Being Gracious in a Sexist World

I didn't know it would feel this bad. I didn't know it would feel this personal. I'm all for a united Democratic party. But losing my last chance to see a woman in the White House feels like shit. And the gloating by the press is even worse. It sounds like "I told you so." It feels like watching Joan of Arc burned at the stake. You can smell the burning flesh. And then all the crowing about breaking the race barrier -- which we haven't done yet.

A primary is not a general election. The people who vote in primaries are more sophisticated than the general run of voters. I hope Obama will be our next president. But I can't watch his triumph without a fearful foreboding. He is not the first charismatic leader we've produced and he won't be the last. But our country is very good at taking down the best and the brightest. Those of us who lived through the unspeakable violence of the sixties can attest to that.

I want to be wrong about violence. I hate the role of Cassandra. I want to believe that America has moved beyond violence and racism and maybe we have. But I thought we had moved beyond sexism, and this campaign proved me wrong. The petty woman-hating jibes, the ageism, and the physical mockery have not been easy to watch. The only good thing about the defeat of Hillary Clinton may be a resurgence of feminism, an understanding that we haven't yet killed misogyny and that we have work to do.

"It's not sexism -- it's her" seems to have replaced, "I'm not a feminist, but" in our national lexicon. This is not to imply that Hillary Clinton is faultless -- far from it. But it's clear that the faults we tolerate and even overlook in men, we see as glaring in women. The problem with sexism is that it's so damned invisible. McCain can confuse Sunnis and Shiites and nobody blinks. Bush can admit to his press secretary that he outed a secret agent while claiming that he'd fire any aide who did so -- and the press sleeps. Men make mistakes. Women are not allowed to. We are held to such high and impossible standards that the possibility of any woman penetrating the barrier again seems remote.

My best friend tells me that Hillary should have been gracious last night. Barack Obama was gracious. But isn't gratitude the prerogative of the winner? Will women ever be winners? And if so, when?

Sexism is hard to see because most of it is so petty we don't want to mention it. Nutcracker thighs? A novelty like that seems beneath contempt. But it isn't one small offense that does women in -- it's the steady accretion of many offenses. It's death by a thousand cuts.
Even mentioning the problem seems ungracious. As women, we're supposed to specialize in graciousness. And there isn't a gracious way to talk about sexism. Perhaps there is no way to talk about sexism at all -- which is the way sexists want it.

I will work my tail off for President Obama. We need a Democratic in the White House more than ever. But I can't help feeling that we've buried a topic that needs unearthing. Please, Mr. Obama, turn your attention to sexism and tell us how you plan to address it. Then we can all be gracious with a good conscience.

Related:
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers on Barack Obama clinching the Democratic nomination for president

Comments

[StephenJK]

I completely concur with your sentiments Erica Jong. Her speech yesterday will go down in History in the same class as the great speeches by FDR and JFK. I will always have love for the Clinton's no matter what republicans say about them (and "democrats" who claim to be something resembling democrats.­...yeah right). It was probably one of the most inspirational speeches given in the last 40 years. NO DOUBT!

Young ladies and little girls, look up to this woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is a role model you should hope to emulate as you grow into women. However, understand one thing; a person is not the politician they run as. Politicians have to campaign to be elected. They pad their resume. They pander. They point fingers. Hillary, the person, is demonstrated in her speech yesterday. She's a diamond!

[Calvincito]

Sometimes people have the right sentiments and beliefs but the wrong vehicle by which to achieve success. Hilary Clinton may be a feminist but she is an extremely flawed feminist that was willing to desert her principles for victory and when she saw that was not working, she, in my opinion played to the strong desire of women to see one of their own succeed. The next woman to run for president doesn't need to be Joan of Arc but I do think she will need to worthy of such strong support by being true to her largest constituency.

