Feminists sharply divided between Clinton, Obama

DAVID CRARY | May 10, 2008 10:31 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
** In this March 6, 2007, file photo Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaks at the EMILY's List luncheon in Washington. EMILY's List, an acronym for "Early Money is Like Yeast", is a political network that helps elect pro-choice Democratic women candidates to office. Despite Clinton's historic candidacy, the women's movement finds itself wrenchingly divided over the Democratic race as it heads toward the finish: are the activist women supporting front-runner Barack Obama betraying their gender? or are Clinton's feminist backers mired in an outdated, women's-liberation mind-set? (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

NEW YORK — No constituency is more eager to see a woman win the presidency than America's feminists, yet _ despite Hillary Rodham Clinton's historic candidacy _ the women's movement finds itself wrenchingly divided over the Democratic race as it heads toward the finish.

At breakfast forums, in op-ed columns, across the blogosphere, the debate has been heartfelt and sometimes bitter. Are the activist women supporting front-runner Barack Obama betraying their gender? Are Clinton's feminist backers mired in an outdated, women's-liberation mind-set?

Ellen Bravo is a Milwaukee author and activist who advocates on behalf of working women _ and is an Obama supporter. She faults Clinton for her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war and believes the Illinois senator would be more supportive of grass-roots political action.

At times, Bravo, 64, has been dismayed by the harsh criticism directed at women like herself from pro-Clinton feminists.

"I felt it was an ultimatum _ vote for Hillary Clinton or you're betraying the women's movement," Bravo said. "It's very self-defeating and alienating, particularly to younger women who, regardless of who they support, don't like to be told, 'Do this. Do that.'"

Clinton supporter Gloria Feldt, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, accepts that the women's movement is not single-minded, yet worries that the Obama-Clinton rift is eroding whatever clout it might have.

"We're squandering an opportunity to be seen as a voting bloc that turns elections," Feldt said. "Unless we are working together, in a strategically thought-out effort to vote in our own best interests, we are in danger of never having another election where people will say women can determine the outcome."

Overall, Clinton's now-endangered campaign has survived largely because of her 60 percent to 36 percent edge over Obama among white women voters in the primaries to date. But among college-educated white women _ the demographic of many feminists and of Clinton herself _ her edge is much smaller, 54 percent to 43 percent, according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks.

One factor in play is generational. There is a widespread perception in the women's movement that younger feminists tilt more toward Obama while most of their elders favor Clinton.

Clinton frequently mentions the elderly women she's met on the campaign trail who were born before women were able to vote and have confided to her they thought they'd never see a woman elected president.

Indeed, 74-year-old Gloria Steinem, a Clinton supporter and icon of the women's movement, riled some younger, pro-Obama feminists with a New York Times op-ed suggesting that they were in denial about America's persisting "sexual caste system."

Ariel Garfinkel, a sophomore at Mount Holyoke College, wrote one of the many counter-arguments in an online column. She and many other young feminists supported Obama because they perceived the Clinton campaign as trying to capitalize on racial divisions and to impugn Obama's patriotism.

"This pattern of old-style politics and adherence to un-feminist values is part and parcel of the campaign Hillary Clinton has run," Garfinkel wrote. "In this race, Barack Obama is the true feminist."

New York-based author Courtney Martin, also an Obama supporter, wrote on Glamour magazine's blog Glamocracy last month that she was not backing Clinton "in part because she reminds me of being scolded by my mother."

But the 28-year-old Martin has joined in appeals for activist women in the two camps to tone down their hostilities and prepare to work together on behalf of the eventual Democratic nominee.

"I deeply respect what Clinton has endured as a woman painstakingly unknotting gender and power," Martin wrote for The American Prospect.

Another young New York-based feminist writer, Hannah Seligson, backs Clinton and feels somewhat isolated among her mostly pro-Obama peers.

"I shy away from conversations with them," said Seligson, 25. "They're so passionate and there's so much vitriol toward Hillary."

For all the divisions among individual women, there was little dissension at the best-known feminist group _ the National Organization for Women _ before its political action committee endorsed Clinton in March 2007.

NOW's president, Kim Gandy, sees Clinton's determination and combativeness as among her strongest attributes.

"The women who've had to struggle the hardest and run into the most difficulty because they're women are clearly gravitating to a candidate they identify with," Gandy said. "They see her fighting."

Gandy knows some feminists dismiss Clinton as a woman whose political ascension depended on her husband's career, but she rejects that thinking.

"She might have been president instead of him if things had gone a little differently," Gandy said. "No one will ever know whether her marriage to Bill Clinton held her back politically as much as it moved her forward."

