Why So Many Feminists Are Deciding to Vote for Barack Obama
From a national women's media training to my local women's book club, from exchanges among long-time feminist activists to conversations with my feminist son, I hear a buzz about why so many feminists are deciding to vote for Barack Obama. Count me among them.
Almost without exception, we'd love to see a woman president. Anyone who thinks gender doesn't matter hasn't seen Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin or Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton before a room full of women hungry for solutions to low pay, unfair treatment and lack of time to pee, much less care for loved ones. To paraphrase Eleanor Holmes Norton, we're well aware that the under-representation of women in political positions has nothing to do with talent or merit. A woman in the highest job would inspire many more women to push against the barriers. And we're outraged at the sexist treatment of Hillary throughout the media.
But we know the Big Boys have also excluded people of color of both genders from the halls of power, and constructed a massive set of racial roadblocks and indignities. We won't allow ourselves to be pigeon-holed into choosing which matters more, sexism or racism. Both hurt women. Both profit the Big Boys and allow them to maintain the status quo. Justice matters.
In Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, voters have a choice between two smart, capable and energetic candidates, either of whom would be far preferable to the current occupier of the White House who has made our nation an occupier in Iraq. Both stand for many of the changes we want to see, including fair pay, living wages, workers' right to organize, and new standards like paid sick days and family leave insurance, so family values don't end at the workplace door.
So what's tipped so many feminists to Obama? For some, it was when the Clintons began treating him as women are treated -- patronizing him as merely a "good speaker," trivializing his accomplishments, minimizing the importance of his early judgment and risk-taking in opposing the war in Iraq, and using surrogates to demonize his morality.
For me and many others, the key attraction is Obama's vision that people need to be eager, desirous for and participants in the change we want to see (the very strength the Clintons either don't get or deliberately misstate). Barack Obama doesn't just make people feel hopeful about the possibility of change -- he inspires them to become part of that change, makes them feel it's the only way we'll get there. And in doing so, he's motivating the base, reaching independent and swing voters, and perhaps most important, inspiring young people and many undecided-whether-or-not-to-vote voters -- people most affected by injustice who often feel their votes, and their lives, don't matter in elections where money has so much sway.
This public mobilization is precisely what Hillary failed to do with health care reform in 1992. She owns that failure but not the reason for it.
As long as money determines elections, we won't have the perfect candidate. Many of us wish the two leading candidates took stronger stands, like Edwards and Kucinich have, against the role of lobbyists and corporate greed and the continuation of poverty. As activists, we know that whoever wins will be subject to huge pressure from the Big Boys and will go only so far as organized movements of people demand that they go. It may take a president to push through a law, but it takes a movement to say, "Ignore us at your peril."
I believe Barack Obama has the best chance of helping to galvanize that movement and to stay connected with it.
Ellen Bravo is a long-time feminist activist and author who teaches women's studies at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Her most recent book is Taking on the Big Boys, or Why Feminism is Good for Families, Business and the Nation.
Loading comments…
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
Which is a good reason to vote for Hillary!
If Obama's positions on women are like those on race:
"There is no black america, there is no white america, no latina america or asian america - there is only the United States of America."
"the incompetence was color blind" - referring to the handling of Hurricane Katrina (notice no mention of the PURGE of blacks off of valuable New Orleans land).
That the Jena 6 incident "isn't a matter of black and white" but of "fairness"
That the civil rights movement took us "90 percent of the way"
Then, as Gary Younge seems his appeal is not that he eliminates racism but "eradicates the discussion of it."
And consequently this F E M I N I S T can't support a candidate of the fantasy color-blind world, fantasy gender-blind world, who pretends we already live in a classless meritocracy where are problems only exist because of misunderstandings and failures to communicate correctly.
This country was not ready for universal health care in 1992. I remember that year and I was the only one who was applauding Hillary, so it is not fair to fault Hillary for that. I did not want to go in Iraq, but 75% of the country did. I do not have to tell you how I was humiliated, criticised, ostracised because of my position on the Iraq war. People have short memories and times do change us. The important thing is Hillary will do the right thing and give us the much needed universal health care because the country is now ready to move forward. Maxine Waters said it best. This country does not need hope, it needs help and I feel Hillary/Obama would be the ideal ticket.