[ebbtide]

If I were to write a book about Hillary and Bill's campaign (clearly, he wanted to be back in the White House) I would write an honest book about her campaign, no holds barred. That would be the best legacy feminists could leave to the next woman seeking a nomination and could serve as a guideline on what not to do.. No holds barred, no intellectual dishonesty, no puff pieces, no partisan covering up of unpleasant realities. Face the facts head on , even if one's loyalty to HC persists.

Many clear headed thinking women saw the sexist hype as a lot of hype without much substance . Way overblown and began to look as if it were more a victim game than anything else. Why start with vicvtimization ie, she lost because of sexism. No she lost because she ran an awful campaign and someone else had a better campaign and beat her fair and square.

[deapthrowt]

Relax Erica, we don't need a Dem in the Whitehouse.

We need a Democratic Congress and a Republican in the Whitehouse to get done what needs to be done for this country. We learned what a majority in both Congress and Executive branch does during Bush - a partisan free for all with no checks and balances. Let's split the ticket and get true bi-partisan support for national issues like universal health care, fixing social security, destruction of the military industrial complex and its marches to war for profits, and breaking the stranglehold on government spending by public employee unions.

McCain was good enough for the Dems to want him as VP 4 years ago. He is good enough now to work best in this bi-partisan way to finally get this country moving together on these important national issues. Only with McCain in the Whitehouse and veto proof Dems in the Congress will true progress take place.

We should be so lucky to have McCain as the Republican President to get these things done. Let's not pass up this opportunity before the "real" Republicans crawl out from under their rocks again. It is not time to party loyalty. It is time for a truly national agenda. Barck Obama can't be about "bringing us all together" when the Reps can't stand him and now a huge number of Clinton supporters can't stand him either.

[queotic]

"Let's split the ticket and get true bi-partisan support for national issues like universal health care, fixing social security, destruction of the military industrial complex and its marches to war for profits, and breaking the stranglehold on government spending by public employee unions."

Republicans don't want universal health care, so how would a Republican president help us get it? The Republicans lied the country into war, and are still saber-rattling, so how would they end the war? Public employee unions are hardly the problem with govt spending ($12 billion a month in Iraq, anyone?).

"He is good enough now to work best in this bi-partisan way to finally get this country moving together on these important national issues."
John McCain now is completely different from the so-called "maverick" on the "straight talk express" that he supposedly was before. Last year, he wouldn't admit that condoms helped prevent the spread of HIV. He voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007. He voted AGAINST the bi-partisan new GI Bill which would have rewarded our soldiers for their service with fully paid tuition. He wants to apppoint more conservative judges so Roe v Wade can be overturned. He can't tell the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni. He's a former POW who was tortured that supports torture (voted for making waterboarding legal in February) and supports POWs being stripped of habeus corpus.

THIS is the person you want as leader of the free world?

[cynara]

Thank you for writing the exact response I was thinking.

[deapthrowt]

I don;t want Obama the leader of the "free world" (What a quaint, tired cold war term). I want McCain. Got that? Given the choice now, I really, really, really want McCain.

[mwanacomete]

McCain was "good enough" 4 years ago -- in a desperate attempt to unseat Bush, some Dems threw out his name as a possible VICE president, along with conservative Dems, thinking that he had been so scathed by the Bush people that he might go along with it. But he didn't, Dems thought better of it, and we know where history went.

There is no way McCain represents progress. He is just as "real" a Republican as Rove, Cheney, Romney and Buchanan -- they just represent different shades of a pluralistic party.

Many Hillary supporters are so disappointed that they have threatened to vote for him as a protest. But I think they will see that a vote for him is a vote against Hillary, and they will vote for Obama in November. The Repubs who hate him... that is a challenge he'll have to work towards solving, but if he fails and they still hate him, then it's politics as usual in the US, and what we'll be left with is a progressive presidential candidate with a real chance of winning, a vision for the future that inspires many, and one who embodies so many of the hopes of our people.

McCain does none of that.

[deapthrowt]

You need to believe Clinton supporters will vote for Obama in November because you have no other strategy to win. You have no way to make up for all the Clinton supporters you premanently alienated with your hard-ball politics of hate and division.

