Family Politics

My close liberal family is now officially divided. My parents, Bert and Letty Cottin Pogrebin, support Hillary Clinton. My brother, David, and I are ardent supporters of Barack Obama. My twin sister, Robin, has yet to declare herself.

Everyone is obviously entitled to his or her opinion. But as the daughter of one of the creators of Ms. magazine, someone who is considered one of the founders of the Women's Movement, I am frustrated by NOW (National Organization for Women)'s contention that not supporting Hillary is a sexist choice. My mother doesn't support NOW's position that Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was a slap in the face of feminism and an indicator of how little progress we've made. But even my mom clearly feels that Hillary has "earned this" nomination, and to take it away from her at this point would be to rob feminists of the history they've been waiting and working for.

Yes, a woman in the White House would represent the ultimate triumph of a hard-fought and crucial battle for equality. Yes, Hillary is obviously smart and accomplished and could no doubt govern effectively. She is, in my estimation, taken as seriously as any man in this race, and I don't hear people judging her negatively or positively because of her gender, but because of who she is and how she would do as president.

What makes me squirm is the notion that somehow a vote for Obama is a vote for the Old Boy's Network; that it will show we've made no progress and ultimately people can't stand the idea of a woman in the Oval office. That simply invalidates the feelings of voters like me, who have embraced Obama for concrete, considered, and emotional reasons. Obama is not just a male candidate, just as he is not simply the first truly viable black presidential candidate. He also happens to have a message, an eloquence, a personal story, and an optimism that many of us haven't ever felt in politics before. That reaction is legitimate. And it only means that the Democrats have two strong choices -- both of whom will make history we can all be proud of.

When NOW chastises Senator Edward Kennedy, as the organization did on Monday, for his enthusiastic endorsement of Obama, writing hyperbolically that "Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal," that makes me want to shout, "Come on. You don't speak for this feminist." NOW scolds Kennedy because they've done so much for him over the years, and Monday he turned his back: "And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one)...This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability - indeed, our obligation- to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who "know what's best for us."

I don't believe that Ted Kennedy's endorsement is, as NOW says, "telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority." I believe that Kennedy decided Barack Obama was the better person to heal this country at a critical time. NOW's rebuke is exactly what allows people to write off "feminism" as simply angry, and hopelessly stuck in the us-versus-them paradigm of previous decades. I simply do not accept that Ted Kennedy's endorsement represents a throw-back prejudice that aims to keep women down and can't envision a female commander-in-chief. That is not the experience of my generation. It just isn't. Case in point: Caroline Kennedy's parallel endorsement of Obama that same morning, which NOW conveniently didn't mention. NOW could never credibly accuse Caroline -- an independent, accomplished woman in her own right -- of "betrayal," "abandonment," or opting to preserve the male patriarchy in this country.

If there's anything I learned from my mother, it's that one of the chief goals of the women's movement was to genuinely level the playing field. To reach the day where gender was neither a qualification nor a disqualification. This campaign, to me, represents exactly that. We've arrived at an incredible place: two powerful, plausible candidates are vying for the nomination, both of whom are embraced by women and men, blacks and whites for different reasons. That's what this country - and what feminism in 2008- should consider a triumph.

That doesn't simplify the political tensions in my own family during this primary season.

But that's an essay for another day.

Comments

[Leebot]

A woman without other women to lecture her about the "proper" way to think and vote is like . .. a fish without a bicycle !!

I'm a grandma who doesn't need any enlightening history lessons about the history of the women's rights movement in the U.S., and yes, "we've come a long way, baby" -- but here's the beauty part: I treasure my vote and am not willing to substitute someone else's judgment for my own. I don't think my sister suffragettes would expect anything less.

In my mind, this particular issue isn't even about who is the "better" or "more deserving" candidate, since I truly believe both have strengths and weaknesses and they appeal to different people for different reasons. Clearly there are qualities that people value that will draw them to one particular candidate over the other; I look at the total "package" and evaluate that candidate in terms of the qualities I look for in a leader -- and quite frankly the patronizing and condescending tone of some of the posts I find less than persuasive.

Ms. Pappas and her ilk do NOT speak for me.

[ClaytonTrapp]

The whole idea of being concerned because the lesser Kennedy's endorsed a status quo candidate is almost as absurd as that (repeated) endorsement itself.

The lesser Kennedy's put themselves where they are today, which is to say...politically less relevant than gangster rappers and truck stop waitresses.

The real Kennedys have spoken.

