Robin Morgan’s recent commentary for the WMC site, Goodbye To All That (#2), has generated significant response to the Women’s Media Center. Please use this space as well as a forum for sharing your reaction to the piece.
Response to Robin Morgan’s Commentary “Goodbye To All That (#2)”
211 Comments
It has been a long time since I read something so inspiring. The language I use in my head is a little less polite than “Goodbye to all that” but I have been thinking these things for a while now. It is refreshing to have such a strong and fearless voice articulate what we need to hear so badly.
Thank you, Robin Morgan, for saying what needed to be said. It is sad that a whole generation of young American women do not seem to get it. But the good news is that so many do. With the leadership of voices like yours, someday, someday we will get where we need to be.
Several noted feminists have been using their mailing lists to get out the vote for Hillary Clinton. This is my response to them.
Does it not matter to you that Clinton voted for the war against Iraq, that she did not have the judgment that millions upon millions of people throughout the world had to stand against Bush’s obvious deception. Does it not matter to you that she is now blaming the Iraqis for not stepping up to the plate – meaning not signing over their oil rights to us, does it not matter that in her war-provoking alliance with men in Congress, especially the right wing she voted to have the Iranian Army listed as a terrorist group, a step toward a US attack on Iran? or that she refused to support a ban on cluster bombs after a million of them, made and sent by the US, were dropped by Israel on villages and neighborhoods of Lebanon in 2006? Does it not matter to you that having turned over 4 million Iraqis – yes mostly women and children into refugees in a war she supported, she stands ready to do that to Iranian women and children? Does sisterhood have such a thin veneer that all of those Iraqi lives are forgetten in order to have a woman in the White House? Then why not Condoleezza Rice? Is there that much difference between them? Kathleen Barry
Additional note:Hillary Clinton voted for Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq H.J. 114. Section 3 of HJ 114 on this website http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c1076bIYFe:: gives the resolution in full. Notably feminists like Barbara Mikulski voted against this resolution. I simply don’t buy the “if I knew then what I know now” argument precisely because massive demonstrations world-wide took place a few months after this resolution authorized Bush to go to war showed that millions upon millions of us knew then what we know now.
I share the perspective Robin Morgan expresses about women in America. However, Hillary already had her chance at a defining moment in history. And on February 17, 2007, in Dover, New Hampshire, she said: “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.”
Robin Morgan’s column made me smile. And I haven’t been doing much of that, when I’ve read anything on the Democratic Primaries lately.
To the other feminists out there who want to support Barak Obama, I can only ask: Why should we find him so much more inspiring than a woman who has made her way through the pack after a lifetime of standing up for the poor and for children and for women and for minorities?
I came to Robin Morgan’s column through a link supplied by a post on Stanley Fish’s latest entry for the NYTimes. Fish talks about Hillary Haters in that column and, while he didn’t make me smile, I did sigh an “At Last!” …someone in the main-stream has finally picked up on the sexism in the media.
Alas, while Fish did suggest the Hillary Hating is as irrational as Anti Semitism in the way she becomes an empty vessel scapegoat for almost any complaint from any angle, he fell short of acknowledging why she could be used that way.
Hillary has indeed been blessed with being the symbol de jour for every misogynist out there, and all too often these sexist insults come from Obama supporters.
So I would ask the writers here, who are supporting Obama: Why, if you are inspired by him, and see him as the voice and the leader of the left, the champion of the downtrodden and the key to a more liberal future, do you allow such open sexism free voice? Where is your outrage?
The Obama team seemed to have enough righteous indignation to destroy the reputation of a man who has dedicated much of his life to civil rights, over an “allusion.” Some implicit racism seen behind what was essentially a comment about whether or not his wife could still win the election despite losing South Carolina. Fair enough…
So, where is your outrage at the blatant misogyny everywhere apparent when people discuss Clinton? Should it matter whether or not it is your candidate or his team that is directly dealing it out?
Who wins if the sexism continues?
If you have no outrage at the way sexism has coloured this campaign, while your candidate directly benefits from it, then you are complict in the act,
If you were Jewish and your opponent faced AntiSemetic insults at every step, if you were black and your opponent was losing ground because the media and the supporters of your guy were hurling racist comments and n-jokes, would you stand by quietly?
I understand that a rational and thoughtful feminist might not support a woman in the race if she/he did not think the woman was the best candidate.
I will never ever understand how so many women who call themselves feminists could stand quiet, complict in the way sexism has, unintentionally or not, so obviously greased the wheels of their chosen candidate’s momentum.
I agree completely with Robin Morgan, especially after having been subjected to a barrage of letters (from women!) about how they couldn’t possibly vote for Hillary Clinton because they can’t imagine her teaching Sunday School or loading a dishwasher or doing any of a number of tasks that their deeply loved, docile, quiet mothers and aunts always performed. When they decide to vote for Obama, McCain, or whomever else, do they ask themselves, “can I imagine him loading a dishwasher, etc.?” No, they don’t choose presidents based on how well they conform to certain gender roles, but women, unfortunately, continue to be judged harshly for their failure to conform. And gender bashing is considered perfectly acceptable, but race bashing is not. NEITHER should be considered acceptable.
An absolutely fantastic piece. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Robin Morgan. I refuse to judge Hillary Clinton based on a vote cast in the climate of fear and misinformation fomented by this pathetic administration. Instead I judge her on a lifetime spent learning the skills needed to run a country. That’s why I’ve put my money, my voice and my vote behind her.
Thank you Robin Morgan for illustrating the subtle and not so subtle ways that women continue to be undermined in this country, particularly when they have the audacity to play in the sandbox with the big boys. All the more reason to vote for Hillary or for any woman running-can we see the opportunity to break through the biggest glass ceiling ever and not take it? How would things be different if women ran the world? Hillary is one tough woman! Most men heckled and attacked like she has been would run for the hills.
I found this article bewildering. I am a forty year old woman, a mother, a wife, a daughter. It is odd and depressing to me that women of any age find it so gratifying to revel in the victim role. It’s tired, it’s old and it’s over. It’s too bad that people so invested in feeling out upon can’t look around and see that our country is a different place than it was 40 years ago. Maybe Hillary will win the primary, and she’s a fine candidate. But anyone who cares about winning the general election will pick the candidate without the poitically correct genitals.
Robin Morgan, you’ve made me cry. How sad that the generation of women who’s benefited from the efforts of us baby boomers has now turned its back on history. I wish I could make every woman in America read your essay.
Gracias, hermana
A great, great piece on Hillary Clinton! I’m watching all the tired double-standards Morgan mentions PLAY OUT ON TV most every day. Hillary isn’t just competing against Barack Obama, she’s competing against a male-dominated press and centuries of old societal standards. In the end, I just cannot be swayed on emotion and great speeches alone. I have very real doubts about this being Obama’s “time.” Of him being “ready.” That he has a firm enough grasp of the fierce size of the job and complexity of the issues — the myriad of intricate details and the overwhelming difficulty of getting things done. Perhaps he does, but not as much as HIllary. To me, it’s been obvious in the debates. In short, we are HIRING someone for the most difficult job IN THE WORLD. People compare Barack to JFK. Tim Russert even played a clip recently of a doubting Truman saying Kennedy wasn’t “ready” for the serious problems that faced the world. It’s an obvious comparison to the two sides debating today, but with some important points to add. Kennedy had been in the senate some 15 years and had won a Pulitizer Prize by the time he ran for president. Came from a highly political family. Obama’s been in the senate — in government — just since 2004. That doesn’t necessarily convince me regarding his argument that he’ll produce change as much as it sort of scares me regarding how much he’ll have to learn on the job. He inspires me, but his resume and policy-lite speeches don’t convince me. And there’s a difference. At least for me. I can’t, with a conscience, not vote the person I feel is the smartest and most capable for the toughest job in the world. I just can’t. That she’s a woman candidate is a mere bonus. Yes, Obama “moves” me. He inspires me. Tremendously. He gives WONDERFUL speeches full of hope. But that alone, for me, doesn’t make the sale. I just don’t think that’s enough in these serious economic and foreign policy times. He reminds me of MLK. And that’s GREAT AND IMPORTANT. But she reminds me of Bobby Kennedy, and that’s great and important, too, in its own, different way.
And Regarding her vote for the resolution, with all due respect to Obama supporters, your candidate wasn’t in the Senate seat, looking at all the false intelligence being fed from not just the administration, but the CIA and those in the media who cover all the foreign policy wonks. We can’t know for certain how he’d have voted because he wasn’t there, reading the same “intelligence” that she and everyone else in Congress was fed. Stuff that we, the public, never got to see. It’s not like she was the only one in the room who thought the mere formality — the ACT — of giving the president that authority to threaten military force would coerce Hussein into cooperating with weapons inspectors. Congress voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of using that threat as leverage to let the inspectors finish their work. Hillary looked to the precedent of past presidents. Put the blame where it belongs, squarely on Bush’s incompetent shoulders.
Are any of you Hillary bashers prepared to hold not just her, but EVERYONE accountable and to the same standard? I guess then you’re willing to toss ALL 90-plus who voted for the resolution out of office. It will get you a GOP congressional majority. Is that what you want? And you might as well stop reading all the newspapers and magazines, and watching all the political coverage on television or on the Internet, because they didn’t get it right, either. NONE of them.
Simply put, there was more going on in the case made for the threat of force than we, the public, knew at the time. Few at the time could have known to doubt its credibility. There was no historic precedent for such overwhelming incompetence and cherry-picked intelligence. Had Obama seen any of that “overwhelming” intelligence from so many sources, credible or not, and with time of the essence, I wonder if he’d have voted in line with his 2002 speech? Clinton has explained her reasoning. I accept her at her word, just as I accept Obama at his word. Ultimately, I hold GEORGE W. BUSH accountable. I believe that the ongoing finger-pointing regarding Clinton’s resolution vote is really something more … for people who don’t like to admit they just don’t “like” her.
A great, great piece on Hillary Clinton! I’m watching all the tired double-standards Morgan mentions PLAY OUT ON TV most every day. Hillary isn’t just competing against Barack Obama, she’s competing against a male-dominated press and centuries of old societal standards. In the end, I just cannot be swayed on emotion and great speeches alone. I have very real doubts about this being Obama’s “time.” Of him being “ready.” That he has a firm enough grasp of the fierce size of the job and complexity of the issues — the myriad of intricate details and the overwhelming difficulty of getting things done. Perhaps he does, but not as much as HIllary. To me, it’s been obvious in the debates. In short, we are HIRING someone for the most difficult job IN THE WORLD. People compare Barack to JFK. Tim Russert even played a clip recently of a doubting Truman saying Kennedy wasn’t “ready” for the serious problems that faced the world. It’s an obvious comparison to the two sides debating today, but with some important points to add. Kennedy had been in the senate some 15 years and had won a Pulitizer Prize by the time he ran for president. Came from a highly political family. Obama’s been in the senate — in government — just since 2004. That doesn’t necessarily convince me regarding his argument that he’ll produce change as much as it sort of scares me regarding how much he’ll have to learn on the job. He inspires me, but his resume and policy-lite speeches don’t convince me. And there’s a difference. At least for me. I can’t, with a conscience, not vote the person I feel is the smartest and most capable for the toughest job in the world. I just can’t. That she’s a woman candidate is a mere bonus. Yes, Obama “moves” me. He inspires me. Tremendously. He gives WONDERFUL speeches full of hope. But that alone, for me, doesn’t make the sale. I just don’t think that’s enough in these serious economic and foreign policy times. He reminds me of MLK. And that’s GREAT AND IMPORTANT. But she reminds me of Bobby Kennedy, and that’s great and important, too, in its own, different way.
And Regarding her vote for the resolution, with all due respect to Obama supporters, your candidate wasn’t in the Senate seat, looking at all the false intelligence being fed from not just the administration, but the CIA and those in the media who cover all the foreign policy wonks. We can’t know for certain how he’d have voted because he wasn’t there, reading the same “intelligence” that she and everyone else in Congress was fed. Stuff that we, the public, never got to see. It’s not like she was the only one in the room who thought the mere formality — the ACT — of giving the president that authority to threaten military force would coerce Hussein into cooperating with weapons inspectors. Congress voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of using that threat as leverage to let the inspectors finish their work. Hillary looked to the precedent of past presidents. Put the blame where it belongs, squarely on Bush’s incompetent shoulders.
Are any of you Hillary bashers prepared to hold not just her, but EVERYONE accountable and to the same standard? I guess then you’re willing to toss ALL 90-plus who voted for the resolution out of office. It will get you a GOP congressional majority. Is that what you want? And you might as well stop reading all the newspapers and magazines, and watching all the political coverage on television or on the Internet, because they didn’t get it right, either. NONE of them.
Simply put, there was more going on in the case made for the threat of force than we, the public, knew at the time. Few at the time could have known to doubt its credibility. There was no historic precedent for such overwhelming incompetence and cherry-picked intelligence. Had Obama seen any of that “overwhelming” intelligence from so many sources, credible or not, and with time of the essence, I wonder if he’d have voted in line with his 2002 speech? Clinton has explained her reasoning. I accept her at her word, just as I accept Obama at his word. Ultimately, I hold GEORGE W. BUSH accountable.
Bravisimo Robin! I greatly enjoyed your essay and am inspired by it. I read your book Sisterhood Is Powerful when I was 16. It changed the course of my life.
I find it amazing that women are claiming they won’t vote for Hillary because of Iraq. Agreed. We need to get the hell out of Iraq NOW, but it is equally important that we have a woman president NOW.
As Robin said, I’m voting for Hilary because I’m woman.
Shame on every woman who votes for a man in this election.
I not sure if she takes the time to read this message board, but thank you Robin Morgan. I’m a 37 year old white male and I’m voting for Hillary. My mother, who died at the age of 57 several years ago, was one of the first latina women to leave Pueblo Colorado for a “high profile” position as a secretary to Congressman Frank Evans on Capitol Hill. She was 18. It was big news. At her funeral, I was approached by no less than four or five people, both men and women, who said how proud they were of what she accomplished. They never thought a latina could do something like that. She never went to college. As a single mom, she raised my sister and I, took out one home equity line after another just so we could have family vacations. She was brilliant. She became a paralegal, and basically did a group of lawyers work for them (at their own admission!). Because of my mother’s influence, I have always been attracted to strong, independent women who, by the way, seem to be in short supply even in today’s world. Women are radically different than men. They have so much ability without the ego mind fog. I do want to say there are men out there who get it, who truly see a person as a person. Men like me who rock their two year old daughter to bed each night happy to know that one day being the President of the United States is within reach for her. Hillary, whether she wins or loses, is changing everything. I just hope all women come to their senses and get off the Obama Oprah hype train.
I’m a black man that stumbled upon this article from the NYTimes. I think it’s fine to support Hillary, black, white, whomever. I support Barack. It’d be nice to simply leave it at that. Not all of why I am – and my mother, and my grandmother – supporting him is because he’s black but it would be dishonest of me to say that isn’t a part of it. To think of having a black family in the white house and what it could to repair the images blacks sometimes have of themselves in this country, especially kids, is too powerful for me, for us, to deny. I’d also add that I don’t love the idea of 2 families running the white house (bush/clinton) for the past 20 years either.
But I certainly won’t begrudge a woman’s desire to want to see a woman in the white house and basing, at least in some measure, her choice on such a possible milestone of achievement. What I take absolute exception too in this article by Mrs. Morgan however is the need to run down Obama for sake of supporting Hillary. Part of why I love Obama is his reasonableness and his resistance of personal attacks and angry politics. Finally in SC he had to somewhat overcome that reluctance to keep himself alive against a increasingly polarizing Hillary campaign. To get to the point though here is what I really didn’t appreciate from the article:
“Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?”
I get it. You like the other candidate. Fine. God speed. But at what point can you do so without alluding to Obama as a “smooth” orator who can’t even write his own words? Should we slap some wing tipped shoes and a fur coat on him while we’re at it? Is Obama now some smooth talking pimp from Chicago, conning everyone with hope while at the same time parroting words given to his beak by a room full of plotting white men? Wasn’t this man President of the Harvard Law Review and didn’t he write 2 praiseworthy books? But a Black man who talks so “good” is really all style and, what’s more, it’s not even his own style because other people wrote all of it. Even in politics it seems that Black achievement is credited more to natural “style” than – WOW – intelligence and hard work. Forget his civil rights work, his years in state senate and as a US senator (just 3 less than Hillary herself)…he’s smooth talking us! My sarcasm drips. It’s hard to decide what I hate more: the “who suffered more argument” or soft stereotypes. But I got the whole ball of wax in this piece.
WONDERFUL WONDERFUL,,,REFRESHING TO READ THE “GOODBYES” AND WILL USE THEM EVERY MINUTE I GET TO ENCOURAGE THOSE AROUND ME WITH THE WORDS YOU USED ROBIN..THEY ARE SO RIGHT ON THE MONEY, AND I SAY ,,,,THANKS FOR HAVING THE MOXIE TO SHARE THEM WITH ALL OF US WHO FOUND THEM ON LINE..
Robin’s piece was startling but I’m determined not to give ugliness much energy.
I was in the Highland High School gym last night. In front of me was an elderly man on oxygen and an Hispanic war veteran and a number of elderly women (they were even older than I am!) and a young couple with their baby girl and two young college (?) students and next to me was a middle-aged couple and next to them a woman my age. Jim was at my side. That’s a tiny sub-group of the thousands that lined the streets to pack the gym for Senator Clinton last night. Were you there? Then you saw, too, how many people were thrilled by this incredible opportunity in American history.
Behind in the stands I could see my daughter (I could see her because she was standing on her seat, waving her Hillary sign with vigor) and beside her, her friends–one a city planner, another a young new lawyer whose specialty is immigration law, two others I don’t know.
From where we sat, we could see the crowd on the floor of the gym–among the throngs, a lesbian couple with their baby who, believe or not, fell asleep!; a group of young men dancing to the too-loud music and laughing; people of all ages, all colors, milling about, dancing, singing and waiting for this incredible event: to watch the first woman brave enough to take on all that Robin wrote about.
And there she was–absolutely radiant and with enough energy at 9:30 p.m. to mesmerize the crowd for an hour. Some one apparently fainted (from the heat ? in any event someone needed medical attention.) Senator Clinton assured the rest of us that the person was being cared for. Her daughter Chelsea stood beside the guards and the person who was ill until things were normal again. And we listened to the rest of the speech attentively.
I was aware throughout the hours of waiting and the actual speech that this was a very special moment in time. I hadn’t, however, fully appreciated the depth of fear and subsequent fury a woman’s power engenders. Misogyny can take me by surprise. No wonder the gym was crawling with police officers and secret service people.
I’m holding Senator Clinton and her family in the light. May it shine upon her and her team and light their way home. And may their new home be the White House.
Mary, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Thanks, I needed that. I knew I was going to vote for HRC b/c at the end of my life I didn’t want to look back and think “what was I thinking”… but until I read Robin’s “Goodbye 2″ I didn’t fully understand the struggle that HRC has gone through to finally be heard. And when I realized that, I cried a whole lot harder than HRC did when a woman asked her on the campaign trail, “How do you do it?” Thank you HRC for being the political J. D’Arc of my generation, from the bottom of my heart.
Yawn.
I am a sophomore at Stanford and a strong supporter of Hillary. Robin, this piece brought tears to my eyes. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart for writing it. Women of my generation say they have equality, but that just goes to show how far we stil have to go… 14% of higher governmental officials in the US are held by women. We are among the lowest in the developed world. I am a young woman who hopes, someday, to run for office. I identify with Hillary, and I think her votes for Iraq and the Patriot Act say more about our society and what women must do to get to higher office (I think she voted for the war, in part, because she felt she needed to prove she is tough on national security…) I could go on and on, but I’d really just like to keep it at THANK YOU.
I’m 19. I’m a supporter of HRC. And if she can’t do it, I will sigh and sulk… who can?
Hillary is the candidate for hope AND the candidate for change, and she will help me find MY voice!
I stood in the cold and rain at Pauley Pavilion (UCLA) for 2 1/2 hours then waited inside for another hour and a half to see Michelle Obama, Caroline Kennedy and Oprah. It was inspiring. Michelle talked about who Barack is, what they want for the country, the future she wants for her children. Oprah talked about being challenged by women about supporting him, being accused of being a traitor. She said, “I have been a woman my whole life, I have dedicated a great deal of my life to improving the condition of women, but I am not only a woman, I am a free woman, which means I get to decide who I support. Amen!!
Here are my comments on Robin Morgan’s piece:
• Robin, a white woman born into what remains a racist country, does not get to decide how Barack Obama presents himself. Barack Obama is not “passing” for white — he is half-white. What?! That half of him doesn’t count. I am reminded of a sentence from our (mixed race/mixed nationality/mixed religion) daughter’s college essay — “Don’t ask me how I identify. I don’t identify, I am.” I find Robin’s comment particularly insulting to all mixed race people — most of them young, by the way.
• Robin can assert all she wants that today’s “wage- and sex- slavery” are the same as official, legally sanctioned slavery. I have been a feminist almost as long as Robin. I work hard and give money to stop all forms of exploitation against women. And I believe that most Americans have never really, deeply considered what it meant for this country to actually buy and sell human beings. This was official government policy. It is like the human rights violations that have occurred in other nations and that those nations’ governments want to forget and “move on” from once they are “over.” Human rights violations must be looked at in the clear light of day. Here in the US, slavery is still not “over”, because we have never, as a nation, acknowledged the terrible harm that was done. This is not a competition about who is/was most oppressed.
• Of course Hillary Clinton is responsible for what Bill does. There is nothing about her campaign which is not calculated. He says things she can’t say. But in any case, it was Hillary who said that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act and she can’t blame Bill for that one. LBJ could go to Congress only because there was a mass movement backing him up, thousands of Americans who risked their lives for civil rights.
• “…a comparative lack of knowledge, experience and actual skill is seen as attractive…” Excuse me??!! Barack Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. Hillary was in the bottom third of her class at Yale. He was the first black president of Harvard Law Review. I didn’t think they gave that job to people who didn’t learn in law school. He has actually spent more years as an elected official than Hillary — four more years. He grew up black — because in this country you’re black if you have one drop of black blood. If that’s not some important “experience” when confronting the problems of our ever more diverse nation, I don’t know what is. He worked as a community organizer. He taught Constitutional Law. His time in a law firm (3 years) was spent representing community organizers, discrimination cases and those involving voting rights. Michelle Obama said yesterday, “The only reason we’re not in debt is because Barack wrote two best-selling books, which I don’t recommend as a good financial plan.” Hillary spent her working years as a high-paid corporate lawyer and a member of the board of Wal-Mart. And he’s almost fifteen years younger than she. What lack of experience, knowledge and actual skill is Robin referring to?
• Hillary is not a “polarizing figure” because she’s a woman. She’s a polarizing figure because of her own behavior and her choices. Remember the arrogance she displayed when they first tried to reform health care? Remember her comment about “a vast, right-wing conspiracy.” I actually think there was a conspiracy, but they didn’t conspire to make him lie under oath. If she had left the womanizing creep — and he continues to have affairs, by the way — she could’ve distanced herself from his legacy. I’m not for a minute suggesting she should have left him — though I would’ve been out of there in a flash — but she made her choices and there are consequences to those choices. As a peace activist, I do not believe she will end the war. A group of women from New York responded eloquently to Robin’s piece – their statement is included at the end of this email.
• The “myth” of a generational divide. There have always been generational divides and there always will be. If it is ageism for the young ones to want power, well, I guess we have to deal with some ageism. It is a natural part of being young and the last time the youth rose up we got the Civil Rights Movement, the peace movement and the women’s movement, if memory serves. I got an email from a friend who is supporting Barack yesterday and she said, “…went to the Obama headquarters and was struck by the diversity of the volunteers. We have been to democratic headquarters in previous elections … where the volunteers are primarily middle aged and older whites with a scattering of children when the parents bring them. The Obama headquarters for our Congressional district had people of all ages- up to 90 years old, and a broad coalition of whites and people of color, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Indians. The ability to inspire across the usual divides is very exciting in this campaign. Bringing people together across the divides and creating more of a rainbow coalition will also elect Obama to the White House.”
BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN! I wish it were out there for the world to read on this Super Tuesday!
How about goodbye to corporate greed that abuses the poor?
“Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, not only polls for America’s biggest companies but also runs one of the world’s premier PR agencies. A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm–the Glover Park Group–that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton’s campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons’ closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton’s economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. “She’s got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors,” says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman
Anyone who thinks voting for Hillary who is unapologetic for her war vote and is heavily tied to exploitive corporations is a progressive gesture is kidding themselves. And if you aren’t progressives but merely trying to perpetuate the oligarchic power structure with a few women sprinkled into the elite then I sincerely wish you the worst of luck in that yuppie upper class project. Freedom from oppression for ALL people is the only worthy political project, freedom only for women is no better than freedom only for whites or heterosexuals it’s a partial victory at best and more same old, same old oppression at it’s worse. Think about it… and think before pulling the lever for corporate tool and unrepentant war monger Hillary Clinton.
And just for the record no I am not a sexist guy I’d be thrilled beyond belief if Cynthia McKinney were to win the presidency. I would like to see a woman as president, just not Hillary (board of directors of Wal-Mart) Clinton. Is it really so hard to understand that people have real policy issues with Hillary outside of the confines of divisive identity politics?
I’m one of the old women you speak of, now in my early 70s, worked on a women’s newspaper and a women’s bookstore in 1970, which I continued to do for about 35 years until I retired 3 years ago.
A couple of nights ago I sat brooding, thinking ‘well f-k’m all’ as deeply angry as I’ve ever been, an anger I’d kind of forgotten about for some years. And now the anger is accompanied by a sense of betrayal.
Then I turned on the computer and linked to your piece, which felt like an expansion of what I meant by ‘f-k’m all’.
I now have a very long list of people I despise, starting with the list of so-called feminists for Obama. It’s that kind of blind adulation of a male who sweet talks and makes promises that results in women being beaten and killed by husbands, boyfriends.
I’m not sure of what to do about this anger: this isn’t the time for gangs of mad dyke feminists.
This piece actually makes me angry. The language in this piece is incredibly condescending and outright disgusting to me. I’m tired of being told that I’m a traitor or not a feminist because I support Obama and not Clinton. If anything, I think those accusing female Obama supporters of betrayal are incredibly hypocritical. To say that I should vote for a female because I have ovaries flies in the face of feminism. I am female and I can vote and I have a choice. I looked at the issues and the candidates and I chose. Imagine that. Now, just because I’m 22 doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is to be a feminist. All this rhetoric from prominent older feminists that young women today don’t support Hillary because they’ve never faced sexism and the struggle for equality are out-of-touch with reality. I’ve been called a feminazi IN MY WORKPLACE by a male co-worker because I said that I believe in equal rights for women. I’ve been talked down to because I’m female. I’ve had ignorant young men think that they can violate my personal space or objectify me because I’m female. And I’ve fought back. I’ve not been silent. To say that the next generation of women doesn’t understand what it is to deal with the double standard to objectification of women is a grievous error. Also, to insinuate that our support for a male candidate is betrayal or uninformed is complete dribble and I resent the accusation with all of my being. I would like to see the data that supports the claim that young women aren’t supporting Hillary because of pressure from their male counterparts. All of the women I know who support Obama are intelligent, independent women who have weighed the options carefully and made the one according to logic and their conscience. Oh no, not responsible voting! We should all just shush up and vote for Hillary instead.
The fact is that Obama is a great orator. He is an amazingly inspired speaker and he’s brought young people out in record numbers. Participation in the 18-25 age category has drastically increased for this primary and the age group is overwhelmingly going to Obama’s camp. That’s the beginning of a movement. Can we all stop acting as though a vote for Obama is a vote against women? Can we also STOP turning this into the Oppression Olympics? It’s really getting old.
“Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were black or he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems”
Was anyone else bothered with this statement? I think it perfectly illustrates the generational divide between Obama’s youth base and Clintons older white women base. What exactly is it to “pass as white?” Is she implying that when a Black man gets an education and speaks well and acts professional that he is selling out and acting white? What does she mean when she says that Hillary Clinton has to pass as male?
Since when is there a universal personality and behavioral quality to being black or female? Last time I checked there were strong-willed aggressive women and black people with Ph.Ds. I find this paragraph extremely stereotypical and insulting; especially to Black people who apparently “act black” when they are uneducated and inarticulate. Robin Morgan’s bigoted stupidity -immortalized in this essay- is one of many reasons we need Obama; to break down these ridiculous racial distinctions and stereotypes and the apparent assumption that smart minorities are somehow “acting white”.
For every woman saying “we need a woman president NOW” (post 14), where were all of you when Senator Carol Mosley-Braun ran for President in 2004? When people start championing a candidate solely based on the fact that they are a woman, it undermines all the achievements women have made in the past century. Having ANY woman as President would not be good anymore than having any Black man (Alan Keyes?) be President.
Hillary Clinton touts 35 years of experience, mostly as a first lady to a governor, first lady to a President, senator, and director on the Board of Walmart. If this were really about experience then you would have written an essay in support of JOE BIDEN or BILL RICHARDSON or CHRISTOPHER DODD. The fact that so many tout Clinton’s “experience” now after not voting for those two shows the blatant hypocrisy and falsity of the claim.
I resent this article for playing to the lowest possible denominator of servile tow-the-line women for the sake of women. George Bush appointed two Black people, 1 of whom was a woman, to Secretary of State while simultaneously undermining decades of progress for women’s rights and civil rights. Is this the kind of window dressing we want now? Rather, is this the kind Robin Morgan is demanding?
I’m a feminist – always have been. I’m also young – 25. I am also black.
I am tired, tired, TIRED of this idea being shoved down my throat by older second wave feminists like Ms. Morgan, Ms. Steinem and Ms. Pappas that not supporting Ms. Clinton is an act of ingratitude or being too fearful of men’s opinions to support a woman. Excuse you?
As a black woman who has seen black men subjected to this ALL MY LIFE I am also FED UP with the hostility, disparagement and belittling that older second-wave feminists seem to need to aim at Barack Obama to bolster their point. For example:
“an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.”
How DARE Ms. Morgan be so presumptuous as to assume that Obama’s supporters are so simple and child-like as to be swayed by “celebrity-culture mania” and “marquee charisma”. Then again, dismissing capable black people as being all style and flash and no ’substance’ (oh I hear the racial dog-whistle loud and clear) has always been a favourite tactic.
Just like I am not going to take the vicious sexist attacks on Hilary Clinton I am NOT going to take a privileged white woman belittling a black man in that manner – let’s talk about THAT double standard!
I am ENRAGED by the lie that Clinton is better qualified for the job – I don’t buy it. Fact- Obama has 11 years of experience at state and national level as an ELECTED official who had to be accountable to the public. Hilary has 8 – and many years as First Lady where she could cherry-pick what she dirtied her hands with and what she did not. You want to talk experience? Let’s!
Moreover, as a feminist, perhaps one that is too idealistic, I am MORTIFIED by the way she keeps using her husband’s accomplishments to pave the way for her. I am tired of the double standard among feminists like Ms. Morgan who do not acknowledge this advantage that Clinton has being a privileged white female and that it is greater ANY DAY than the ‘privilege’ you get from being a black American male. Just writing privilege and black American male made me giggle – the concept is still so far from being reality.
I am EXHAUSTED with hearing them bang on and on about how we must rally together and suport Hilary because think of all women have ENDURED. As Ms. Morgan piteously listed:
“Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all.”
Having privileged white women talk to me about suffering and enduring is really funny. That comment was almost as hilarious as Steinem’s disingenous, history-airbrushing comment that ‘black men got the right to vote before women’.
I shake with anger at the presumptuousness of these women. And then Ms. Morgan gives a superficial shout out to black feminists (though only the ones who support Hilary)? No thanks. Your blues ain’t like mine so let us not make it about who has suffered more anyhow. You do not want to go down that road.
THANK YOU for this wonderful piece. It made me cry, laugh, and think, all at the same time.
I GET the fact that people vote for Obama because they think he’s qualified, inspirational, etc. If he’s the Democratic nominee in Nov., I will certainly vote for him.
I voted for Hillary in the primary because I think she has the best plans to get us out of the many morasses in which we find ourselves. AND, I find it inspirational to vote for someone who has grown and matured in the public eye over the last 20 years. AND I haven’t seen that maturity yet in Obama. AND I can identify with Clinton’s personal and political and feminist struggles. AND I respect her for reaching across the aisle since she’s been in the Senate.
Let’s face it, politics IS about personality and personal identification. I think it’s great that women feel empowered enough to vote for whomever is the best candidate and for the person they identify with. For me, that person is Senator Clinton.
THIS feminist will vote for Obama. I’m insulted that you imply that I cannot possibly be a feminist and an Obama supporter. I have tons of admiration for Clinton, but I simply don’t believe that she is what this country needs right now. I will not vote for anyone just because she is a woman (or man, or black, or white, or Christian, etc). How dare she suggest that I am somehow less informed? How dare Morgan think she’s privy to what’s inside the minds of women who choose differently from her? I will give morgan more respect than she gives to me and say that I respectfully disagree.
The “Iron my shirt” guys were Hilary’s people…
Seems to me that Hillary Clinton has gone far out of her way to define herself as a proponent of so much of the hypermasculine, aggressive warlike strategies so many feminists criticize. I don’t like her vote for the war or any of her thinking on Iraq (well detailed in above posts). I don’t like the win-at-all-costs tactics that have characterized her own and her husband’s campaigns (and she cannot take credit for that “experience” without accepting the responsibility).
I have no doubt she could do the day to day job of being president, and I even think that her gender would have a positive impact on that by bringing a fresh perspective to the Oval Office. The trouble is that I don’t like how she thinks about the world and our country’s place in it. She spends far too much time plotting her strategies for attaining and holding power. She does not inspire.
Barack Obama has much criticism leveled at him, but I can say this. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I won’t vote. If Obama gets it, I will register to vote for the first time since 1980. He truly represents change. She fights only for herself.
I received this essay in an email. I read through Morgan’s litany of anti-woman ugliness and felt sullied as I always do by the trash-saturated aspects of our media culture. Cancel Comedy Central, don’t watch Jimmy Kimmel, boycott the airport gift-shop, and send letters of contempt to Carl Bernstein. Outrage at inequity and insult is warranted.
But to a feminist supporting Barack Obama, Robin Morgan’s essay itself is damaging. Using specious what-ifs to introduce racial stereotypes, decrying “toxic viciousness” while creating her own unique slur for Mr. Obama, invoking Harriet Tubman to support Hillary Clinton while using the same platform to claim that Barack Obama is “acting white,” Morgan takes unfortunate and divisive license. In a grotesque double standard, she asks readers not to pin the former president’s behavior on Hillary Clinton while conflating Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement with a bizarre memory of Marilyn Monroe’s suicide. I’m sure the Republican Party appreciates it.
Why set up a dichotomy for feminists? Can we get beyond “You’re either for us or against us?” The solipsism of voting for a woman because the voter is a woman ignores the breadth of human experience.