But the real reason Clinton voters will not support Obama besides our delicious chance for revenge is that Obama has nothing to offer any of us. Never has and anything he comes up with now this late in the game is totally calculated and phoney. We can trust John McCain and we cannot trust Barack Obama.

It is as simple as that and nothing you can concoct in the next few months can make up for the decades of public service we find in John McCain. Sorry, but you misread what is wrong with Obama. And it never was just Hillary Clinton. When you burn voters in your own party, you can never win their trust back again.

You should have thought of that before you indulged in your slash and burn campaign.

[deapthrowt]

No, you err. You are not listening. You are telling me what I am supposed to think. And you discount my actual words. I am not voting for Obama in November. I am voting for McCain. No, I will not change my mind. You "think" wrong. And it is because or your thinking that we will never come back. You don't get this yet, do you?

[DanoS]

Clinton said "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". Sexism is a part of our culture just like racism is and religious bias. Age bias is different because people degrogate with age making it a fair metrc for mental and physical ability.

Clinton didn't loose because she was was a woman - she lost because Barak Obama beat Hillary Clinton.

[deapthrowt]

Clinton did not lose. Obama hijacked the meaningless caucuses and bought off the super-delegates. You may call this a technical knock-out, but never call it a win. You confuse winning the nomination with winning votes and the election in November. Obama never got the votes or the hearts and minds of centrist swing voters and even worse he lost a huge part of the Democratic base. This was no win.

[dawlishgal]

Are you kidding! McCain is a Bushrovian Republican­...he voted lockstep for all of Bush's warmongering crapola (including opposing anything for veterans that would interfere with tax breaks for the richest of the rich). Sure, he worked in a bipartisan way for McCain-Feingold, then he found a way to allow (guess who?) HIMSELF to hitchhike rides on his wife's corporate jet. Every single one of his suggested "reforms" has been a way to get himself off the hook for abuses of power that he was caught engaging in.....he didn't want "reform" until he was done exploiting each particular corrupt aspect of the system.

If McCain is president and has veto power over congress, we will get a repeat of the last two years. NOTHING will be accomplished except the same old same old. He will"fix" social security by getting rid of it, and he has had . 26 bleeping years in the House and Senate to do something substantial about healthcare, and he has done NADA.

What would happen if he wins the presidency and we don't get our veto-proof congress? Will be be getting McCain's S&L scandal, only on an even wider scale than the last time?

If he capitulated to his captors in that prison camp, why would we expect him to not capitulate to the Republicans in the House and Senate....­he has already embraced the man who slimed his child, his wife and his military career.

[deapthrowt]

Obama voted lockstep with Bush on every single war funding vote. Obama is a Bushrovian Democrat. Plus he beats people up by screaming racism if anyone dares to disagree with him. Obama means four more years of Bush's reign of terror, when none dare speak the truth again.

[GoCheneyYourself]

I think its ridiculous that so many Clinton supporters would vote against their self interests out of resentment for Obama. He beat her fair and square. Get over it and grow up.

[sink]

Nobody blinked an eye at McCain's Sunni thing? Really? Not sure that's true. It was a minor gaff (or perhaps not) that made national news. The question is why the media is so stunned by McCain's wonderfuln­ess... it's not because he's white or male or old or rich. It's something else, and I don't get it.

I understand and respect your frustration, but as someone else mentioned, you're awashed in bias here.

Hillary ran a horrendous campaign. She took so many wrong turns it's ridiculous. She stooped to the worst tactics a candidate could do far, far too often. She lost because she ran a bad campaign.

Certainly there were other issues involved her, sexism certainly being one of them. I'm seriously confused about why so so so many women have rallied around Clinton, overlooked a metric ton of massive, significant flaws in order to "support the woman". Then called sexism, still overlooking those significant flaws, when she loses after running a terrible campaign.

The saddest part of the reaction of women to the way this has played out is that it's undermined the message of the entire Democratic party - equality. There are a lot of disgruntled Republicans and undecided Independents who are likely looking at Democrats, the party who was supposed to be about leveling the playing field, equality, and solving social problems and asking where that went when woman are so willing to accept a massively flawed candidate simply because she is female.