"This public mobilization is precisely what Hillary failed to do with health care reform in 1992. She owns that failure but not the reason for it."
The reason for it being the stupidity of the American public--something which Hillary, as you correctly state, is not responsible for. As for Obama's alleged ability to mobilize people, good luck. Unless he can make them a lot smarter, nothing will change. And Obama frankly impresses me as someone who will work WITH public stupidity rather than in spite of it. I.e., use it to his advantage. This is my overwhelming impression.
At any rate, Hillary was effortlessly shot down in her health care reform attempts--all it took was confusing the public, which wanted universal coverage, into turning against what they, themselves, advocated. Ultimately, we're not talking the forces of money and power but the forces of collective stupidity.
Hillary doesn't play, Oprah-style, to that denseness--she challenges it. This not only makes her a more moral candidate but the candidate more in favor of change.
Right on the money. What Obama brings to the table is the realization to Americans that only we can bring about the changes needed in our government. No other politician is asking Americans to make the changes for ourselves. Obama has motivated millions of Americans to participate in the process, not only to elect him as President, but more importantly, to reclaim the reigns of government from the special interests.
Here is a letter from the Illinois NOW chapter president during the actual times of the abortion votes in the Illinois Senate:
I thought I'd take a moment to try to add some clarity to the anti-choice Present votes in IL.
Lorna Brett was president of CNOW from 1996-1998. She was not president at the time we were lobbying on these bills. Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. NOW records indicate that she hasn't been a member since 1999. She was not there when we were lobbying against these bills. She is using her very old affiliation with NOW to try to validate her criticism of Hillary Clinton.
Voting Present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support. We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the awful anti-choice bills being put forth. Voting Present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable.
The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district; he could have voted No with very little negative consequence in his district.
- Bonnie Grabenhofer
IL NOW State President
So it seems that the viideo by Lorna Brett was not truthful.
I would LOVE to have a woman president but it should be the right woman.
I don't want one who has no shame, no integrity, polarizes people and shows poor judgement.
Do we want just ANY woman? We can't afford that. We'll never have another for decades to come.
I had the same "feeling" that Obama was the way to go.
But, as I've learned time and time again, "feelings aren't facts." Feeling that he's the right candidate could get us all in serious trouble.
It saddens me that people have tossed HRC under the bus because Obama is like a shiny new toy under the tree. A toy that appears brand spankin' new and appears to be everything we ever wanted - young, handsome, charismatic, eloquent, sexy - a catch. But we are not here to date and new toys break easily. They often are not made as well and they can crack in unexpected ways under pressure.
ave" fashion accessory for this election season.
I like Obama, but what do we really know about him? How does he deal with pressure, stress? We have all seen the heat that HRC has taken over the years - and women especially know - what it takes to keep your head up high and keep moving forward in spite of the difficulties and challenges.
If he wasn't so pleasing to the eye and ear would we all really throw 35 years of experience out the window?
"So what's tipped so many feminists to Obama? For some, it was when the Clintons began treating him as women are treated -- patronizing him as merely a "good speaker," trivializing his accomplishments, minimizing the importance of his early judgment and risk-taking in opposing the war in Iraq, and using surrogates to demonize his morality."
Until now, Obama hasn't deigned to speak about his program -- all we were hearing were Hallmark-card cliches about "dreams" and "inspirati
Thank you for expressing the feelings of so many feminists, like myself, who raised my son and daughter to be like Obama, not like either Clinton!!!!
This is not about gender or race, it is about the character, integrity and respect we give to each other for our strengths, while refraining from tearing each other down for what "we" perceive to be weaknesses!!!
GOLDEN RULE!!!! OBAMA '08!
So many feminists turning toward Obama? Who exactly? Details please! I certainly saw none of the condescension you write about in the debate last evening. Perhaps you haven't seen Obama's latest attack on "Hillary Care"... Is that good for feminists? Or Dems in general? If there is a preponderance of feminists tipping toward Obama, please, as you proclaim yourself an academician, reveal your source material for this grand generalization.