I received this essay in an email. I read through Morgan’s litany of anti-woman ugliness and felt sullied as I always do by the trash-saturated aspects of our media culture. Cancel Comedy Central, don’t watch Jimmy Kimmel, boycott the airport gift-shop, and send letters of contempt to Carl Bernstein. Outrage at inequity and insult is warranted.
But to a feminist supporting Barack Obama, Morgan’s essay itself is damaging. Using specious “what ifs” to introduce racial stereotypes, decrying “toxic viciousness” while creating her own racial slur for Mr.Obama, invoking Harriet Tubman to support Hillary Clinton while using the same platform to claim that Barack Obama is “acting white,” Morgan takes unfortunate and divisive license. In a grotesque double standard, she asks readers not to pin the former president’s behavior on Hillary Clinton while conflating Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement with a bizarre memory of Marilyn Monroe’s suicide. I’m sure the Republican Party appreciates it.
Why set up a dichotomy for feminists? Can we get beyond “You’re either for us or against us?” The solipsism of voting for a woman because the voter is a woman ignores the breadth of human experience.
The reason I will NOT vote for Senator Clinton is that she would have ZERO compunction about invading/bombing Iran if she were in a position to decide, and THOUSANDS more Iraqis would die at our hands if she were President than if Senator Obama were. If her or anyone else’s vaunted “experience” were of any use to those of us who are tired of seeing the rich (including her) get richer and the poor get poorer, who are heartbroken on a daily basis about the state violence visited on men and boys of color, it would be a hell of a different country.
I would like to echo Natalie’s comment…”Can we all stop acting as though a vote for Obama is a vote against women?” Echoes of the Bush/Republican motto ‘you’re either with us or you’re a traitor to your country’.
Morgan’s diatribe is just exactly what Hillary’s campaign is all about – misinformation, half-truths, playing the “I am Woman Card”, and, yes, racism. Hillary’s an integral part of the Washington DC politics that we want to change – she’s experienced at Rovian and Swiftboat tactics, and she’s got a long list of political and lobbyist IOUs to pay off and pay back. Let’s not canonize her or mischaracterize because she’s a woman.
I’ve spent 40 years waiting to elect a woman president – but not that woman. No, I don’t want her name in the history books as our first female president. I can wait a few more years for the right one to come along.
That was such a beautifully astute essay, which both fired me up and brought me to tears. This country needs HRC to turn it around and she is the only one with backbone to standup against the GOP.
Go Hillary!
Thank you for writing this. Its everything I have been thinking but did not know how to say it. I think HRC is a great human being and I have been a fan of hers all along.
I agree with Chelsea Clinton’ comment of: “I don’t agree with all the points Robin Morgan makes but I do believe her thesis is important for us all to confront–I confess that I didn’t entirely get ‘it’ until not only guys stood up and shouted ‘iron my shirts’ but the media reacted with amusement, not outrage…”
Nonetheless Robin has articulated what I have felt about the gender bias against Hillary among the male oriented media and the race bias for Obama. The supporters of Obama are mainly people who earn more than $75000 a year and the white bourgeoisie who comfort themselves that at long last they can make restitution for the sins and guilt of their forefathers who subjected the black people to slavery and social inequality. I think this is what the gentleman constituent from Iowa asked of John Edwards whether if it’s “pay back time”. This episode in Iowa was swept under the carpet by the media. Similarly the media took no issue to Obama’s snide response to Hillary’s likability factor in the New Hamshire debate.
I am proud of Hillary because she is a person of substance, endurance, fortitude and passion. She not only weathered the storm after Iowa but was able to stand tall after the vicious media relentlessly kicked, battered and abused her when she was down. And I think the media and Clinton haters are incensed by her audacity of resilience. Yes Hillary carries the famous Clinton name but if she was not smart, capable and qualified to be a president, I wouldn’t stand by her. I am a woman and in my life so far I find sexual discrimination at work and in social circle but the disturbing truth is that some women can be more vicious against their own gender than men.
A-1 comments, especially concerning the double standards that are generously applied by the news media. What this all proves, sadly, very sadly, is that on the hate-scale, women are just slightly below African-Americans. But there is another aspect that I find terrible: Besides letting the corporations ride roughshod over the country and the world, the Bush administration has morally and intellectually lowered th barrier of discourse. I remember 30 years ago there might have been some outrage at the utter tastelessness of the “opposition.” Today, many of these people sound like psychotics off their meds. It already started under Reagan, because that is when power became an aim in itself. John McCain’s answer to the “bitch” heckle is what turned me completely off the man (I confess I would never vote GOP), he should have known better. And that poor judgmnet means, in my books, that he is unfit for the White House.
Hillary is fit. She is conducting a good campaign.
An interesting, tangential piece written by a Black feminist at The Root that takes on the issue of Black women and their support for Obama over Hillary. Hard-hitting and honest:
http://www.theroot.com/id/44696
I agree with Chelsea Clinton’ comment of: “I don’t agree with all the points Robin Morgan makes but I do believe her thesis is important for us all to confront–I confess that I didn’t entirely get ‘it’ until not only guys stood up and shouted ‘iron my shirts’ but the media reacted with amusement, not outrage…”
Nonetheless Robin has articulated what I have felt about the gender bias against Hillary among the male oriented media and the race bias for Obama. The supporters of Obama are mainly people who earn more than $75000 a year and the white bourgeoisie who comfort themselves that at long last they can make restitution for the sins and guilt of their forefathers who subjected the black people to slavery and social inequality. I think this is what the gentleman constituent from Iowa asked of John Edwards whether if it’s “pay back time”. This episode in Iowa was swept under the carpet by the media. Similarly the media took no issue to Obama’s snide response to Hillary’s likability factor in the New Hamshire debate.
I am proud of Hillary because she is a person of substance, endurance, fortitude and passion. She not only weathered the storm after Iowa but was able to stand tall after the vicious media relentlessly kicked, battered and abused her when she was down. And I think the media and Clinton haters are incensed by her audacity of resilience. Yes Hillary carries the famous Clinton name but if she was not smart, capable and qualified to be a president, I wouldn’t stand by her. I am a woman and in my life so far I find sexual discrimination at work and in social circle but the disturbing truth is that some women can be more vicious against their own gender than men.
as was noted by toni morrison… wisdom is a rare commodity, it cannot be learned, it cannot be taught, it does not stream down the gene pool. hillary, among other things is a wonk, a manager, not a leader,nor a visionary… she certainly is not wise and her judgment is often colored by political expediency.
perhaps morgan would like condaleeza to run for president, best of both worlds; black and female! oops, gee, can’t do that, she was the WORST secretary of defense ever-set the womans lib movement back about a century. clinton shows the same potential, they both maybe intelligent, but synthesizing data into an informed judgment does not appear to be eithers strength.
another reason not to vote for hillary, woman or not…
How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, ‘n’ how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, ‘n’ how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, ‘n’ how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, ‘n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
How many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, ‘n’ how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, ‘n’ how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
I would like to thank Robin Morgan for sharing her thoughts. I agree, the tone and hostility expressed at Hillary carries a fundamental tone of anti-feminism and misogynism. Unfortunately, I can not agree to the conclusion, that you are voting Hillary because ‘you are’ a woman. Wether she is, or you are,voting based on identity politcs is a poor choice, unless all things are otherwise equal. Much like Gloria Steinem’s desire to vote for Clinton because she’d “make a good president, and she’s a woman,” it implies its fundamental flaw; it does not represent a choice for Hillary because she would make the best president, merely a staisfactory one. If you can make the statement that Hillary would truly be the best person for the job, and I can accept that there are some strong arguments in favor of that point of view, then you are doing the country a great service in casting your vote for Hillary. If you can not, then you not only have failed your country, but you’ve failed yourself.
end the hate
Barack the VOTE
I am a woman, a sister, a wife, a daugther, mother and grandmother.
My brother, father, grandfather and son fought for my human rights and nurtured me towards independent womanhood. They(men) cooked, cleaned, ironed and pampered me with kindness and loving care, and “Aint I a Women”. (maybe not quite the stereotype you are so knowledgeable of, however you quote clinton on human right which she gleemed from the backs of true “freedom fighters”)
For every little child in the USA, I am voting for Barack Obama.
Ask Edelman_Wright and review welfare reform this will clarify, How much senator clinton cares about poor (welfare) children?
She could have READ the “…military action against Iraq” report before she voted to send our children to kill and be killed along with Iraq children.
How dare you, in all your priviledged arrogance use the words attributed to our Couragous American Hero Harriet Tudman. You are the scourge of this country.
It’s not about voting for a woman because she’s a woman; it’s about voting for someone who is by far the most qualified candidate, who happens to be a woman. To hear feminists framing it as ‘I won’t vote for her just because she’s a woman’ is…sad, very sad.
I started out, when it was just Clinton and Edwards, cheerfully thinking that I would be happy with either. I had a preference for Edwards because of his unwavering passion for freeing us from corporate rule.
It’s not about electing a candidate who can rise above partisan politics; the Republicans won’t, no matter who Democrats elect. To not realize that is to not take into account what has gone on for the past 15 years. Wishful thinking is dangerous. It’s caused many a woman grief.
That’s why those of us who support Hillary are so furious: to be blind to the leadership virtues of Hillary Clinton is to be in the perfect patriarchal reality fog, the sea we’re in, which we barely notice.
Women are brutalized, killed, raped, maimed, starved, enslaved, all over the planet. It is the normal way of things on a planet where males and war games rule. If the rights of women were observed, we wouldn’t have such problems. Make the world better for women and children, which has been Hillary Clinton’s focus all her life, and warness evaporates.
I just finished reading Robin Morgan’s article on your organization’s web site and I had a question. Are you INSANE? You must be, because otherwise I seriously don’t know how can you justify posting such a hateful, bigoted, mean spirited, viciously unproductive and wholly disgusting piece of work on a site that claims to be about uniting and empowering women. I have never in my life read a “feminist” piece that I have found as polarizing or as offensive as Ms. Morgan’s article.
“Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power” —-I am a young American woman who has been closely involved in the political process, always for the Democratic party. I have been active both professionally and personally in supporting democratic candidates after thoughtful analysis of each of their views, extensive research into their backgrounds and lengthy discussion with my peers – women and men alike. To have some crackpot suggest that my thoughtful and balanced approach did not occur because I refuse to fall in line with her OLD SCHOOL, OUTDATED AND TIRED CIRCA 1970 FAUX FEMINIST RHETORIC is disgraceful.
Ah yes, but Ms. Morgan seems to suggest that it is my fear of POWER that makes me not want to vote for a particular female candidate. Really? I didn’t see that fear of power when I attended law school and graduated near the top of my class. I certainly didn’t see that fear of power when I worked shoulder to shoulder as a young attorney at a male dominated law firm in FINANCE. And now that I manage a department with several men reporting to me…I have news for you….I DO NOT FEAR POWER.
But in case you are curious, I will tell you what I do fear. I fear spreading shame and self-doubt in the name of “women’s rights” to a legion of women who have finally felt they could be a part of the political process and make up their own minds without having their opinions dictated to them by men or intellectual dinosaurs. I fear women so angry at the past that they can’t accept a generation of women who, while thanking them for their sacrifices, do not need to mimic their choices to be loved, respected and happy. I fear intimidation disguised as concern, threats disguised as advice, pathology disguised as passion. But most of all, I fear that some young woman will read Ms. Morgan’s article and see it as more than it is…the rantings of an angry person, desperately trying to resurrect a fledgling campaign, unable to see that the tide has turned not because people can’t see her candidate’s greatness but because her candidate’s flaws are indeed too great. I certainly hope that most young women will have more sense than you did when you posted this piece. For me, and for countless other women who had the misfortune of reading the article, all you did achieve was to further alienate me from an organization and a candidate that would propagate such nonsense.
For shame all of you. For shame.
— Goodbye to crusty 70’s feminism.
Thank goodness atleast some women out there are willing to admit what so many are terrified or incapable of voicing—now if only Clinton would use the speech Morgan cites (from that world congress on abuses against women) and if only the likes of Morgan could appear at huge rallies for Clinton!! How much more meaningful than the vapid star-endorsements of Oprah for BO! I truly think it’s possible that some men would recognize themselves, and perhaps change; and at least some of the daily raping of Hillary in the press would cease!
Polarization whether it is done by women or men is a very sad commentary on American life. We are human beings. Lets both show some understanding and acceptance of each other.
Perfect article. All analogies on target, all questions begging answers. I came from reading a trash pile of comments posted after the MSNBC story. Plenty of nasty Hillary bitch comments, but also a nearly equal amount for “nappy headed” Obama! Another often overlooked inequality during the campaign would be Mitt Romney’s religion. Somehow that was mostly okay to deride. Imagine if we had Gladys Knight running. A black Mormon woman.
I find the Robin Morgan piece almost as offensive as the sexism that it is rightfully reacting against. That’s because the piece degenerates and ends up trafficking in the same stereotypes and reductionism that it denounces. Like Erica Jong’s recent piece in the Washington Post, it blatantly disrespects the person and accomplishments of anyone other than white American females. It’s that type of self-interestedness that allowed HRC to vote for a war that used Iraq as America’s doormat. In order to show how “tough” she could be on national security, she voted for that war. She voted for it even as Bush pointed out repeatedly that we’re “fighting them there so that we don’t have to fight them here.” What about the Iraqi women and children who have paid the price, and are continuing to pay, for that decision? Think about it, if you are honest, for just a single second. And weep.
As a middle-aged professional woman, I would agree that misogyny is alive and well in this country. But so is racism. But making an agreement for Hillary, (or conversely for Barack) primarily on the basis of which group is more victimized doesn’t work for me.
I’m voting for Obama for a multitude of well-thought-out reasons, none of which I need to spell out here. And I find it more than a bit hypocritical that while the author takes objection in her essay to black woman being warned not to “betray their race” in their voting choices (which, I agree, is reprehensible) yet she turns around and essentially encourages all women not to “betray our sex” in our voting choices. You can’t have it both ways. Both are the same tired appeals to identity politics.
Vote for Hillary if you deem her the best choice. That is your right. But don’t condemn those of us women (who are strong feminists ourselves) who are making a different choice by implying that somehow we are “letting the sisterhood down” by not-choosing Hillary. I choose Barack Obama. That is my right– as a citizen, as a mom, as a feminist.
I agree with Morgan’s observation that too many criticisms of Hillary Clinton are blatantly misogynist. However, in her passionate appeal, Morgan seems to imply that support for Barack Obama is “not feminist,” and that’s just not the case. There are many strong feminist women who are supporting Barack Obama. Chris Gregoire, governor of Washington, is but one recent example (see below).
Morgan also implies that sexism is a greater burden than racisim. Can we really make that claim? And doesn’t such a claim inherently divide us against ourselves? As but one counter-example, consider the fact that a total of 28 governors have, to date, been women and that women currently serve as governors in eight of the fifty states, whereas the first black (ever) was sworn in as governor just this year. Given the counter-productive nature of such comparisons, I think the better message is, as Gregorie says, “Back when I was 18 years old, if anyone had told me in my lifetime we would have a choice between the first woman president and the first African American, I would have laughed out loud. They are both breaking the glass ceiling if you will.” That is the point, I think, that Robin Morgan misses.
I fully believe that women are just as capable as men as being leaders, probably even more so since men and women deal with stress in very different ways (this is a generalization, but evidence suggests this is true). I think what has given “Feminism” such a bad name is the irrationality with some of their arguments. Yes, women have been unjustly discriminated against and have a right to want to change the status quo, however, the personal attacks Robin Morgan uses in her article are baseless and just as superficial as the stereotypes society has unfairly placed upon women. Morgan cannot complain about double standards when she sets up double standards of her own. I am a woman and I am not voting for Clinton. This isn’t stemming from some deep-seated worry to appeal to men (please Morgan, give your fellow women some credit), but rather because I like her opponent’s message of “being able to disagree without being disagreeable.” We can have passionate debates, but we shouldn’t be throwing at each other personal attacks. After the past 8 years, I want someone with an analytical and rational mind, and voting for someone just based on gender would not be a smart thing to do. Hillary should be proud of all that she has accomplished, but if we want to be fair, then we should just her as a person, and as a person she has not conducted her campaign with integrity or honor, and that is why she has lost some of my respect for her.
robin: you already know all the irratonalities and contradictions and base double standards that you’ve written here. you’re too intelligent to be this… well, you know, too. but let me say this. we like to say that conflicts can only begin to be resolved when one group loves its children more than it hates its enemy. please think on that. my mother, happily, doesn’t agree with anything you’ve put here: she’s a feminist. but you should be more invested in my generation of women than in hate for your generation of men. i can’t vote for hillary anymore, not after you and steinam and so many others pinned this wretchedness that you call feminism on her and she played right along. it was over when she coyly whined “really?” at the l.a. debate when presented with the opportunity to play the victim. i want a woman in the office, but i don’t want a natural slave. and you have made her one. oh, and it’s just… repugnant?… that you penalize obama for being seen as messianic (i don’t have to tell you that you’re a racist, do i? you know that, too. and you’re ok with it), as christ speaking before his crowds, when you want me to support hillary because she’s christ on the cross, suffering for so many sins against women. boohoo. i’m proud that the vast majority of my generation of women are not the natural slaves you’re appealing to here. we regret, though, that we don’t have names like yours to cite as feminists anymore. guess we’ll have to start naming ourselves. goodbye to all that.
I was all set to respond angrily to Robin’s article until I read Eva’s comment and realized that she said everything that I was going to say, only far more eloquently. The only thing that I would add is that you can’t say goodbye to ageism at the same time that you ask someone to wait eight years for their turn, because they are supposedly too young and inexperienced.
If anything, I think that Hillary Clinton had a lot more to offer both the women and men of this country sixteen years ago when she had the guts to say that she wasn’t willing to stay home and bake cookies. In the sixteen years that she has aged, she has, contrary to what Robin suggests, become far more conservative and way too cautious. Aside from voting for the Iraq War, which was reprehensible in its own right, she sat idly by while her husband executed a mentally-disabled African-American man just so that he could present himself as being tough on crime and disenfranchised millions of gay men and lesbians by lobbying for a vetoproof majority for the Defense of Marriage Act just so marriage equality wouldn’t become an issue in his re-election campaign.
Why do I indict Hillary Clinton for the actions of her husband? Because when she claims 35 years of experience, she is inextricably linking herself with her husband’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations. And while she does deserve all the credit in the world for the role that she played in the positive accomplishments of his time in office, she must also take responsibility for or at the very least show some degree of remorse for some of the most brutally awful aspects as well. To date, she has not done this and should be ashamed.
I’m a 46-year old professional woman. And yes, I agree that misogyny is alive and well in America. But so is racism. And making an agreement for either Hillary or Barack based on which group is (and has been) more victimized seems a pretty flimsy way to choose a president.
I agree with the author that black women should never feel pressured that a vote for Clinton is somehow “betraying their race.” But I find it the height of hypocrisy that she then proceeds to tell all of us women that a vote for Obama is “betraying our sex.” Both positions are wrong. Both are appeals to tired identity politics.
Women (and men) should feel free to vote for Hillary, if they so choose. That’s their right. But it is also the right of anyone — including strong feminists like myself — to choose Obama. And that’s what I’ve done, for a variety of well-thought-out reasons. I’m proud of my choice. And I find the argument that somehow I’m “betraying the sisterhood” to be as weak and offensive an argument as any other call to identity politics in this day and age.
To Robin Morgan,
I thank you for your article on the sexist response to Hillary Clinton. Until I became aware of the accretion of rage expressed toward her by other candidates and the media, I was torn between Senator Clinton and John Edwards as my candidate of choice. However, after the first or second debate, the hostile responses of the supposedly objective commentators flooded my consciousious. It was a watershed moment, after which I became unequivocal in my support of Hillary Clinton.
What worries me, however, is the strangely thin and exhortative rhetoric of Obama. Perhaps it is Madison Avenue, or TV, or consumerism, poor education, or bad conscience that is responsible for our fascination and delight in star power, easy charm, knee-jerk optimism, and facile rhetoric. Americans are easily hypnotized; they say Obama represents “change” and “cooperation,” but when asked what they mean by these terms, they are unable to explicate. They detest Mrs. Clinton, but when asked why, they can’t say. If they do come up with reasons, they are foolish ones, e.g.”she stayed with her husband after he cheated.”
This is a very frightening time. After eight years of Bush, Americans need to be especially astute in their choice of president. We cannot afford to vote for our favorite male star.
Dr. Rochelle Sullivan
I found Ms. Morgan’s blog, Goodbye to All that (#2) more then inspirational! Isn’t it about time that someone actually let the other side be heard? I don’t think I can handle another 10 months of the one-sideness of this Democratic Presidential campaign. Bottom line, Obama might be the man, but he is the man with literally no experience. If he really was a smart man and wasn’t part of this “instant gratification generation”, he would have realized that he just might be a shoe-in for President had he waited 8 years and allowed himself to be groomed for the positon and got some experience along the way too!
First, I’m not a woman so I’m not sure if that disqualifies me from presenting a position at odds with Robin Morgan’s commentary. I do “get it,” and I get the importance of this election for women not just here in the United States but around the world. I recognize that a President of the United States that is a woman is the logical next step as women have ascended to the highest ranks in the military, in the Cabinet, in Governor’s mansions across the United States, to the Speaker’s chair in the House.
I am taken back however that a leader in the feminist movement couldn’t take a step back and look at the big elephant in the room. The backlash against Hillary is not a torch just read as the essay indicates by “bad men” in the media it is shared by other women as well. Granted it is her personal life and everyone is entitled to handle personal crisis in their own way…there are a lot of women who are still peeling themselves off the ceiling for the way she protected and in turn degraded herself by “standing by her man.” There are mothers of soldiers in Iraq (dead and alive) who can’t move beyond Sen. Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her vote in this horrible and illegal war. She talks a good liberal game as a candidate for President, but her foreign policy votes are nearly identical to that of John McCain’s. The biggest problem for HIllary’s ability to woo more women…is that she’s Hillary Clinton. What a step back in the feminist movement to suggest that these “bad men” are the sole reason for you to feel the need to have a call for support for Sen. Clinton. This is so disappointing to read. Susan Sarandon did say it best, “”I have no doubts that a woman can lead this nation. I do, however, have serious doubts about THIS woman.” Don’t you get it Robin? It is Hillary that is standing in the way of her own destiny…and her ability to present herself as a woman others can identify with. Put down your pen, pick up the phone and use your energies to give her campaign this very groundbreaking fact. That will be a far better contribution to moving the feminist cause forward than whining that the men in the media won’t give her a chance.
Wow, how is all of this rage going to get anyone elected? To the younger women who are supporters of Senator Obama, I respect your choice though I make different one. In the end, we will all need tog et behind the nominee chosen by the people, whoever they are. There has been enormous coverage (at least on my NPR affiliates) of how race is affecting this contest. A very good thing I think. However, conversations about gender have been almost completely absent. Ms. Morgan makes some very good points and no matter who you are voting for, some of the assault on Senator Clinton are undeniable hateful and gender based and morally wrong. We should ALL be morally outraged by T-shirts and dolls and sexist commentary as we would be (and are) about racist comments and the like. I am grateful for the article because we need to have the conversation- not the ridiculous one about who has the corner on suffering or the corner on the truth, but the one about both gender and race in our society and how we can most affect change.
I am a 59-year-old feminist who was on the front lines in the late ’60s and early ’70s (or, in other words, a woman who perfectly fits the Hillary voter profile) and I am sorry to say that this piece by Ms. Morgan is a big step backward in women’s efforts to achieve parity on all societal levels. It is vapid in its arguments and incorrect is its assessments of the Obama campaign. As a voter who is about to go to her caucus today, I was on the fence, but no longer. Thank you Ms. Morgan for inspiring me to vote for Mr. Obama. It is time to move into this century and adopt a more inclusive umbrella.Ad to say but your extremely tired rhetoric doesn’t work for this feminist anymore.
A truly empowered, intelligent woman will use her head and critical thinking skills to decide her choice for the president. Color of skin and genitals are not high priorities in my list of pros and cons, in fact they are not priorities at all. I am a middle-aged white woman who is for Obama because of his integrity and honesty. I TRUST and RESPECT him for the PERSON he is. I can’t say that about Hillary, who manipulates and distorts and feels justified in doing so. I raised my daughter to be an independent thinker and stand up for her rights and I would not want her to feel the ugly poisonous anger in this article. I have always thought that it is a good idea to turn a statement around and see how it sounds. If you heard a man saying men should vote for men and that gender was the deciding factor in selecting such an important position, you would be FURIOUS!
It is time to stop hating and being angry when there is a positive choice. I am making what I think is a postive choice and I am smiling. Anger and hate are like poison–they destroy most the vessel in which they live.
As a life-long feminist — who’s dreamed of a female president since elementary school — it is disappointing to discover that our first viable candidate is a woman I can’t vote for. And I’m enough of a feminist to believe I have the right to base my vote on my own assessment of the candidates– and not on who the feminist establishment tell me I should support. Clinton’s “experience” is based largely on the achievements of her husband’s administration (though none of its failures are attributed to her) and the ONE Senate term she served prior to Obama’s election to the same chamber. On top of that, she has the baggage of a history of opportunism, dishonesty, dirty campaigning, AND a vote for the Iraq war. Why then am I supposed to feel guilty or that I’m insecure or lacking in self-esteem if I don’t vote for HER? I’d say the one with the “chromosome thing”, but then I’d be accused of being misogynistic. And, funny thing is, I’ve always been proud to be a woman.
What a hateful, divisive, tone-deaf essay this is.
Hillary Clinton is not hated because she’s a “strong woman,” but because she is an unethical, untrustworthy person who consistently places politics above policy in important decisions like the Iraq authorization and Kyl-Lieberman. She has spent the last several years learning to manipulate the levers of a broken system, and now she’s outmatched by an opponent with the ability to overwhelm and reform that system by inspiring a working majority to demand a change in the process of politics.
The 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush have been marked by an increase in the politics of divide & conquer. Clinton’s own pollster Mark Penn wrote a book on this “microtargeting.” Carefully select a 50%+1 coalition and drive a wedge between them and everyone else. This may be great for a feminist who thrives on hostility between women and men, but it’s not what most of the country wants. Barack Obama is about ending the era of politics in which divisiveness is an effective weapon, and rallying the country around our common dreams and goals.
Hillary’s theme of “I deserve this, dammit!” is not so uplifting. “You hate women!” is not an effective answer to her critics. These strategies might help win over a fraction of the Democratic base, but they will fall flat in the general election, and they will do nothing for her when it’s time to govern as President.
I have to admit that having been a feminist my entire life, I’m having a crisis of conscience on the heels of this election. Is there still a women’s movement, one that cares about equality and justice for ALL women? As a woman at the intersection (both African-American and a woman) I’m dealing with the tensions between those identities as I find myself increasingly more angry at a movement that expects my support and betrays it, at the same time. To the individual who commented that sexism is ok and racism is not… did you follow the events of S. Carolina and Bill Clinton’s non-apology, apology (as Hillary stayed silent, as if Bill’s words didn’t matter)? Where were the women fighting the oppression of racism? Did they speak up? If so, I missed it.
Was the ‘Obama girl’ of the 90’s not Monica Lewinsky, a young girl who did what a powerful man told her to, believed he loved her when he gave her gifts and trinkets, violated her body and trust and called her a liar in the public eye? She was younger then, than the daughter he and Hillary fight to protect NOW. Would the women who love the men behind the ‘Obama girl’ be viewed with a suspicious and critical eye, as Hillary has not been? Would they be accused of selling out a fellow sister for the sake of success?
Monica wasn’t Hillary’s fault? What about the fact that she was reported to be responsible for setting up a committee to protect her husband before from the woman who would come forward and expose sexual affairs with him? She led the committee, had friends join her committee. THIS is the woman who is the leader for young women? I can’t support her. I won’t support her.
Where is the women’s movement who didn’t support women simply because they were women, but a movement that had a moral compass? I’m not voting for Hillary, not because she is, but because *I* am. (if you don’t mind that I’ve co-opted the phrase).
We can never dismantle the master’s house, using the master’s tools. Audre Lourde will always be my hero, for helping me remember what I’d always believed the movement was about. This is the election that makes me believe that humanism is a far more useful tool than feminism.
Yes, I am one of those terrible people in the world known as “men”. Having said that, I feel this article sidelines all of the issues with Hillary while praising her for being a female – is that her only qualification of merit? Or the only reason you feel that she should be elected president? Hell, lets just write in Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton – don’t they qualify just the same? Voting for a woman just because you’re a woman is not only highly illogical, but its more sexist than the men you are ranting about. Personally, I feel that to get high enough in politics to actually run for president, then you are already in debt to certain special interest groups that you must then cater to when elected(even the ‘inexperienced’ Obama). The system itself is corrupt, so to be in the system as a candidate for president means you are also corrupt. Back to the point, I never judge someone for voting for any candidate they choose, but when you voted for Bush because he has a nice smile, or for Bill Clinton because you liked his accent, or for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, then you should have your voting rights restricted because you are obviously not responsible enough to participate in this thing called democracy with the rest of us… And if you want to bring up your “right” to vote, ask yourself this – why is the right to vote given only to those 18 yrs of age or older? Because at that time in your life you are considered an adult and able to make decisions like an adult. But if we continue to vote according to such inane qualifications as being a woman or who has the nicest smile, then we might as well let anyone vote no matter what their age is and then maybe the women of the world can unite and elect Hannah Montana… Let’s just hope that more women are like the previous poster, Eva Van Brunt, who actually view a campaign for the issues each candidate stands behind instead of blindly following a candidate because of her gender.
This piece is disgusting beyond words. It’s time for the country to move past this babyboomer psychodrama view of gender.
Woman or not, Hillary was wrong about the war, the biggest foreign policy decision of our time. Hillary was wrong in her approach to health care, a setback that’s cost us 15 years on inaction.
If you simply can’t ignore gender in your decision, honor of all the mothers who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq — by voting for Barack Obama.
Yes I am a woman too, just not the nazi variety.
Most people I know who are longing for an end to the hateful and harmful policies of Bush’s eight destructive years do not need to see either HRC or Obama as mutually exclusive. Let’s all take a deep breath, take personally what we want from both good candidates and their supporters, and leave the rest. There’s plenty of anger to go around, but let’s save it for those who have done the most human damage: George Bush, his cronies, and all those in Congress who refused to listen to their constituents, both Republican and Democrat.
Let’s take our beloved country back. Stop all the recriminations, and work for healing.
As a strong feminist, I have long been dismayed and disappointed that women do not use their power as a majority to make all things right in America and in the political realm with a united vote. I believe wholeheartedly that sexism abounds for exactly that reason. Having been employed in business most of my life, finds too many women destroying each other to move themselves up only to be kept down by their own self-destruction. Typically, Robin Morgan pits gender against race which serves to divide, not unite! Giving examples of the gossip on the Kennedy’s as defense against the sins of Bill Clinton as this author has done, reeks of the same old boy’s politics that keeps sexism alive as well! And most Americans believe that a vote for Hillary is a vote to put Bill back in the White House.
I disagree intensely with the way the two opposing candidates, Hillary and Barack are misrepresented by this author to favor Hillary Clinton. Example: The author says “the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job.” First of all, the idea that women vote for a candidate because they are handsome insults our intelligence. And Senator Barack Obama is considered brilliant. He has run a highly successful grassroots funded campaign strong evidence of his ability to lead. Attendance at his rallies – unprecedented numbers. Cocky? Never! Confident? Absolutely, look at his experience: 25 years, three years as community organizer; ten years as civil rights lawyer and professor of constitutional law; 8 years elected to public office in the Illinois Senate and elected to the United States Senate in 2004 with a legislative record of fighting for women’s rights including a 100% rating on pro-choice by Planned Parenthood and NARAL. He is Father of two daughters and grew up surrounded by strong women, one of them, his single Mother. In his first year (before he decided to run for President) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with Republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only two lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the Senate. There are 890 bills in Obama’s name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096. Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans’ Affairs.
Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal. Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban. Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban. Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing “soft on terror,” as it would have harmed her electability. David Rees, Huffington Post February 4, 2008. It is Clinton’s willingness to put politics over principle that brings so much criticism, not sexism.
After paying attention during only one month, I knew that the dishonest way Hillary Clinton runs her campaign with attempted smears, mass mailings stating Obama has been weak on women’s rights and lying about his votes in the Senate would be the dishonest way she would run the White House. I believe we must elect an honest leader with strong morals and integrity in an effort to ever hope to promote women’s rights. That leader is Senator Barack Obama.
I am so disappointed by the feminist movement and their idolatry of Hillary. Let’s forget about her record and simply vote for her because she’s a woman. A woman, I might add who savaged other women who came forward to complain about abuse suffered at the hands of her husband, Bill. Robin mentions the treatment of Anita Hill but ignores the treatment of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Ms. Broderick, among others. Where was the outrage when he was accused of sexually assaulting several women? Where was the outrage when she led the charge to discredit those same women? As a black woman, I am offended by the constant reiteration that Barack is not as qualified as HRC, if you think that your opinion is somehow free of racist subtext then you are mistaken. You all attempt to position yourselves as soldiers in the fight for civil rights, but as soon as a black man stands in the way of a white woman, your true colors come out. Did any of you criticize the nonsense from the Clintons’ in the days leading up to the SC primary or in the days immediately following. Obama’s accomplishments are his alone and equally deserving of our admiration. He cannot claim an ex-President or ex-Governor as a spouse, nor can he claim the privilege of white skin. How dare you continue to portray this woman who has had access to power for her entire adult life as a victim? How dare you not criticize her campaign’s use of racist rhetoric to divide this country? The inability of the feminist movement to see anything beyond a white woman’s gaze continues to be depressing. I am a committed democrat, but I will not vote for Hillary should she be the nominee and I will no longer support feminist organizations that are willing to throw people like me under the bus for one of their own. I also find it disheartening to see the poor, poor Hillary rhetoric take over the debate. I have not heard one person suggest that you should vote for Barack because he’s black, yet I continue to hear vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. It is no wonder that the feminist movement moves inexorably closer to irrelevance, because of the antiquated rhetoric that is divisive, pointless, and just plain wrong.
Robin, I am a guy and I salute you. Hillary will do a lot of good for all. God bless you Robin
From this 30 year old, recently married, educated woman to Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, and all the other “feminists” yelling at me to vote for Hillary Clinton: Please stop. My own mother doesn’t yell at me this much.
Let’s get something straight ladies…..with all do respect. I am a woman. I live every day of my life as one. I never forget what it is to be a woman, as I am one. So your constant op-ed pieces, speeches and essays explaining to me what it is to be a woman seem a bit absurd, no? Your degradation of another Democratic candidate who is also trying to make history in the name of your own definition of “progress” is to put it simply, hurtful.
You remind me of how much your generation did, that I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for you. You then say “shame on you”, and “how dare” and….blah blah blah. I am indeed indebted to you and grateful, but I will not be bullied into voting for your candidate out of some misguided sense of gratitude.
I am and always have been a feminist. I went to an all-girls high school that was phenomenally impactful in shaping my identity as a woman unafraid to speak her mind, comfortable in her own identity, and extremely cognizant of the woman’s movement. I learned about the movement many times over and gained immense respect for your generation. I also learned about the Civil Rights Movement, the Labor Movement, the Free Speech Movement, and so on. My mother has taught me more than anyone through her example what it is to be an independent, thoughtful and free thinking woman.