[dawlishgal]

Well said.

[deapthrowt]

Obama ran the terrible campaign because he got stuck in narrow demographics and could not get out of them. He started losing more races than he won and lost badly in the important states. He failed to inspire the rank and file who voted against him in increasing numbers. All his campaign did was ruthlessly hijack and stormtroop the caucues and states that will never vote Dem in the first place.

He alienated half the Dem party beyond repair. He did not run a good campaign at all. He loses with his brand of "winning". And his campaign was incapable of changing tactics because the vitriol spewing out of his campaign against Clinton still continues. His campaign as built on hating Hillary Clinton and nothing more. The Kiddie Crusade has hit a brick wall.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

Heeheeheeh­ee........­Kiddie Crusade. Good one.

[JimR]

McCain in 2000 was a very attractive candidate. He called it like he saw it, and wasn't a slave to party mentality. I would have voted for him that year.

But this year, he has sold out to the extreme factions of his party in a last-ditch effort to win. It's sad.

[EJ99]

Greetings Ms Jong.As a woman of color I wanted to offer you some feedback on what you have offered here. If you have followed feminist history you will know that one of the key points of critique of the feminist movement over the past half century has been the role of white feminists in marginalizing women of color in their cause célèbre. Time and again this has been the case. And I have to wonder if Hillary Clinton's defeat is not perhaps the result of the same thing happening again. When will there be a woman president? Perhaps when white feminists, like yourself and Gloria Steinhem, realize that importance of listening to women of color; honoring their perspective and concerns, and thus including them in your larger goals. Of the many black women I have had the pleasure of discussing the primary battles with - many expressed a sense of feeling torn; their embarrassment of riches was in having two fine candidates, both of which they could identify with clearly. However many made their choice following what they perceived to be a racialized turn in the Clinton campaign. So while it is important to address the issues of sexism that have been raised during this election cycle; so too must the women of the feminist movement(s) look hard at themselves and what they may still need to address in order to achieve any future success they desire. Congratulations to Hillary on her speech today and peace to you all.

[JWLANDSCAPES]

Love her or Hate her, she came from behind many times and won 9 of the last 14 primaries starting in March. She made a fatal mistake in hiring Patti Solis Doyle and Mark Penn for structuring her campaign. She fired them both, much too late. She paid the price as her victories weren't enough to close the gap. She was a better candidate in the end and frankly, as Obama state, helped make him a better and strong candidate as well. I know our party is stronger because of it, not weaker. In my family, there is a vast range of political beliefs, we argue and fight all the time, but we always come together at the dinner table to give thanks.

The name calling I hope, comes to an end so we can get to work and focus our attention on not tearing each other down, but rather lifting us up.

Go Democrats!

[deapthrowt]

Clinton did just fine after firing Solis (who is now eagerly embraced by Obama). It was the super-delegates who sold out Clinton for 50 pieces of silver. When are they going to publish the amounts of money Obama promised superdelegates for their early support? The super-delegates corrupted the nomination process. They all should have stayed neutral until all the votes were cast and then and only then should have deliberated on the mertis of each candidates best chance to win in November. By the time the primaries were over Obama had clearly peaked and Clinton was picking up momemtum with every new primary particularly in states that matter in November.

Plus every poll was showing growing margins of victory against Mccain, while showing at the same time Obama could not pull off the national election. That is when the superdelegates should have made up their minds, not months earlier and certainly not after massive infusions of cash from the Obama team. The Dem party lost far more rank and file voters betraying their base than they ever got with the instant gratification flakeheads Obama brought in.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

I think when it finally starts coming to light, (the cost to Obama for the supers support) both in favors and money, his supporters are going to be stunned. We've already seen Bill Richardson all but coming right out and saying that he had been promised the vice presidancy. We'll see.