If Hillary "supports workers rights to organize, a living wage", etc...why would she employ the UNION BUSTER MARK PENN as one of her chief stratigists? How bout her SIX YEARS ON THE BOARD OF UNION BUSTING NO HEALTHCARE GIVING ,SLAVE WAGE PAYING WAL-MART? Oh, and then theres NAFTA....s
The image of Hillary standing on the stage in the earlier debates with a few dozen men (more or less) lined up along side her was very powerful.
Seeing Hillary with her daughter in a small diner in Iowa shaking hands with senior citizens-- even as Obama and Oprah were drawing huge celebrity-dazed crowds-- was not only powerful but touching.
I've always said Hillary made the mistake of bringing out Bill to campaign for her the way he did. Because Hillary Clinton could be the Peace (perhaps) & Prosperity of the 1990s without the Monica & Impeachment. Bill's ideas without Bill's behavior. After all, Hillary was the organized one with focus and toughness. What she lacked in speaking ability she made up for in smarts and guts.
Can Hillary control Bill, if she becomes president? Well, yes. But if she is *now* taking credit (or half credit) for *his* policies (the good, non-NAFTA ones), that meant she was active in his administration. She almost seems to be saying it was a co-Presidency after all. And if it was true then, why not true for her future potential presidency?
That's the uncomfortable part. Joe Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd-- they voted for the war. So it's not entirely about that. It's about Hillary's campaign shifting right around December 2007 to the Clintons, plural. And with the Clintons, the Clintonites.
It's not the powerful woman standing alone on the stage, or commanding respect from an older white male voter in a small town in Iowa, this is the return of the Clintons, the DLC, the old battles, the old grudges.
Would Hillary in the White House really feel like something *new*?
In reading Ellen Bravo's comments, I can't help but feel a terrible sadness and foreboding in her words. Once again, we Democrats look past the tried and true foot soldiers who have put in their time and effort in the trenches, with little publicity or fanfare, and stare into the sky for their utopian saviour. They don't respect, or even acknowledge, the day to day struggles and battles that Hillary Clinton has endured thse past years.
As a New Yorker, I have seen this heroic lady, who so easily could have spent her time in Manattan hob nobbing with the hoytie toyties, instead of schlepping herself upstate, into the cauldron of counties redder than Mississipi. Forcing hundreds of meetings with angry, Hillary hating residents, she slowly, one by one, won them over. She won them over not with flowery rhetoric and unnattainable promises, but by convincing them that while the battle for improvement would be long and not always successful, that the battle had been joined, and that she would concentrate the majority of her time and efforts in their cause. And she was as good as her word.
If you go upstate today, they're still Republican, but you won't find too many people who feel about Senator Clinton the way so many do here on HuffPo. They thanked her in the only way they could, 67% of the vote and 58 out of the 62 counties. (4 counties the first time she ran)
I can't imagine what it must feel like for Hillary, with the history she has of rolling up her sleeves and going to work and improving the lives of those that need it most, to be in competition with someone who enters the national scene, feels it unnecessary to learn the trade, jumps to the head of the line, and with nothing more than TV preacher like, beautiful, gifted oratory gets throngs of people to reject those who have fought their battles in the real world and earned their stripes, to be rewarded with, "ooh, he inspires me. He's the agent of change."
Well said on so many fronts. To those who say we don't know enough about him, I say: find out about him, be responsible, don't be lazy. To those who say he can't bring change, I say: look at the record crowds, look at the record donations, look at the thousands of people getting out on the ground for him -- that is already a change. To those who worry about what change means, I say: find out more, but also take confidence from the fact there are now record numbers of people who are invested in making sure that he delivers -- they've put down money for the campaign, they've got out on the streets, they've brought someone who no one could guess could be president to the point where he can be. To those who worry who all those people are who are now invested in him and the grassroots, I say: go to a meeting, look at the queues, and you'll see the most amazing cross-section of Americans. That is an achievement, that is real substance, that is a reason to be confident.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