That being said, I have been continually disappointed with the dialogue that has arisen out of Mrs. Clinton’s run for the Democratic nomination. To my surprise, I am much more disappointed with the words and actions of the elder-stateswomen of the Woman’s Movement than I have been by any man. You have proven to be divisive, out of touch, and ignorant.
I am grateful for the movement that preceded me, and I know I wouldn’t be the woman I am if it weren’t for many of you. But this is a new generation, and yelling at me to act as you would isn’t going to go far in swaying this opinionated, independent woman. Blame yourself for making me. The ultimate irony.
You are both imploring me, no – yelling at me with words and exclamation points to vote for Mrs. Clinton. I have yet to hear any convincing reasons to do so. Her policies may fit your ideals, but they do not fit mine. I will not degrade her as you have Mr. Obama, because I respect progress in any form, and I refuse to push another group down in the name of saving another. In all your glorification of Mrs. Clinton (or is Saint Clinton?), you conveniently gloss over her implicit role in the race card politics that arose prior to South Carolina. We are all progressives and pitting one against the other is abhorrent. None of the candidates are saints, and we need not treat them as such. It is not an honest debate if we gloss over our favorite candidates’ follies and shortcomings and focus only on our rival’s. Needless to say if Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her as her politics are eons closer to my ideals than any Republican nominee.
I had always thought the point of the Woman’s Movement was to give women equal treatment and the freedom to do as I damn well please.
How dare you connotate, no – assert that my decision to vote for Mr. Obama is less educated and less progressive then your own. Patronizing, dismissive, egotistical – the first words that came to mind when I read your pieces. I take my vote very seriously, and I have researched my vote endlessly. I came to my decision after much quiet contemplation, education, and no small amount of internal dialogue.
You belittle my vote knowing nothing about how I came to that decision simply because it doesn’t fall into line with your expectations of what it is to be a feminist. To borrow from Ms. Morgan’s hyperbole, shame on you….You are truly a disservice to your own message. You shame the person who called a Black Female Clinton supporter a race traitor, yet in no uncertain terms, you are calling me a gender traitor.
I also happen to be multi-racial, my father also happens to be an immigrant. So who is to say I shouldn’t vote for Mr. Obama because we share these characteristics? Would that be shallow in your opinion? I will venture an educated guess and say it would be. But neither of you are those things, so, shame on you for minimizing their impact on the shaping of my identity.
Shame on you for playing the game of “who’s had it worse.” As human beings we should be activists for all human kind. I stand for Black rights even though I am not Black. I stand for Latino rights even though I am not Latino. And, you’ll love this one…..I stand for Men’s rights, even though I am not a man. I am for equality, period. Playing this juvenile game of “we’re worse off than you!” does no one any good. I find it repugnant coming from two middle to upper class White Females who as far as I can tell have never been Black, or for that matter, a Black Man.
Mr. Obama has had a savagely racist whisper campaign going on for over a year attacking his religion, heritage, upbringing, family, and everything else that helps to define this man. I don’t see either of you addressing this indignity.
I am not voting for Hillary. And I shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about that. Isn’t that what the Woman’s Movement was trying to do away with…..guilt? Life is too short and I refuse to live it according to your definition of success. I live my life according to my own. And in that, it is I who truly exemplifies the meaning of the Movement.
Wake up ladies, this generation is different. I don’t know a single man in my generation threatened by a strong female. My husband is all too happy to cook for me, help around the house, stay home and be the homemaker. He supports me and I support him. Every man I know is a progressive and a feminist and none of them would be ashamed to call themselves such. We cannot continue to fight a Woman’s Movement based on the status quo of 40 years ago. Men today are not the men of yesterday….and to treat them as such isn’t going to win many over to our side of the debate. It is insulting.
There is still a struggle to be fought, for all of us. And I will continue to fight with my little voice, one who doesn’t have any books published under my name, one who doesn’t get her own soap box in the New York Times. Fighting the wars of yesterday with tools from 40 years ago will go nowhere in the very real battles we need to fight today.
I am no less a feminist because I disagree with you and am an ardent supporter of Mr. Obama. In fact, I may be more of one because I don’t dictate to other women what it is to be one.
I am a 40 year-old woman, with two young children and a full-time career. I live in an upper middle class neighborhood, am self-sufficient and the thought of having a woman president makes me weep for joy.
I voted for Barack.
I found this commentary offensive and belittling. My vote for Barack had nothing to do with what any man thinks of me, and no woman can shame me into thinking so – or into thinking that I am a woman hater because I am not a supporter of Hillary.
Both candidates are worthy. It is a FANTASTIC thing that our candidates happen to be a black man and a woman. I like to think that most people see beyond skin color and gender, perhaps I’m naive, but I think this sort of propaganda perpetuates prejudices that we as a country are slowly out-growing. At least I like to think so.
The reasons I’m voting for Barack? The Iraq war. I wasn’t fooled by Bush, how could a woman as brilliant as Hillary be? I can’t help but think she voted to give Bush the authorization because it was the politically correct thing to do at the time. And then continued to vote for the war.
I also think she is too much of an “insider,” with corporations and lobbyists in her back-pocket, and in my view that is a big part of what is wrong with Washington.
She is also incredibly devisive and in a general election I think there is nothing that will mobilize the republican base than Hillary as the nominee. And not because she is a woman.
I find Barack incredibly inspirational. He makes me want to be involved in the political process, roll up my sleeves and do whatever is needed to help out beautiful country.
And don’t give me “He doesn’t have the experience” line! That’s BS rhetoric.
I think people will rally behind him. I love it that he says he’s willing to sit down and talk to our enemies! He is true leader, one that everyone can get behind.
And how about Michelle? Tell me she is not an impressive woman. I would love to see more of her.
Anyway, enough.
Go Barack!!
Thank you, Robin Morgan. You beautifully articulated so many of my thoughts. However,not even you talked about the “elephant in the room”. History is repeating itself.
The Clinton/Obama presidential race reflects again that it is a black man pushing aside a woman to get what they both need and want.
Historically, it has been women that championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. They have done this since slavery days. Yet, it was the black civil rights leader, Fredrick Douglas, who turned his back on the Suffrage Movement. Douglas accepted a deal that would give black men the right to vote if Douglas and his group stopped pushing for women’s voting rights. The 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, giving black men the right to vote.
Women continued fighting for voting rights for the next 50 years. It wasn’t until 1920 that the 19th Amendment was ratified. Finally, women won the right to vote. In that ensuing struggle, and even today, Susan B. Anthony’s words ring true. They should be our mantra and battle cry. “failure is impossible.”
With due respect to your contributions to our feminist movement over these long years, I beg to disagree with your analysis. Yes, it’s sad to see the degree of anti-woman jokes, barbs, and comments that Hillary has attracted. It shows us that despite our many victories, residual sexism remains. Voting for her, however, does nothing at all to address these retro attitudes which some people still feel okay to voice. Most of those who fling their sexist attitudes at Hillary are those who have done so since the inception of Bill’s administration. Those voices are not and have never been heard within progressive circles, or within the Obama campaign, and I am saddened that you would suggest otherwise. You can be for Hillary without telling lies about Obama, who has a 100% record of supporting women’s rights over his 11 years as a legislator. That he choose to marry a strong and powerful woman like Michelle is the best indicator of his comfort level with gender equality. So shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
That you are voting for Hillary because she is a woman, is certainly your right. Like you, I am a life-long feminist activist, but I believe that the problems facing our nation, and the world, are so critical that if not addressed boldly, will leave my grandchildren without a future. And while I share your assessment of Hillary’s talents and abilities, I see her as a part of the same-old same-old political system that is so dominated by corporate sponsorship that it is impossible for either the best-intentioned Democrat (or Republican) to actually do the right thing, if it is against the interests of their corporate donors. Look, for example, at how impossible it was for the Clinton healthcare initiative to get through the DEMOCRATIC Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans were hamstrung from acting against the interests of the healthcare profit structures. That is the sad fact of life when elections are so outrageously expensive, and the electorate so pathetically apathetic, so that winning requires massive special interest sponsorship.
Obama, however, is doing what no other politician has ever done. He is creating a mass movement of people who yearn to reclaim the broken political system and are coming together to self-fund and reinvigorate the Democratic party. I never imagined that anyone could arouse the citizenry to dig into their pocketbooks sufficiently to raise over $100 million. Without corporate sponsors, Obama will be able to turn his deep intellect towards solving problems, instead of triangulating issues, or polling to figure out his positions. He stood up against the war in the midst of his primary campaign in Illinois, when every other politician who was running for any office was going along with the wave of war fever. He said what he believed, without regard for the fact that it was unpopular. That’s leadership. He also spoke before the Ebinezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and said, if they wanted justice, they needed to do justice which meant not demonizing the lesbians and gays within their own communities, and dealing with lingering anti-semitism, as well as acknowledging the violence within their own communities. In California, where our Gevernator came into office on a wave of anti-immigration sentiment, and whose first public and applauded action was to prohibit illegal aliens from having drivers licenses, Obama had the audacity to make the case for giving them licenses as an issue of public safety, since they were driving anyway, only illegally, running away from accidents, uninsured, and a risk to the rest of us. This was not popular, but it was true. Hillary, saw the polling, and as the Clinton MO, went the way the wind was blowing. This is the kind of leadership I have yearned for, and wouldn’t it be wonderful if he were also a woman. But oh well. An honest, deep thinker, who inspires a movement, and is willing to tell us what he thinks without sticking his finger in the air, is who I want to captain this sinking ship.
Do I detect a note of bitterness?
Only in America can a white woman married to a former President and former Governor, be positioned as a victim. After the last two months of reading pieces like this, Steinem, Jong, Reardon, etc., I am done with the feminist movement. I have been disappointed, although not shocked, by the racist subtext of the calls to action for Hillary. Somehow, it is okay to denigrate a decent, hardworking black man and to re-cast him in the role of an uneducated, simpleton who is looking to “steal” something from a white woman. Your appeals may work with a certain demographic, but you have completely alienated a generation of women who seek to think for themselves. Unfortunately, you have reinforced the notion among black women that mainstream feminism has nothing to do with us or our issues. Your desire is to accumulate power for a group of already powerful white women with little regard for anyone unfortunate enough not to have to earn it for herself. In your haste to defend the vitriolic attacks on Hillary, you do the same to Obama. You ignore the fact that unlike Hillary, who has several women in the senate to fight beside her, Obama is the only black senator in the country. To ignore the existence and impact of racism is despicable, but again not surprising. I am also disappointed that this article references Anita Hill as if the rabid second wave feminists care about sexual harassment. You all remained silent when Bill Clinton was behaving inappropriately with a host of women and you also remained silent as Hillary (this champion of women) sought to demonize those same women as opportunists and pawns of the right wing. You remain silent about her vote for the war and seek to give her a pass on her lack of accomplishment as a senator because she’s a woman. When she was up in the polls, all we heard about was her toughness and her ability to lead, and now the tactic is to make her appear a victim. I have lost respect for her, her campaign, and for the very women that I read about in womens’ studies classes who I believed were beyond the race baiting and divisive politics of the right. You ought to hang your heads in shame and issue an apology for your own intolerance.
Goodbye to covert racism in the form of labeling the black presidential contender “BO.” Afterall, Robin Morgan isn’t the first person to link body odor and racism. Is this a sly dig, or yet another example of white privilege.
Thanks ever so much for making the presidential nomination about racism and sexism one-upping each other. And, thank you, really, for doing it while nonchalantly using an abbreviation that has been used for racist purposes in the past – to label the only black candidate in the race. No. Really. Thank you.
Um, Robin…
Laura Flanders disagrees.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=280397
HRC’s “human rights” record ain’t exactly all that.
HRC endorsed a war (wow, was that a fine example of women’s thinking?) that has made life a living hell for millions of Iraqi women and girls, and set their status back by decades if not centuries. She has refused even to consider saying that it might have been a bad vote.
I wonder how hard she pushed for women’s labor rights when she sat on the Wal-Mart board?
Are you sure you’re not so “famished for a female president” that you are “even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing” HRC?
As one who found you in the 1980’s by reading The Demon Lover, I am profoundly disappointed.
Thank you Robin Morgan for helping me realize what was really making me so angry about the media coverage of this election. Only the truly clueless could fail to perceive the Obama media bias, and we puzzled over it at our house, asking ourselves why Rupert Murdoch and his ilk would be so keen to see Obama in the White House. Now, thanks to you, I understand what is really going on, and it is extremely disheartening.
When the primaries began, I, like millions of others, watched the cable news networks with great interest. I immediately noticed there seemed to be a consensus to disparage Hillary as the “establishment candidate.” I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard the odious “Clinton political machine” phrase on television these past few weeks. As if there isn’t a political machine of some sort behind every candidate! After Iowa, they really began to gush over Obama, and lovingly embraced him as the people’s candidate. As the primary season kicked into full gear, Hillary supporters were invariably described by the media as poorer, older, uneducated and, of course, female; Obama’s as youthful, affluent, and well educated. When Hillary won a primary that the pollsters had given to Obama, the media decided it was because that state’s white voters were racist, and in the privacy of the voting booth couldn’t bring themselves to actually vote for the black candidate. So Hillary voters were not only old, poor, and uneducated, they were also racist. When they aired the last debate, where Hillary consistently outclassed her opponent, the media consensus was that she had “done well” but that it wasn’t possible to actually “win” a televised debate. Huh? Now, because she is still standing after taking everything that both the media and the overt misogynists have to throw at her, the pundits are playing the “electability” card.
When I went to caucus for Hillary today in Washington state it became painfully obvious that most of the participants had been thoroughly indoctrinated by the mainstream media. All I heard about Obama were the “Change” and “Inspiration” mantras. Nothing about policies, nothing about his record except that he had voted against the Iraq war. His supporters were surprised when we Hillary supporters informed them that Obama was not even a Senator when that vote was taken, so he couldn’t have voted against it. Luckily for my precinct, it happened that there were a few dedicated and well spoken women caucusing for Hillary, and we managed to move some people over to our side to split the delegates evenly, though we started the caucus 3 to 1 for Obama. What was so telling about the whole thing was that we Hillary backers had many more concrete, well thought out reasons for supporting her than the Obama backers had for supporting him. In the end, the Obama backers were forced to fall back on questioning her electability, parroting the pundits and the latest polls.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Hillary is hands down the most qualified presidential candidate put forth by either party. There can only be one reason for her continuing, pervasive vilification by the media, and that is her gender. Even George Bush was treated with more respect when he ran for re-election. It would seem that America is not ready for a woman president. For shame indeed.
Morgan’s last line was so cute and adorable.
It all turns my stomach. Here I am again at age 56 with no candidate I want to vote for. I was dragged to hear John Edwards by my then-fourteen year old daughter who paid attention before I did, last spring.
I’ve never before seen a person running for higher office who actually understood the job description. The job description, as spelled out in the Constitution, includes understanding and enacting the will of the people.
It does not mean having a contest with others to see who can “win.” Nor does it mean financing yourself with corporate (not people’s) money and having to pay them back. Nor does it mean cheating other candidates out of air time or stealing their ideas and taking credit for them. Shame on Clinton and Obama, both.
John Edwards is still a better candidate for equal justice, human rights, the freaking Constitution (have the other two read it lately?), tending the home fires while protecting our interests in the context of the wider world. It does not mean raw power and domination. That is so yesterday. That is so patriarchal.
Neither Clinton nor Obama is a leader. They sidle onto the Senate floor to cast their votes after they see how the wind is blowing. We had to mount a huge campaign just to get them to begrudgingly say they’d support Christopher Dodd’s barrier to the granting of immunity to the telecoms.
I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts they won’t follow up. Why are their names not on Senator Wexler’s list of impeachment co-sponsors? Have they read the Constitution lately? Shame on them both.
This old world is in a shambles. People are dying like flies, we are responsible for mayhem on every continent and everybody wants to play racial and gender politics?
Exploiting one’s own victimhood is really, really low. It’s as low as pretending there is no racial trouble left in the country. Shame on them both.
Gag me. Remain ignorant about what I think. But don’t try to tell me she’s what she patently isn’t. Do you think we’re stupid out here? How fair of you; how absolutely egalitarian. How adorable. HOw shameful.
I’d like to be participating in my nation’s business in a way that gives me some hope my daughter will have a planet to make her own choices on. You and your polarizing, bitter, petty, quasi-feminist diatribe have done nothing to assist.
I will begin my comment stating that I am a Black female from HRC’s home state. While this information should not matter, it is as much a fact as the essay’s author, Ms. Morgan writing as a white female from HRC’s home state. I will not argue with many of the points made by Morgan since so many are of historical significance as not to be refutable. I will simply state this… Putting aside the historical significance of both the HRC and BO candidacies, one should address choosing a candidate on merits of them as a candidate, and the views to which they espouse that are in accordance with your own.
That being said let us look at one major but simple fact: both candidates meet the requirements set out in the US constitution to become president– any arguments concerning whom is “more” qualified is mere hyperbole. Neither candidate is “under-qualified” therefore, a never ending debate about the pros and cons of having someone perform a job who is considered “qualified”, “well-qualified” or “over-qualified” is just that– a never ending debate. I see no reason to reiterate the arguments put forth on both sides about years of experience, Washington insider or outsider status, etc., etc. We are all familiar with them and we tend to agree or disagree with such assertions based on what best serves our own argument and not necessarily which point is more or less valid.
Such arguments bring me flashbacks to conversations in college with fellow IV League classmates who used which ever handful of criteria they preferred to argue why they themselves (or their friends– who had been rejected by the institution) should be attending the university over any number of minority students currently on campus. As I argued then, and still feel now, focusing on any one admission criteria over all others will always disadvantage one group to the benefit of another. That was and still is true, especially if looked at through “stereotyped lenses”– e.g., use SAT scores and more Asians will get in, use legacy and more whites will get in– anyone remember a man named George W. Bush?–, use sports and well you know the rest…
The point is, the only valid argument to be made is do you (whether student, or in today’s argument, candidate) meet the baseline requirements– everything above and beyond that is personal preference, nuances of CVs etc., combined with institutional need in all areas– monetary, diversity, athletic, law firm attended, legislature served in, etc.)
HRC and BO are both HIGHLY qualified candidates, each with his/her own propitious, auspicious and limiting attributes. All arguments to the contrary are insulting to both candidates and should stop being entertained.
So then what criteria do I think should be used? As I stated previously, views to which you yourself espouse that are in accordance with your choice in candidate. This being the case and as noted in Ms. Morgan’s essay HRC and BO are similar in their views on 97% of the issues. And so it is in the 3% that I look to make my determination of a candidate.
Within this 3% lies HRCs stance, both past and present on the War in Iraq. Like Senator Kerry, the last democratic nominee, HRC has not, and politically can not, state that she made the wrong decision in voting “yes” for a “Bush blank check” to declare war. The avoidance of the flip-flop label is her underlying reason (we all learned that with Kerry, right?). And so instead, Hillary must present very weak arguments explaining that it “wasn’t a vote for war”, “we thought there were WMDs”, “the amendment would have given power to the UN over the USA”, etc. We all are familiar with this line of reasoning– Bush repeated it multiple times during his 2 term presidency!!!
Now for historical reference I voted for HRC for her first term in the Senate, and I was CRUSHED when she voted for the war. If I, as an average citizen could see the manipulation of fear that Bush was using to initiate war then how could HRC not? The first Bush did the same thing!!! I can’t describe to you how disenchanted I was with the political system. The realization that no US Senator voted “NO” to GWB’s request, despite the obvious masses of the electorate protesting this war BEFORE it began. I vowed never to vote for either of my senatorial representatives again– and I did not vote for HRC in the next election despite having no alternative candidate that shared my views.
But now Ms. Morgan, as a NYS resident like you, I do have an alternate candidate– Barack Obama!!! And I need not remind you of his stance on the war both then and now. And so instead, concluding I will say this– as Americans we elect officials to office to represent our interests and ideas. Not all representatives are in line with our views all the time, but each new election cycle provides us with the opportunity to re-elect those who we feel have represented us wisely, and/or to newly-elect those of whom we feel will bring representation to our ideas that have been previously ignored. And voting a candidate out of office based on their record is as commonplace as voting a candidate into office based on belief in their promise of a future record in keeping with your own views. And it is for this reason that in exercising my constitutional right to vote, that I will choose to cast my ballot for Barack Obama should he win the democratic nomination.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is neither the first nor the last woman to attempt to run for President of the USA. And if a female candidate arises in the future reflecting my political views and values, then I will happily cast my ballot for her. Like you, as a woman there would be a personal vindication and triumph in electing a female for President. At the same time, Barack Obama is neither the first nor the last Black American to run for presidential office, and if he does not win the nomination, I look forward to the opportunity to consider future Black candidates for President, be they male or female. But for now, never underestimate the significance of past political decisions that candidates make and their effect on future decisions made by the American electorate. Our memories are NOT all that short– especially when it comes to a voting decision that has affected the country so profoundly is so many ways!!!
Ms. Morgan, in making your finale decision you stated you will vote for HRC because she is a woman and I applaud you and respect your right to do so. In making my final decision however I will choose BO, both as an endorsement to his views which include his unwavering stance on Iraq, and as a vote against HRC a candidate who I happily supported until she disappointingly made a voting choice that silenced the voices of so many that needed her, and many other senators, to vote– not based on FEAR but on FACTS about 9/11, Al-Qaeda, WMDs and the truth about the desire to control Iraq oil.
Addendum:
An error was made above stating Ms. Morgan “…stated you will vote for HRC because she is a woman and I applaud you and respect your right to do so.” What I meant to write was… Ms. Morgan “…stated you will vote for HRC because she [Ms. Morgan] is a woman…” My point obviously being that while Ms. Morgan chooses to vote according to her status as a woman, I do not choose to vote according to my status as a woman nor according to my status as a Black American.
Unfortunately, we as women have been in the “should be seen and not heard” category, like children. Look, even now on the talk programs like MSNBC, who have panelists, one of whom MUST be a woman, but if she is with male guests, see how much time she gets versus her male counterparts. I fear that if the women voters don’t take the time to see what is going on and get to the polls, the next 4 years are going to be even worse than the last 7+ with George Bush. I would not be voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, but that certainly helps. She is a hard worker, she knows her material. Take the time to watch the committee meetings she is a part of on C-Span. She is prepared, she has excellent background, not only as a Senator and former first lady, but as an attorney. She didn’t get a gift from Yale. She earned her degree and she has had to fight twice as hard as any male to be heard and to have her concerns and issues respected. Please women of America, do the right thing and vote for the best qualified to run this country.
I just thought I’d add that, along with the mention of MSNBC’s sexist coverage, they recently accused Chelsea Clinton of being ‘pimped out’ for her mothers campaign..and some time ago, when Teddy endorsed Obama, the head of NOW came on MSNBC and was promptly asked, “Well Marsha, why do you have to have a WOMAN as president to represent WOMENS’ rights?” Sadly, the reporter at the time was a woman…you think the answer would have been obvious enough!
My college roommate, now an accomplished actress, having left nursing which we studied together, sent me this article, reassuring me that it is not because she supports Hillary but just to give me this perspective.
Gender issues and women’s issues are important and compelling. So are global peace and poverty reduction. I have worked for an organization dedicated to research about women and I have worked on HIV prevention in women. But somehow an exclusive focus on women’s issues has never been where my passion lies. When I see poor African men in Zambia or Kenya or African American men in the US suffering in prison and ghettoes, I am just as moved to action as I am when I see poor women in similar places and situations. And all of this moves me more than when I think of a woman who already lived in the White House once losing an election or being given a hard time in a campaign.
What I value about the feminine psyche, as I see it, is the capacity for empathy. That is at the core of policy change, social programs, and democratic social philosophy. And who has written and spoken about empathy? Not Hillary Clinton but Barack Obama – and if you want to see someone who represents the sort of woman I would elect if given the chance, listen to Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards.
Being a 59 year old white American woman, I wish it were different. I would like to know that my country put a woman in the White House. But I want it to be a woman who brings something unique to the position, not someone who brags that she is tough enough to “go toe to toe with John McCain” as Hillary did last nite at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Richmond, but someone who says he will talk to leader we don’t like and bring people together —theses are what I used to think a woman would bring to this job but I have been disappointed — the PERSON I want in the White House is not a woman but a man with qualities that will respect and fight for women around the world.
Regarding Goodbye To All That (#2) by Robin Morgan February 2, 2008
As an African American lesbian it is absolutely disgraceful that women as well as members of the glbt community would continue to endorse a family who’s legacy, experience and leadership has given us DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell! Not to mention the dismantling of many social programs beneficial to African Americans, gays and lesbians. While I agree Senator Clinton should not be held accountable for President Clinton’s philandering I do not believe that Senator Clinton can be exempted from President Clinton’s bad policies. As President Clinton criss crosses the country stumping for Senator Clinton, selling the electability of “WE” for president she cannot be viewed as a stand-alone candidate. As Senator Clinton herself delivers speeches and talks referring to “WE” returning to the White House she cannot be perceived as running alone. It also completely eludes me how women as well as members of the glbt community can be so irresponsible as to support Senator Clinton when she, without reservation, openly accepted an endorsement from Ann Coulter. Remember Ann Coulter? The woman who called John Edwards a “faggot”, and Christians “perfected Jews” and the widows of the 911 victims “harpies”
I further believe there seems to be some confusion between health insurance and comprehensive healthcare. People need to be very careful about getting those two things confused. What Senator Clinton intends to do through her mandatory healthcare plan is force, (through possible “post taxed” dollars, fines or wage garnishing) individuals to line the pockets of health insurance companies. Much like the Bush administration has held Americans hostage, forcing us through high oil/propane prices to line the pockets of Exxon, Chevron and Haliburton etc. It should also be mentioned that the insurance company — Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), now America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — responsible for halting the 1993 healthcare reform plan of the Clinton Administration, paid President Clinton $150,000.00 dollars in 2005, to deliver a speech to their board. I believe it should raise a red flag to those supporting/endorsing Senator Clinton to recognize the problematic relationship created by this. The language that now crafts Senator Clinton’s healthcare plan, which is not particularly dissimilar to that of the Clinton administrations plan in 1993, mirrors AHIP’s proposal in remarkably unsettling ways that warrant examination.
Below are two links regarding the aforementioned information. The first is the health insurance company whose health insurance plan mirrors Senator Clintons. The second is to the site confirming the $150,000.00 dollar payment to President Clinton.
http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.as...
Lastly, if you think that having health insurance through your job means you won’t have to pay Senator Clintons mandatory health insurance premiums – think again! According to a September 18 Associated Press article, Clinton said in an interview with the AP: “… she could envision a day when ‘you have to show proof to your employer that you’re insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,’ but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.”
Go Obama!
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/2...
By the way, to post #25 not only is Mark Penn a heavy hitting PR person, he’s an uscrupulous PR person, giving advice to clients such as the tobacco industry, instructing them on how to target inner city minorities via smokers rights groups, blackwater on how to effectively respond to questions from the 911 commission, and advising subprime lending groups on how to move forward with their agendas and deflect fallout
http://www.prwatch.org/node/6213
Go Senator Clinton.
Hello Robin Morgan,
A friend of mine gave me your article with great enthusiasm. He was quite surprised when my reaction was so strongly mixed.
I can appreciate your Goodbye statement as a cathartic experience. I can champion the over-all truths you present and your attack on our society’s ongoing ways of oppression. And you won over my heart with your closing sentence.
But at times I was greatly bothered by how you spill over from attacking negativity to creating it. There’s a rule of thumb I learned from someone a while back about this. Be negative towards negativity but try not to add to the negativity. When you do, examine how and why it happened and then rectify the situation. From such clarity emerges a deeper believability in those espousing and for those listening.
If I were to divide the political battleground into those coming from a polarized position that creates negativity and those who try to find a way out of that trap, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama straddle the divide. But the former leans backward towards politics as usual and the later leans forward, attempting to step away from the usual fray. To that degree, they stand on different sides of the divide. Some of your statements seem to place you on that same side of the divide as I find Hillary Clinton.
There is just no need for her or you to compromise the enthusiasm Obama has been bringing. The creative mind set, freed from at least some preconceptions, would have found a way to embrace Obama’s “fire in the belly” and still do everything possible to beat him in the primaries. But pejorative words like “fairy tale” (and there have been many more uttered by Hillary and people who speak for her) keep the bar of discourse too close to the gutter it has been in for as long as I can remember. (Please keep in mind that I have not lost sight of paying attention to how Obama straddles that line. After a while cause and effect become less relevant than its oscillating nature.)
The collection of your statements implies that I, being a citizen of the realm, have been hoodwinked by Obama because it is “fun” and cool to vote for someone who has a charismatic personality in spite of coming at the expense of dealing with real issues – as if charisma and pragmatism had proven to be axiomatically mutually exclusive. This is wrong and quite demeaning and just unnecessary. It is armchair psychology wielded to hurt people, like myself, who haven’t given any indication that they are your enemy.
I run across a lot of people who are smiling but I do not know of anybody who feels that this is fun and frivolous. Do you really run across such people? I don’t know any one who sees Obama as white and therefore appealing. I know many who note that he is black and white – in color and affect – and feel good about that.
I and many others actually have substantial reasons for voting for him that are hardly anything one would call fun or characterize as shallow. Of course, I suppose no one who is shallow thinks of themselves as shallow so you could be right but, I don’t think I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll take responsibility for my own self-evaluation and, if I’m wrong, I’ll have to examine how that happened.
My breath was taken away by your statement about Barack Obama being handsome and cocky. What a choice of words when one is promoting sensitivity to gender-bashing and race baiting. Couldn’t you have chosen “brash” rather than “cocky,” the latter being a word closely associated with a black stereotype? An image, the consequences for which could have led to a form of death immortalized by Billy Holiday in Strange Fruit. It sounds so similar to your complaint about the insensitive, humorous reaction to “iron my shirt.”
From the old polarized positioning, my pointing this out would be my half of the equation by which I try to neutralize you. You would do the same to me and the effect of mutual neutralization would be to allow each side to exercise its desire to feel self-righteous. I’d like to add this to your list of what to say good bye to.
I didn’t pick up on how insulting the iron my shirt comment could be taken. I had simply found it weird and laughed nervously at its prima facie absurdity. It didn’t sting me but I’d like to think I am capable of learning from what was pointed out by you and others, and assimilating it.
We are only capable of a limited understanding of each other but more than capable of learning. And perhaps you didn’t realize the potential sting to “cocky.” So let’s say hello to mutuality.
I think it’s also time to say Hello to some other things. Hello to acknowledging that (1) the tendency towards hyperbole is human on both sides of the battle and then (2) try to do something a little different in order to raise the bar and increase our mutual believability.
Let’s say hello to the arrival of a new era in which the goals to change laws and behaviors and attitudes is more closely matched by a process that reflects determination, graciousness and generosity. Let’s try it and see how we do.
Let’s say hello to the androgyny of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and what it represents on an iconic level to the changes that have occurred since such ideas started germinating in our culture 50 years ago. Imagine. They represent a fundamental change on a biological, psychological and cultural level all at once. That is a phenomenon.
On a Zeitgeistian level, it is the juxtaposition of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that is making this historical moment so powerful and exciting. But before he entered the scene, it was considerably less than exciting to me for two reasons. (1) congress had gotten stuck once again in a mix of cowardice and compromise. (2) I was less than excited about Hillary for exactly one of the reasons you made: she had become the man she wanted to marry. It’s clear that you looked at that as unequivocally positive. I took that to mean she had become that which had oppressed and tried to compromise her. Still, as part of a movement towards greater equality, she represented an iconic figure, moving our culture in the right direction.
When Obama entered the scene, something synergistic happened and now each is playing a role, as is the friction between them. That is very exciting. And very reminiscent of the Zeitgeist of the ‘60s and ‘70s that represented, let’s say, the birth of ideas and consciousness that are coming up again on the political battlefield for round two.
Having acknowledged their iconic value, let’s say hello to looking at the unique nature of each person’s values and personality.
Hillary’s position and Barack’s position at the onset of the Iraqi war brings to light the advantages and disadvantages of experience and the nature of something related to “mindset.” I would have expected that someone who claims to be so experienced and wyly would not have given a president who had exhibited no sense of depth or trustworthiness, the benefit of the doubt when so many innocent lives hung in the balance. Hillary had more information and hands-on experience than I and yet I and Barack and many others chose not to give him the benefit of the doubt.
These judgments were made based on some understanding of human nature, coupled with the experience of Vietnam, coupled with the realization that the hysteria following 911 was not a time to give a president the power to create a pre-emptive war, a major shift in the 200 year-old publicly declared principle of our foreign policy.
For reasons that remain unknown, Hillary Clinton did not exhibit the wisdom and calmness that her experience should have provided. The downside of experience is that myopia and brittleness can dominate.
Clinton’s explanation that she gave Bush the benefit of the doubt is not a deep enough explanation for me to believe she can learn from her mistakes. And it begs responsibility by acting like she had just come from the desirable position of trust and he betrayed her and us. It avoids her having to explain herself and add necessary clarity to who she is. Ironically, she actually sounds like she was remarkably naïve, not wizened through experience, in her attitude towards Bush and the war. Rather, she exhibited the potential to be very tentative when push comes to shove on unknown, unexpected situations. Her lack of a deeper explanation leaves a blank to be filled in by me and others with what can, at best, be uncertain speculation. This does not promote my trust and confidence in her and I find it baffling why this doesn’t bother her constituency.
A braver person, a more forthright and transparent person, would have congratulated Obama on having had the mind set that led to his early opposition. The gesture coupled with some evidence of self-reflection, would have regained my confidence that such a President would have the courage to recognize and correct errors.
For me these days, this is the single most important quality a leader can have because very important errors are inevitable. It is in the corrections that a leader will determine the outcome of so much of what we as a culture are faced with.
As a citizen of the realm I am asked every four years, to put my fate in the hands of someone else, someone with strengths and flaws, someone who has the ambition to rule the world. This is always a situation to be on guard against. Barack’s charisma will not blind me. Quite frankly, I’m way too old at this point to have a crush on any politician.
Basically the goals that Clinton and Obama espouse are the same. I believe that Hillary Clinton has the capacity to create and plot out a course of action that would pragmatically deal with many issues but I have yet to see evidence that she has the capacity, the judgment, to deal with road blacks and the unknown.
Obama has not yet revealed that he lacks that capacity. Through his position on the war, he has revealed that he can look back and beyond the moment and make a decision that goes against the grain. And he sounds solid. But let’s recall a variation on a comment by Ronald Reagan, a person who never stopped scaring me. Trust but keep demanding ongoing, relentless verification.
Where you captured my heart was in your final sentence. So let’s say hello to a woman, any woman, who feels her time has come and let’s applaud her right and the worthiness to vote for Hilary on the basis of her own gender but please, but let’s do so without the pejorative.