[clevelandchick]

Every poll I see has Obama up 6% over McCain and the campaign has just started. Obama's going to kick his ass.

[vandegrasse]

I guess I don't get something.­You put people in a no-win situation. If someone doesn't vote for Obama he's a racist, if they don't vote for Hillary he's a sexist. What if they don't vote for McCain. We live in such a dumbed down simplistic society.

[LionEater]

"But it's clear that the faults we tolerate and even overlook in men, we see as glaring in women."

Come on now... statements like this prove that Hillary supporters believe she was entitled to the nomination. Hillary couldn't be JUST like a man and win. Neither could Obama. Both of them had to be EXCELLENT. Hillary was not, Obama was (minus a few small mistakes). If you want to be a trailblazer, you can't have a sense of entitlement. You have to prove you are BETTER, not just AS GOOD AS.

[deapthrowt]

You misread. The first statement is true. Your frothing rant distorting the statement into a vitriolic anti-Hilary rant is what drives Clinton supporters away from Obama's Democratic party. Permanently. Dig yourself out of your own hole. You are on your own now. You have a lot more serious work on your hand than just hating Hillary. You need to find a way to make up for all her lost supporters votes you have driven away.

Tell me where exactly you are going to get them? I'm waiting for an answer. Point to which demographics remain available for Obama to pick up and in what states? Thank you for your attention to this matter. 25% of Clinton supporters will now vote for McCain. Where do you make up for these quanitifiable numbers. And BTW, we love watching you squirm.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

What is amusing is the amount of stock they have put into the youth vote. You know...the group that is notorious for NOT showing up at the polls. The same group that Kerry thought he had in his pocket.

[vandegrasse]

Just imagine how bad you would have felt if Hillary had been beaten by McCain, which is likely what would have happened.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

She still continues to outpoll McCain, and Obama still continues to be behind McCain. Given the disrepair of the repube party, Obama should be creaming him. He isn't. Any explanation?

[JimR]

Not sure what polls you are looking at.

[arglebargle]

Obviously, you haven't seen the most recent polls.

[clevelandchick]

Obama is up 6% over McCain right now and the campaign just started. McCain is a horrible campaigner and terrible public speaker.

McCain has yet to win over the base of the Republican party. They can't stand him. It's the media that likes McCain, not the GOP.

[JimR]

Yup. The Republicans would have been ecstatic if Hillary was the nominee. It would have been like a gift from heaven for them.

[deapthrowt]

The polls all showed Clinton beating McCain. You err in your perceptions. Methinks you are still drunk on Obama Koolaid. Sober up. You have to come up with another game plan besides hating Hillary Clinton. And permanently alienating more and more Clinton supporters is just not going to do it. The patronizing attempts by the Obamatons only seal his fate even tighter. His is not a winning campaign. Just the opposite. He set this hate campaign in motion and now he is getting devoured by his own making. Needless to say, there is a great deal of pleasure watching this. Clinton 2012.

[mergina]

Ah the gloating of the press. It is sad to think that FoxNews has treated Clinton better these past 16 months than MSNBC, with Matthews on a constant, almost possessed and seemingly fearful that a woman might win campaign against her. Oberman, with his scathing attacks and comments, coming across like a child disciplinarian in a 60's catholic school. On and on and on, the attacks came. They will try to argue that they did not, or they were not directed at her because she is a woman, but because she is who she is, Hillary Clinton. It is a pile of s**t the way she was treated. It is a pile of C**p that she will not be their nominee, but Obama himself still has a chance to make good on all she has had to put up with. Obama THE MAN, can step forward to embrace her strengths and all she can bring to his own campaign, make her his running mate, and WIN THE WHITE HOUSE. Somehow i believe his is not deeply rooted in 'the boys club' or the media bashing club and will make that most important decision of his political career.

[dawlishgal]

What is Obama supposed to do about HIllary's "hardworking Americans, WHITE Americans" remark? Are you forgetting that she actually said this?