While still holding out hope that Clinton can win, Gandy suggests that her defeat would be a huge blow to some feminists. "It's hard to imagine that anytime soon there will be another candidate as extraordinary as Hillary Clinton," she said.

Gloria Feldt conveyed similar sentiment.

"I'd feel very sad to miss this enormous opportunity to bring the United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders," she said. "I feel strongly when you have the opportunity to support a women so clearly qualified and capable, do it. Do it for your daughter."

The campaign has brought the women's movement to a crossroads, according to Obama supporter Kate Michelman, the former head of the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"We're at a time and place where we don't have to base everything we think about in terms of gender, and that's a sign of progress," she said. "This rigid view that when any woman runs, we have to all fall into line _ that's contradictory to what I consider feminism to be about."

 

Comments
368
Pending Comments
0
Post a Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)

As a feminist, I hold myself to a higher standard. I am a woman who has empathy toward others and doesn't play by men's rules but is creative enough to change the rules. I think HRC wants to win by playing dirty games and doesn't care who she steps on to get to the top. She's not a feminist in my opinion. I would love to vote for a woman who doesn't forgo of her feminity to succeed.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 AM on 05/12/2008

Hillary Clinton is the wrong women at the right time. There's thousands of better qualified women that don't have the stigma of staying with a cheating dog of a husband. She''s the worst possible choice to represent the first woman president. And her hanging on when she should drop out is undignified.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 AM on 05/12/2008

America, where are we going when human beings - in the freest nation in the world - place race and gender interest above human interest? The last election was won by fear. Will we let selfishness and spite decide this one?

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 AM on 05/12/2008

Peggy Noonan said it well, when she: "Who will tell her it's over?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html?mod=todays_columnists

Apparently the superdelegates are too fearful of the Clintons, to tell her. And her husband, the former President, has too much of vested interest to tell her. Both are clear indications of the need to stop this dynastic trend of entitlements and family influence over our national governance.

She has somehow convinced many women that she is really doing all this for us-- even as her candidacy implodes in the absence of sound counsel and personal integrity.

So women have the obligation to tell her to stop it now. To do so would be an act of patriotism at this point. To stand idly by, allowing her to continue this wreckless course, would be a self-indulgent embarassment in the eyes of our own children and grandchildren.

Women voters are the ones who should feel most obligated to tell Hillary firmly: "You have fought a brave fight but it is over. No more acts of desperation; dirty tricks; running up debts you can't pay; threatening to annihilate other women and children. You are now doing yourself and us more harm than good on a global scale. So get out now, please."

If we can't speak truth to one of our own, who else should want to listen to us?

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 AM on 05/12/2008

It pleases me to hear that feminists are divided about who they'll support.

It tells us that some of them actually think for themselves rather than allow peer pressure and gender to become the only criteria by which they decide.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 05/11/2008

Oh common on, that is such a piggish thing to say! People I love and respect are voting for both. As a feminist I have made an independent decision that is in keeping with my politics, ethical standards, which is informed by my feminist life, and doesn't violate my spiritual practice. Choosing who to vote for is complicated for any person who lives their lives as more than a stereotype. I think it pretty shallow to think that people are voting for Clinton merely on the basis of gender. She won their votes. She is a very capable woman. She wasn't my choice, but she has certainly worked tirelessly, relentlessly, and I can't help but think that in some completely odd way, more selflessly than she is being given credit for. Campaigning is hard. Keeping it up in the face of relentless opposition is a measure of character. The reasons I am not voting for her have far more to do with other considerations. The road behind both of the Clintons is littered and I still want to help keep America clean.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 AM on 05/12/2008

As a feminist, I was a strong supporter of Clinton's, arguing for her merits and defending her as many have done - that a male candidate would not receive the same criticisms or scrutiny as she has done. Since Clinton decided to mobilize the divisions of race, religion and class not to mention that old Republican standby - all-out nuclear annihilation (women and children of Iran, take note) in her quest for absolute power, I can no longer support her. Indeed, I would never support a candidate - male or female - that espoused these views or lowered themselves to these deplorable strategies. I will not vote blindly on gender lines and any feminist that observed Thatcher's prime ministership should know that wearing a skirt does not a feminist make. In his dignity, his rationality and his inclusiveness, it is Obama who has emerged as a candidate that this feminist is happy to endorse. Any time taken to observe the character of his wife, Michelle or read about the profound influence of his mother and grandmother should leave people in no doubt that Obama is a man that has been and continues to be friended, guided and supported by strong, resourceful, independent, intelligent women. I'll take that over a race-baiting war-monger in pearls and a yellow pant-suit.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 PM on 05/11/2008

I believe there is a divide greater than the gender gap that is operating between feminists, and that is the generation gap. Most of the more radical feminists are older women now. In their prime they did much to bring attention to the inequality between men and women, and worked hard to end it. At times they went entirely overboard, becoming hateful toward men in general.