I would like to thank you for writing this piece. I am a 37 year old woman who has been agonizing for days and nights over this election and the deep seated sexism I am witnessing. You couldn’t have written better what I was thinking and feeling. For all the people on this blog who have tried to bash Clinton on her top aides or her Iraq vote, who are the top aides of your candidate of choice? On the war, please go to youtube and watch Senator Clinton give a speech on her Iraq vote in the Senate, while you are at it watch the youtube of Mr. Obama once a senator explaing he does not disagree with the war in Iraq. The list goes on and on. This article is not about those things which you are trying to make it about, it is about so much more. Yes, you may not have seen that “fear of power” when you were in law school on account of that “OLD SCHOOL, OUTDATED AND TIRED CIRCA 1970 FAUX FEMINIST RHETORIC” in which you benefited from. If you had not seen it then you are seeing it now, you just aren’t paying attention!
Thank You Robin. I am genuinely sorry that Eva Van Brunt has no sense of gratitude for the women Robin writes about; the women who dared to challenge Society’s dictates about women’s roles. It was exactly because of those women that Eva has been able to aspire to the positions of POWER she now holds. Shame On Eva for her own lack of intellectual honesty. I’m a Democratic Committeewoman from Pennsylvania. I did not automatically decide to vote for Hillary but now I’m working for her. One of the reasons I have become so enthused about Hillary is because when it comes down to it, we usually end up voting for the person who somehow “speaks” to us. Hillary not only “speaks” to me, she IS me – for the first time in my life I can vote for someone who walks around in the same body I have. Eva may not understand this but for women of my age group (at 53 I’m in the middle of the babyboom generation) the very fact that a woman can run for president is transformative. Eva, Shame on You for not using the education you received (was it a a formerly all-male school?)to learn how to think. Your emotional angry response shows a shocking lack of intellectualism and absolutely no real thanks for the sacrifices of the women who worked so hard so our younger sisters and daughters could accomplish what you have.
Magnificent! It’s time we won!
Hope, change, experience, 9-11, Reagan revolution, strength, courage, these are not just overused rhetoric cuing applause, but the calculated thematic keystones underlying the candidates and their campaigns. What does it say then, when one candidate appropriates another’s theme. Change, once belonged to Mr. Obama. This is not to say he holds sole entitlement to the phrase, but that this was how his campaign originally decided to present him. These days every possible candidate seems to be benefiting from the phrase. Words are not just shifting pockets of air, they are actions in themselves. Its not experience, 9-11, or courage that has come to represent the upcoming elections. I would like to vote for Obama because he fluently speaks my language, while everyone looks like they’re just lip synching.
Wonderful essay, I’d like to think I am somewhat more aware of the prejudices I hold after reading it.
thank you Robin Morgan… HRC is the “Lady” of women for president of the USA — NOW!
Wow – that last post was a righteous rant by a woman who I suspect is close to my own age, and I completely disagree with her. I was utterly grateful for Robin Morgan’s piece.
Like many others at the beginning of the primary season, I felt the happy rush of having “so many wonderful choices.” And, yet, as time has worn on, I have become more and more disillusioned with the process, and throughout this last week, I have felt my anger and bewilderment of the Obama phenomenon reach a depressing peak.
I was born in India, and moved to the US with my family at a young age. I have lived as a woman between two cultures. In many ways, my native culture is a generation behind American culture in all things related to women and feminism. I have always related better to the American feminists of my mother’s age than to the feminists of my own age. I know the sexism of the work place and the social scene that many young women face today, but I also know a deeper, life-threatening sexism that I think many older women understand. It’s a struggle that I don’t think most American women of my generation have experienced. They express their gratitude and then expect the older women to shut up and move on. But Morgan’s piece, while I did take exception to some of her characterizations of Mr. Obama, resonates with me deeply. The struggle that feels like ancient history for many of my peers is not yet history for most women alive today.
One of my good friends this week told me that not only does she support Senator Obama, but she hates Senator Clinton and she would never vote for her. When I asked why, she said essentially, “she is too ambitious, she comes off as ‘too smart,’ and Bill [Clinton] destroyed Gore’s chances in 2000.” Not a single one of those answers is a substantive, rational reason to vote for Senator Obama. Isn’t Obama, who decides he’s more prepared than anyone else to become President of the United States at 45 years old and with just 2 years of Senate experience, even more ambitious? He moved to Illinois because Illinois is one of the few states that has actually elevated African American politicians to the national stage – isn’t that naked ambition? Obama’s polished speeches and impeccable vocabulary (which, by the way, I admire) not only sound intelligent but occasionally elitist. And aren’t we beyond the point where we blame women for their husband’s infidelity? There can’t be a single woman on this post who would think it’s fair to lose a job (that she’s otherwise qualified for) because her husband cheated on her. It was a lose-lose situation for Senator Clinton. If she stayed with him, half the people hate her; if she left him, the other half would have hated her. And who the hell are we to judge?
I believe Morgan is absolutely correct in her analysis of the double standard applied to Senators Clinton and Obama. If Obama faced the same constant tired of racially motivated attacks we’d never hear the end of it, but somehow it’s okay to hate Senator Clinton.
If you say, as some have said here, that I support Senator Obama because I don’t agree with Senator Clinton’s vote on the authorization to go to war or her mandatory health insurance plan, then I say, “okay, I respect that.” I also fully respect the deep, visceral longing that many Black voters must experience when thinking about having an African American (or bi-racial) family in the White House. What an amazing role model he could be for young black men! What an incredible statement of hope. But when I hear interviews with groups of college voters who can’t articulate a single specific reason for their support of Senator Obama; when I can find very little of substance in the same stump speech he delivers everywhere; when I know that it is indeed a 26-year old speechwriter (according to a glowing feature in the New York Times) masterminding those luminous speeches (everyone has to have speechwriters, of course, but if that’s what he’s MOST admired for, then it begins to feel like the guy behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz); I have to wonder what in the hell is going on in this country? I wish his speeches had more substance. I wish he would more consistently show us the more nuanced, sharp-as-tack brilliance I came to love in his books. I know he’s got the substance, but I want him to apply it more directly and consistently during this campaign, so I don’t feel like I have to join the group-think brigade and simply have “faith” that he’ll be a good President because I read somewhere that he’s capable.
I, too, worked as a community organizer and was trained in the same school of urban organizing that Senator Obama was, and that is precisely why his calls for unity strike me as disingenuous. What I learned from my years in organizing is that the more privileged you are, the less tolerance you have for conflict. Conflict is uncomfortable; it’s threatening. The refrain we most often hear form well-to-liberals is “why can’t we all just get along?” I’ll tell you why: people who have experienced oppression directly are ANGRY. Not go-out-and-shoot-people-at-the-mall angry. It’s a slow-burning anger that says, “I don’t care if you’re uncomfortable with my demands, with the pitch of my voice, with the intensity of my commitment.” Fundamentally changing the balance of power is hard (or we would already have a just society!), and no one, not even we well intentioned, well-to-do liberals, can pretend that it won’t require a fight (with our own souls, in fact, not to mention with those whose reach extends to the very roots of power in this country). By its very nature, change at a fundamental level is going to mean that the Haves have to give up some of their privilege, and they won’t be doing it willingly. I take exception to Senator Obama’s campaign because I believe that he’s co-opted the tools of broad-based organizing and is using them to forward a political process that is more comfortable to privileged elites, and by doing that, I believe he is undermining the very purpose of the struggle. I don’t think it’s about race – I think it’s about socio-economic class.
We see this in the very fact that he’s won 9 out 10 of the caucus states (and arguably, he won Nevada, too. In Nevada, Senator Clinton, despite her campaign’s fears, did relatively better than in other caucuses because workers were allowed to caucus during work hours). After working as a community organizer for five years, I can guarantee you that the only people who can and will show up for a 2-3 hour political process are college students and the upper middle class. Low-income voters simply do not have the time and luxury to attend such a process, and many of them are intimidated by that type of political discourse, with which they often have very little experience. In organizing, our goal was to help prepare people for such political discourse, but without that preparation and confidence and relationship-building, they are likely to remain silent and invisible.
And, yes, I do agree that Senator Obama’s campaign has capitalized on our culture’s obsession with youth and all things young. He is essentially calling upon us to discard the past and to throw Senator Clinton away with it. But as the first woman president, she would not be the past. She embodies the future. Though I am not much older than Senator Obama’s college voters, I have to admit a certain disgust with the arrogance they display. You have to be somewhat privileged to be attending college nowadays, and for them to assume that they know what’s right for the rest of the country (the world!) is naivete at best and willful ignorance at worst. Perhaps because I come from a culture that respects its elders far more than this one does, I find many of his supports to be self-indulgent and overly righteous. And, again, this doesn’t apply to everyone, but the media does tend to focus on the screaming mobs more than the thoughtful, well informed students. I suspect, in many ways, the media has done an injustice to all of us.
Finally, I am fully willing to admit that there are many intelligent, thoughtful Obama supporters out there who have weighed their decision very carefully, and I respect you and I am thrilled by the energy of democracy in action. Senator Clinton is certainly not perfect, either, and I think this dialogue could be fabulous. However, you must understand that what we see in the media are the Obama “rock concerts,” with thousands of swooning young people in the throes of their Obamagasms. We see Senator Clinton’s breathtaking grasp of policy and detail, and her thoughtful, specific speeches, and, in contrast, his airy speeches and his muddled and slightly bumbling debate responses. We see videos like Obama Girl’s that emphasize Senator Obama’s sexual appeal, and, in contrast, read constant critiques of Senator Clinton’s clothing and thighs and ankles. You have to understand that it begins to feel that, if Senator Obama wins this nomination, his political machine will have done so by exploiting a tidal wave of charisma, ageism, privilege, and misogyny.
Way to back over the old butch. Hot damn. I’m so glad to hear others who are also tired of the dividers, you know the ones, they get all steamed, lathered and blustery to promote their own gender and race over another, because, as you know, that’s all people are to them – symbolic figurines of power and dominance.
Obama inspires. Enough said.
Thank you Robin Morgan for helping me realize what was really making me so angry about the media coverage of this election. Only the truly clueless could fail to perceive the Obama media bias, and we puzzled over it at our house, asking ourselves why Rupert Murdoch and his ilk would be so keen to see Obama in the White House. Now, thanks to you, I understand what is really going on, and it is extremely disheartening.
When the primaries began, I, like millions of others, watched the cable news networks with great interest. I immediately noticed there seemed to be a consensus to disparage Hillary as the “establishment candidate.” I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard the odious “Clinton political machine” phrase on television these past few weeks. As if there isn’t a political machine of some sort behind every candidate! After Iowa, they really began to gush over Obama, and lovingly embraced him as the people’s candidate. As the primary season kicked into full gear, Hillary supporters were invariably described by the media as poorer, older, uneducated and, of course, female; Obama’s as youthful, affluent, and well educated. When Hillary won a primary that the pollsters had given to Obama, the media decided it was because that state’s white voters were racist, and in the privacy of the voting booth couldn’t bring themselves to actually vote for the black candidate. So Hillary voters were not only old, poor, and uneducated, they were also racist. When they aired the last debate, where Hillary consistently outclassed her opponent, the media consensus was that she had “done well” but that it wasn’t possible to actually “win” a televised debate. Huh? Now, because she is still standing after taking everything that both the media and the overt misogynists have to throw at her, the pundits are playing the “electability” card.
When I went to caucus for Hillary today in Washington state it became painfully obvious that most of the participants had been thoroughly indoctrinated by the mainstream media. All I heard about Obama were the “Change” and “Inspiration” mantras. Nothing about policies, nothing about his record except that he had voted against the Iraq war. His supporters were surprised when we Hillary supporters informed them that Obama was not even a Senator when that vote was taken, so he couldn’t have voted against it. Luckily for my precinct, it happened that there were a few dedicated and well spoken women caucusing for Hillary, and we managed to move some people over to our side to split the delegates evenly, though we started the caucus 3 to 1 for Obama. What was so telling about the whole thing was that we Hillary backers had many more concrete, well thought out reasons for supporting her than the Obama backers had for supporting him. In the end, the Obama backers were forced to fall back on questioning her electability, parroting the pundits and the latest polls.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Hillary is hands down the most qualified presidential candidate put forth by either party. There can only be one reason for her continuing, pervasive vilification by the media, and that is her gender. Even George Bush was treated with more respect when he ran for re-election. It would seem that America is not ready for a woman president. For shame indeed.
Bravo, Robin! Thank you for this article. You have eloquently and comprehensively said it all! These have been my thoughts exactly and I thank you for articulating them so magnificently. Hillary is our champion and an example for all. Let us hope and pray that we can call her Madam President.
Eva: SHAME on you for your total lack of understanding of WHO exactly it was who fought for the right of women like you to go to law school (was this a formerly all-male school by the way?)so you can be the boss of men. If not for voices like Robin Morgan’s, this never would have happened. The Baby Boomer generation women, were guinea pigs in this great cultural and political evolution. We didn’t have childcare options or family leave. Certain jobs were closed to women; this is just the way it was. Somebody had to knock down those barriers. Hillary Clinton’s life is all of our struggles rolled into one – balancing motherhood (with the cultural expectations that go along with that) with career, challenging people’s perceptions of how women should behave in public and private life. I am a Democratic Committeewoman who has been involved in Party Politics for a long time. I am very concerned about how our Party will come out of the Denver Convention. Women and Blacks comprise a huge percentage of the Democratic base. If our convention turns into a slugfest over Hillary and Barack, surely the Mainstream Media will sensationalize it. McCain will be the main beneficiary.
Man…the fact that Hillary is a women keeps coming up again and again from the same sources. Enraged feminists. I seriously hear very little about Hilliary being a women and Obama being black…at least in the media I choose to get my info from. And when it does come up it’s always in a positive light. I never watch or listen to FOX but I assume they are all over the physical attributes of each candidate and in a negative light. This article pretty much seems to be an endorsement for a candidate than a constructive conversation on feminism. I think to vote for Hilliary just because she is a women or just because you’re a women is plane idiocy. My wife brought up a good point, I quote “I think to myself that the women who came before me… all the way back to Abigail Adams in the 1780’s… all the women who fought for higher education and for the right to vote… all the way to the 60’s and 70’s… I like to think that they worked hard so that I would never have to think about how a “woman” would vote. I like to think that they worked to eliminate that pressure so that I can simply say, how would “I” vote.” That makes sense to me, but then again I’m just a silly man who is going to vote for Obama. Well, I have to cut this short. I gotta go force some more Obama girls to dress up in some bikinis.
I had tears in my eyes when I read this. I am a militant feminist and face much of the same shameful insults hurtled at me in my very small way. I see different standards used to measure out a woman and a man. No woman can ascend to being the “most powerful man in the world” if fake demands like ‘likeabilty’ is expected of them. How does one win, how does one fight when the enemy is diffused, omnipresent and worse, within each of us? Any woman president is going to be exactly everything that Hillary is- ambitious, tough, occasionally a little diplomatic, trying to balance her real intentions with what is expected of her. Of course she is going to make mistakes on her way- as any other candidate is going to do. I used to think the US is super-progressive and now the scales have fallen. This campaign is testing the surface of equality this society has posed.
Thank you for your article
I enjoyed reading your article. You made some very valid points and reasonable arguments. It was very good. However, I would like to share with you from the perspective of a black woman. You see, I’ve been kicked from both sides: (1) for being black, (2) for being a woman.
You have no idea what it’s like growing up and being discriminated against, hated only because of the color of you skin…. You can’t possibly know what it’s like to have a member of the “sisterhood” despise you so much that she sits your 7 year old black behind at the back of the class to keep you as far away from her as possible. I was told by my white guidance counselor that I was not college material ~ not because I was a female, but because I was black. I was a high school honor student. (Oh yeah, another member of the “sisterhood”)
I have found, in my experience, that while it may take some time and effort, overcoming sexism is much easier than overcoming racism. While I understand the unfairness and difficulty that HRC is facing, speaking as a black woman, your article sounds a little “whiny” to me. It’s hard for me to be very sympathetic. You see, I’ve been kicked from both sides…..inspite of that, I’ve made it and have become sucessful along with scores of other strong women. So quit belly-aching and wo-man up!
Your article is exactly what I have been wanting to say for a long time. Only wished the Hillary haters would post on their hate sites and leave this one for the positive voters. I just scroll past the hate comments without reading them as most you do and get to the positive ones. It’s too bad they can’t just tell what’s positive about their pick instead of trying to knock Hillary. To me, these posters just prove the points you are making in the article! She is so smart that is why noone wants to debate her live as they will not out think her. I love the way she actually outlines the details in her different programs she is running on not just saying I hope I can do it. If I wanted a minister preaching to me I would go to church. I want a President that can put a plan together, explain it and then be able to get “the guys” to go out and do it. She’s the one! Again they won’t out think you and you will be President!
I respect Robin Morgan’s role as an influential feminist. I also consider myself a feminist, and voted for Obama. With respect, it would be great if Ms. Morgan *credited her sources*, i.e. acknowledged that Robert Graves wrote the memoir Goodbye to all That in 1929, or noted that historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was the original source of the “well-behaved women rarely make history” slogan. Goodbye to borrowing from other writers!
I agree with these sentiments 100%. I am a Green and, hopefully, I will get to vote for Ralph – possibly Cynthia.
I do not approve of the war stance of the Dems – and both Hillary and Barack have voted for hundreds of billions in war funding in the Senate.
That is one issue.
Quite another is the hatred pouring out against Hillary. It has never made sense – any more than the hatred against Bill or in its crudest, meanest form against Chelsea.
I think a good deal of it is anti-woman – and the rest is just saying what you are told to say by the “opinion makers.” Virtually all of it is unencumbered by the thought process.
And why do you suppose all the neocons are rooting for Barack? Simple. They know that he cannot win and brings nothing to the table. African Americans will always vote Dem as will Hispanics. But all those single moms working in all kinds of places to raise the kids abandoned by the guys, places from strip joints to bars to cleaning hotel rooms and hospitals – they will go into the voting booths and cast a vote for Hillary hoping she will give them the break that the guys like the foot fetishist Dick Morris and the womanizing Ted Kennedy never did.
While this author has remembered Marilyn Monroe and Mary Jo Kopechne, she has conveniently not mentioned by name Monica, Gennifer, et al., simply a passing referral to Bill getting “reported on.” I greatly admire Hillary’s achievements, et cetera, and have never understood the vicious diatribes constantly thrown at her. I do not blame Bill’s actions on Hillary. HOWEVER, I would have more respect for Hillary as a liberated, powerful woman if she had not physically and otherwise STOOD BY HER MAN (I’m not Tammy Wynette??) while he wagged his finger and LIED to us all. She stood by while the Clinton damage control shredded Bill’s conquests. Monica, Gennifer, et al., were VICTIMS. We have fought for years for (male) society to stop blaming the victim and also to reduce harassment in the workplace. I am sure these women are ridiculed as much by the NOW people as they are by the media. Hillary stood by while Bill allowed his opponents to drag him down — and the Democratic Party with it. This is something that more than a few staunch Democrats remember and the reason why we are not voting for the Clinton camp. The Clintons sold us the “2-for-1,” and Hillary DID NOT SEPARATE herself from it. I would gladly vote for a woman president — the RIGHT woman. Hillary is not the one. I notice there is no opinion regarding Michelle Obama, a brilliant, accomplished woman in her own right. Actually, gee, I am voting for a BLACK WOMAN in the White House. Barack & Michelle — now there’s a real “2-for-1″!
A response to Robin Morgan:
As a woman, a daughter, a sister, and a mother, I have to disagree with Robin Morgan. I am supporting Barack Obama. Let me begin by saying that all democrats, whether they are supporting Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, do themselves, their party, and this country a disservice by personal attacks on either candidate. I lived in New York state when Senator Clinton ran for office and I voted for her. I think she is an amazing person in many ways and, as a result, what you will see below are not personal attacks against her, but rather a comment on her policies.
To begin, I have to take issue with Robin Morgan’s conclusion: “Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.” Being a woman certainly influences my life in many ways, but I would never want the fact that I am a woman to determine my political choices. We, as a nation, should be picking the candidate who we feel can best lead this nation and begin the process of healing the damage done by the Bush Administration both at home and abroad.
I believe the candidate best able to do so is Barack Obama. He has showed his good judgment by calling the Iraq war for what it was at a time when anybody who opposed it was accused of not being patriotic and he did it even when he was campaigning for senate and he might not have been forced to take so strong a position. He was right on this fundamental issue. Senator Clinton was not. If you have not read his speech, you should: http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php. This is the type of integrity we need in our President.
He will have held elected office for 12 years upon becoming President and will be older than JFK, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Roosevelt were when they took office. In both the U.S. Senate and in Illinois, Senator Obama has an extensive record of actually getting progressive legislation passed. The League of Conservation Voters gave Senator Obama the highest score of all the candidates, including Senator Clinton. This is the kind of legislative record we need in our President.
To say Senator Obama is smart is an understatement: he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. He worked as a community organizer in Chicago, where he learned how to bring people together and motivate them to be active participants in their communities and in their own politics. This experience has helped shape his campaign, which has empowered ordinary Americans to become inspired by and involved with their presidential candidate. He also spent some time in private practice, focusing on representing community organizers, and working on discrimination and voting rights cases.
Senator Obama has plenty of experience to be this country’s President, plenty of intellect to master the details of all the foreign and domestic policy choices he will have to make, and plenty of good, smart, people to work with him to get things done once he is elected.
Turning to some of Ms. Morgan’s specific points, as for the “double standard,” the “toxic viciousness,” and the “news community” comments—I agree our media is often contemptible and I agree that there are many in our nation that hold Senator Clinton to a double standard. This campaign has made clear that many in our nation do not respect women and have not embraced equality. However, it also seems clear that for some people the women-bashing is mixed in with a genuine dislike of both of the Clintons for real or perceived scandals during the Clinton administration. To put it simply: there are a lot of people out there who really don’t like Senator Clinton, but it is not at all clear to me that the majority, or even a substantial minority, don’t like her because she is a woman in a position of power. Rather, there is still a lot of bad blood out there directed at both Bill and Hillary Clinton, which I think Morgan simply fails to acknowledge.
But, more importantly, this simply does not speak to the fundamental question: who is the candidate best able to lead our nation and start to undo the damage of the Bush Administration? I think most people who read Caroline Kennedy’s New York Times piece do not share Morgan’s view that the piece was just a nostalgic need to return to the time of her father. Instead, Caroline Kennedy expresses something that I think is critically important: Barack Obama inspires us to hope; to reach for a different kind of politics in this country than what we have seen in the last twenty, even thirty years. Perhaps I am naïve, but I think that if anything here is “toxic,” it is the politics of the last decade that has been toxic for our nation, internally and abroad. I think we need a change. I think Barack Obama best embodies that change.
As for Morgan’s next section, “Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white,” this just strikes me as ironic in light of Morgan’s ultimate conclusion. No matter if you are a woman or a man, no matter your race or ethnicity, you should choose the candidate to support based on who you believe will be the best leader of our country. Women have endured discrimination, African Americans have endured discrimination, the list goes on. The best way to end discrimination is to find and elect a leader that will speak to these issues on a national and international stage and will implement real policies to address them. I believe both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will speak to these issues on a national and international stage if elected. I believe both will work to implement real policies to address them. I just happen to believe that Senator Obama is the person who has shown that he “can govern differently,” to use Ms. Morgan’s words. He has shown a consistent ability to bring people on both sides of the aisle together to implement real changes. I think we should all recognize that Congress will likely still be divided after this election. And, the legacy of bad blood from the Clinton administration will hamper Senator Clinton’s ability to implement her policies, no matter her good intentions.
This litany of discrimination that both sides have suffered seems to be just Ms. Morgan’s way of saying that women endure more discrimination today. I don’t think we benefit our cause (ending the disastrous Republican rule), by arguing with each other over who is and has been treated worse in this country and elsewhere. I should not be told that I should support Senator Clinton because I am woman, as Ms. Morgan does at the conclusion of her piece, any more than the African American women Ms. Morgan discusses should be called “race traitors” because they have chosen to support Senator Clinton.
“Blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary”—no, we should not be blaming Senator Clinton for Bill Clinton’s behavior while in office. But we can and should recognize that Senator Clinton is in charge of this campaign. Therefore, I think it is legitimate to evaluate what Bill Clinton is saying during the campaign: he is campaigning for her. If she does not like what he is doing, she can and should do something about it. This is not a husband and wife thing, it is her campaign.
“Comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive”—Ms. Morgan is right, but this just goes back to my fundamental point: everyone should be supporting the candidate that they believe will best lead our nation and undo the damage of the Bush Administration at home and abroad. To the extent this is a veiled reference to Senator Obama, I firmly disagree on the merits. As discussed above, he does not have a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, or skill.
“It’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job”—to the extent Morgan is referring to George Bush, I heartily agree, but I suspect that she is not. As for Senator Obama, he should not be judged on his looks any more than Senator Clinton should (for which Ms. Morgan just appropriately attacked the media earlier in her piece). His conduct in this campaign has been anything but cocky. Senator Clinton spent the first part of the campaign enjoying a 20 point lead over Senator Obama. She was the frontrunner and she acted like it. He has eliminated that lead and even moved into the position as frontrunner now, coming from behind. As anyone who has watched him speak, or read his positions, or looked as his website, or talked to his volunteers can tell you, he has made this campaign about all of us, and not about him. “We are the change we have been waiting for,” he said. This is not the statement of a “cocky” candidate—this is the statement of someone who is building a movement in this country. A movement out of ordinary Americans. People like me have volunteered their time and donated their money because Senator Obama—and the way that he has run this campaign, such as not taking money from registered lobbyists or PACs (unlike Senator Clinton)—inspire us that he will bring about a different kind of politics in this country.
As for learning on the job, as indicated above, Senator Obama has plenty of experience (more experience in elected office that Senator Clinton) to be president. I think we should all realize that for anyone, including Senator Clinton, there is going to be some learning on the job to take on the office of the President. The critical issue is whether you believe that the candidate has the intellect to learn on their feet (I think both do) and will bring in people who are qualified and able to help (I think both would).
“Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .”—With all due respect to Morgan, it is not “sulking” to wonder if Senator Clinton is electable. It is realistic. It is practical. It is what we should all be doing unless we feel that it is acceptable to leave a Republican in the White House for another four or eight years. I am 34 and I believe it is just as unacceptable for Ms. Morgan to tell me to vote for Senator Clinton because I am a woman, as it is for a woman, no matter her age, to shape her choice for President based on what she thinks other people will think about her for her choice. If you are making your decision as everyone should, picking the candidate that you believe will do the best job, none of this is relevant. It seems to me that most of Ms. Morgan’s piece speaks to many things, but not to the real question.
“She’s a high-profile candidate”—yes, but really they both are now. She had the advantage as frontrunner, but I think now most Americans know who both of them are. To the extent that Ms. Morgan hopes that she will get votes because of name recognition, this hope may be misplaced. As I stated above, I think there is still a lot of bad blood against both of the Clintons for the real or perceived scandals of the Clinton Administration. At this point in the race, this is not a reason to vote for Senator Clinton.
“with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance”—Senator Obama, because of his background (including his upbringing in this country and abroad), dedication, and years of public service also has an enormous grasp of foreign and domestic policy nuance. As I said above, neither candidate, as President, would be able to do it all. They will both rely on advisors. They both have the intellect to understand the issues, and they both will bring in qualified people. This, again, is not something that distinguishes Senator Clinton.
“Ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on”—Again, this is not a reason that convinces me to vote for Senator Clinton. Some people think she did the right thing. Other people disagree. In a perfect world, we would not spend time debating this. It was her choice and nobody else’s. I think that people will reach different conclusions about it depending on their pre-existing feelings about Senator Clinton. Those that admire her reach the conclusion of Ms. Morgan. Those that do not will likely say that, among other things, she made the choice she did because of her ambition to rise to higher office. The fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton’s past association with the Clinton Administration will hurt her chances to win over Independents and moderate Republicans and will mobilize the far right of the Republican party.
“let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too”—on this point I have to disagree. I think it speaks to the integrity of the Obama campaign that the campaign is not funding this election with donations from lobbyists and PACs. Senator Obama’s campaign is funded primarily through hundreds and thousands of small donors like me. Senator Clinton cannot say the same. I think the Obama Campaign has made a good choice. Ms. Morgan disagrees. This, I think, is a legitimate basis on which to compare Senator Obama with Senator Clinton, but it is a reason to support Senator Obama, not Senator Clinton.
“I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters . . . If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?”—Again, the debate over who to support should not be about personal attacks. And make no mistake, that is what this is. Both candidates are “astute”; both work with speechwriters. It is inappropriate to start slinging phrases like “smooth pol” around. They get us nowhere and they do not address the fundamental question posed above.
I agree that Barack Obama is a fabulous orator. This skill, combined with his “vision and spirit” is part of what helps him inspire us. But do not doubt that he has the intellect to back it up. Do not doubt that he has committed years of his life to public service. Do not doubt that he has been able to accomplish a stunning amount of real, on the ground, changes in policy. The incredible success of his come-from-behind campaign is another demonstration that he already has the “practical know-how” necessary to accomplish great things: he has built a legitimate and broad-based movement in this country in under a year. I do not need more “seasoning” in the politics of Washington, D.C. of today. I need those politics to change. Barack Obama is the best person to do that, including the best person to “get the policies we want enacted” for all of the reasons I’ve discussed above. And that is why I am supporting him. Not because of his age.
And as for “And goodbye to the ageism”—Ms. Morgan speaks of leaving behind ageism, while simultaneously saying that Senator Obama is too young to hold the office of President. She also claims that Senator Obama is triaging the boomer generation. I don’t know the basis for her statement, but from what I have seen, it does not reflect the reality of the Obama Campaign. As a volunteer, I saw more people of the boomer generation supporting Obama than Generation X, Y, Z, or whatever letter they’ve gotten to now. The fact is that this campaign has unified people. I know a number of Independents and moderate Republicans who are dissatisfied with the Bush Administration and supporting Senator Obama because they want our politics to change. I cannot say the same about Senator Clinton
So as for Ms. Morgan’s challenge “how dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history,” I guess the answer is we dare, because it is time to move forward. But rather than “papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign,” this campaign is about changing politics so that we can actually start accomplishing something good for this nation, for our people, and for the world, rather than continuing to be mired in the toxic and divisive politics we have seen in Washington D.C. for too long.
I will be supporting Barack Obama for President. If you, like me, believe that he is the candidate who is best suited for the job, most likely to win, and most likely to begin the long process of undoing the damage from the Bush administration, I urge you to do the same, but not because of your age, not because of your race, and not because of your gender…
Malaika Eaton, Seattle, WA
I HAVE A QUESTION. TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT CAST THEIR VOTE FOR SENATOR CLINTON BASED ON THE IRAQ WAR. DID YOU VOTE IN THE 2004 ELECTION? IF SO, AND I’M ASSUMING YOU VOTED FOR KERRY IF YOU ARE DEMOCRATIC (NADER VOTERS EXCLUDED) MR. KERRY VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR. WHERE WAS YOUR SENSE OF OUTRAGE WHEN YOU PUNCHED THE BALLOT FOR HIM?!?
Interesting..Sexism and Racism are not on equal footing in this country.
No doubt woman all around the world have been repressed. To compare that to the oppression that blacks and jews faced is RIDICULOUS. True the repression is wrong and woman have had to fight hard to be considered equals, but i hope you don’t actually think it can be on par with racism and anti-semitism
Repression : To hold back by an act of volition
Oppression: To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority
If you check a Thesaurus you will find they are not even related, yet they are appropriate discriptions of the difficulties each group has had.
Institutional racism included state sponsered killing, beating, and selling of humans..in Nazi germany it was state sponsered genocide etc…none of these these were institutionalized for woman, yes they were held back by convention and even sometimes laws (voting would be an example) But show me when woman were fighting for their rights where they were beaten by police, hung by trees, and had crosses burning in there front yard…oh yeah that didn’t happen…unless they were unfortunate enought to be both repressed and oppressed because they were black and a woman.
they were not the same so they should not be placed on an equal table
Hmmm…many of the comments by women offended by Robin’s position and anger remind me of the kind of things a woman would say back in the early 70s…before joining a consciousness raising group.
I was on the fence – leaning towards Hillary, but I hadn’t yet made up my mind until I read this excellent article. Right on! I have always resented the double standard in how the press and her colleagues treat Hillary. I will go to the polls today and support her.
Among the many ingrained, rash and overall incorrect generalizations Ms Morgan continues to propagate with her most recent “Goodbye” rant, generalizations that much like the race-baiters found on the left assure her a source of income, is the utter idiocy of her assertion that anyone, regardless of gender, race or mental capacity, has the, “right to be heard”.
Such is the mind of a modern liberal.
It is rare that someone speaks from my heart. Robin Morgan did that with “Goodbye To All That” (Part 2). Thank you, Robin Morgan. Thank you for speaking the truth with such beauty. To those of you who claim to be feminists but are supporting Obama, my response is that by definition you are not feminists. There can be no question that Hillary Clinton is far more qualified in every way to serve as President than Obama. The reasons for supporting Obama or not supporting Clinton are not rational. Those of you who get it, please don’t be disheartened. Keep working. We need to elect this fine woman to the Presidency. And God bless Robin Morgan
To “Real Sister, # 118″
Definition, Feminist: A person who believes that women and men should have the same rights.
By definition I am not a feminist because I am not voting For Mrs. Clinton simply because she is a woman? Me thinks you need to go back to the books. I know plenty of empty-headed women that think women should cater to men. Should I support them over a man who believes in my equal rights? We can and should debate this endlessly – it is great for women! And so many women on this board are strong, intelligent women, on both sides!
However, those women who criticize other women’s decisions as stupid because you don’t agree with them….are you not propagating the same sort of nonsense the Movement tried to do away with? So let me get this straight, men are horrible if they try to dictate our thoughts and actions. But if other women do it, it is okay? Who is to anoint these women leaders who tell us what to think and say? Who gets to vote on this? I mean Helen Thomas is very different from Condoleezza Rice….my vote is for Helen.
You may not think our decisions rational, but I would venture to guess it is because you have yet to look past any of the rhetoric. I made my decision based on very real facts. Can you do the same? Can you tell me where Mr. Obama stands on Israel? Can you tell me the differences in their health care plans? I actually consulted my Doctor to get her opinion on their health care plans as part of my research. I do not hate Mrs. Clinton; However, on the issues I agree with Mr. Obama, and that is my prerogative. I have very real problems with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and none are based on her gender. How dare you say I am not a feminist. I am a strong minded woman who can debate any man under the table, one who has made an intelligent and informed decision and has the moxie to defend it and follow through. How dare you insult others because you are unable to see the other side of a debate, please see #112 for some clarity on the issue. I respect your right to vote for Mrs. Clinton and I would never insult that. We can debate, but insult? Grow up.
Who is the real feminist – the one who demands all women act in accordance with one ideal, or the one who studies, researches and acts with great heart and mind according to those ideals she feels are best not only for herself and her family but for the greater good? Ignorance is unacceptable and propagating intolerance for others’ viewpoints with name calling is infantile.
Thank you to everyone on this board, on both sides, who brought intelligent debate to the table. It is a true testament to the Women’s Movement that most of us can debate intelligently and with such fortitude. At the end of the day I think we can recognize our diversity of thought as a sign of a healthy movement and a great chance for us all to exchange ideas and viewpoints…..and for those of you who resort to name calling and fear mongering….good luck to you.