Genetics is a mixed bag.

[mamacat]

OK, please do not think that I am a lightning rod, because I am not. But the time has come to speak out, once and for all, to clear the dust, and let the chips fall where they may.

I think either Hillary or Barack (or Edwards, or Richardson, or Kucinich, or Biden, or Dodd) would probably make a very good president.

There! I've said it! I know there is a price to be paid for speaking out so openly and plainly about such an emotionally laden subject, but I just felt the time had come to get it off my chest, so to speak.
Kidding aside, I've been through too many of these things to get overly excited. Sure, I've got a favorite, but so what? I wanted Adlai Stevenson to get elected, and look where that got me. The voters will choose a candidate, and that candidate will run as a Democrat, and I will have an easier time living with either Barack or Hillary than I would with any of the Republicans. I do hope that a Democrat gets elected, though.

[BigBen]

I think it is nice that you support Obama. However I think you can tell him what all women have been told for so long. Honey wait your turn.Of course I realize that that response is only used with women so you may feel uncomfortable using it with a man but believe me he will understand that his color is the final excuse to see off Hillary.For the last twenty years I heard that excuse used against me every time I went for a promotion. "Yes we know that you are the most qualifies but affirmative action requires we hire a colored candidate". I got used to it!
Sincerely Andy.

[rusdr61]

I bet most Obama supporters have not read anything on Clintons website, nor have they read her books.
I bothered to read both of Obama's books and everything on his website, yes everything, have you?
He writes well and has great speach writers but I am still left wondering...
Where is the Beef?
Obama loves to say Clinton will say anything, but thats so he does not have to say anything of substance at all. Long on hopes and dreams but short on specifics.
I wanted and hoped to hear more but I have not.
Kennedy is no great catch,after all isn't he part of the past Obama does not like?
The rankor from the 90's was not because of the Clintons, it was because of the Republicans "Contract on America".
Hillary tried to get something done about health care but ran into an onslaught from special interest and the Republicans. The rest was made up crap that was piled on the Clintons, and If Mr Obama does not think he will run into the same thing then he is living in a fairytale, pun intended.

[BoJaker]

You really only have to look at the tone of the HRC supporters in the forum to see the difference. The sense of entitlement that was there 6 months ago is STILL there today, only now it's taken on a more desperate, defensive feeling. No one "deserves" to be president. And no one earns "the right" to be president. They have to fight for it, and they have to fight for it in such a way that people believe in them. The dirty campaigning, mud slinging, etc., should turn people off. And finally, it seems like it is.

Agreeing to the DNC's rules about penalizing states that moved their primaries, and knowing that your opponents won't campaign there, then trying to change the rules so you get the delegates, isn't just dirty politics. It's downright disgusting. It's like having an Easter Egg hunt where everyone agrees that the kid that finds the most green Easter eggs wins, then afterwards one of the kids convinces the judges that they should count his red eggs too. It wouldn't be fair, the other kids weren't trying to find those! (please excuse that ridiculous metaphore, but sports ones are so overused)

[CenterLeftLawyer]

Is HRC really qualified? Is she really the best choice? At the risk of being called a "basher" I assert that her record is not that impressive.

Being First Lady is NOT a qualification for President. Being the head of a major domestic policy initiative (Universal Health Care) is good. But what was involved? She ran a "think tank" in the West Wing and drafted some legislation. That's it. Nothing more.

Is not that what deputy policy directors do?

Worse, she could not even get the legislation out of committee, in a congress controlled by her own party.

Is colossal, embarrassing failure a qualification for the presidency??

She has been in the Senate for 8 years. Her most consequential act: casting a vote to authorize the War in Iraq. Befoire voting, she failed to read (NIE) which would have struck down the neo-con argument that the war was necessary.

When George Bush committed similar omissions people were saying he was not fit to be the president and calling for his impeachment.

Is there a double standard here??

At least with health care, HRC claims to have learned her lesson and grown from it. With the Iraq War Authorization she has refused to apologize, said that Bush-cheney misled her (lack of accountabity) and then proceeded to help Bush-Cheney set their gun-sights on Iran.

With HRC's help, they tried to pull a "Persian Gulf of Tonkin" a couple weeks ago?

In fact, (and this part is really telling) when asked about Hillary's vote for the war compared to Barack's opposition, her camp's initial position was that it was "politically" impossible for her to vote against the war, while as a state senator Barack did not have similar political pressures. (I paraphrase Howard Wolfson on Hardball, sorry I do not have the date).