[deapthrowt]

Are you forgetting these exact demographics are tracked by the polls? Yup, I have read them myself. They track black voters, hispanic voters, asian voters, and white voters. Are you saying we can't talk about the white vote now? I don't get where you are going.

[dawlishgal]

Of course, Faux Newz ignored Hillary's gaffes and outright race-baiting. They wanted her to be the nominee because they thought she would be easier for McCain to beat. As soon as those papers about the sources of the Clintons' money were released, Clinton would have a HUGE problem. She was willing to be the nominee in spite of that problem, probably thought she (like Scarlett O'Hara) would deal with that later. But now the talk is that she won't press her case for VP because they don't want to have to reveal where they got their money.

What would have happened if she already were the nominee and she HAD to reveal those sources?

[britethere]

Of course FOX wanted Hillary...­.Dahhh !
So did Rush , Buchanan, Scarborough, Coulter, and every right wing 527 who wanted to make certain they could use the "stuff" they had ....new fresh stuff....o­n the Clintons to maintain the WH.
for VP .....ABC..­...anybody but clinton

[huntnunicorn]

I totally agree with this article. She hit the nail right on the head. If Hillary got a fair shake in anything thru this then my name is grass, and that's not my name. There has to be a point when women are looked up to also. I for one am a woman and have worked harder in my live than most men anywhere.
Woman don't even receive the same kind of pay half the time as men. I for one have worked more than one job most of my life just to get my bills paid. It's about time more people start standing up for women and not worry about the good ole boy regime any more.

[Syco]

i like how people seem to forget that Obama was accused of being a terrorist.

its not like you can top that.

[StephenJK]

Why, oh WHY, does it ALWAYS become a pissing contest with you, obviously, young voters. If you are NOT young, then I feel VERY sorry for you.

[nunzia]

Oh indeed you can. That accusation is a blunt hammer that can be readily seen for what it is and called out.
The bias against Hillary was pervasive in the media and sneaky in the multitude of subtle, biased twists of her words, slants of the commentary (MSNBC), and downright lies about what she said and did. It was in the "what does Hillary want" bullshit, the "she thinks she's entitled" bullshit (you don't run for an office if you don't think you're entitled - but that's NEVER been said about a male candidate), "she went negative" (men have done that for years - and gotten elected for it), "she 's too tough"-"she plays victim".
There are so many examples, but I will wait for the treatises that are no doubt being written right now.

[GoCheneyYourself]

No kidding. I find it hard to be too sympathetic when I remember her saying "No, he's not a Muslim, at least as far as I know..."

[nellibell]

How can you say hillary did not get a fair shake? Weren't there 8 Dem candidates in the begining??? Which means she beat out and caused 6 of them to drop out? Didn't she win a lot of states in the primary? Some with 10-20 pt margins? How can you say or think she didn't accomplish anything significant???? She has made it easier for the next woman. She did a DAMN good job in spite of running a BAD campaign, she wasn't (or her staff) as orgainized as Barack and his(that's why he won). With that being said......­.White men (policy/lawmakers) have always controlled this country that WILL NOT change just because BO becomes president - So start at home - get your husband, sons, fathers, grandfathers to take a stand with you to get more rights and respect for women. I am a Barack supporter but proud of Hillary as a woman for ALL the things she has accomplished - but I'm disappointed in her behavior over the last year.

[StephenJK]

I completely agree with your sentiments. This man stands with you. If people would just live by a little thing call PLUR, the world would be perfect if not MUCH better. What is PLUR?

PEACE

LOVE

UNITY

RESPECT

[JimR]

Fair shake???? Before there was a single primary held, the media bought into her inevitability argument and practically coronated her right then and there. She also had the overwhelming advantage of name recognition. Most people didn't know who Barack Obama was.

She held all the cards, and she blew it.

[deapthrowt]

Obama cynically trotting out Obama girl with his name stretched across her boobs ended his obscurity. Nice genesis for a national campaign and it did lauch the Kiddie Crusade who loved sticking it to the establishment.

