonly generalize, would have voted for Clinton over McCain if she’d won, just like many Clinton supporters will still vote for Obama.

Those of you diehard Obama supporters could encourage that kind of behavior by not propagating the misery of the last several months by talking about how HRC was not a viable candidate or ‘rode on her husbands coattails.’ Come on, she didn’t just hang around, she tried to revolutionize the national health care system in the 90s, got attacked and visciously ripped apart for it by the Republican machine, and managed to pick herself up, get elected to the Senate, and run for President. She is an amazing woman, feminist or not, ambitious opportunist or not.

All other politicians are ambitious opportunists but only HRC gets called out on it like it’s a flaw. That pisses me off like nothing else.”

“So as much as I want the infighting and bickering to stop, I simultaneously really appreciate those women for not letting everyone else shut them up about seriously legitimate criticisms of the sexism within the Democratic party. I’m not talking about Obama necessarily, I’m talking about the entire treatment of Hillary Clinton in the last six months. It was totally fucking outrageous! (And no, not particularly shocking, just particularly epic). Can anyone seriously call themself a feminist and just let it go like it was no big deal? Hell no! Whether or not you wanted her to win, speak up and speak out. Many of us have, many times. Why should we stop the critique now as if the problem went away after Obama won the nomination? If we just let it go we’re setting a bad precedent, and Michelle Obama is already next up in the ring.”

“I think that’s because he’s candidate for chief executive of the country. And supple