Wow! Somehow I had forgotten/lost my rage…thank you for reawakening me to the fight.
Hillary is beautiful! Robin you did a find job at defining this sexist hatred.I see it every day. I wish I had super powers..lol I would clear this world of sexist hate. I have heard enough about pregnant women being murdered, sex slavery, child pronography, religious hatred of women which goes back a long way. These women in these muslim countries need to be freed, you know they couldn’t posibally like the men to well over there, who treat them like dogs. Women and childen are the ones suffering, not so much the men. They are the ones who created this worldly mess from the beginning.They had to create wars, and guns and rules. Men say they own this world, funny, but the world is suppose to be destroyed, its not going to last forever, it must mean that women rules the heavens, sweet.
Hilary is someone who has run drugs through the Governor’s office, her previous admin removed FDR’s safeguards against having another 1929 crash,did massive clearcutting behind me and all over the country and changed the rules on the way out the door, whose health plan benefits the banks and hurts the poor. I’d prefer another woman’s advice-their financial advisor for HUD Catherine Austin Fitts who was running HUD for Bush and Clinton and followed the money trails to discover Jeb’s savings and loan scandals and Hilary’s Whitewater..read the Dillon Reade expose on http://www.solari.com or read MIchael Ruppert’s book Crossing the Rubicon accepted by the Harvard Law Library. Bush/Clinton-which mafia..same industrial war complex machine…She said on one of her early debates we need to continue war in Iran…I used to like her ok too …till I found out the truth..a real woman doesn’t need to continue military wars for oil, she needs to find greater strength in diplomacy. Continuing this policy is devastating our economy. In fact we may collapse financially before the next election. The Clintons took money from social security and trillions are missing from their administration (www.solari.com) There are a half dozen You Tube videos where you don’t have to rely on gossip, you can hear it out of the horse’s mouth..denegrating unions…this woman loves power so much that she has given in to evil. She is backed by Monsanto who is one of the 5 major food suppliers who will turn 90% of our food supply into genetically modified food sources they supply.(cancer here we come)…not very motherly…you owe it to this country to find out the truth…check out the sources I mentioned before you vote…as an educated woman not just and emotional vacuum….UCLA BA, GRad Ed in Design Education London
From HRC’s commencement speech in 1969: “And then respect. There’s that mutuality of respect between people where you don’t see people as percentage points. Where you don’t manipulate people.”
Granted, a 45, I am different person than I was at 18-22. However, I beleve her comments should be speaking to her future self. I have no doubt about her capabilities, she may even be the most qualified person for the White House. What I do doubt is her sincerity, her motivation.
I remember a television interview with Bill Clinton during his first run for president (I believe the interviewer was Barbara Walters). HRC was sitting at Bill’s side looking like the perfect First Lady wannabe, as if she were just returning from the library with some of her sorority sisters.
It didn’t take her long to lose that concocted image when she entered the White House with her husband.
Her comments in 1969 about Trust: “What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted?”
I look forward to when women and other forseen minorities have a chnce at the White House. In spite of her qualifications, her un-trustworthyness and obvious manipulations has me voting for another candidate.
I was just reading the responses. I find it absurd why anyone would want to chose Obama over Hillary. For one, a persons ideas, values, and attitude comes from the learning they receive as a child from their family,the community and society.Their values are also displayed by the church and religion they are affiliated with even as an adult. Obama speakes on Uniting, but who is he uniting? His church he attends is undoutfully the most rasist church in this country. His Pastor J. Wright has a long history of hating Jews and the white man. Then we find out that his church praised, awarded (the highest award)and wrote about Farrakhan in their church magazine. Farrakhan is a Black Muslin Leader, a man who hates everything about whites and jews. This man would love to have the white race and jews killed, as he has mentioned.Obama said that he didn’t believe everything that Farrakhan speaks of, yet why is he still affiliated with that church? Out of all the Christian churches in this country, he chooses one so racist as that. There is something not right about this picture. I have no problem having a black president, but as a women, I know that all the sexism still out there, the last thing we need is add white racism to it.
Robin, your insight hit home, bringing tears to my cheeks as I read. We’ve fought hard all over the world for women’s rights but we haven’t won yet. Hillary has the chance to take us farther than we’ve been before.
Robin Morgan, I’m giving you a standing ovation! You eloquently pointed out what is wrong with the thinking of too many of my woman friends, relatives, and co-workers.
Far too many of them long ago began fearing the “F” word (feminism); so much so, that they see voting for HRC (or sorry to say ANY woman) as a “feminist decision” (and they don’t want to be accused of THAT).
I’ve printed out copies of this fine article, and I’ll be passing it out. Fortunately, my daughter (in her twenties) and her friends will be receptive, even if women in my age group (56) are not.
Goodbye to Robin Morgan’s entire thesis….The power and influence of racism proven alive and well on this board! Albeit, it was all clearer than day in your own essay Ms. Morgan….but I’ve heard you speak, and I am pretty sure you are too self-righteous to ever see how deeply offensive you are to so many. I wish you had to live one day as a Black Man – not because it would change your mind, but because you could perhaps change your perspective and dial back the vitriolic, divisive rhetoric – it serves no one.
Hope you are reading this board Ms. Morgan. Injustice prevails. Still think Hillary is the only one to endure prejudice? I am deeply saddened and ashamed. (see #124). So many intelligent women tried to keep this debate civil. Unfortunately, there are some voters looking to camouflage their racism, and you gave them their rallying cry. The majority of you are smart women – let’s hope the few morons on this board who degraded this debate into name calling and racist insults don’t go out of the house much…I would hate for the world to think that this is what a feminist is.
I don’t think that one must be a Clinton supporter to recognize the truth of what Morgan says. There are many, including women, who are gender biased and don’t know it! I am constantly surprised by the women I hear saying that Clinton stands behind her husband’s pants, for instance; or who are angry at her that she didn’t castrate him in a public square over Lewinsky, but who supported and would support today any Kennedy who ran. I am 77. I have been a feminist before we had a term for it. I am getting tired of trying to shovel you-know-what upstream. Wake up, people! You can recognize equality without voting for someone based on their genitalia!!!
I wish to respond to Michael me (2/04). I am appalled that the description of Obama should appear to be biased and compare him to a pimp. It never occurred to me. Of course, I’m not black so I wouldn’t see it that way. I see Obama as a promise that America is finally waking up and recognizing (regardless of color/gender) the smooth pol who can inspire an entire generation (boomers). Smooth never equated, to me, anything more than…accomplished and positive, confident and self assured. Am I so blind? Am I wrong? Would you people respond and tell me if any others of you heard what Michael me heard? How curious…to me…
Wow! Just discovered this. What a writer. What a message. We need to get over the irrational exuberance and fear and look at logic the way Robin Morgan has.
[sent to my friend who forwarded me the article]
This is my response to “Goodbye To All That (#2)” by Robin Morgan. Long, impressive, and much more articulate than I could ever be. However. I don’t see any reasons given in Ms. Morgan’s dissertation for supporting Hillary other than (1) she’s a woman (like us) who’s being mercilessly picked on therefore we have to close ranks and support our own, and (2) she’s more qualified.
That last is a matter of opinion, of course – judged largely by some on the basis of who has lived longer. Apparently Obama’s stint in his state legislature was quite impressive (an experience Hillary did not have), and I would choose the experience of someone who turned down a Supreme Court clerkship to work for the poor on the streets of Chicago any day (a choice, I might add, that someone who was truly “cocky” would not have made). Granted, Obama does not have all those years of experience as “first spouse.” Some columnist pointed out that if Hillary truly believed “experience” is the most important criteria, she probably should support McCain (the same with having lived longer, I guess).
That brings us to supporting her because she’s a woman (especially for us “older women” – who are in the demographic that’s supposed to get in line). Well, I lived through the women’s lib stuff also. And now we’re much better off (not “there” yet, but much better off – which, of course, can be said for African-Americans also).
And I support Obama. I have that right, you see. I am a woman, and I have the right to support whom I feel is the best candidate, without anyone telling me how to think, and without guilt. When I was young, my uncle thought he had the right to tell me how to vote. My first husband thought he had the right to tell me how to vote. Now, in 2008, how dare a woman talk so eloquently about women’s rights on the one hand, and then tell other women how they have to vote.
I am so glad there’s a serious woman contender (finally!) I admire Hillary’s intelligence, her views, her poise and stamina, and her hairstyle and wardrobe are fine by me. Any vicious, sexist attacks on her are indeed an attack on all women, in my opinion. And we should NOT let any reporter or anybody else get by with them (or with the horrid racist attacks which are sure to come if Obama is the nominee…) But feminine solidarity is still not the reason to vote for Hillary.
Yes, women (and girls) around the world are still being treated terribly today. Yes, there is a double standard, even in our own country. Yes, we should continue to work on all those things. But what does that have to do with voting/not voting for Hillary? I’m sure Obama supports women’s rights every bit as much (and if he ever forgets to make it a priority, his wife I’m sure will remind him…).
Says the writer: “I’d rather look forward to what a good president he [Obama] might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how – and he’ll be all of 54.” In other words, “Get in line and wait your turn (it’s Hillary’s turn this year).” I believe Michelle Obama made a statement to the effect that eight years in Washington might beat all the hope out of him…
I, like everybody else, was floored by the turnout on caucus night. I sat on I-94 for a long while, crawling along to the exit to the location of the caucuses. Freeway traffic came to a halt more than once. People were parking (or abandoning) their cars everywhere, hiking down roads and across open spaces in the dark and snow. It was incredibly exciting to see. And I had to feel good about my country again. I knew – and the voting tally bore it out – that the huge turnout wasn’t due to Hillary.
What is wrong with excitement? What cannot be good about the enthusiastic involvement of young people? We’ve waited way too long for the younger generation to catch fire. They will be in charge of my grandchildren’s world – and I want them to care! Incredibly, Ms. Morgan seems to feel this campaign is a matter of young people vs. the Baby Boomer generation (and that it’s Obama’s fault?)
I’ve watched Sen. Obama carefully for some time, and I very much like what I see. I believe he’s honest and genuine, an inspirational leader (which Lord knows we’re sorely in need of), I think he has the necessary experience and abilities, and that he can win in November. And I realized somewhere in my mind I have the feeling he’s running for the good of the country, not because it’s “his turn,” or the final step in a carefully-planned career. And I like that concept a lot.
I’m a woman, you see, and I can make up my own mind.
QUE!?!?!?!? How bizarre. She’s been a woman of privilege her entire life. She’s experienced more power than most women will EVER experience, and she’s now a victim!?!?? She’s being treated as a frontrunner (or was), by the media, and that treatment is a sure sign of ‘gender bias’???? It should have been taken as a sign that the press recognized the power of Clinton and treated her like they treated all frontrunner candidates.
You didn’t hear McCain whining about the extensive press coverage he was getting – even when it was negative, and almost all of his media coverage was negative. The man has been excoriated by the media and his own party. It’s the coverage the frontrunner EXPECTS to get. My goodness, you are all making me feel better and better about my decision to support Obama and get away from the destructive mindless identity politics used prop up Sen. Clinton’s campaign. There will never be a “right answer’ when it comes to gender politics. The rest of the world will always get it wrong. Put away the tissues and rolling tears and give me a break. Give us all a break. WAKE UP and take pride in Sen. Clinton making history – win or lose. GROW UP and realize that the year is 2008. Quit making a mockery of feminism, fighting the old fights.
If I was ever tempted to vote for Sen. Clinton, this article would have sealed my inability to vote for her. I’d hate to have her drag the identity garbage with her into the Oval office. Four years of accusations of gender bias at every turn? Thanks, but no. It’s time to move forward!
Free our daughters, sisters, mothers, aunts, cousins, our friends, our neighbors. Quit making them victims at every turn. Supporting Obama is not about women who have to cater to men or a man’s every whim, as someone ignorantly offered. Sexism is not evident just because someone doesn’t want to vote for Hillary. I’ll vote for a woman for office, I want to, just not THAT candidate.
To the person who asked about Kerry. I voted for him when he became the nominee, NOT during the primary process. Why not in the primary? He VOTED FOR THE WAR! He would still have been better than Bush, as Clinton would still be better than McCain, but given a choice, her stridency and lack of transparency make her too much like Bush, for my liking. The Bush and Clinton families are flip sides of the same coin. I’ve had enough.
I like reading and listening to varying opinions, though Robin MOrgan’s piece is too much of a battlecry and I’ve had enough of those who want to stir up wars of all kinds. It’s also a battlecry with a deeply upsetting thread of racism and sexism in it — yes, women can be sexist, too, even so-called feminists!
As a woman, I’m troubled by the implication in the piece that if I’m a women I should be for Hillary (as RM concludes, “I’m voting for Hilary not because she’s a woman but because I am!”). There’s much more to my decision for who I support and want as the next President of this country than if it’s a woman or a man or an African American. Would I be betraying the cause of womanhood and my womanhood if I chose to vote for an outstanding candidate like Sen. Obama? And I wonder, according to this writer, if one were an African-American woman, where should one’s loyalties lie? She claims that African American feminists who support Hillary have been called race traitors, but doesn’t she lay a similar charge to all women — if we are not for Hilary, then women are characterized as “wringing their hands”, projecting on to her their own fears and failures.” To me, that’s one of the problems of reducing something so complex as a choice like this to a one-sided analysis masking as feminist perspective.
I agree that there’s definitely a whole lot of anti-Hillary and misogynistic vitriol out there, and we should all acknowledge that for what it is and speak out against it, and while we’re at it, why not recognize what’s racist in this whole process, too. What I’d like to say to the writer and to all those reading her piece is this — while we’re standing up against sexism, let’s not turn it into another us against them, women against african-americans, women against men, and on and on… Aren’t we just reinforcing those separations?
Among the many other reasons that go into my choice of who I want as the next President of this country will be my choice to support someone who in my heart I believe shows a clear ability to transcend the many serious divisions in this country. I believe that the real change we seek is only possible when and if we all work to transcend those divisions.
To all those championing this piece, did you miss the writer’s claims that Sen. Obama has had to “pass as white” to get where he is — that’s a racist statement whether it’s made by someone who’s white or black. It doesn’t recognize the full spectrum of the African American experience and is a charge that is often leveled at successful African Americans who do not fit the “norm” of what some think of as “black.” That same degrading statement has been thrown at my husband, who is African American, and who prefers to wear a button-down shirt and a tie, who speaks English without a vernacular, who was educated in private schools, who has family members and friends who are black, white, and Asian. I’m Asian-American and I’m offended by such a statement! The writer goes on to define Sen. Obama as “cocky”, inexperienced, “a smooth pol with Ted Kennedy’s speechwriters” and she characterizes those that support him as gullible, “eager to win male approval”, “those who didn’t realize that they were slaves” , and then according to her, those who support Hilary are “glorious”, “brave”, “smart”, and apparently the only ones fighting the good fight! Any writer who reduces everything to such biased and opposing viewpoints should be seriously questioned by those who read her.
Furthermore, she makes a claim that there are a few countries in this world where racism doesn’t exist but sexism is everywhere, and by inference perhaps that sexism therefore trumps racism in the war over who’s the greater victim! I wonder what those countries are where racism doesn’t exist. It exists in every country I know of, even those that are mostly populated by black/brown people. It exists in India, in China, in Brazil, Ghana, in Mexico, in Cuba, in Haiti, in the USA, in England, in Israel, in Malaysia, in Saudi Arabia, in France, in the Netherlands, in Australia … it would seem that the hierarchy of “whiteness” being better than anything else has permeated the globe.
In all her outrage over the unfair allegations towards Hillary, where is the acknowledgment and the condemnation of the hateful and divisive anti-Obama, anti-black and anti-Muslim rumors, innuendoes and allegations that have been thrown out there, including false allegations that Sen. Obama is a Muslim and that he took his oath of office his hand over the Koran and not the Bible (meant to stir up the festering anti-Muslim sentiment in this country), and also the Clintons early politics-of-race tactics which backfired on them and offended so many people (something both Hilary and Bill engaged in); it caused African-Americans in droves to let go of their long-held strong support and affection for the Clintons. And what of the media’s dismissal of Sen. Obama’s early wins in states as largely because of African-American support, with the underlying racist implications of negating his wins — this was something that many thoughtful people were aware of but there wasn’t an outcry against those inequalities, either. The writer seems oblivious to all that (or perhaps, more accurately, she can’t see it because she’s participating in it)
If we are to be aware and outraged about injustices, both real or perceived, then let’s cast a clear and wide eye to root it out wherever it exists.
Peace, Not War! Yes, We Can!
I like reading and listening to varying opinions, though, this is too much of a battlecry and I’ve had enough of those who would like to stir up wars of all kinds. It’s also a battlecry with a deeply upsetting thread of racism and sexism in it. Yes, even so-called feminists can be sexist!
As a woman, I’m troubled by the implication in the piece that if I’m not for Hillary then I’m not for women, or that if I’m a women I should be for Hillary (as she concludes, “I’m voting for Hilary not because she’s a woman but because I am!”). There’s much more to my decision for who I support and want as the next President of this country than if it’s a woman or a man or an African American. Would I be betraying the cause of womanhood and my womanhood if I chose to vote for an outstanding candidate like Sen. Obama? And I wonder, according to this writer, if one were an African-American woman, where should one’s loyalties lie? She claims that African American feminists who support Hillary have been called race traitors, but doesn’t she lay a similar charge to all women — if we are not for Hilary, then women are characterized as “wringing their hands”, projecting on to her their own fears and failures.” To me, that’s one of the problems of reducing something so complex as a choice like this to a one-sided analysis masking as feminist perspective.
I agree that there’s definitely a whole lot of anti-Hillary and misogynistic vitriol out there, and we should all acknowledge that for what it is and speak out against it, and while we’re at it, why not recognize what’s racist in this whole process, too. What I’d like to say to the writer and to all those reading her piece is this — while we’re standing up against sexism, let’s not turn it into another us against them, women against african-americans, women against men, and on and on… Aren’t we just reinforcing those separations?
Among the many other reasons that go into my choice of who I want as the next President of this country will be my choice to support someone who in my heart I believe shows a clear ability to transcend those and the many other serious divisions in this country. I believe that the real change we seek is only possible when and if we all work to transcend those divisions.
Doesn’t anyone else notice that she makes the claim that Sen. Obama has had to “pass as white” to get where he is — that’s a racist statement that is often leveled at successful African Americans who do not fit the “norm” of what some think of as “black.” That same degrading statement has been thrown at my husband, who is African American, and who prefers to wear a button-down shirt and a tie, who speaks English without a vernacular, who was educated in private schools, who has family members and friends who are black, white, and Asian. I’m Asian-American and I’m offended by such a statement!
The writer goes on to define Sen. Obama as “cocky”, inexperienced, “a smooth pol with Ted Kennedy’s speechwriters” and she characterizes those that support him as gullible, “eager to win male approval”, “those who didn’t realize that they were slaves” , and then according to her, those who support Hilary are “glorious”, “brave”, “smart”, and apparently the only ones fighting the good fight! Any writer who reduces everything to such biased and opposing viewpoints should be seriously questioned by those who read her.
Furthermore, she makes a claim that there are a few countries in this world where racism doesn’t exist but sexism is everywhere, and by inference perhaps that sexism therefore trumps racism in the war over who’s the greater victim. I wonder what those countries are where racism doesn’t exist. It exists in every country I know of, even those that are mostly populated by black/brown people. It exists in India, in China, in Brazil, Ghana, in Mexico, in Cuba, in Haiti, in the USA, in England, in Israel, in Malaysia, in Saudi Arabia, in France, in the Netherlands, in Australia … it would seem that the hierarchy of “whiteness” being better than anything else has permeated the globe.
In all her outrage over the unfair allegations towards Hillary, where is the acknowledgment and the condemnation of the hateful and divisive anti-Obama, anti-black and anti-Muslim rumors, innuendoes and allegations that have been thrown out there, including false allegations that Sen. Obama is a Muslim and that he took his oath of office his hand over the Koran and not the Bible (meant to stir up the festering anti-Muslim sentiment in this country), and also the Clintons early politics-of-race tactics which backfired on them and offended so many people (something both Hilary and Bill engaged in); it caused African-Americans in droves to let go of their long-held strong support and affection for the Clintons. And what of the media’s dismissal of Sen. Obama’s early wins in states as largely because of African-American support, with the underlying racist implications of negating his wins — this was something that many thoughtful people were aware of but there wasn’t an outcry against those inequalities, either. The writer below seems oblivious to all that (or perhaps, more accurately, she can’t see it because she’s participating in it)
If we are to be aware and outraged about injustices, both real or perceived, then let’s cast a clear and wide eye to root it out wherever it exists.
I am a woman and a feminist and I have been waiting my entire life to vote for a woman. I wept as I watched with my daughter the first female speaker of the House, preside over her first State of the Union. But I am not Voting for Clinton. There are plenty of reasons why a white, female, feminist, progressive would choose not to vote for her. I agree that misogyny has been used to undermine her campaign. But that is as much symptomatic of the state of politics at this time. Look at the “swift boating” of John Kerry, where the right derided an actual Vietnam Vet under the mantle of “true patriotism.” It is ugly. It should shame us all. But that isn’t enough of a reason to vote for her for me. I will vote my conscience based on many issues, none of which happen to be race or gender. And I don’t think that makes me any less of a feminist, just as voting for Hilary shouldn’t make a black man or woman a “race traitor.”
Using your logic, I should vote for Obama not because he’s a man, but because I am? I vote for a candidate, not based on the person’s gender. With the Clintons back in the White House, would you want your daughter to work there?
Looking over some of these response’s I have to say that people don’t understand this article and are responding emotionally and not intellectually. This is our Country’s HUGE PROBLEM. Robin Morgan does not state that because you are a women you must vote for Hillary Clinton, that is a most simplistic argument and deserves no response. I urge you to re-read the article with an open mind, without judgement and at that point you might understand and respond intellectually.
Nevertheless, I am not in the habit of drinking from the intoxicating cup of politicians, who claim to be pure and honest in reality they couldn’t have arrived at at that position if it wasn’t for a lot of corruption and political hypocrisy. He doesn’t even write his own speeches, Barack Obama has a young white man writing his (JON FAVREAU), all to the imbecilic amusement of thousands of youths. Obama might be the one who can drive his own people into the downward spiral of being led by a self righteous but INEXPERIENCED CANDIDATE.
Dear Robin,
Your latest Goodbye To piece inspired me to finish the following open letter. From several of us working here in DC, we thank you for your passion and your articulation of our shared feelings.
==========================================
To my progressive friends.
I have never been more proud to call myself an American than when a woman and an African American man (and earlier, a workers’ advocate) became the leading contenders for US President. My progressive sensibilities were giddy — and I stand ready to fall in line with whatever these fine candidates need for November.
But I have been disturbed by the virulent tone of even the most mainstream coverage of Hillary Clinton. What most troubles me is the deliberate blindness to the personal significance that the major candidacy of a woman has to millions of people just like me. It is not the reason I think Clinton is qualified. But it is inspiring nonetheless.
I will not get into a reactive Clinton Administration defense here. (Although, I have observed that those most vocally against her are the ones who do not understand historically what the nation was facing in 1992 — and what real inspiration, coupled with the practical acceptance of the state of Republican rhetoric that dominated American culture came to Washington in January 1993.) Bill Clinton is not running for president. Hillary Clinton is, and I happen to agree with her on most of her policy proposals and appreciate that she had to make some difficult votes in the Senate… particularly those that were the tough choices that other candidates did not have to face.
That aside, it is the coverage of this campaign that offends me. I’m not hearing about differences among the leading contenders’ policy proposals or in the need to change the neo-con arrogance of the past eight years. What I do hear is the punditry about a new energy in the Party among people who have never been so inspired; what is disturbing is the dismissive-ness of those who pontificate that one of the candidates is “same old same old.” Because none are the same old anything we as voters have had the privilege of considering before.
For those who think that sexism is no longer an “ism,” who think that we should be all Po-Mo past our 20th century divisions and “identity politics,” I tell you: that’s a lovely dream. But that simply is not the case. As a woman in her thirties, I have seen what millions before me and millions still are affected by every day. Every day.
In the 6th grade, my male math teacher used to hand back our graded tests, announcing scores lowest to highest. Inevitably he would get to the final two, and then call my fellow student Ted and me up to the front of the class. He would ask everyone to vote on who they thought was best. Although Ted and I regularly traded that top score, I never forgave this teacher for smiling while telling the class that of course Ted would do better since boys are better at math.
In the 10th grade, my friend’s father, the coach, approached our lunch table and asked my male friends if they’d like to run track. He laughed and said I should not run since I would probably bruise myself with my breasts.
In college in 1993, when I completed my Washington DC internship, I asked an influential man at the agency for a reference for graduate school. He clearly suggested the way I could get that letter. I declined.
I understand that we are expected to pretend that the glass ceiling has been shattered and that sexism is a nasty remnant of a time gone by. But for anyone who has downplayed her own accomplishments in order to protect the feelings of boys and men in her life; for anyone who suppressed her own needs out of belief that doing so is better for the family; and for anyone who has been furious about the arrogance of those who do not have ovaries but dare to legislate how those with ovaries should use them: this campaign is personal.
I hear you when you say that the presidency of Barack Obama could bring a New Day for America, symbolic in showing the world that America is tolerant and moving forward. Or, you may see it as a sign that the American experiment of democracy is finally reaching a more civil and post-political politics. I would agree. This entire campaign is inspiring for a progressive-liberal like me.
But please, in your celebration of what you think Obama could do for the spirit of the country, or in your press coverage of this campaign and its candidates, do not discount the same power, the same heartfelt feeling of evolution, the same courageous symbol for the world of an enlightened America that the presidency of Hillary Clinton would bring. Just because you don’t like that she knows how to play the game, it does not make her win any less world-changing for me.
jenniferdc, Alexandria, VA
Dear Robin: Your piece inspired me to finish the following open letter that some friends and I had been discussing. With gratitude, Jennifer
———————
To my progressive friends.
I have never been more proud to call myself an American than when a woman and an African American man (and earlier, a workers’ advocate) became the leading contenders for US President. My progressive sensibilities were giddy — and I stand ready to fall in line with whatever these fine candidates need for November.
But I have been disturbed by the virulent tone of even the most mainstream coverage of Hillary Clinton. What most troubles me is the deliberate blindness to the personal significance that the major candidacy of a woman has to millions of people just like me. It is not the reason I think Clinton is qualified. But it is inspiring nonetheless.
I will not get into a reactive Clinton Administration defense here. (Although, I have observed that those most vocally against her are the ones who do not understand historically what the nation was facing in 1992 — and what real inspiration, coupled with the practical acceptance of the state of Republican rhetoric that dominated American culture came to Washington in January 1993.) Bill Clinton is not running for president. Hillary Clinton is, and I happen to agree with her on most of her policy proposals and appreciate that she had to make some difficult votes in the Senate… particularly those that were the tough choices that other candidates did not have to face.
That aside, it is the coverage of this campaign that offends me. I’m not hearing about differences among the leading contenders’ policy proposals or in the need to change the neo-con arrogance of the past eight years. What I do hear is the punditry about a new energy in the Party among people who have never been so inspired; what is disturbing is the dismissive-ness of those who pontificate that one of the candidates is “same old same old.” Because none are the same old anything we as voters have had the privilege of considering before.
For those who think that sexism is no longer an “ism,” who think that we should be all Po-Mo past our 20th century divisions and “identity politics,” I tell you: that’s a lovely dream. But that simply is not the case. As a woman in her thirties, I have seen what millions before me and millions still are affected by every day. Every day.
In the 6th grade, my male math teacher used to hand back our graded tests, announcing scores lowest to highest. Inevitably he would get to the final two, and then call my fellow student Ted and me up to the front of the class. He would ask everyone to vote on who they thought was best. Although Ted and I regularly traded that top score, I never forgave this teacher for smiling while telling the class that of course Ted would do better since boys are better at math.
In the 10th grade, my friend’s father, the coach, approached our lunch table and asked my male friends if they’d like to run track. He laughed and said I should not run since I would probably bruise myself with my breasts.
In college in 1993, when I completed my Washington DC internship, I asked an influential man at the agency for a reference for graduate school. He clearly suggested the way I could get that letter. I declined.
I understand that we are expected to pretend that the glass ceiling has been shattered and that sexism is a nasty remnant of a time gone by. But for anyone who has downplayed her own accomplishments in order to protect the feelings of boys and men in her life; for anyone who suppressed her own needs out of belief that doing so is better for the family; and for anyone who has been furious about the arrogance of those who do not have ovaries but dare to legislate how those with ovaries should use them: this campaign is personal.
I hear you when you say that the presidency of Barack Obama could bring a New Day for America, symbolic in showing the world that America is tolerant and moving forward. Or, you may see it as a sign that the American experiment of democracy is finally reaching a more civil and post-political politics. I would agree. This entire campaign is inspiring for a progressive-liberal like me.
But please, in your celebration of what you think Obama could do for the spirit of the country, or in your press coverage of this campaign and its candidates, do not discount the same power, the same heartfelt feeling of evolution, the same courageous symbol for the world of an enlightened America that the presidency of Hillary Clinton would bring. Just because you don’t like that she knows how to play the game, it does not make her win any less world-changing for me.
jenniferdc, Alexandria, VA
The pages by Robin Morgan do not answer my desire for a president.
I want harmony and Less divisiveness between my neighbor and me.
I want country harmony…not woman’s issues brought to the forefront.
That, for me, is no more the reason to elect a president … than to want some religious issue solved by the head of our county.
Having her there will not solve the idiots that are misogynists.
They have always been and will be!
Electing the woman who is wrong will only make matters worse in our female-corner of Robin Morgan’s boxing match.
I see Hilary as extremely polarizing and one who is energizing to the opposition…they want her to run so they can finally be united about something! At the least …even if she gets in … the opposition will make it a constant fight…look at how it was with Bill in there. You don’t think for one minute it will be different? It will be worse…the ‘hateteam’ will be trouble her entire presidency, if she were to make it.
I want someone who will not cause the hatred among our country citizens to continue!
I am so very against her … she is wise…but wise enough to pull tricks and spin the truth. I voted twice for Bill Clinton…yet I remember how Bill was speaking with forked-tongue in about the 3rd year of his 1st term. I was so disappointed…Hillary has learned, and amplified, that talent.
No it is not her time… She is not the right person…she lost her chance to be president.
Accept that bad things often happen to good people…just ask Al Gore!
Eliminate sex from the race…
Eliminate race, as in skin color, from the race…
Vote for the person who will not continue with the same style of spin in running this country.
Obama is extremely intelligent and eloquent.
Give him a chance to lift our image around the world.
Women will be raised equally with the men of the USA…and that is fine!
Give us a chance to live with a less hostile government. PLEASE!
Thanks…
A woman who cares for both sexes and all citizens of the Globe.
Dixie Damm
Thank you Robin Morgan for a great article.
To you women who choose Obama because you researched the issues and electability of both candidates and you made a decision based on the facts, congragulations, regardless of which candidate you are voting for. For those of you I hear on the tv and radio who sound like you have made a superficial sexist, ageist decision, shame on you. Investigate your heart and mind. I have looked into the experience and legacy of both candidates and what they are saying and likely to really do for our country as well as their chances to win a national campaign. That is how I made my decision. Great Article – Robin Morgan.
Thank you. This is our single focus as women: Goodbye To All That #2. All our Presidents have been male. This website is not named the National Organization of WOMEN as a tribute to empowering men! That is ridiculous. NOW is not the time to rest on our laurels and lose focus on one man’s cause. First and foremost NOW wages war against gender discrimination. Discrimination against women will continue until we get angry enough to do something about it together with our VOTE! You bet we are gender biased and we are proud to wage war on gender discrimination NOW! We feel indignant outrage that gender discrimination still persists in our Country. We resent digusting gender bigotry perpetrated in the media and even on this comment thread as they keep pushing for another MALE President. Gender discrimination will always be NOW’S FIRST CAUSE and it matters the most in our vote. We can put an end to the shame of disempowerment for women in the political arena NOW. We refuse to be foolishly sidetracked with any other outside political cause taken up for the benefit of another man. With our vote we remember our NOW foremothers who were tortured and died in protest starvation in prison BECAUSE MEN WOULD NOT LET WOMEN VOTE. We will remember them when we NOW have the first chance ever in history to vote for a female President. Our NOW foremothers wanted equal power for women on every level and we still want that NOW! The statistics have demonstrated enough that males (no matter what the race) will go into office before females. We can break with that statistic NOW! The mere fact that a female is going on the offensive and trying to best these odds is enough to show what an empowered woman she certainly is. No matter what happens in this political race this beautiful WOMAN has done far more for the causes of WOMEN than all the men in this country put together.
HALLELUIA, Robin Morgan!!! Thank you for putting into words what so many of us have been feeling as this historic, yet hideous, campaign season develops. My sister & I & so many of my women friends are near tears on a regular basis watching the vicious misogynist attacks against Senator Clinton throughout this campaign. Next week we’re paying $50 a head to take a group of our young daughters to see Sen. Clinton speak, just so this horror show won’t be repeated by the next generation.
Hillary is beaten down because of her vote vis a vis the war but no one ever speaks of Obama having confirmed Condi Rice for Secretary of State….isn’t she along with Cheney and Bush the architects of the war in Iraq?!? Sure bush had every right, as President, to appoint whomever he pleased but you didn’t see Dick Durbin nor Ted Kennedy voting aye to confirm her. Unfortunately blood is thicker than water…..
Thank you so much for writing this.
I hope we can somehow get back to the actual facts. As in: health care for kids only = timid centrist plan. Health care for everyone = progressive sharp Wonkette plan (and one she’s been working on since 1992).
If you can’t tell the difference, you’ve got a log in your eye. Big-time. A sexist one. Not that you’d think there’s anything wrong with that, eh?
This is not the first time that under the flag of “Womanhood” White women have made a call to arms to join up and fight together for equal rights. Will we be shook off like so much garbage once Hillary is in office? Will those White women be in Alabama with the highest infant mortality rate in country and among Black women? Or will they turn upon them with disdain as before and go back to cushy feelings of belonging, entitlement, and self-worth?
This is not the first time Brown, Black, and Yellow woman have been asked to put aside the daily (hypertensive-stress and heart disease causing) stresses of being first a Colored Individual and second a woman in the efforts of White women to feel they belong to something greater than themselves. Will they support me in the corporate environment when I am denied training that I should have as lawyer, but am denied because no one feels I am as smart as the White woman who graduated from the same school with the same grades? Or will they dismiss me with claims of “oh you’re just being silly, work harder.”
This is not the first time that White women have called for the uniting of all women together so that one day, perhaps, women of Color may all rise up behind those White women and gain access as well. If they feel as if the cause is worthy.
This is not the first time as a graduate student studying women’s literature that I have confronted the magic that is the dismissive rhetoric of White women in the face of the suffering of so many (where they speak as if they belong to the poor women in sex-slavery in India, but can really only imagine an alternate existence here in the U.S. raise White children) then return to their cushy existence when I am not allowed access despite my multiple Ivy pedigrees because I dared to speak up too firmly. Will they again, as usual, say I was aggressive and scary because I formulated my opinion in too articulate a way?