Those of us who consider ourselves to be feminists who are under the age of 60 have benefited from their acts. But by and large, we do NOT see eye-to-eye with the more radical feminist elements. We feel comfortable enough with our power to vote as we see fit, even when that means not voting for the first female candidate that comes along. BECAUSE we do not feel powerless, we feel no need to band together. It's that simple.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 PM on 05/11/2008


Question: Are women thinking with their vaginas any better than men thinking with their penises??

DISCUSS!

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 PM on 05/11/2008

Were you born a jackass, or was that a character decision?

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 AM on 05/12/2008

Gloria Steinem is out of touch with the mood of the country. My preference for Obama has nothing to do with his being male; it's about his message of change in a stagnant and corrupted political system. My vote changed some months ago when I listened to Obama and thought "why not". Why can't things be different? Giving him a chance, can't do anything but help. As much as I would love to see a woman president, it will happen. Had Clinton had the same message I probably would have gone with her but she didn't. To me it was a continuation of the same old same old. Whether it's during my lifetime (and I'm 64) isn't as important as putting this country back together again! I believe Obama has the best chance of doing this.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 05/11/2008

Feminists (I consider myself one) please take note:

Obama married a strong woman, one equal in every way to him in education, accomplishments, confidence.

You can vote for a strong woman, or a strong man who supports a strong women and get them both in the White House.

Michelle Obama should be the pride of every self-professed feminist.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 05/11/2008

Feminists that are on the Hillary side lack any kind of compassion or empathy for anyone other than themselves - they are like Hillary zombies. Hillary has no shame or remorse for the dead because of her lack of judgment. Her fund raiser that was infiltrated by Code Pink, asked that she apologize for her Obliterate Iran. Her zombie supporters cheered her on, and she responded "I hope he didn't step on the cookies"... Her "let them eat cake" Moment -
See for yourselves

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/11/93213/5165/962/513634

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 05/11/2008

You know this statement:

"Feminists that are on the Hillary side lack any kind of compassion or empathy for anyone other than themselves - they are like Hillary zombies."

is crap. One roomful of sad, miserable people in a state of denial about their candidates loss is not a indictment of millions of women who have waited all their lives to see a woman lead their country. Get a grip on your sarcasm and cruelty. If we are to get anywhere with those who supported Hillary Clinton, we have more to do than protest under a dying candidacy.

Code Pink knew before they went into that room that it wasn't going t be friendly. They went there to be disruptive. They wanted exactly the result they got. A result that didn't save one life, didn't engage one woman in the room in pursuing peace. They only pissed people off. Nothing new was learned. There is footage of Hillary meeting with some Code Pink people in the capitol well over a year ago and she didn't respond well then. Nothing has elevated her conversation or Code Pink's. Peace is not won by confrontation.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 AM on 05/12/2008

That is truly messed up. I'm speechless. Democrats booing someone for peace.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 AM on 05/12/2008

thanks for that link.

She has threatened to do to Iran what Truman did to Hiroshima.

She is a monster, with her small army of fembots screaming Heil Hitlery.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 05/11/2008

Femiwhats need to get their acts together.

Femiwhats need to decide what is best for Democrats.

Femiwhats need to decide if blindly following a person that happens to be female is smart or mindless.

At any rate I have always said woman rule and men drool.

Ask my daughter who is now 12 and repeated the above in her school classes each and every year.

To make my point, whatever your opinion might be, whoever you support, please get out and vote.

Best to everyone and take care.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 PM on 05/11/2008

"Woman rule and men drool"

ok.

what hope would you ever give a son for his future as a thinker and feeler if all you do is reduce him to a drooler? I know you can't be serious, as Einstein was no mere drooler, as the same can be said for a large number of men over history. An even large number of men engage in civility on a daily basis and you might be served to count your blessings instead of expecting to see a pig around every corner. My bottom line: please remove that stupid, hurtful statement from your vocabulary and please do everything within your power to enable your daughter to know how to appreciate a civil man when she sees one, and not accidentally dismiss Prince Charming in an attempt to appease an embittered mother. just think about it.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:36 PM on 05/11/2008

Maanu,

That does indeed sound odd, but I think the writer, BobRobert is male and not "an embittered mother."

But I could be wrong.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:12 AM on 05/12/2008

How about, "Wipe your chin, son, put it away, and THINK before you act."

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 PM on 05/11/2008

I wonder, is it really no big shakes to have the first black president in the white house? Who really cares about that, right? That wouldn"t be a historically momentous and glorious accomplishment for a country where race is the national obsession that plagues us permeating almost every discussion or decision conscious or subconscious? Wasn"t the woman"s movement based on the concept of equal opportunity for all? Wasn"t it about erasing bias based on gender, race, sexual preference or any other criteria irrelevant to merit and competency?