[clevelandchick]

Hello Grass,

Hillary was beat up on when she was the frontrunner, when Obama became the frontrunner then the media (and the Clintons) turned on him. Hillary had the advantage and baggage of the surname Clinton. Obama had the advantage and baggage of not being a charter member of the DC establishment. They both ran on equal footing.

Hillary did not lose this race because of sexism. She ran on equal footing. Both candidates were ripped apart by the media. For every sexist remark made against her there was at least one if not two racist/xenophobic remarks made against Obama. He was painted as unpatriotic, he was tied to every controversial stereotypical 'angry black man' the media could find, whisper campaigns called him a Muslim Terrorist plant.

I tire of women saying that Hillary didn't get a fair shake, she got the same shake Obama got. You cannot decry the media's treatment of Hillary and say that Obama got a pass. He didn't.

[deapthrowt]

Clinton and Obama and all the other Dem candidates started at neutral the day this nomination process commenced. Any "frontrunner" status was solely a creation of the media, a straw dog then later used to beat up the one winning candidate the Dems could have fielded.

Obama was badly losing traction everywhere with the voters, but not with the media who then crowned him the "winner". You err mistaking media coronations with winning candidates, or even losing candidates. Cheap trick to set up a straw dog only to batter it down and then call it a victory.

The media only wants entertainment value. And young voters are celebrity slaves. They don't know the difference between celebrity and substance. Adults who turn important decisions over to their "children" further validate how badly America has gone off its tracks.

[Agnim]

Why are women complaining about so-called sexism?

Many females have been elected as Governors and US Senators. And by the way, none of those female Governors have been an African American and only one a US Senator.

Also, females make up more than half of the electorate?
Yet when female VP candidates have been selected on a ticket, do the females come out en masse to vote for them? NO!

Hilary Clinton, for all her abilities, made it this far in the Primaries on account of her husband.
Worse though, the Clintons disrespect rules and deliberately polarized Americans along gender and racial lines when they thought it suited their divisive strategy of appealing to the worse in Americans.

Americans knew the Clintons were terribly bad when they channeled Karl Rogue. This is a man that helped to foist the bungling Bush on Americans to set back the country for years.

Of course it is a well known fact that bigotry of all kinds exists in America.
When a woman lies so nonchalantly about 'sniper fire' and about Florida and Michigan non-contests, she is more likely to evoke bigotry.

Americans need to go back and see how Hilary was first praised and set up for coronation; so much so that she buys into her inevitability. When the Clintons got beat in Iowa and on Super Tuesday, they resorted to the negative kitchen sink 'strategy'. And what were Americans to do; treat a this crow like a sparrow?

[VivaZapata]

Stop it! The person who hurt women the most was Hillary herself. Perhaps her tears were genuine prior to the New Hampshire primary; nevertheless, they were a fall back to the oldest trick in the war between the sexes. As King Lear referred to them tears have always been considered "women's weapons." Then there was all the phony bellicosity and the right wing military posturing (and voting) to try and offset chauvinistic attitudes, but that was hardly representative of how most women felt about Bush's policies. Women need someone to stand up as a woman and the country has to like what it sees. Hillary can't advance women's issues by manipulating other women with tears, or trying to show that she can be tough by threatening people in poor countries. She can only set them back, and by the way the first woman to run for president was Carol Mosley Braun and she did it with grace and wit and dignity. She didn't feel it necessary to go to some PA watering hole and down shots.

[sharonh]

Good insight Erica. All you say is true. I would ask Mr. Obama that his first priority as POTUS would be to ensure ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. With his background as a lecturer in constitutional law, it seems only right--if he really believes in change. That women in this country cannot be ensured equal protection in our constitution the law is shameful. Women of all ages should be asking why?

[dawlishgal]

Thanks! I don't remember either of the Clintons trying to get ratification. They could have put their weight behind that instead of slipping NAFTA under the door. But they didn't.

[clevelandchick]

Obama can make the ERA a cause of his presidency but the problem with amending the Constitution is that you have pass it with a super majority of the states. A president can't do it alone, he'll need your help.