Where are those White women who say we are united when I am silenced?? They are asking me to be quiet and eventually I will be allowed to speak when they see fit.
Let us not forget why exactly bell hooks wrote about tearing down the master’s house with his tools – because she was at a conference on women’s issues where everyone was white. Because contrary to Robin Morgan’s fluffy warm piece, women are NOT united, and when we say woman’s rights still today we mean White women’s rights.
If I was feeling poorly for HRC, this pity piece by Robin Morgan would convince me that my sympathies would be better spent elsewhere. What need does HRC have for my pity at her poor media treatment when there are so many who see her as themselves – “Our President, Ourselves” – but would never see me as themselves and would in all likelihood cross the street to avoid me and my dark complected sisters on our way to graduate school classes if we dare to be too loud? Or they would accuse us of theft in a heartbeat if we spent too long in one spot in a store. Or they would give us crap treatment in a restaurant. Etc…
The day that Robin Morgan writes a Goodbye piece that does not relegate U.S. slavery to a side topic in the discussion of current day women-slave issues worldwide; the day that she avoids the patronizing celebration over my right to vote (or be turned away at the voting center as may be the case) and instead takes to the streets with me against my constant harassment as a Black woman who dared to do something crazy like enter an upscale department store, I will cede some ground to the cause of HRC.
…But you know what? As that ground may never be ceded because as I said, I am Colored first by everyone I meet. So as a person of Color who swept through the halls of the Ivy League and came out scarred and bloodied from being treated as though he didn’t belong and couldn’t hack it, Obama is Me.
As a person of Color who is consistently second guessed and harassed that he is “inexperienced” which is really code for the crime of “black while thinking” Obama is Me.
As a vibrant person of Color who speaks truth in clear ringing articulate intelligent tones and has that dismissed as media hype, as the culture of celebrity, or as a fluke (or as Morgan does, dismissing him as a Cocky childlike figure who needs to go home and study some more), Obama is Me.
As a person of Color treated as though they consistently did not belong in their office job here in NYC or in Chicago or Everywhere USA, or as though they did not “play the game” as they should as a person of Color – Be the Black office person or suffer!!! -, Obama is Me.
And as a person of Color who is seen as allowing the poor old white lady to be beat up, or is causing her discomfort by refusing to recognize her dominance in “experience” and “intelligence” and back out of the election, Obama is Me.
“Our President, Ourselves” is darned right. Obama
Bravo, Robin! All Hillary Clinton has ever done is educate herself, stand up for and protect her family, fight for human rights, support invisible minorities, and try to impact public policy for the good of all people. She has done this with incredible focus, tenacity, and dignity. Her mission has never waivered –she has never been deflected from her path by critics or by her own mistakes. The rest is all negativistic, misogynistic spin in the press. That is where Robin’s article has the most meaning. If you buy into the current buzz words about Senator Clinton, you have been sold the whole bill of goods. Senator Clinton is most definitely not a victim nor is Robin’s article in any way implying that. Senator Clinton is an absolutely incredible woman who should be a role model for us all. I challenge anyone to equal her resume or to withstand living under public scrutiny for so many years. I challenge anyone to be able to accomplish what she has accomplished under the most adversarial circumstances. I say that Hillary Clinton is a hero and that we would be fortunate to have her as our President.
I have seen my wife vilified and an intelligently written diary banned (deleted) on “Raising Kaine,” a blog dedicated solely for Obama worshippers/Hillary haters — no dissent allowed, for merely repeating Obama’s remarks and positions versus Hillary’s remarks and positions. Now, this a.m., I have seen your article, “Goodbye To All That” (the titular reference which I actually read about 45 years ago) used in support for the proposition that ANY defense of women against the use of “bitch,” “clawing,” “the vapours,” “hissie fit,” “it probably was because it was that time of month,” and so on, is “typical” and irrational and “what would you expect?”
As a man who has always felt reverence for Glorious Gloria, the early feminist writers, and Erica Jong, too!, I was appalled at the ideas that women should exhibit subservience and lesser standing in the workplace and at home, the glass ceiling and lower pay for the same work. My wife could tell you how I agonized with her at the injustices she had to endure as less qualified men, some barely above the Bush perceived level of reasoning, were either listened to over my wife’s far greater work knowledge (no great trick here, I assure you–the men were lazy and refused to dig for knowledge) or promoted while screwing up all that they touched.
To find as un-misogybistic the concept that women are supposed to sit back and smile as John McCain feebly grins at a female supporter’s shouted, “How do we get rid of the bitch?” is to me disgusting. To use your well-reasoned article to support those who see Hillary as a misdirected, enabling, you name the rest, succubis who mest be reviled and disposed of is also lunacy, but is what passes now for ordinary discourse on Raising Kaine (.com).
Without boring you all with the oft-repeated arguments I’m sure you’ve heard from enlighted people (who actually read and parse sentences for meaning), I just wanted to restate very, very briefly what is now the generally accepted thought on such sites as RK–that when Bill Clinton says that Obama’s claim of not supporting the war is belied by his votes for funding it, and therefore his claim is a “fairy tale,” THAT IS RACIST. Or when BILL Clinton stated the obvious truth that another black candidate once won South Carolina but lost the rest, THAT was racist. Or when Hillary is slurred as “pimping her daughter,” by David Shuster, no less, that remark is agreed on by cackling idiots like Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson and their ilk. “Well, isn’t that actually true, in a sense?” they state.
It is so much like the accepted anti-Semitism of the British upper classes, an attitude that E.M. Forster took to task in Two Cheers For Democracy so many years ago. It’s an attitude accepted by the Obama’s cult-worshippers who, with little substance to offer, try to turn a limited amount of food into enough to provide bread and fish for the multitudes. And heaven help the woman or male Hillary sypathizer who gets in their way.
Response to Robin Morgan,
The only part of this piece that actually addressed the issue of political candidacy was part of the very last paragraph. The rest was just a platform to write about oppression and suffrage of women throughout history and present day, valid points but her examples of the inappropriate actions of radical and ignorant groups presented as the norm of society
were cleverly crafted and had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. Her hypothetical (angry and offensive) examples of parallel racist examples were not good comparisons and spoke to a society issue rather than the man in question. Good, actually excellent, writing but aimed at her own agenda. A good point but nothing to do with Obama. In fact, this “personal essay” shouldn’t have even mentioned his name. Clinton may be the best candidate but this has given me cause for reflection, if not a cast shadow of serious doubt. I have been torn but settled on Clinton. This negative association may have just changed my mind. What I would actually like to see is a Clinton/Obama ticket or flipflopped. Unbeatable. We should be looking at the person, not the rhetoric of clever, angry writers with a powerful style, and a personal agenda.
Response to Robin Morgan,
The only part of this piece that actually addressed the issue of political candidacy was part of the very last paragraph. The rest was just a platform to write about oppression and suffrage of women throughout history and present day, valid points but her examples of the inappropriate actions of radical and ignorant groups presented as the norm of society
were cleverly crafted and had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. Her hypothetical (angry and offensive) examples of parallel racist examples were not good comparisons and spoke to a society issue rather than the man in question. Good, actually excellent, writing but aimed at her own agenda. A good point but nothing to do with Obama. In fact, this “personal essay” shouldn’t have even mentioned his name. Clinton may be the best candidate but this has given me cause for reflection, if not a cast shadow of serious doubt. I have been torn but settled on Clinton. This negative association may have just changed my mind. What I would actually like to see is a Clinton/Obama ticket or flipflopped. Unbeatable. We should be looking at the person, not the rhetoric of clever, angry writers with a powerful style, and a personal agenda.
“Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.”
The show’s title is South Park, and I believe it should be underlined, not placed in quotations. In the episode in question, it does make more sense for them to involve Clinton (rather than Obama) in the terrorist attack, since Clinton is perceived as being more in favor of the “war on terror” than Obama. In fact, I would argue that the main theme of this episode’s plot was a satire against fears of terrorism, not a satire regarding Clinton being a female or feminist.
Making a vagina a central plot device is a running theme in South Park, and it usually is in a rather crude, offensive way., since the show is just as much a venue for shock humor as it is a venue for satire. South Park has a history of crude humor involving minority races, homosexuals, transexuals, the elderly, dwarves, and even the differently abled (Timmy, anyone?).
In conclusion, it really isn’t particularly shocking for South Park to make a crude, offensive joke regarding Hillary Clinton, and South Park jokes are not a good indicator for the beliefs of the general populous (they aren’t even a good indicator for the believes of the average South Park fan). Stick to being shocked over the words of political pundits, not comedians.
Robin,
Outstanding essay – beautiful. You were inspired and shared with us a breathtaking synopsis of women’s history. I know it as truth. I lived it too.
This essay is the equivalent of Betty Friedan’s book, “The Feminine Mystique” ; a must read. It is the clarion call for today’s young women living very complicated lives and in need of a fix. Most are not aware of women’s past struggles and, what is worse, most are blocking out their passive aggression in complete denial.
Awareness and growth are what leads to women’s as well as men’s true liberation. Women and men who are encouraged to reach their full potential will ultimately bring themselves true satisfaction and happiness.
Self denial of our collective voice coupled with an ‘every woman out for herself’ mentality and the beauty pageant syndrome are poisonous for women in today’s man’s world. The elephant in the room that no man or woman wants to talk about is women’s disempowerment. Make no mistake, this IS the battle between the sexes.
So let the dialogue between us begin! From my book, Destiny Charted, “The Choice, my friend, is ours.”
Again, Robin, my deepest gratitude for your courageous words of encouragement and enlightenment.
On this early morning of the Wisconsin primary, I thank you, Robin, for the article I just happened to come upon and read. It’s too late for me now to send it to my friends, but IF Hillary can win Wisconsin, I will work as hard as I can to help her win the nomination by spreading your words. They inspired me and they will others. These are “talking points” that I needed but couldn’t find my own words. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
The only reason Hillary is running for president is because her husband was president before. If it were not for that, no one would know who she is. She is riding the coat tails of her husband. This is the opposite of what feminists are supposed to represent. Also, her experience argument is odd. She doesn’t have much more experience than Obama does (being first lady hardly counts, sorry). She may know about the bureacracy of government, but that is exactly what we don’t need now, someone to work the current bureacracy well. We need someone to up end that system. America should not be about status quo. She represents that even though she’s a woman.
I feel that there is definetly a lot of sexim in the world. A lot of it has to do with religion and making sure a woman is, “in her place”. However we cannot ignore the other issues at hand. WHo is to say that racism is not just as big of a deal? I feel it would be very selfish to vot for Hilary just because you were a woman. Personal opinion on who is best qualified can vary…but it is wrong to say that “because i am woman i vote for hilary” or “because i am black i vote for Obama” WHwy do we even have to throw race OR gender into the desion? I feel that is very selfish of women to say that blacks have it easy and the “for shame” and demand their rights to come first. I agree completely that women are more openly descriminated against…but this article did not adress it apropratly i feel. Using the election as a means to show sexism is wrong. After all… she was in 1st place for so long….if no one believed or wanted her or had faith in her…she would not have made it so far.
This essay both saddens me and inspires me. It saddens me because it illustrates how far we, as women still have to go. It inspires me because it voices many of the feelings I have had while watching the primary election unfold. I would add to it the MSNBC commentator who was only mildly scolded for saying the Clinton campaign was “pimping out” Chelsea when she was speaking in Nebraska. If that term had been used about the Obama campaign, there would have been total outrage by the African American community.
I have finally decided what to do if Hillary isn’t the Democratic nominee. I will write her in as a protest vote and encourage others to do the same.
I am a 47 year old woman and i know how hard it was for we women to get where we are today. i sent this article to every young woman i know lest they forget what their mothers and aunties did for them
To: Malaika Eaton, Seattle, WA
You make a lot of good points.
However, as to OBAMA, Please state one (1) legislative accomplishment that Obama has made as a Senator of this country.
I ask any Obama supporter to answer this question.
Thank You.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this phenomenally inspiring call to action! Although Hillary is now almost certain to lose the nomination, this presidential race has awakened me to the urgency of fighting for true equality for women here and around the world. I was too young to be involved in the movement of your generation but I for one now want to dedicate myself to women’s causes so the next time we have a great woman presidential candidate, she’ll actually get elected. Thank you for helping me find my voice.
Leta
Amazing essay. No one could have said it better.
In response to a few comments I’ve seen on this page because I feel that it really needs to be addressed, “I support Hillary Clinton” does NOT mean “I support Hillary Clinton because she is a woman.” Morgan’s point is that she’s better qualified than Obama. If it were the other way around, the female candidate would have been laughed off the stage on Day 1.
Besides, “inexperienced” doesn’t mean “a breath of fresh air”. It simply means “not qualified for the job.” This is Politics 101, people. To think that the very foundation of politics will change is staggeringly naive, and it’s insulting to expect voters to support you if you have no record to prove that you are what you say you are.
I suppose this is the response of a so-called jaded 19 year old female voting for a so-called jaded female candidate. I wonder if the Obamamaniacs will be jaded when they discover that as a president he doesn’t live up to the hype. Or maybe the media will say he will in order to cover up a lack of effective policies. In any case, I hope he does, for sake of our country. Yeah, I’ll vote for him if he is nominated. Humiliated, angry, I’ll still vote for him because I am not sacrificing Roe v Wade or more troops in Iraq, despite the fact that I think this man is condescending smooth-talking dirty politician like the rest.
Morgan chooses not to deal with Clinton’s many self-inflicted wounds and in effect tells an African-American that he should wait his turn.
This is inspiring. I have been feeling that either Hillary or Barack is fine, and cannot wait to leave the dismal, violent, liberty-denigrating administration and policies of the last 8 years behind us all. But Robin Morgan has again called it as it is. I just sent Hillary money and sent the article to many friends. Thank you. Sisterhood is indeed powerful.
No Thank you. What good does it do to protray good/bad, better/worse, black/white, old/young? There are values to all perspectives…and they are only our own. Vote how your heart and mind direct you…or don’t vote at all. Be strong as a woman or man. Be inspired, create your vision, be of service in silence, up lift and embrace. Separation only creates more separation. The harshness and division within this media center appears to have no joy in it, no health or kindness. Namaste’.
I am one of those Black women that Robin talked about who’s been called a race traitor. In addition, I have been called a Mammy so much over these last few weeks as I’ve voiced my support for Senator Clinton that I have started sending out this response to my Black girlfriends.
Mammy or Conscious Black Woman?
I do question Black women who think of me as a race traitor for being a Clinton supporter, especially those who can’t discuss either candidate’s platform. I wonder how they can blindly choose race loyalty over their racial and gender interests. Here are my thoughts.
I don’t feel like a Mammy to Senator Clinton, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell of Princeton claimed in her op ed piece, Mammy Goes to Washington, of Black women who support Clinton. What I am is the invisible unheard Black woman voter who is trampled in the media dash to simplify racial politics. I can’t give my loyalty to any person who takes my vote for granted and won’t bring me and my issues out in the light of day. Here are my thoughts.
1. Senator Clinton is not new to me or to Blacks. She worked with Marian Wright Eldeman back in the 70s for children’s rights (esp. Black children). She was involved in the inception of One America, The President’s Commission on Race headed by John Hope Franklin.
2. Senator Clinton has been in the fight to open the doors for more women and Blacks. Senator Clinton has a Black woman campaign manager. She campaigned for Obama when he 1st ran for Senate. She still keeps a picture of Obama and his family from that campaign on her desk. Her office was the 1st place that Senator Obama visited when he was newly elected. He thought so highly of her that he asked her to be his mentor. She mentored him during his first year in the Senate.
3. Unlike most other First ladies who were just attached, Senator Clinton had an office in the West Wing and has actually worked on initiatives for people of color and women. She has traveled the world representing the U.S. and actually broken bread with international dignitaries like Bhutto.
4. Clinton has also disagreed with her spouse. She supported gays in the military, no questions asked. I’m clear that I’m not electing Bill Clinton. I’m clear that Senator Clinton does not get all of my issues. But I’m also clear that she is not ignoring them and taking me for granted in an effort to appease the masses.
5. Senator Clinton has spoken out on race, while Senator Obama said has tried to ingratiate himself to those who believe in the power of a colorblind society. Obama has said that class was more in play than race in the Jena 6 incidents; he has said that Blacks are 90% on the way to equality; and Obama has said that the federal government’s incompetence during Katrina was colorblind.
A Black man who believes such things may share the dailiness of being Black in America with me, but he and I have certainly interpreted these experiences differently. A Black man who believes such things can not take my support for granted. I can not give him a pass on these issues because of the color of his skin.
6. Black women colleagues, professors, have given me their singular reasons for voting for Obama. They have stated respectively: I’m voting for him because he’s Black; I’m voting for him because I want to see Michelle Obama as the 1st lady; I’m voting for him because I don’t like the way the Clintons have criticized him; I’m voting for Obama because she’s too intense, too serious; I’m voting for him because he’s a good speaker and excites the crowd; I’m voting against her because she cried, a White woman’s tactic to get her way. Surely there are good reasons to vote for Obama. The ones listed are not among them.
7. My White colleagues who serve with me on diversity committees have reasoned their Obama vote thusly: he’s the 1st national Black leader/politician that doesn’t make me feel guilty; Obama sees beyond race and has gone beyond race; voting for Obama absolves me of my last vestiges of White guilt. I find these reasons for choosing heartwarming easily digestible Blackness offensive.
8. I ask the question that Tavis Smiley asked Senator Kennedy, “Why is it that all these powerful White men have lined up behind Obama and most of the Black Caucus is lined up behind Senator Clinton?”
9. I ask further, “Do powerful White men come bearing gifts wanting nothing in return?” The Kennedy that I most respect because he has been in the trenches is Robert Kennedy’s son, who is supporting Senator Clinton and worked for her in CA. But that didn’t make the news either.
10. I think we as Black people are too uncritical of our own. We are so desperate to see a good Black man we can believe in after the likes of O J, Uncle Clarence, and Marion Barry. Yes Obama is squeaky clean, but only a few years on the national scene and he’s ready to go?
11. I don’t buy the Kennedy comparison. Obama is no President Kennedy — who by the way had many more years on the national scene when he decided to run. And I remember the real Kennedy who was pulled kicking and screaming into Civil Rights by Martin Luther King, Jr., not the Kennedy of the myth. I also remember the Southern, flawed, Johnson who had the political clout to twist arms to make Civil Rights a reality. But Johnson only did so because he had no choice, because King was a master strategist, and because even Johnson believed the time had come. I lived this history and won’t have it reinterpreted for me.
In closing, I feel like a woman who has been where Clinton has been, abandoned by women who in their heart of hearts, can’t quite live their self-love because they were so socialized into loving and caring for everyone else before themselves, especially men. And I’ve been someplace that Senator Clinton has not been. I’ve been called names, especially by my Sistahs, who feel like I’m choosing a White woman over a Black man. I love Black men. I have loved the same one for 37 years. And I’m not afraid of Black men with power. I also live with this same Black man who has power, a CEO. If this were not a time of crisis and 10 years down the road, I might consider the Obama band wagon, but not today.
I don’t feel like a Black woman who is choosing gender over race. I feel like a Black woman with an awareness of just how much gender matters. I still know that women make 71 cents to the $1.00 that men make when we have the same education and experience and that we make even less if we’re Black women. I know that it is women who are raped, assaulted, and not equally protected by the courts in the workplace and regarding domestic matters. I know that it is women’s pain that the press exploits and it is women who the press derides if we are too powerful and out of our place.
No debate, the Clinton camp has made steps that have been scrutinized and over-analyzed and interpreted and they have not been given the benefit of the doubt– something they mistakenly believed that they had earned from the Black community. Yes I see the racism, unintentional or not, in some of the things said by Clinton supporters during this primary season. But I can also see the hidden codes coming from the other side too. I see codes that play on my Black pain and oppression. Oprah used hidden codes to play on our pain when she asked, “Where would I be if I had listened to people (Whites) when they told me that it was not my time/turn?” I won’t apply TV mis/standards or Oprah’s life experience to mine. I like to compare apples with apples. If I remember correctly people said the same of John Edwards his first time out — that he was not ready and that it was not his time and it was not considered racist, just a critique.
In these times of crisis, I choose experience over inspiration. Nobody wants red states and blue states; everybody wants hope; but I want that and more. It’s like a choice between the high school girl who is the class good girl, the valedictorian, the person who has worked so hard for the class over four years of high school. She’s done most things right. And then a new boy moves to town. He looks good, he’s popular, he has less baggage, and he speaks better. He says appealing things. She gives too much detail and she is sort of boring. What the heck? Let’s vote for him.
Well I’ve been in this situation in the workplace — passed over by less qualified men, White and Black, perceived as more personable. And there were so many good reasons — she seems radical, she talks too much, she seems mean, people don’t really like her, she’s probably a feminist, and she’s a “B”. Sound familiar? And even though it is now packaged differently, I still recognize it and it hurts me as a woman.
I don’t feel like a Mammy to Senator Clinton. If you want to talk female stereotypes, I don’t want be a mistress to Obama — never mentioned, but taken for granted. I feel that I am making an informed choice. I choose the mentor over the protégé. I choose to be an empowered, conscious, and informed modern Black woman, not one who is having her pain played on by people who have not demonstrated that they hear me or value me – just people who want my vote and expect it or else.
Juanita Johnson-Bailey
Black Woman, Professor & Clinton supporter
I’ll answer the comment about Obama’s record, but I’d like an answer from a Hill supporter about why they’re supporting someone who’s vigorously defended a 41 year old man who raped a 12 year old girl, set her up for sexual assault, and included in her defense that the child had psychological problems, forced her to undergo a psych eval because she had ‘fantasies about older men’ and then only partially disclosed the case in 2003. (Something that was NEVER validated, there were no other complaints from that child regarding a false accusation of rape).
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=1
NOW you know why she fought so hard to try to paint him as insensitive to child sexual assualt, missing the fact that HE sponsored the bill protecting victims… there’s blood on her hands, figuratively speaking. She wants to smear others with it. She painted a child rape victim as an aggressive harlot and liar in search of sex with older men.
Why support a woman who created a defense committee (according to Andrew Young) to attack the women who came forward against her husband during his first presidential run?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=breSVtVYSmo
How can anyone supporting Hillary be seen as a credible advocate for women? GMAB!!! Oh what Hillary’s “feminist” supporters are willing to overlook in order to have ANY woman win the White House… What woman can YOU speak for, after this!?!?!?
Obama’s record:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422
I found the BEEF – Obama’s Senate Record
by Helenann
Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:19:52 PM PST
It has really been bothering me – the charges that Obama is all talk and no action. Those of us who support him and have reviewed his record know there is no basis to this charge, but just to make sure, I went to the Congressional Record (www.thomas.gov) and did a search for bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Senator Obama in his three short years in the US Senate. I searched the 109th and 110th Congresses which cover the years 2005-2007.
In a nut shell I found:
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Details below the fold.
Helenann’s diary :: ::
Below I summarize Senator Obama’s legislative record in the US Senate.
First I list the bills he sponsored that have become law.
Next I summarize the bills that he has sponsored or cosponsored since he became a US Senator in 2005.
I have only included major pieces of legislation and have not summarized continuing resolutions or naming post offices, for example.
His record suggests several priorities and the bills he supports address many of our most pressing problems.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills).
Of the 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law:
Two addressed foreign policy:
Promote relief, security and democracy in the Congo (2125)
Develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control (2370).
Three addressed public health:
Improve mine safety (2803)
Increased breast cancer funding (597)
Reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality (707).
Two addressed openness and accountability in government:
Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (2488)
Full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds (2590)
Two addressed national security
Extend Terrorist Risk Insurance (467)
Amend the Patriot Act (2167)
One addressed the needs of the Armed Forces
Wave passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad (1184).
Of the 570 bills Senator Obama introduced into the Senate during the 109th and 110th Congress (Senate Bill numbers are in parentheses), they can be summarized as follows:
25 addressed Energy Efficiency and Climate Change
Suspend royalty relief for oil and gas (115)
Reduce dependence on oil; use of alternative energy sources (133)
Increase fuel economy standards for cars (767, 768)
Auto industry incentives for fuel efficient vehicles (1151)
Reduce green house gas emissions (1324)
Establish at NSF a climate change education program (1389)
Increase renewable content of gasoline (2202)
Energy emergency relief for small businesses and farms (269)
Strategic gasoline and fuel reserves (1794)
Alternative diesel standards (3554)
Coal to liquid fuel promotion (3623)
Renewable diesel standards (1920)
Reducing global warming pollution from vehicles (2555)
Fuel security and consumer choice (1994, 2025)
Alternative energy refueling system (2614)
Climate change education (1389)
Low income energy assistance (2405)
Oil savings targets (339)
Fuel economy reform (3694)
Plug-in electric drive vehicles (1617)
Nuclear release notice (2348)
Passenger rail investment (294)
Energy relief for low income families (2405)
21 addressed Health Care
Drug re-importation (334)
Health information technology (1262, 1418)
Discount drug prices (2347)
Health care associated infections (2278)
Hospital quality report cards (692, 1824)
Medical error disclosure and compensation (1784)
Emergency medical care and response (1873)
Stem cell research (5)
Medical Malpractice insurance (1525)
Health centers renewal (901, 3771)
Children’s health insurance (401)
Home health care (2061)
Medicare independent living (2103)
Microbicides for HIV/AIDS (823)
Ovarian cancer biomarker research (2569)
Gynological cancers (1172)
Access to personalized medicine through use of human genome (976)
Paralysis research and care (1183)
20 addressed Public Health:
Violence against women (1197)
Biodefense and pandemic preparedness and response (1821, 1880)
Viral influenza control (969)
End homelessness (1518)
Reduce STDs/unintended pregnancy (1790)
Smoking prevention and tobacco control (625)
Minority health improvement and disparity elimination (4024)
Nutrition and physical education in schools (2066)
Health impact assessments (1067, 2506)
Healthy communities (1068)
Combat methamphetamines (2071)
Paid sick leave (910)
Prohibit mercury sales (833, 1818)
Prohibit sale of lead products (1306, 2132)
Lead exposure in children (1811, 2132)
14 address Consumer Protection/Labor
Stop unfair labor practices (842)
Fair minimum wage (2, 1062, 2725, 3829)
Internet freedom (2917)
Credit card safety (2411)
Media ownership (2332)
Protecting taxpayer privacy (2484)
Working family child assistance (218)
Habeus Corpus Restoration (185)
Bankruptcy protection for employees and retirees (2092)
FAA fair labor management dispute resolution (2201)
Working families flexibility (2419).
13 addressed the Needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces:
Improve Benefits (117)
Suicide prevention (479)
Needs of homeless veterans (1180)
Homes for veterans (1084)
GI Bill enhancement (43)
Military job protection
Dignity in care for wounded vets (713)
Housing assistance for low income veterans (1084)
Military children in public schools (2151)
Military eye injury research and care (1999)
Research physical/mental health needs from Iraq War (1271)
Proper administration of discharge for personality disorder (1817, 1885)
Security of personal data of veterans (3592)
12 addressed Congressional Ethics and Accountability
Lobbying and ethics reform (230)
Stop fraud (2280)
Legislative transparency and accountability (525)
Open government (2180, 2488)
Restoring fiscal discipline (10)
Transparency and integrity in earmarks (2261)
Accountability of conference committee deliberations and reports (2179)
Federal funding accountability and transparency (2590)
Accountability and oversight for private security functions under Federal
contract (674)
Accountability for contractors and personnel under federal contracts
(2147) Resctrictions awarding government contracts (2519)
10 addressed Foreign Policy:
Iraq war de-escalation (313)
US policy for Iraq (433),
Divestiture from Iran (1430)
Sudan divestment authorization (831)
Millennium Development Goals (2433)
Multilateral debt relief (1320)
Development bank reform (1129)
Nuclear nonproliferation (3131,977,2224).
9 address Voting/Elections
Prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections (453)
Voter access to polls and services in Federal elections (737)
Voter intimidation and deceptive practices (1975)
Senate campaign disclosure parity (185)
Require reporting for bundled campaign contributions (2030)
Election jamming prevention (4102)
Campaign disclosure parity (223)
Presidential funding (2412)
Integrity of electronic voting systems (1487)
11 addressed Education
Increase access of low income African Americans to higher education (1513)
Establish teaching residency programs (1574)
Increase early intervention services (2111)
Middle school curriculum improvements (2227)
Public database of scholarships, fellowships and financial aid (2428)
Summer learning programs (116)
TANF financial education promotion (924)
Higher education (1642)
Build capacity at community colleges (379)
Campus law enforcement in emergencies (1228)
Support for teachers (2060).
6 addressed Hurrican Katrina
Hurricane Katrina recovery (2319)
Emergency relief (1637)
Bankruptcy relief and community protection (1647)
Working family tax relief (2257)
Fair wages for recovery workers (1749)
Gulf coast infrastructure redevelopment (1836)
5 addressed the Environment
Drinking water security (218, 1426)
Water resources development (728)
Waste water treatment (1995)
Combat illegal logging (1930)
Spent nuclear fuel tracking and Acountability (1194)
Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.726.IS ]
4 addressed Discrimination
Claims for civil class action based on discrimination (1989)
Domestic partnership benefits (2521)
Unresolved civil rights crimes (535)
Equality or two parent families (2286)
4 addressed Homeland Security
Judicial review of FISA orders (2369)
National emergency family locator (1630)
Amend US Patriot Act (2167)
Chemical security and safety (2486)
Next time someone asks you “where’s the beef” in Senator Obama’s Senate record, please feel free to send the link to this diary.
The next time Hillary tells you a lie you want to swoon over, check Barack’s record at http://www.thomas.loc.gov
To NC above, thank you very much for providing the homework that Ms. Morgan and too many other women apparently refuse to do. I have had enough of reading sneering, lowbrow exhortations like “Let’s get real,” as if those of us who support Barack Obama do not know what we are doing.
I don’t find brilliance, or even much true reason in Ms. Morgan’s meanderings. Rather than compel me to reconsider HRC, their strident, tiresome, leaden tone, which is characteristic of so many of HRC’s defenders and seems to mirror HRC’s own disturbingly antagonistic affect, simply reinforces my feeling that I want no part of their agenda. Our country has been burdened with “kick ass” machismo for much too long. It–the desire to look tough in anticipation of this election–is why HRC voted to send our fellow citizens to certain death, and slaughter thousands of innocent citizens in a foreign country. She did this without so much as bothering to glance at the 90-page NIE report because, apparently, she didn’t have a staffer with the clearance to read it for her. Does this not matter to people like Robin Morgan? Are 3,000+ US citizens slaughtered needlessly, and tens of thousands maimed for life, acceptable as collateral damages for this particular “feminist” agenda?
I am a woman, and I find HRC’s actions, and the amoral support given her, repugnant beyond expression. HRC’s behavior is, of course, misogynist–misanthropy automatically includes misogyny as a subset. You don’t have to single women out as a group to employ hateful measures against them, and when HRC served her own political ends with this dreadful decision to authorize force–and reiterated her support for it again and again–she knew she was ripping men from their wives and daughters and mothers, and tearing some women away from their homes and children as well. This isn’t leadership, it’s depravity.
It’s time to end this pointless dialogue on a failed candidacy and turn our sights to problem-solving. If the HRC supporters could stand back and really look at him, they’d see that Barack Obama embodies the kindness, gentility, and civility that women like to think of as their own area of strength, and that supporting him is supporting our better natures.
Give it a shot, anyway, gals.
The art of making possible was a quotation from a poem, not an original statement by Hilary. Guess plagarism works both ways. What’s more amazing is the thinly veiled racism of this post, followed by an ironic begging of black women to supposedly “come to their senses.” Did you know Hilary was president of the college republicans at Wellesley?
Speaking of the injustices against women: HELLO? Hilary voted for the war, leaving the women of Afghanistan helpless against the Taliban. She still refused to apologize for that. Why can’t Robin admit that she wants this for American white women, the rest of the female global population be damned?
thanks Robin, this is a great article which embraces women of all cultures. Some of the responses seem very angry and think that BO will be able to solve what is called an American divide, good luck and if it happens that is great, let’s hope that he will have a medical plan that will help us women who don’t have insurance to take ourselves and our children to any doctor/hospital at any time. Let’s hope his plan will stop these insurance companies from not insuring folks if they have chronic illnesses or raise their premiums so high they can’t afford them. Or the fact that our baby doctors are asked by parents not to record that their child might have asthma because of the insurance company rejections and rates. Question is do we need to feel united ( having your neighbor next door respect you) or do we want high mortality rates because of the lack of everyone being able to go to the hospital or doctor;or have hospitals in our neighbors close down because of excessive ER usage and lack of funds. We all have different priorites, let’s Hope that stable Change will result!
I am a woman, a feminist from birth, and I vote on the issues. I would never vote for Clinton because I am a woman. That is known as sexisM. I think she would make a very, very good president. I think Obama would make a better president. It’s as simple as that.
I do agree with much of what you said about the current state of our culture with regard to women. Humans learn slowly. I’m just not using it as a reason to vote for a candidate I don’t think is as well prepared for the presidency.
To the feminist women and men who support Obama and are angry that they feel Robin has represented them as a group of traitors: She didn’t. If you’re supporting Senator Obama for what you feel are the right reasons [and you know what they are], then it’s so not about you. If you’re allowing this piece to upset you, then maybe it is.
Fact is, all she’s doing is calling out those who support Obama and who haven’t stepped up to call a stop to the blatant sexism [she's not saying that Senator Obama is being sexist] the media and many Obama supporters are displaying. If you’re not one of them, then again — it’s not about you. If you’re getting angry about what Robin said, then maybe it is.
Think about it.
You’re welcome for the Obama record, PM. Obama is the victim of the old double standard… He’s the man women have said they want more men to become, but now he’s too ’soft’ for politics. Hillary paints him as not being ‘tough enough’ to do battle with the Republicans. She’s a ‘fighter’. She’s prepared to get into a ‘fist fight’ if necessary (wasn’t that Kathleen Kennedy’s bizarre comment about why she, in part, was endorsing Hillary?)
It’s not surprising that Hillary sees politics as a ‘battle’ – it explains her penchant for supporting Bush’s aggression against the world (especially a world in which women are already disadvantaged as they and their children die for something over which they had no control. Where was Hillary crying and caring for those women? Oh, that’s right, they don’t vote in American elections and she needed to prove that she was every bit as tough as ‘one of the guys’.)
As for CLD, when Morgan writes that, “…We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.” When she further admonishes that she’s voting for Hillary not because Hillary is a woman, but because SHE (Morgan) is… what is that meant to imply?
More that the outdated, and rather racist, feminist argument in her article (Obama ‘passing for white’? My god, what a waste of bandwith), I’m offended by the disingenuous reaction to her comments, the attempt to play them off as anything other than what they really are, an attempt to make sure ‘women win this one’ by falling in line.