There's a divide between this era's women and the pioneer feminists. I've gone through various stages where I've come to recognize the value of my predecessors but bottom line, things have changed.
It"s self-serving for women over sixty to vote for her because they want to see a female president. Personally, I want see a black president pretty badly. More than that, I want to see Obama be president. I"m confident that we"ll find the right woman for the job soon because we are that bad ass - but it ain"t Hillary. So let it go.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 PM on 05/11/2008

The difference between the women then and now is . . .

Then, they asked permission to be.

Now, they be.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 PM on 05/11/2008

That's why women still earn 77 cents for ever dollar a man earns while women head the majority of households in this country. Younger women who are early in their careers have yet to feel the disappointment of hitting that glass ceiling or finding out the man sitting next to them earns more for the same work.

Yeah right, women should just get over that.

It's pathetic that the women who refused to rally around Clinton don't understand the opportunity a powerful voting bloc could have meant real progress and real change for women and children in this country.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:22 PM on 05/11/2008

Well if that's the case, why was it so important for her to be "Rocky," have cojones. and "testicular fortitude"? Why didn't she campaign about the importance of securing her as president to protect women's reproductive rights, rather then reminisce about duck hunting with daddy? If she had, I might have been more inclined to vote for her. Instead she focused on flag pins, obliterating Iran, and name-calling (elite for example).

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:43 AM on 05/12/2008

Agreed.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 PM on 05/11/2008

You're quite correct in that the feminist movement was supposed to be about equal opportunity and, presumably, that should mean supporting someone wholly on the basis of merit and independent of bias. Feminism was part of the trajectory of earlier movements, including civil rights and anti-Vietnam War, to address the wrongs of our society. To vote for someone, solely on gender or race, is to negate our best impulses. Patricia Burstein

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 05/11/2008

Hmmmmmm, I'm kind of confused, don't the feminists promote free thinking? If they do, doesn't that mean making up their minds on their own and forming their opinions on what they feel is best for themselves?

Part of the problem is that MANY women forget (or fail to recognize) who actually got the most prominent movement going in the first place. The women's movement began with a group of lesbians who refused to conform to societal hierarchy and when heterosexual women saw that it was catching on that they too didn't have to conform they kicked those very people who started it to the curb. Why? Because these new heterosexual members to the cause didn't want to be represented by lesbians who refused to conform to the restraints that the heterosexual members placed on them.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 05/11/2008

Why is the Democratic Primary being framed by feminist polemics? Feminism from its beginnings has been tyrannical, punishing women for staying home to care for their children. I say this as a professional woman who has always worked as a journalist and a writer. When I attended an event given by one of Hillary's supporters some months ago, I met a woman, in her seventies, who boasted about her feminist credentials thus: early on she she had figured out a way to claim her individuality by using her maiden name-- instead of a hyphenate with her husband's--as a surname. Now I know why feminists appropriated the prefix, MS, from multiple sclerosis, which for all too many people is a cruel and unremitting struggle. Only a sclerotic brain could boast of a surname change as a feminist credential. How uplifting is that for women? It's not. It's ludicrous. Was it a notch in Hillary's feminist belt to help Bill trash the women claiming to have had affairs with him so his--and her--political future would not be imperiled? I say, "Let the best man or woman win, and that person is Barack Obama." Patricia Burstein

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 05/11/2008

ellen63,

Women keeping their own names WAS a big step toward keeping their own identities. There was no hyphenation back then (except perhaps in some British circles).

Women were treated as children and chattel. Women married and became Mrs. John Doe, as someone under the protection of the Head of the Household. Women couldn't even open a credit account on their own without their husband's permission into the 1970s. For a woman to be Ms. Jane Smith instead of Mrs. John Doe was a big deal a mere few decades ago. "Ms." is a rejection of both Mrs., as in someone's wife, and of Miss, as in a child. "Miss" used to be a designation of a pre--adult just as "Master" was used for young males before they became "Mister".

If that "63" indicates when you were born, you may not know anything about the struggles that came before your generation. If you are "63", then you would have been an aware adult in the 1960s and wouldn't be to smug.

Please don't be so dismissive of those who struggled to gain whatever small amount of equality women have now. There is still no ERA. Women still earn 70-some cents to a man's dollar.

And don't think I'm for Shrillary.

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 AM on 05/12/2008

No one who calls herself feminist will be voting for John McCain--and so this fighting will become irrelevant and the democrats will prevail. Obama will be our next president .

replyReply favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 AM on 05/11/2008