Bowing to political pressure to authorize a war?? Sending hundreds of thousands of young American men and WOMEN into harm's way (and thousands to their deaths) in order to protect your political future.

Is that feminism? Is that progressive. Is that who we want as president?

[lookie]

I was surprised and disappointed that NOW criticized Ted Kennedy for endorsing Obama. Obviously, he thought Obama was more qualified to be president. What is wrong with endorsing somebody because of his/her qualifications instead of gender?

[ecotopian]

When I was growing up in the 70's, a woman had to achieve what she wanted by herself. She couldn't look as though she was leaning on anyone to get where she wanted to be. This is what bothers me so much about Hillary Clinton. She doesn't seem to be her own person. She still, to me, comes across as Bill's wife. I thought we had gotten away from that?

I long to vote for a woman who can stand on her own achievements and accomplishments. I has been told all those years ago to expect that. Instead I have a woman who seems to be using her husband's time in the White House as her own. I have rarely heard her talk about what she has done in the Senate. She has shown me nothing of herself. She continues to use her husband's identity as her own. Why are we settling on Hillary to be our first female nominee?

[RhondaK]

Am I missing something? One of the most poignant aspects of being a feminist or having feminist sentiments is making up one's own mind. A woman can do that; a man can do that. NOW's position is just dogmatic. Any woman will do for anything. What about other factors? I am confused. I read Barack Obama's books before I ever got on his train. I watched how he interacts with his wife. I listened to his wife, who is every bit a powerhouse as he. I looked at their children. I thought about his life as a biracial man and what it must have taken to achieve the confidence he shows. I listened to all my other 50-something female friends talk about their preferences. Not a one for Hillary from a very deep-thinking group of gals. I observed the dignity with which he has conducted his campaign. I am from the deep South, where few could have emerged with such an abiding sense of hope. Rage would have been more the order of things. I don't need to go further here. The contrasts are self-evident. According to NOW, I guess I too have slapped feminism upside the head.

[bluefruity]

Obama!

[ClaeDulls]

the term feminism and feminist have different working definitions to different people, perhaps the reason for such disjointed commentary.

NOW's criticism of Kennedy is really absurd, and a clear sign of it's dwindling signifigance. Before I'm flamed. NOW's cause is significant, but it's profile is very low and while it works for the cause of equal rights, nobody listens. As a young black man i see the same happening with the NAACP, and more significantly with tv hungry personalities like Sharpton and Jackson. these are important organizations who still fight the good fight, but the times have left them behind. they are "old news." Obama can't make the argument, but it certainly does fit into the framework of his narrative "future against the past."

let me repeat, lest i am attacked, these orgs do good work, vital work, but people who are organizing and driving for change no longer identify with these groups. 22 year old black college grads don't join the NAACP, but they do blog, meetup, and facebook. Long before Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were in Jena, students and young people, you-tube aged people were trading information, discussing, organizing. Go to an anti-war march you'll see the same. these older agents of change were getting in bed with lobbyists and not doing SH*T when were hungry to move forward. and moreso in Obama than any other we see a leaader who earnestly speaks to this desire to be called to a higher civic duty than Xmas shopping. the Old democratic coalition (Clintons) needs to have some bold new approach if it's going to change things, because it's built on a crumbling infrastructure of organizations and groups whose heydays have passed.

[OtayPanky]

The truth is: the eleectorate, and our political leaders, don't owe anybody anything on the basis of gender, race or any other concept of identity politics.

We don't owe Clinton our support because she's a woman.

We don't own Obama our support because he's black.

Anyone who thinks we do is just a crackpot.

Here's what we owe: We owe it to ourselves, and our children, to try to figure out who will be the very best POTUS, and vote for him or her if we possibly can.

And if we can't in good conscience vote for anyone running, we owe it to ourselves and our children to register our disapproval by making a statement behind the closed curtain on election day.

[cylindar]

Very well put. As an aside I would like to say that the term "Feminism" is a non-starter. It is a basically dead description. You would probably not agree with this but no one I know even uses the term anymore. Yes, there are too many unresolved problems that the former Feminist movement highlighted, however after their takeover by the Lesbian majority the movement fell into disrepute as it did not represent most of the female population but only a small gay minority. This was a very sad occurance for the movement and naturally sealed its fate.

[kburlz]

I won't blame all feminists for NOW's statements, but wouldn't it be ironic if Hillary loses partially because of the statements of a feminist organization? NOW should take NAACP's lead on this one and stay out of it.