Voting for Clinton is NOT winning. It’s siding with her simply because of gender. It’s pretending that the baggage she brings with her was handed TO her. Sorry friends, Hillary packed her baggage and gladly carried it. It’s why she couldn’t fully disclose her defense of a 41 year old rapist who set a 12 year old child up for violation. She couldn’t disclose it because she targeted that child and was prepared to RUIN her before the world, faulting her for her assault. She didn’t disclose it because it wasn’t just a poor decision made in her youth, for me it’s indicative of WHO she is.
It’s the same Hillary who faulted the women involved with her husband for their public humiliation — humiliation she helped orchestrate to brand THEM as liars and whores (’delusional and fantasizing’, as the 12 year old was accused of doing?) Does someone have a statement in which she denies setting up a ‘defense committee’ for Bill? Where are those of you, who above, accused women of falling in line in protecting the male power structure? Why don’t YOU explain Sen. Clinton’s actions.
I see her as someone whose causes (anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti- ANYTHING) is more calculated than caring.
There is a woman with the moral integrity to lead this nation. I’m not willing to blow HER chances by voting for Hillary just to have a woman in the White House. Why not? Because *I* am a woman!
The pattern continues:
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx
Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm
Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
Filed Under: Politics
By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including “sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language” and “obscene suggestions.”
In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.
“This is by far, hands down, the worst case I’ve ever experienced,” said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. “Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down.”
Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is “ongoing” and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. “With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions,” Wolfson said.
How can it be that a brilliant, mature woman who is very educated and experienced in worldly matters is bested by a sweet-talking young man with virtually no real experience and cred? Clearly, when considering Hillary versus Barack, style trumps substance and that is unfortunate. If Barack wins there will be many very angry women who will have gained a very strong sense of sexism. Why are we still so sexist that we will elect a young inexperienced man over much more qualified and capable woman? Women need Hillary more than they need Barack. A friend of substance should trump a fair weather friend.
It is strange how it is whites or white women who think Obama has somehow not earned this right to the presidency. He has. Hillary on the other hand has made horrible votes on Iran and Iraq where she should have known better. She has offended just about everyone in her climb to the nomination. She always mentions how historic it would be to have a woman president. The truth of the matter is that it would be even more historic to have an African American president (after more than two centuries of slavery and about forty years since Jim Crow segregation ended) yet you never hear Obama mention this fact. Our dreams have always been subsumed or “deferred” by whites and now whites must accept this black man ruling the country after more than two hundred years of white rule and you would think the world has come to an end. The feminist flagbearers want to vote for “white” McCain. Too much! But I knew a long time ago your feminism was for white women and not women. That is why you cannot understand how a black man can be the most progressive feminist candidate in the race. When you grasp this concept, you will be able to call yourself true feminists and progressives. In the meantime, if the Democratic Party loses votes in the general election because some white women are bitter over Hillary so be it. The Democratic Party has to stand for a progressive agenda and to get that we will have to purge the party of some voters that way true progressives can replace them.
Gee, Robin, I didn’t know you knew so much about sexism and stuff! The gang’s fed up with the pow-wow and ready to go on the warpath unless we make it snappy with the peace pipe. Hey, kids, I’ve got a swell idea. Let’s put on an election! Clinton vs Obama – the one that wins does it on the level; and nobody gets sore.
I find this essay/poem pretty horrible. Is the irony lost that Morgan, someone who trumpets her credentials as an anti-war, and civil rights advocate, is writing this essay in defense of a pro-war candidate and implicitly attacking a black man? Further, while I don’t doubt that sexism may play a role in the Hillary hating is it impossible for white feminists to consider that some opposition to Obama even by some of their fellow white women might be racist? Has Obama said anything in the campaign that could vaguely be considered as sexist? Can you say the same thing about the Clinton campaign and race? Where is the outrage?
Isn’t the fact that Obama has to spend time defending himself about Louis Farrakhan, or the idea that he is “ganging up” on Clinton, or that he is a “show off” or that he is a Muslim jihadist and therefore anti-semitic involve a series of racial double standards and racially coded language? Are Hillary or John McCain asked to disavow every white racist that comes along? Does it not bug anyone by brining up the concept of “qualifications” attempts to pose Obama as an “affirmative action” candidate?
Is it not ironic that Morgan writes in support of a candidate whose husband passed the single most punitive piece of legislation against poor women and children in my lifetime (1996 Welfare Reform)?
I have never hated the Clintons and especially never hated HRC. I have found the right wing attack ugly, sexist and beyond the pale. At the same time, that does not mean I like the Clinton’s politics. The intellectual dishonesty in the past and in this campaign angers and annoys me. The basic claim in her campaign that change occurs from the top down (including a swipe at Martin Luther King Jr.) offends me. The attempt to suggest that Latinos are a bunch of racists who hate black people, is devastating to those of us who live in Black and Brown Communities. Hillary’s response, “It was a historical comment.”
Perhaps her biggest claim to fame is he work on health care during the Clinton administration. The scorched earth approach that was her way of doing things led that legislation to go down in horrible defeat and helped the Democrats lose the Congress. Fighting is good, but is not always smart. Legislation is best accomplished by just what Hillary wants to attack “bringing people together”.
Can I not be offended at a democrat who wants to make fun of me and a host of young people and voters who are excited about politics and a candidate just because it is not her? Can I be offended by the suggestion that I am a cult member or a ‘latte liberal’ or the idea that black women aren’t really women because she is winning the “women’s” vote?
Can I be offended by gender first and gender only feminism that while purporting to care about issues like racism and war really only wants to see a woman in the white house?
Can I be offended by a HRC who had nothing to say while a black woman Lani Guinier was attacked in a simultaneously racist and sexist fashion and called a “quota queen”?
I am sorry but Morgan’s piece is just rubbish. Her and Gloria Steinem while once fine activists I am sure, are now frauds (Did anyone see how Melissa Harris-Lacewell exposed Steinem on Democracy Now?) and hacks.
I am just hoping that tomorrows vote says, “Goodbye to All That.”
How about my own version…..
Goodbye to Spin
Goodbye to intellectual dishonesty
Goodbye to gender first and gender only feminism
Goodbye to Democrats who are ashamed of activists and mistrust the voters
Goodbye to Democrats who believe change occurs from the top down
Goodbye to the Clinton ‘its all about us’ way of running the democratic party
Goodbye to defending the Clintons even though we know during the general they stampede to the right
Goodbye to not trying to sell progressive ideas to the American people but assuming you can win via wedge politics
Goodbye to “white women” who unproblematically suggest that sexism is somehow worse than racism as if they have never even taken a basic diversity training course warning against “oppression olympics”
Goodbye to feminists who say nothing when the right suggests that Michele Obama ought be lynched
Goodbye to All That!
Robin Morgan cuts to the chase consigning anyone who disagrees with her to the outer darkness of the Middle School “D’UH!”: “I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men – of all ethnicities and any age – who get that it’s in their self-interest too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on.”
Ms. Morgan, resorting to the boldest of strokes, tries to settle matters once and for all by begging questions which properly belong to the judgment of the voters. Such solipsism is an exercise in delusion. Tomorrow Democrats will go to the polls in Texas and Ohio and choose either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be their nominee for president in their respective state primaries. There it may well end unless Hillary wins or makes a strong showing.
The powerful writing – indeed eloquence – of this op-ed endorsement cannot mask the curious preemptive bitterness implicit in a premonition of defeat for the HRC campaign. Because both Clinton and Obama are liberal democrats and advocate, according to Morgan’s phrasing, 97% of the same policy plans, the vehemence of paranoia and scorn she directs at the groundswell of support for the candidacy of a brilliant young black man whose charisma has galvanized the electorate, men and women alike, seems at first glance like an inexplicable indulgence in cognitive dissonance until we regain our senses and remember that Hillary Clinton is a woman.
Of course the point is taken that some -perhaps many-American men and women will vote against a female candidate or a black candidate on the sole basis of gender or race. I do hope that these voters will not decide the outcome of the nominating primaries or the November general election. Confined to the developments of the 2008 Democratic primary contests, and assessing the individual strengths and weaknesses of Clinton and Obama, it is a credit to the vast majority of Democratic voters that neither gender nor race have played a decisive role in the casting of ballots. (Hillary won New Hampshire because of the women’s vote and Barack won South Carolina because of the black vote. Two small states cancelled each other out. That’s all.)
Throughout the campaign Hillary has shown flaws and weaknesses which may be serious enough to deny her the nomination. At the outset, her juggernaut resources, name recognition and party establishment support made this election hers to win or lose. On the other hand, win or lose, Barack Obama has emerged as a political phenomenon, the candidate who did not come out of nowhere; who did not come out of his “maleness;” who did not come out of his blackness but rather came out of his own authentic inspiration, empathy and genius to surprise and engage the hearts of the American people.
Robin states:
“We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate”
Shirley Chisholm garnered, If my memory serves me well, some 156 delegates by the time of the convention. Not many white males in staid and conservative Virginia voted for her in the primary there, but I did. And I voted for her not because she was black or because she was a woman but because she made the most sense and I could believe in her.
Always thought Barbara Jordan would have made one hell of a president as well. But then I’ve always been a sucker for a good, inspiring speechifier.
I’m still male, white (actually more of a rosier hue), old now and poor and I’m voting for Obama. Thank ya’ kindly.
I love your essay, and I remain assured that Hillary Clinton is the best PERSON in the field of candidates to be our next U.S. President. It stings to hear the blatant sexism AND party politics employed by the media in presenting the “news” of this election.
As a lifelong student of the English language, I am particularly jarred by the way phrases are subtly changed to emphasize Clinton’s (seemingly pre-set) role as the weaker candidate. Clinton is routinely called by her first name, but Obama is NEVER called by his first name.
A news-reader on TV or radio will say that “Barack Obama is talking about — today”, followed by a statement like “meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is trying to convince voters that — “. (this ‘trying to’ wordplay, at first glance a sexist ploy, is really just snide partisan insinuation. It was also used against Gore and, later, Kerry in their respective general elections.)
Lately we hear the ubiquitous but somewhat misleading statement about Obama having won the last 11 primaries. Hillary did win some pretty delegate-rich states by comparison: CA, NY, MI, FL, etc., and but for the Michigan votes, and Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature that moved forward the date of BOTH Florida party primaries, Hillary might be decisively AHEAD at this point. And in any case she’s not far behind Barack.
BUT — these days, when they talk about who’s ‘winning’, cable news guys and ladies don’t include the delegate count. They talk mostly about the number of states won. Why? I think it’s because there is no Democratic front-runner yet. BUT the MSM media is a divider (not a uniter) and encourages each of us to vote not as an American but as a member of our particular sub-group.
The medium is no longer the message but now simply the massage, bringing you a vetted version of the news and then telling you how you should react to it.
Just bear in mind that Big Media and Wall Street are definitely not for either Democratic candidate. Sure, they may hedge their bets, but the big money, media and otherwise, is on the guy with the “R” after his name, and to get from here to there, first Hillary MUST be defeated.
The fix is in, with Obama already designated the survivor of this fight for the Dem nomination. And we the voters are sadly silenced for more reasons than our gender.
After reading Robin Morgan’s comments in an LA Times story, I have to tell you there nothing more pathetic and mendacious than a whining feminist–especially a white one. Even Bill Clinton couldn’t contain his dissatisfaction at these insufferably self-obsessed, self-entitled people, calling them “bean-counters.” It’s unfortunate that Hillary Rodham Clinton has tied herself to them to “rally” the troops, because they irritate and alienate more voters than they gain.
When an old-school feminist like Morgan tells people to “grow the hell up” it is clear that she is as far removed from reality as can be. It doesn’t just matter if voters “like” Rodham–it matters if her “style” also alienates lawmakers and heads of state. Morgan’s attitude ignores this, rather insistin above all else that white women are “entitled” to have one of their number as president–even if Rodham is clearly not the one–and this is all that matters.
Morgan’s attitude also reflects the refusal of white feminists to face hard facts, and of their own hypocrisy and subtle racism. In respect to the media’s “unfairness” toward Rodham, her battalion of these female foot-soldiers had little to say when the media had virtually crowned Rodham at the expense of her male competitors in the early days of the campaign. It was a shock, then, for the media and Rodham when voters–starved for an alternative voice other than the one being shoved down their throats–settled on Barack Obama as that alternative after it was apparent that Al Gore was not going to run.
Feminists and their media supporters have also chosen to dismiss the personal nature of the dislike that Rodham arouses, no little from her tendency toward a stridency, sarcasm, self-pity, disengenuousness, opportunism, and egotism–tendencies that her hardcore of support seems to share. There is a much different atmosphere than what exists in the Obama camp–not of entitlement for white women but something more universal, something not merely for the fulfillment of a few self-obsessed egos.
Instead of crying that tiresome refrain of “misogyny”–when feminists can be accused of misandry and racism–they should consider the fact of Rodham’s personal negative rating among voters that hovers near fifty percent as being a potential disaster for the Democratic Party come November. Pitted against John McCain–with his at least public persona of even-temperedness, willingness to work with Democrats, and his decided advantage in “experience”– tend to favor him in a “clash” against Rodham.
On the racial front, white feminists claims of being treated as an inferior class to black men is so appalling on it’s face that it leaves one nearly speechless if one chose to take them seriously at all. I won’t be silenced, however. In the real world, white women have the lowest unemployment rate; black men the highest. In the real world, “oppressed” white women are by far the largest demographic represented in universities; black men are at or near the bottom. In the real world, “oppressed” white women live 20 percent longer lives than black men–yet it seems much if not most medical research is focused on women’s health.
Although black men did receive the vote earlier than women, this vote was diluted, and in the case of the South, virtually eliminated until the 1960’s. Black women should take note of the fact that white women did not seem to care about their voting rights, either. While I’m at it, I should also point out that white women had little to say about lynching in the South, which was in many if not most cases done to preserve the “sanctity” of white womanhood.
Thus Gloria Steinem’s own racist rant in the New York Times was despicable (and revealing). Such talk is commonly found in the rantings of white supremacist groups; no doubt many white women are enamored with the sense of their own racial–let alone gender–“superiority.” The reality of the feminist agenda was also revealed in 1991, when Eleanor Smeal complained of “racism against white women” to a mindless USA Today reporter in regard to the Pamela Smart murder case.
Latino voters should also take note of the fact that feminist hero Rodham played the black versus brown card in a speech in Texas; to his immense credit, Obama refused to play this hand, reminding black voters that through years of discrimination their unemployment rates were high even in the best of times.
Even if Rodham is nominated, she has little or no chance of being elected president. We have seen the real Hillary Rodham Clinton; it’s a little late in the day to fake something else. If if her losing takes a few asinine, bigoted windbags with her, I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
Dear Robin,
Thank you. As a young radical, who dropped out of school in 9th grade to protest the Vietnam war, your writing introduced me to the feminism at a time when, as a black girl, nobody care about me or what I thought. And once again, your thoughts reframe the issue; provocative as always. Keep your rebel heart.
Yours in Sisterhood
timah
Thank you so much for voicing what I’ve been unable to express with enough clarity and fire. Also, thank you to your generation of women who made my attendance at college and ability to think for myself totally acceptable.
This is exactly what I’ve been looking for. I’ve been watching this election coverage and thinking when will the sexist talk of “being a lady” end. So thank you for writing with better eloquence what I’ve observed in the debates and also for securing my rights to even be at college wearing blue jeans and pursuing a degree other than teaching and Home Econ.
I am from the UK and although I dont track every movement and word that Hillary speaks on her long hard trek for her nomination, I support her. What Robin has said is as true now as it has always been. For women little changes except for the window dressing and it is wise to remain ever aware of this illusion. I notice one of the previous comments about so called genital political correctness; nothing to do with this at all,reality is the word on the street from here in the UK and across the world.
As a 60, white rad fem, I agree with much of what Robin says.
Hmm… How about the Jack Nicholson ad for Hillary–”nothing sexier than having to salute a woman in the morning” ????
What about playing the “fear card” in that “ad.”
Oh, never mind Iraq.
Why do you have to make Obama sound so hollow?
If Hillary takes it, it may be about as ground breaking as Margaret Thatcher.
I love you Robin! Tell Gloria Steinem I love her too! I am a YOUNG woman and am so proud of Hillary, thanks for using your voices to point out the obvious sexism. Because of women like yourselves I get to wear pants, vote and VOICE my opinion. Thank you!!
Thank you for writing this. I found this because I was searching for the date you wrote the original. I used a quote in a paper for my class on the American Dream.
Thank you for laying out something that has been bothering me for months. I have become disheartened at the way that people have again and again slammed Hillary for being a women and then said that women’s rights aren’t an issue in this country anymore.
I hate the way that they have made feminist a bad word. Thank you for giving a younger generation the courage to call ourselves feminists and not be ashamed. Isn’t it great that in this country, where everyone is supposedly equal, you’re shamed for believing in that equality.
I also find it interesting that so many of the comments have dealt very negatively with debating the candidates rather than the real point: the continued sexism of the media and American society.
You don’t think its an issue, then why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?
This piece reminds me of why many of us are so strongly emotionally connected with our respective candidates. There is a reason why each candidate have strong bases of support and why thousands upon thousands of people are voting in the Democratic Primaries. The Democratic Party has two outstanding potential candidates.
I am part of the demographic that supports Senator Clinton. I have learned through experience not to get behind someone as a Leader unless they have proven themselves, and shown me how they would be a voice for me. I am not part of the hate-mongering…I have researched both candidates at length. For me, Senator Clinton has worked and supported legislation for my best interest and for our Country’s best interest. She has proven to those across the aisle from her in the Senate that she is a valuable asset to our Country, a work-horse, a non-partisan uniter for quality legislation. She has proven to over 27 high-ranking Military Leaders (Generals, Admirals, etc.)that she is the best qualified candidate to be Commander-in-Chief. THEY believe in her abilities, and so do I.
I am a bi-racial(black and white) feminist, and I was personally offended by this piece. It is really sad that Robin Morgan is not beyond this kind of petty pitting of race against gender. Why is it that in order for her to promote her candidate must she make offensive hypothetical comparisons insinuating that sexism is more oppressive than racism in the world today? When I first read this piece I did not know who the author was, but by the end of it I knew that it could not have been written by a black woman, and sure enough it was written by Ms.”Sisterhood is Powerful” herself. Is this sisterhood? I would not disregard my sister’s struggles or experiences this way. I would not ignore her history. I would not ask her to literally cut herself in half. I would not ask her to choose which of her identities is more oppressive for her, or which one has been more liberated. I would not pretend to know what it is like to walk in her shoes. I would not ignore herstories she has been sharing with me since she was a slave and I was her “misses.”
Apparently Morgan did not ask…enough of her “sisters” that do not share the privelege of her white skin how they felt…
With all this said, still, I respect Robin Morgan’s passion and voice,and her right to Say,Shout,Rant “Goodbye to all that.”
Thank you, Robin. Your comments that highlight the sexism directed against HRC are appreciated. Intimate oppression that becomes institutionalised such as iron my shirt are indicators of prejudice and we should be able to discuss it openly and without each other thinking that we are making one form of oppression more important than the other. We all suffer under oppression. Some more than others. Some pay with their lives. Some are charged with proclaiming it and waking us up. Thanks again.
I’ve read through Ms Morgan’s article then dallied a bit through the posts. And now I am profoundly tired – I’m tired of the rhetoric, the Us vs Them arguments, the anti-Hillary and anti-Obama slogfest. I’m tired of the self-righteousness that permeates both campaigns. I am a multicultural, multiracial feminist. Like Obama, I’ve spent my life finding my cultural community, having to straddle cultures which only accepted a part of my identity. . .I am saddened that he felt he had to put all his identity into one “basket” – seems he’s denying part of himself. I am saddened that HRC still believes she must bring home the bacon and fry it up too. . .I’m saddened that the Democratic party allows itself to be divided and conquered while claiming to have put the race and gender wars behind it. . .and I’m saddened that in this day and age, my Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of MY CHOICE can and will be construed as a racist/sexist/ignorant vote.
i wept with joy as i read this. as an African-American woman feminist, i have tried to explain – even to myself – the significance of my support for H.R.C. Morgan’s commentary took care of that. i was against the war – and i’m for Senator Clinton. i’ve heard all of the negative things said about her – and i’m for Senator Clinton. i too was inspired by Obama – and i’m for Senator Clinton to become President Clinton! with President Hillary R. Clinton, we can have it all. years of Clinton followed by years of Obama. with Obama as the nominee, we get, at best 4 years, if that. mark my words…
Feminist Sexist Bull or Misterogyny Fun!
I am a gal and I am the “youth” generation which this article seems to berate. There is a lot to be said about this, but I will do my best to keep it brief…(and I have hopes not to offend, but maybe that is making myself too womanly and timid?)
First of all Hillary is not a “first-rate senator from my state”. She is from Illinois and later Arkansas when she married Bill. Not New York. She has made a career out of politics. So Miss Robin Morgan, don’t act proud when you can share this fact. She only became senator to advance her own career and had to canvas heavily do it. Let’s also take a look at her background; politics were always present even during her youth, and heavily conservative republican viewpoints at that. Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energized high school history teacher, who got her to read Goldwater’s classic “The Conscience of a Conservative” and who was, like her father, a fervent anti-communist, and also by her Methodist youth minister. In college she served as president of the Rockefeller Republican-oriented Wellesley Young Republicans organization. She later interned at the House Republican Conference. From 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992, she was on the board of Wal-Mart and several other corporate boards.
But of course I also realize Hillary has done amazing things. She really has. However that doesn’t mean that I have to vote for her.
The last part of this is a real kicker. There defiantly is a generation gap. When my generation sends a mass email (which we rarely do), I don’t have to spend an hour reformatting and editing it. When we send emails or write we use people’s NAMES not acronyms like HRC or BO. Then this quote, “How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse US youth from torpor is useful…”Oh you mean, this essay is unifying? (here is my teenage eye roll) And you know maybe the US youth is in a torpor for a reason?
My generation will never live up to the numbers and sheer power held in them that baby boomers hold. But we also don’t dwell on that. If they could actually DO something with that power they so strongly claim, instead of living in the past with them, maybe they would wake up and realize what is really going on. Never mind the fact that corporate power has the strongest hold on the population than ever before. Never mind the fact that, that generation had real power because consumer power actually meant something. Never mind the fact that this crutch has totally crippled their own children and future generations to come. But “flower power” aside, MY generation can see the difference between sexism and comedy; hence that particular episode of South Park(which was funny). The reason why Barack doesn’t get made fun of as much, is because he is harder to pin down. Is he black? Is he a terrorist? I mean it isn’t as clear cut and laughable as Hillary the Nutcracker. The best you can do is give him monkey ears and a turban with a pimp hat on top…the black vaudeville paint would never work or be done…because it doesn’t make sense(and isn’t funny). But to us…racism and sexism is the bread and butter of our lols. (because we can tell the difference and not waste time pining away over pointless political correctness)
ALSO…none of this grrrl vs. black is going to matter.Because when all is said and done….guess who’s going to be running mates? John Kerry and John Edwards ring a bell? Don’t you think it would be in their best interest to team up? Or do you think Hillary will be forced to have her husband playing her little puppy dog sidekick forever?
“It is a violation of human rights” to vote based on someone’s sexuality. My generation knows what sexism is. And it is just as sexist to be so blindly “feminist”. But then to pull the raping and killing babies card too! You hit the sexist jackpot. I don’t disagree that some horrible, horrible stuff is going on in the world today or in the past. And NOBODY is going to say that these things are okay, BUT for you to side them, pair it off like it is a choice, like voting for Hillary is REALLY going to stop these awful things from happening?! Really.
“I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s” and then “Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman–but because I am.”
…those both really say it all, don’t they? So go ahead everybody…go ahead and vote, don’t vote with your brain or your heart…vote with your vagina.
I suppose that writing this article has made Robin feel better and has helped her vent her anger, but I think she sets women’s accomplishments back many years when she suggests that feminists must support the woman candidate. Hillary will be “ready on day one” because she represents business as usual in Washington. We must elect someone who can restore our reputation in the world and who can at least work toward building coalitions in Congress.
Hillary’s campaign seems to be all about herself. She lost me when she ran to be a senator of a state she had never lived in. And today, if she really cared about the Democrats winning in November, she would pull out of the race now.
It seems a shame to paint all of us women with such a broad brush. There are many reasons not to vote for Hillary that have nothing at all to do with the fact that she is a woman.
“I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.”
That would make a great bumper sticker! Wonderful article, please write more.
Terrific article.
I soo agree with Nancy. I could not have said it better. I was so ashamed of Robin’s comments on so many levels that I didn’t even know where to start or frankly if it was worth it. I guess it comes with age, time and experience. I am a woman but I won’t vote for Hillary JUST because she is a woman. Her article came across as fluff to hide all she has done wrong, or make excuses as to why it was okay. Or is it targeting certain woman to believe Hillary is somehow perfect in all she does, but when she is not it’s okay because men do it? What about the Clintons illegal activities? Ever heard of the Clinton Chronicles. I guess killing teens (I believe it was)is okay too. As long as Hillary was involved it is okay because after all she is a WOMAN so that should make it okay.
It would have been nice to see written how Hillary has made mistakes just like all other canditates have, how impressive it is a woman could get this far-how it can happen, how hard work pays off, how capable woman can be, how we can do it better etc.. This article was like watching Hillary, or any canditate, blow their own horn about how wonderful they are, it doesn’t matter what they did to get here and nothing about the truth of life. We all make mistakes-we all are human-we are all trying and we won’t always get it right. These canditates all lie, they have their own agenda and not always for the American people. If anyway reading this says otherwise they are not fooling anyone. Hillary is not dignified, should not be even mentioned or compared to all the women in Robins article-they were all alot more dignified and had more self respect than Hillary will ever have. Robins article made many good points of how far woman have come, what they have done and what they can do. All of that I agree with whole heartily but wow I can’t even express my surprise to saying what a great Senator Hillary is, better qualified on foreign matters did I miss her military background mentioned etc…I know so many things not done in this State. She is all talk-no action, unfortunately so many politicans are. They mention all the things we want to hear, blow up good deeds, or opinions to more than what they are and ignore their mistakes, or again lay it all out on the table, oh and last discount, degrade, attack each other and their own Country as well as the acting President in order to win votes. Where is their dignity, loyalty, morals, values? Anerica should be ashamed! Is it about gossip, that turns us on-putting each other down, fooling ourselves that one person can make us all happy on all levels as President. Many a President I have not liked, agreed with, or supported, but nor would I go on National TV letting all enemies of our Country know about the unrest I feel so they can use that information against us. Which is my problem with any canditate not just her. Hillary is just as Nancy said she knows it will be business as usual just like blaming her husbands mistakes on Bush and Bush blaming his mistakes on Clinton. NO ONE will ever do anything 100% right in the White House because you can’t please everyone- wake up ladies that won’t change because HILLARY IS A WOMAN! Whom ever is elected now or 100 year from now will have to endure the same thing every successor does. Cleaning up mistakes of those you replaced, trying to make their own way and hopefully not leave too much mess for the next guy. Frankly I am not impressed with any of our canditates-sadly it seems as if it will be the lessor of all the evils.
Is Robin Morgan serious? Hillary Clinton is owned by corporate America – I suppose that makes her qualified to be the next business-as-usual president. How an a woman who voted for the war in Iraq AND the Patriot Act be trusted? How can a woman who served on WalMart’s board during their most heinous anti-labor policies be trusted to help the middle class? What’s more, Hillary Clinton is the most misogenistic of the three candidates,
by refusing to be in Vogue, wear attractive clothing, or use her upper speaking register are insulting to humanity and basically erases the feminine at every turn. By playing into the stereotypical excuses made for misogeny – whining over getting first questions at debates and being picked on my the press, not paying her campaign bills on time, and making up lies to get what she wants, she perpetuates the stereotype instead of re-creating and offering new possibilities. The tragedy of Hillary Clinton and the woman’s movement is that she’s the wrong woman – and there’s no one on the horizon.
I enjoyed reading the piece; and Robin is
absolutely correct about the anti-woman
flavor of the media. The media doesn’t
want a woman president, and they’ll do
what it takes to make sure she doesn’t win.
Having said that, I still don’t want Clinton
as president. I didn’t want her to run in
the first place; she’s a fantastic senator,
and I wanted her to stay there. Why? Because
of all the past history. Because of the bush-
clinton-bush-clinton thing that makes us
look like the presidency is an inherited
office.
If Hillary Clinton had been president first,
I wouldn’t want Bill to then run for the
office.
It’s also her policies – not just her vote
for the Iraq war, but her seeming inability
to fight the administration on funding for it
or other things. She is too quick to give
in. And I’m very afraid that, to prove her
toughness, she’ll get us into a war in Iran.
Her election strategy has been to focus on
big states. Obama has been more inclusive.
She also has attacked Obama very personally.
He hasn’t attacked back. yes, she’s tough.
But I don’t like her tactics.
So I lean toward Obama, although I’d be happy
with Clinton. But I hate the anti-woman
crap going on around here. I hope next time
we have another strong woman candidate and
that the dialog changes. But guess that last
part is unlikely at least…
Thank you, Robin Morgan, for writing this article and speaking up. It is more than upsetting the way sexism still permiates throughout our country and the world, and how it isn’t okay to stand up against it.
This is an important essay acknowleding the vile disrespect of females that is allowed and encouraged on major media, and succeeds in challenging us to right the injustice. To slam the young, the Obama supporters, and Obama, was unnecessary and hurtful to the message. Still, the message needs to be heard, especially by the above mentioned. Hillary is not a victim, but I have been, and the media’s constant sniveling sexist jokes and misogynist barrage has been very destructive to me. I am afraid of the emboldening of abusers of women to be even more violent and evil. It is unacceptable to ignore the extreme level of sexism and disrespect that is taking over. Urgent message tp Obama and his supporters: Inspire me with your repudiation of the horrible anti-woman sexist bias of the media. Silence is consent. Refuse to benefit from hate statements against Hillary because they negatively affect all women. I hope to hear from you soon.
Well writen piece, even if i don’t agree with the content. As molly spinola said above, I’m sick of hear the victim card. I work in a male dominated profession full of sexism, ageism and every other negative “ism” in which I’ve learned survive achieve my goals. Life isn’t fair. Admittedly, yes saying “goodbye” to lots of double standards would be nice; but so would world peace. Something to strive for, but probably unrealistic. So great liberal “plug” to support Hilary on your “non partisan” WMC site. Cheers!
Because there is misogyny in the world and that it is rampant in the united states is not a reason to vote for Hillary Clinton for all the reasons other writers on this blog have noted. While disappointed with the predominantly old school white feminists who have come out in support of Clinton, I didn’t think it worth my time to respond. But people, please, it just goes on and on as Clinton appears to move more and more to the right, a place I might note she seems more comfortable than anywhere else. She has promised to now obliterate (yes, that was her word) Iran. This is not the person I want in the very very white house. I’m not about to do your soul searching for you, but is this really what the feminist movement has been about?
My son who knows I admire Hillary urged me to read this from Robin Morgan. What a powerful commentary. It should be shared, particularly with women. Hopefully it can be sent to a wide horizon of women soon.
Did my praise of this commentary by Robin Morgan come through? Yes indeed, it’s time the “New World” had its own Golda M or Margaret T, or Elizabeth Tudor. Can word be gotten out? Young women who not benefit from the struggle of women active for women in the 70’s need to get off the youth binge and reinvigorate women’s advancement, supporting the woman who can move mountains.
Too bad she’s corrupt and craven. “Goodbye … Hillary!”
In Sen. Obama’s historic March 18th speech he urges us not to accept “a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism” but to seek a “more just, more equal, more free, more caring, and more prosperous America.” In that same speech he equates the remarks of Rev. Wright with those of Geraldine Ferraro. As a woman, I need Obama and his supporters to repudiate the horrible anti-woman bias of the media and refuse to benefit from the vile disrespect shown to Hillary. The sexual divide is far greater than the racial divide in this country and far more hideous. As things stand I cannot vote for Obama. The Democratic party has had only one two-term president in the last eighty years (Clinton) and the disrespect shown to former President Clinton is shameful and destructive. I worked in Jesse Jackson’s campaign in 1988 believing that he and his candidacy brought delightful change and a much needed different voice to politics. Although he clearly was not going to win the nomination, no one heckled him to get out of the race. As keynote speaker at the Democratic convention, Jesse spoke eloquently. He eventually endorsed Clinton, who became the only presidential candidate I have voted for to actually win. Obama supporters must hear my message if they want to win the presidency. Why should I trust a candidate that stands silent while his supporters accuse Hillary and the former President of murder, of being evil, and of caring only about themselves. How can you completely disrespect and dismiss the Clinton’s history of support for most of the same causes that Obama purports to stand for? Hillary is hated by so many, there were plenty of people to attack her, especially not on the issues. Obama supporters could just silently ride the wave of misogynistic sniveling sexist jokes and smears, but like a lynching mob, they can never pass up an opportunity to help see her strung up. Putting Hillary down does not lift Obama up. I hope that the Obama supporters on this blog will find a civil and thoughtful message that will help me vote for Obama. Hillary has promised to not only endorse but also campaign and fundraise for Obama if he is the nominee. I respect her for that, but she will have a tough sell to get me to vote Obama. Do you Obama supporters expect her to unify the party for you? He has voted for the funds for the war in Iraq every time, and fully supports both the war in Afghanistan and the “war on terror.” He is not an anti-war candidate. His judgement is severely brought into question with his disrespect and silent complicity in the sexist media attacks on Hillary. A vote for Obama is a vote against McCain just doesn’t inspire or excite me. If Hillary agrees to be Obama’s vice president, then I could vote the ticket.
Reading down the scroll of the posts herein, congratulations are in order for the many thoughtful views expressed regarding the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Nearly everyone has had his/her say with a remarkable diversity of comprehensive comments insightful, informative, passionate or restrained but today the final results of the contest appear all but conclusive. The primary voters have chosen Barak Obama to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
Reflecting on my own reactions to the candidates I can offer some observations and confessions which may strike a responsive chord in other avid steadfast supporters of either Hillary or Barak. At the outset, I despised Hillary and perhaps over idealized Barak. Today I’m still a solid Obama supporter, hopeful that he can inspire, unite and energize a majority in the Congress and the American community to work for progress which embraces a healing course of constructive change. Nevertheless I humbly recognize that no one can predict the future performance or achievements of the man or woman who would be president on the basis of eloquent words absent the test of history which perversely elevates the mediocre to greatness and consigns the great to mediocrity or failure.
Shameful to admit, the contest made a “hater” out of me and many others. Like some Huck Finn’s “pap,” I was resolved not to vote for Hillary even if she won fair and square. (Then you’ll be sorry!)As I began to reflect on the vile fanaticism that possessed me, reckoning that I agreed with 97% of the positions of both candidates, I recoiled at my readiness to thwart a Democratic victory, renouncing every political value I stood for all in the name of feeding an infantile spiteful ego.
Reluctantly, I resolved the shifting battle within, in favor of supporting Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination even as her chances grew mathematically weaker despite victories in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
She impressed me with her campaign speeches during the Pennsylvania primary seeming more poised, tough and competent than before. And now on the ropes I encourage her to fight to the end, allowing eager voters in the remaining small states to have their say in the name of free elections which will register the consent of the governed vital in a democracy.
Still a dark cloud hangs over the Clinton campaign which excludes Hillary from the honorable redemption she might otherwise have merited at the convention; namely her perverse adherence to a strategy which would seek an eleventh hour coup to nullify the democratic verdict of the majority elected delegates and popular
vote. Seating the slate of delegates from the DNC-declared illegal primaries in Michigan and Florida without input and approval from the Obama campaign, “brokering” votes from unelected super-delegates, combined with manipulating power elites to award the nomination contrary to the popular vote
would be the ultimate, unforgivable betrayal not only of the democratic party but also of American democracy. It probably won’t happen here. It can’t happen here. Not in my country.
Morgan’s passion is appreciated; her analysis wrongheaded. Hilary Clinton’s two biggest endeavors (Healthcare ‘92; Presidential campaign ‘08) have been disasters. She’s had to lend her campaign $11 Million because of profligacy and insanely out-of-whack spending (luxury hotels; millions of dollars on donuts; the early, smug presumption that she couldn’t possibly lose), not because she has lacked for financial support. In ‘92 she snubbed Pharma and Insurance, only to do an utterly opportunistic 180 in the years since and give them too much power (Obama says they deserve a place at the table, but cannot be allowed to buy all the seats.) I do not see any of the sexism from Obama that Morgan stridently decries without ever giving examples. Yet she blithely forgives Bill Clinton’s not-so-subtle racist gamesmanship in North Carolina and beyond and Hillary’s own sexist, self-annihilating raising of the victim card in New Hampshire and elsewhere. I think it’s important to acknowledge what is happening before one’s own eyes: Hillary Clinton is NOT the woman she was before she started to lose (I’ve begun to suspect, sadly, that she never was), and her recent statements about “hardworking” “white” Americans prove it. Hillary believes the John McCain who wishes to outlaw abortion and bomb-bomb-Iran shows greater presidential timbre than the brilliant, cogent Obama. It is odd and unsettling to watch a feminist of standing such as Morgan offer a bandwagon of obfuscation every bit as bogus as Hillary’s. Lying is never the answer. Morgan may prefer willful blindness this time around, but she cannot find any example of Obama “referencing” Hillary’s gender in any way that resembles the low, low road taken by the Clintons regarding his race. She needs to admit that and move on.
I just got a solicitation in the mail from the Obama campaign, even though I support Clinton. Here’s what I sent back in the reply envelope:
Dear Senator Obama, or whoever opens this envelope–
You’ve never asked me for my vote, or addressed any of my issues directly, and I have been–and I remain–a card-carrying, money-donating supporter of Senator Clinton. So imagine my surprise when I received in yesterday’s mail a solicitation for funds from your campaign.
You’re coming after my money before you’ve even asked for my vote. Even here in New York, that’s an unusual level of chutzpah.
Maybe your campaign has data that lead them to assume that I will automatically come along. Maybe they think that because I live in zip code 10011 (Greenwich Village) and because I’m a member of a political club that endorsed you (Village Independent Democrats), I can be relied on to support you. Perhaps your demographic data on me reveals that I am a professor with a PhD, subscriptions to the Nation and Mother Jones, and a pristine quadruple-prime Democratic Party voting record. Perhaps they’ve even found that I am a member of the County Committee for Manhattan. With these credentials, I suppose hitting on me for money was not unreasonable. But the demographics also reveal that I’ve donated money to Senator Clinton.
I wanted to be fair and see if you might have said something that addressed my concerns as a voter, so I went to your web site and looked specifically for whatever I could find on women’s issues. My method was not as thorough as I would use in my academic work, but it’s probably at least as solid as what most voters who are not political junkies would use. I ran down your menu of issues and looked for where you used the word “women,” and I found:
a mention under “Civil Rights” of the basic situation of pay equity: “the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents,” and a claim that you will work to overturn the Supreme Court decision that makes challenging this kind of discrimination difficult to challenge
one mention under “Family” that includes “improved women’s prenatal health” among benefits of certain social programs
one mention under “Foreign Policy” that states that “our military needs more men and women in uniform”
one mention under “Technology” that says we must “work to increase the representation of minorities and women in the science and technology pipeline”
one under “Urban Policy” touting “programs that provide capital to women and minority-owned businesses”
one under “Veterans Affairs” that mentions “servicemen and women” and another later in the same page that includes “women’s health” under areas of veterans’ medical care that must be improved.
I looked in vain for anything specific about reproductive health or reproductive rights, parental rights for single women, what kinds of judges you will appoint to the courts so as to safeguard Roe v Wade, how you plan to deal with access to safe and legal abortion, how you plan to see that women’s rights to contraception and reproductive health (other than for returning female veterans) are expanded and maintained. Not a word about breast or ovarian cancer. I’m tempted to think that your only concern for women’s health is getting water for women who faint at your rallies.
And if there is anything anywhere on your site that deals with the allied issues of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, I was unable to find it. Your only comment on marriage, an issue where gay and women’s interests converge, was about equity in the tax code. No mention of equity in marriage rights.
I must conclude that I am absolutely invisible in your hope and change agenda. As a middle-aged white female voter, I am only good for donations. You’ve already apparently assumed that at some point you will get my vote, and you couldn’t care less about my issues, and yet someone in your campaign was fool enough to ask me for money.
This isn’t new. This is the same sexist crap women my age took from so-called progressives forty years ago, when the boys made the policies and speeches and wrote the slogans, and the girls made the coffee and sandwiches and painted the posters. You have no idea how heavily this has weighed on feminists my age ever since, and how disappointed we are to see that it’s back.
My candidate for President fights sexism just by running. And while your candidacy is its own statement against racism, the vague hope-and-change cheap shots are nothing new. It’s a reversion to the bad old days, at least where women are concerned. As of this moment, it is my intention not to vote the top of the ticket if Senator Clinton is not there. I am not alone in this. Do you care enough about people like me to come after our votes—as well as our money?
Patricia S. Rudden PhD
New York City
As a Canadian who is interested in the political U.S. primary process and election and its impact on Canada, I find Robin’s article refreshing and enlightening. I, too, have been upset about the rampit sexist reporting of Senator Clinton in the American media.
To be frank Obama frightens not only me but many of my friends. His campaign is very maniupulative and uses every logical fallacy imaginable including–vagueness, ambiguity, appeal to emotions –fear of dividing the democratic party and its ability to win the next election, even though he is running on his ability to unify and bring people together–jumping on the bandwagon — with his calculated release of superdelegate support. I am especially disappointed in the support of Edward.
It is my understanding that the Clinton’s were strong supporters of minority rights in the US and I am perplexed by the lack of support amongst the African American community–not that I expect them to support her solely based on past loyalty — but the animosity displayed to her by this community. I find it hard to understand why whites are described as being racist because they will not vote for Obama, but over 90% of blacks vote for him and this is not seen as being racist? Perhaps someone will enlighten me as to why a black voting for a black solely because he is black is not racist?
It is disturbing that a woman of Clinton’s ability is vilified by the press even though she presents a well thought out and prepared platform in a clear and concise manner, while Obama although a good reader of speeches, is hesitant and bumbling in his delivery. To be quite frank, I don’t know what he stands for. He borrows heavily from Clinton’s platform.
I have always supported women’s rights and causes and am disturbed by the hype of celebrity status surrounding Obama and the support of so many democrats trying to force Clinton out of the race. Your political process is hard to understand especially Howard Dean’s adherence to the RULES regarding seating the Michigan and Florida delegates and yet the constant drum beat for Senator Clinton to withdraw and not continue beyond June 3. Aren’t there rules set up for the primary dates and the right under the rules to contest the nomination at the Convention?
I am surprised that some of the more ardent feminists aren’t arguing for making a political statement and sitting out the election of the president if Obama is nomiated and making a statement to the democratic elite that you are ANGRY about being ignored and tired of being taken for granted, i.e. that they can count on the support of women who live in fear of Roe v Wade being overturned and will vote for any male democratic nominee. May be it is the time to dig in your heels and sit this one out. Let all of the younger “feminists” who fail to understand the feminist plight support Obama. Let them fight for day care, health care for themselves (what happens to their children if they get sick under Obama’s plan), equal pay, etc., etc. Maybe then they will understand what the ‘old time’ feminists are talking about.
COMMENTS ON ROBIN MORGAN’S ARTICLE ABOUT HILLARY
Like George Bush, Hillary Clinton has yet to admit to ever having made any mistake. And that’s interesting, because what frosted peoples’ hearts toward Bill Clinton was his persistent denial of all wrongdoing regarding Monica Lewinski. Women who adored him shifted to abject hatred when they realized he was lying to his wife and- by extension- to them. And then, finally, when the situation got to the point where even a Rhodes Scholar could see there was no denying it, Bill Clinton issued his now-famous speech in which an unspecified person indicated some sort of generic regret over unspecified mistakes. But of the women who hated Bill for that deception, how many have noticed that Hillary has never even gone as far as her husband toward ever admitting to having ever made any sort of mistake, such as VOTING FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ.
But in all fairness we must compare the seriousness of Bill’s sins and Hillary’s. Let’s see, how does persistent adultery stack up with signing off on the murder of over 500,000 mostly innocent Iraqis, in a war where many more of our soldiers die from suicide than from enemy guns? Well, you don’t have to be a woman to answer that one, do you? Everyone whose opinion counts knows that adultery is more serious than hundreds of thousands of deaths.
When someone asked Hillary about the fact that she voted for the war, she curtly replied, “You can vote for someone else.” In other words, how dare you question me?
Yeah, that’s just the sort of woman I want in the white house: George Bush in drag.
If she becomes president she will run cowboy roughshod- with spurs- over foreign leaders, and they won’t like her doing that to them any more than they have liked Bush doing it to them. In fact, they might like it less. Everyone expects Bush to behave like a brain-damaged moron, because he is a brain-damaged moron, partly from his well-documented alcohol and substance abuse, and partly from the fact that he comes from a rather inbred family that wasn’t noted for its intelligence even before it started inbreeding. And he has adopted a bizarre lifestyle of proudly flaunting his provincial ignorance and inability to string together more than two words, specifically to appeal to the lowest common demonimator in our country. So no one is surprised when Bush says and does things that make Idi Amin look like a compassionate genius.
But with Hillary, on the other hand, one is left wondering why in the world would she behave as she has. I mean, she is intelligent, articulate, hard-working, and informed, and yet she STILL voted for the war in Iraq, and she still supported NAFTA.
Well, that’s not entirely fair; when she became interested in running for president, all of a sudden it was, “Oh, NAFTA is so bad.” And she will keep saying that NAFTA is bad, without actually doing anything about it, right up until she gets into office. Then she will support even more destructive legislation.
Ok, now let’s talk about Hillary’s soft, womanly, tearfully compassionate side. That carefully planned photo op where she rubbed some onion juice in her eye and then “let” the camera catch her crying, is the first and only time in all of her public life that Hillary has ever showed the slightest hint of that sort of feeling. And coincidentally, she is running for president!
Now, lest you think that I am being unfair to Hillary, tell me, Robin Morgan: do presidential candidates have advisors who say things like, “According to the polls, you’re behind the other candidates. You need to pick your nose in a more patriotic manner, using your left index finger instead of your right pinky, so people don’t think you’re a terrorist sympathizer. And you need to eat a few boogers in front of the cameras, to show the depths of your patriotism.”
And before you accuse me of being pointlessly and childishly crude, ask yourself this question: would any of our main presidential candidates pick their nose and eat their boogers in front of the cameras if they thought it would get them the presidency? And of course the answer is that every single one of them would, with the possible exception of McCain, who can’t raise his arms high enough to pick his nose- he would have someone pick his nose for him, while he grins in what he hopes is a dynamically youthful, photogenic, and patriotic manner.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who have very un-American records of thinking for themselves, saying what they truly think, and- gasp!- CONSISTENTLY voting their conscience, would not do it. But you know that all the rest of them would eat their boogers in front of the tv cameras.
Hillary practiced that weepy expression in front of a mirror the night before, to be sure she was getting it right and to make sure that her face wouldn’t crack when she showed emotion. And she told the cameramen to make sure to get the shot from her photogenic side. Gosh, just thinking about it makes me feel all weepy inside. Excuse me, I can’t see through my tears, I think I’m going to faint…
Regarding Robin Morgan’s complaint that men say Hillary is unfit for office because she’s too much of a politician, well, yeah- it’s true: Hillary is unfit for office because she’s too much of a politician. Just like virtually all of our other elected officials- both men and women. Most of our elected officials have consistently proven that they are far more interested in getting into office and staying in office, than they are in doing a humanely honest job once they get into office.
Take that prototypical political con artist Nancy Pelosi, for instance. Before Pelosi was elected she very pointedly said- in front of the tv cameras, “George Bush is a thief, a murderer, and a liar. I could say worse, but I’m trying to be nice. The war in Iraq is illegal. It was started on the basis of a lie and it must be stopped.”
Now, maybe it’s just me, but I would think that being a thief, a murderer, and a liar would be grounds for impeachment. After all, Clinton was forced into the impeachment process because he lied about getting some blowjobs, as if you and everyone you know hasn’t lied about sex. But as soon as we elected Pelosi she morphed from being a truly promising American Stateswomen, into Bush’s unapologetic concrete-headed lap-dancer. It was, “Impeachment is off the table.”
Pelosi, like everyone, should stand for something. Even if it makes absolutely no sense and even if it contradicts everything she said she stood for before she was elected. So you have to respect Pelosi’s strength of character, the way she refuses to explain why she won’t do what she promised to do, what she was elected to do, and what she is required by our constitution and our laws to do: impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney.
So, Bill Clinton lying about sex was grounds for impeachment, while Bush lying about his reasons for plunging us into a war that that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and that will bankrupt our nation is not grounds for impeachment. Huh.
Nancy Pelosi reminds me of a guy being incredibly nice to a woman, going to chick-flicks with her, holding her hand when they are in public, loving her pets, appreciating her parents and her friends, talking about her feelings, and always telling her she is the most beautiful woman in the room. But after she marries him, he turns into a world class butthead. Knee-jerk liberal women are outraged when a man does this to a woman, but are they outraged when a woman does the same thing to an entire country? No, not particularly. In fact, I don’t think they have even noticed that Pelosi’s rampant hypocrisy exceeds that of George Bush, who never really pretended to be anything other than a posturing armchair war monger. And Pelosi’s hypocrisy is made all the worse because she, unlike Bush, has enough brain cells to understand what she has done.
But before we go too far with this, we need to reiterate the self-evident fact that everything Pelosi has done and not done is ok. Because she is a woman.
But you know, when I come right out and say it this way, it almost sounds like a man saying, “I can beat my wife because I’m the man.” Or a government saying, “We can torture people just because we feel like it.”
If you’re a politician- male or female- you don’t need a sane reason or even a legal justification for what you do and don’t do. You just spout a weak-minded ipso facto line of crap sound byte, and presto-chango, whatever you want to do is ok.
I know that this makes me a horrible person and a misogynistic pig, but I dislike and distrust ALL politicians, even- gasp!- women politicians, who, the morning after, turn out to be scheming liars and/or bumbling incompetents who actively help a criminal dynasty plunge our country into moral and financial bankruptcy and earn for us the hatred of people all over the world.
But back to Hillary: her ambition and fire in the belly are fine with me- that’s not what I object to. I have the same objection to Hillary that I have to virtually all politicians, male or female: a near absolute lack of honest introspective humility. And in Hillary’s case, it is an almost rabid lack of humility. It glints in her eyes; it is unmistakable. And yes, it is even more off-putting in a woman than in a man. Why? Because women are humanity’s nurturers, so I tend to hold them to a higher standard than men. But maybe, in the interest of equality between the sexes, I should expect female politicians to perform at the same abysmally stupid, ineffective, and destructive levels that most male politicicans are at. What do you say, Robin- should women have the inalienable right to be as bad as men?
To see Hillary so glassy-eyed, plastic-faced tough that she seems devoid of all nurturing qualities is, to be frank, rather frightening when that woman wants to be president. I mean, you expect that kind of body language and behavior from a brain-dead corporate suckup pandering armchair hawk moron, from a faux macho whose servants roll his sleeves up every morning as though he just got back from rounding up some rustlers on his “ranch.” But women are supposed to be better than that, and when a woman is not better than that, it’s off-putting to people who aren’t so incredibly astoundingly impressed by the mere fact that she is a woman that they are incapable of looking any deeper.
Our president has complete personal control over trillions of dollars of our money, and can declare war, decide on military strategies, and appoint or remove military leaders at whim. Our president can cancel or ignore our constitution and laws and treaties and international agreements at any time and for any reason, simply by pretending that it’s for reasons of “national security,” while giving those trillions of dollars to his corporate robber barron friends. Our president can prevent our federal justice department, our FDA, our FCC, and all of our other federal agencies from doing their jobs, forcing them instead to represent his own psychotic private agenda. Our president can appoint supreme court judges who illegally assist a politician in cheating his way into the presidency when he clearly was not elected, many voters were disinfranchised, and many voting machines were rigged. And our president can consistently and completely ignore what a vast majority of Americans want in regard to all of the above-mentioned issues, and prevent congress and all federal agencies from exercising any oversight over his criminal enterprises. Of course, our president does not have most of these powers legally, but nonetheless, he has them.
So, since when does being a woman instantly and automatically qualify someone to have all of the above powers, which in fact no one is qualified to have and exercise? I mean, that’s like saying that McCain is qualified to be president because he dropped bombs on people in a war we should never have started, and then he got shot down and tortured.
However, I agree with Ms. Morgan’s comment about the Kennedys, regarding how the liabilities and enemies of two generations of Kennedy’s tended to, ah, “disappear,” or “commit suicide.” Why, Joe Kennedy had his own daughter lobotomized because she refused to behave like a submissive female.
However, I must regretfully bring up an inconvenient question: where exactly was Joe’s wife (that girl’s mother) when Joe was having her daughter lobotomized? The unfortunate but plain fact is that Joe Kennedy’s wife LET him lobotomize her daughter.
Now, I can’t say for sure, because I’m not a woman, but I think that if I was a woman, and my husband lobotomized my daughter, I would poison that bastard’s soup.
Sorry, ladies, but Joe Kennedy wasn’t the only culpable person. His wife was an accessory if not an accomplice to the crime. Just as Laura Bush is a willing accessory to George Bush’s crimes.
When a comedian made fun of Bush’s crimes, I saw and heard Laura Bush telling him to- and I quote: “Get _ _ _ _-ed.” Gee, that almost sounds like Mrs. Bush agrees with her husband’s idiotic positions and his psychotic criminal behavior. Or, if she does not agree, she keeps it to herself and gives him all of her public support, including telling his critics to get _ _ _ _ – ed. But it’s not a problem, and she has no responsibility for any of what he husband has done.
You know, when a woman divorces one or more wealthy men, she wants half of each of her husbands’ assets, on the grounds that she helped them earn all that money by sleeping with them, going to parties and fundraisers with them, and hiring people to vacuum their carpets and cook their food. And when women hear a man getting credit for what he has accomplished in life, they say, “Yeah, well, I think his wife deserves more of the credit.”
Ok, so when a psychotic criminal like Bush sends our military on a protracted international rampage, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, looting and destroying two cultures and gleefully shoving his own country into third world status to benefit the bank accounts of his corporate buddies, should we say that his wife- as the wife- deserves half of the “credit” for his crimes? No, that wouldn’t be fair, because she’s a woman. The wife only deserves credit for the good stuff her husband does. The bad stuff, he did all on his own, and people who don’t like it should go _ _ _ _ themselves, right Robin?
Anyway, I do find it interesting that the Clintons took a page out of old Joe Kennedy’s book. Let’s see, now, whatever happened to that business partner of theirs, in that questionable real estate deal? You know the guy I mean- the one who, when the official inquiry started, turned up dead in his bathtub. He, ah… committed suicide. Yes, I’m sure that’s what happened: he killed himself in a fit of remorse over having possibly made illegal money in a real estate deal. Why, it happens all the time. In fact I think I will kill myself, just in case I might, at some point in the future, become involved in a possibly shady real estate deal. Yessir, even in the absence of any credible evidence, it is obviously time for a pre-emptive strike against myself. I think I’ll do it in a bath tub.
But let’s be perfectly clear about one thing: if someone did, ah, dispose of the Clinton’s ex-business partner, Hillary had absolutly nothing to do with it. She couldn’t have had anything to do with it, because she’s a woman, and women never commit any crimes. It was Bill’s fault. All of it. Or maybe it was some other man.
I’m going to have to disagree with Robin Morgan on another point as well: as an Obama supporter I would not be offended by a blackface Obama doll. I would think it was funny. But I also think Obama would make a better president than any of the other major candidates.
And lest you think I’m being prejudiced and unfair, let me tell you that being Irish, I also think it’s funny when people make fun of Irish people drinking and fighting and carrying on. Hey, did you hear that Mary O’Sullivan told her priest that her husband was dead?
The priest said, “Oh, Mary, I’m so sorry. Did he have any last words?”
“Yes, father, he had some last words. Let me see if I can remember them… I think he said, ‘Mary, put down that gun.”
Ok, now let’s take a little poll: how many of you women think this is a funny joke simply because it involved a woman killing a man? I would guess at least 95% of you. So, you have a sense of humor about some things, but not others. I think I understand.
Being of Irish descent, I don’t know how I can continue to live after telling a joke about the Irish. Oh, the pain of it, the misery of becoming aware that someone somewhere in the world has made a joke that makes Irish people look less than constantly and absolutely perfect. Ooo, my suffering is so intense I simply cannot bear it. The only thing that could possibly make me feel better is to find the person who created that horribly hateful anti-Irish joke and force him to make a completely insincere public apology, over and over and over. But even after I have forced him to apologize, of course I will suffer from that joke for the rest of my life and will take every opportunity to remind everyone of how the person who created that joke has turned my entire life into meaningless crap. I am overweeningly proud to tell you that that joke has more power over my life than I do. I am a highly skilled victim.
Say, did you hear that my father drowned in a vat of Guinness? They tried to rescue him, but he bravely fought them off. And it wasn’t a quick death, either, because he had to get out several times to pee, and the bathroom is all the way on the other side of the brewery. This one is particularly funny to me because my father died of complications relating to his long-term addiction to alcohol.
And did you know that I’m so fat, they put me on the no-fly list because they’re afraid I might be hiding terrorists in my love handles?
And because I am kind of socially inept, I think that jokes about socially inept people are hilarious: I don’t know why Robin Morgan doesn’t love me. Everyone else in the world loves me.
Robin, sweetheart, babycakes, loosen up. Funny is funny. In the gospel according to Ms. Morgan, what ARE we allowed to make fun of? Dirt? No, making fun of dirt would be a horrendously harmful and misogynistic reference to women cleaning houses; even one such joke would cause every woman in the world to immediately keel over and die, and it would be mens’ fault, too.
Ok, so dirt is out as a source of humor. What then? Well, maybe we could laugh about Robin Morgan’s communist paradise in which all people and plants and rocks and yak dingleberries are eternally equal comrades in every conceivable way, where university professors are forced to become farmers, and writers are forced to carry dirt on their backs for building roads, and the person with the most irrationally strident voice gets to tell everyone else what to think and what to do and what to pretend to apologize for and who to punish.
Oh, and speaking of being absolutely and perfectly equal, in Robin Morgan’s absolutely perfectly equal world, as a man I demand the right to be pregnant. I mean, come on, are we all equal, or aren’t we? Can I get pregnant, or do you hate me? Can I get pregnant, or are you trying to destroy all men? If I don’t become pregnant right now, Robin Morgan is inhumanly prejudiced against men in general and horrifically prejudiced against me in particular. I think I see a lawsuit in this; if I don’t become pregnant right now, I’m going to talk with a lawyer.
All women (other than Roseanne Barr, of course) should be forced to pee standing up and shave their beards and scratch their nuts in public. Because either we are all equal or we are not.
And now, for a misquote of Openheimer:
I have become Shiva-woman, hear me roar_about things that will- after infinite repetition-_become a bore.
Now, regarding the jokes about Hillary marrying O.J.. Well, I just don’t see how that could possibly work. You see, O.J. is a deranged, wife-beating bastard, while Hillary, like virtually all politicians, is far more sly and therefore better able to disguise her mental illness. Hillary should be married to someone who is as sly as she is. Someone who would push NAFTA through by telling us that NAFTA would benefit America.
Robin Morgan says Hillary is so smart, so informed, so everything good. That leaves us in the unfortunate position of having to conclude that Hillary had no idea that NAFTA would be bad for America, in which case robin is wrong and Hillary is not well-informed. Either that, or Hillary knew that NAFTA was specifically designed to economically cripple America while enriching Hillary’s corporate buddies. But lest you go too far with this line of reasoning, let me remind you that everything Hillary has done or not done is ok. Because Hillary is a woman.
Anyway, let’s look at the tale of the tape: O.J. killed two people in a fit of rage, and he offends the sensibilities of every rational person who hears him talk. Hillary, on the other hand, will probably kill hundreds of thousands of completely innocent people if she becomes president. Well, she won’t actually kill them with her own carefully-manicured hands, although, to be honest, maybe she would like to. But as president, she won’t even watch it being done. You see, unlike O.J., who killed two people with his own hands in a fit of rage, Hillary will calmly and quietly arrange for our military to do her killing for her corporate NAFTA/WTO buddies, while she proudly sits in the office where her husband got several blow-jobs and single-handedly tripled the sales of cigars. Oh, she’ll be so proud of herself, and women everywhere will be so proud, too. “Just think, girls, one of us will have her finger on the button that could destroy this entire planet. Oh, I think I’m getting turned on.”
But I have a question: the people who are offended by the bomb scare in Hillary’s vagina- would they be equally offended by a similar joke about Bush? Probably not, but see, the thing is, Bush is a man and therefore it is socially acceptable to dislike him and joke about his proctologist using a forklift to shove a melting nuke-you-lur reactor up that moron’s ass. Jokes about male republican politicians are not man-hating at all, they are just jokes. And funny ones at that. Show me a woman who doesn’t make fun of men when she is alone with other women, and I will show you an anal retentive Mother Mary pretender who will probably- like our Irish friend Mary whom I mentioned a few paragraphs back, kill her husband. Or cut off his penis and toss it into a dumpster. There! I saw you women laughing at the idea of cutting off a man’s penis. It’s funny when it happens to a man, isn’t it? Or even if it’s not funny, the bastard deserved it because he’s a man, didn’t he? Even though we’re just talking about some generic guy whom you’ve never met and about whom you know nothing, he must have deserved it or a woman wouldn’t have done it to him. Are you with me? Come on, girls, run home and get your torches and pitchforks and kitchen knives; let’s give an entirely new meaning to a “cut cock.”
Robin Morgan is an clinically-diagnosable obsessive-compulsive liberal of the sort that Joe McCarthy took full advantage of in his pogrom against sanity.
If there is something to be outraged about, it is people like Robin who say that you are allowed freedom of speech only if you agree with them. And you know, when it’s put like that, it sounds like Bush saying you’re not a patriot unless you agree with him. But it’s ok: women are allowed to say that you have to agree with them. Because they are women. So, are we all on the same pair of dimes, or what? Have we framed ourselves a new reality on the same page as team players, or what?
Robin Morgan is often and severely offended by the media using women for target practice. But the media has always targeted people; it’s part of freedom of speech, which, interestingly, was the first thing Hitler quashed when he got into power, and the first thing that Bush quashed when he took shameless advantage of 9-11, and the first thing that Robin Morgan would like to quash, too.
But you know, unlike Bush and Hitler, Nancy Pelosi didn’t quash free speech when she got into office; she simply quit speaking.
Anyway, the reasons for quashing freedom of speech are always “very good,” but the effect is always chilling- yes, even when it is a woman quashing free speech. Loss of freedom of speech always reduces our other freedoms and it is always a prelude to other, more dangerous incursions against our liberties, and it is always- ALWAYS- taken advantage of in the worst possible ways by the most truly dangerous people in our country. So, in her desperate attempts to quash freedom of speech, Robin Morgan is actually aiding and abetting the most dangerous people in America.
Robin speaks proudly of some women wringing an apology out of a right wing idiot for something stupid that he said. What exactly does it mean when some women “wring” an apology out of someone who isn’t really sorry for what he said? Well, it means that those women managed to control a man and force him to give them a hypocritical, insincere apology. Gee, what a proud moment that was for women everywhere, when they forced that man to give them an insincere apology. That improved all of our lives, didn’t it? Maybe in my next life I will be a woman and I, too will force people to make insincere apologies to me. Oh, I can’t wait, this is going to be so good…
We have been down-trodden, so you should not have freedom of speech and you should be forced to apologize for disagreeing with me.
As far as Jew-hating goes, well, obviously it is as stupid to hate all Jews as it is to hate, oh, I don’t know, to hate all men, for instance. Or all Palestinians. No, wait-wait-wait, it’s ok to hate men and Palestinians and in fact you should. But you can’t hate Jews because that would be wrong.
So, why do we have to hate Palestinians? Because… well, because they’re Palestinians, damn it. Come on, work with me here: every decent human being hates all Palestinians and you know it. You are a decent human being, aren’t you? Well then, you’d better remember that every decent human being wants Palestinians to be walled off in a ghetto and cut of from food, water, electricity, and sewer services and searched by the Jewish police every morning as they go to work, if the Jewish police allow them to work. Why do I have to tell you these things?
You know, if it was the Palestinians doing those same things to the Jews, we would be comparing the Palestinians to the Nazis. But we are not allowed to compare present-day Israel to the Nazis, because you have freedom of speech only if you say things that Robin Morgan wants to hear. Just remember these two talking points and you’ll be fine:
1. When Israel bombs Palestine, indiscriminately killing innocent women, children, and men, and when they imprison thousands of Palestinians- including children, mothers everywhere can rest easy, knowing that everyone who counts is happy and God is in His heaven.
2. But when Palestine bombs Israel, it is an unprovoked psychotic act by inhuman monsters and it insufferably degrades life for every person, animal, fish, plant, and rock on the entire planet and throughout the solar system, and all Palestinians must be severely punished for what only a few of them do.
Hey, we don’t like doing this to you, but you started it and you are forcing us to kill you. We did not start it- you started it. Oh yeah, your mother wears combat boots. You can’t talk about my mother that way, I spit upon your goat! You can’t spit upon my goat, I’ll kill you for that!
Now, I was raised on a farm, so I’m going to give you a bit of farm-speak here. All
that talk from Israel is just plain old low-grade bullshit. Give me a break. I don’t care who started the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, but I do care about the fact that the Israeli government, which has virtually all of the power, does not have balls- excuse me, I mean the chutzpah- to end it. What a bunch of hosers.
Actually, though, that’s not a completely fair statement, because many Jews- maybe most Jews- want the Palestinians treated fairly and humanely. But the Israeli government is absolutely determined to earn more hatred from the Palestinians. You see, the Israeli government- like our own government and like all governments- desperately needs enemies, and the worse those enemies are, the worse it is for the people and the better it for the government because when we have enemies our government takes more of our money, loses more of our money to fraud, and takes more of our rights away.
One could almost say that the most dangerous enemy of the Jews is the Israeli government. And you could certainly say that the most dangerous enemy we Americans have is George Bush’s administration. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; it doesn’t matter how much power a government gets, it wants more. And more. And unfortunately, even women politicians are seduced- with disgusting regularity- by the power and dirty money in Washington DC.
Ok, my last response to Robin Morgan has to do with her statement that America’s deepest scar is slavery. That statement is rank reverse discrimination. If you are black, your pain matters. But if you are Vietnamese or Korean or Afghan or Iraqi, and you watched while American soldiers murdered your entire family just because they felt like it, and then they imprisoned you and stripped you naked and set attack dogs on you and tortured you for five years because they felt like it, and hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of people in your country were slaughtered by American soldiers, and everyone in your country has been exposed to the poisons that America dumped all over their forests, your pain doesn’t matter at all. Come on, say it with me: when non-black people talk about their pain, that only proves that they are prejudiced against black people.
Let’s do a little reality check, Robin: when I was a child I watched my mother murder my older brother. And you really don’t want to hear about what my mother and father did to me. And it was my mother- a woman- who instigated it. So, let’s see if I can do some Robin-speak about my childhood: my mother was sick and didn’t know what she was doing and so she should be tenderly and lovingly excused; but when men do that sort of thing they know exactly what they are doing and they should be blamed for it and bitterly hated and punished and forced to endlessly apologize while realizing that they will never be forgiven.
Anyway, Robin, my point is that you have to just be quiet and listen to me go on and on about my pain, because my pain was and is and always will be more important than yours.
But wait, I just remembered there’s a guy who lives over in the next county, and his pain is worse than mine. So Robin Morgan and I both have to shut up and dwell for all eternity on his pain. Not heal it, just dwell on it, soak in it, wallow in it, drink it up, cherish it, suck it up, and lick it like a repugnant lollypop. No-no, wait, we can’t have any respect for that guy’s pain, because he’s a man and he’s white. Ok, there’s a black woman in North Dakota who went through worse than that guy and me put together. Ok, let’s all sit for all eternity and dwell on her pain.
Robin, are you familiar with white feminist munchausen by proxy syndrome? You should be; you have it; it’s all over your writing.
Robin, one stage of healing a severe trauma- whether personal, gender-based, or racial, is to dwell on it and make bitter accusations against everyone who reminds us for any reason of the people who hurt us. But there ARE additional stages to the healing process. For instance, there comes a time when the compulsion to make a lifestyle out of cherishing and advertising your pain gradually begins to fade away as you become ready to learn to exercise a loving responsibility for your own present-day heart and mind.
Tell me, Robin, can you name one cultural or racial group that has not both had and been slaves at various points in their history? Many Native Americans had slaves long before white people showed up in America. Is that not an outrage because the perpetrators weren’t white Americans? Britain enslaved the Irish and many South Americans and East Indians; in fact, at one point half of the international income of Britain came from their royally-authorized slave trade. Guess where the Queen of England- a woman who is one of the richest people in the world, got much of her old money? I’ll give you a hint; most of the slaves in America were brought to America by British slave traders on British ships flying the British flag, and they gave a percentage of their profits to the British crown. So, why is slavery the biggest blot on Ameircan history and yet somehow you completely overlook the dominant British role in the American slave trade? If I didn’t know better, I would almost think that you are scapegoating America.
Then there was Britain’s royally-authorized theft of the natural resources of their colonies, their drug dealing, and their blatant piracy on the high seas. The queen of England- a woman- gave Sir Francis Drake immunity in advance for any crimes that he would commit while pirating his way around the world, because he promised to give her a percentage of the things he stole. Sir Francis- as a man- was personally responsible for every one of his crimes. But the woman- the queen of England- who accepted his bribes and authorized his crimes had no responsibiilty whatsoever. Because she was a woman. Only men do wrong things.
Scandinavians had slaves, but that’s not an outrage. So did the Romans, but that’s ok, too. And the French, the Spanish, Portuguese, Tibetans, Mongols, Chinese, South Americans, Central Americans, and on and on and on and on. Slavery is not a human rights abuse unique to African blacks who were enslaved by Americans.
In fact, if we’re going to toss blame around, let’s consider the fact that some black African kings had slaves, and some black African kings sold black Africans to British slave traders. Am I prejudiced for pointing out this blatan