I grew up in the kind of Midwestern small-town household in which my mother stayed at home with us kids, dealing with meals, laundry, cleaning, and volunteer work, while my father worked as a doctor and was the more authoritative disciplinarian. We were three daughters, though, and while our family was superficially traditional, we were fed a steady diet of "You can be whatever you want." That meant, to be honest, "you can do what boys do" more than it was an invitation to also become a full-time homemaker.
At age seven or so, I remember musing that I might become "a fashion designer or a nurse" when I grew up, and my mother responding a bit too intensely, "Or a doctor. You don't have to be a nurse. Women can be doctors!" Her adamance came not from any contempt for nurses -- her mother had sent three kids to college and helped countless people in Grand Forks, North Dakota, as an RN. No, the intensity with which she begged me to consider the more publicly valued work came from her own biography. Growing up, she got the impression there were two jobs for women: nurse or teacher. Once she got a glimpse, during the '70s, of the vastness of the world women might have access to, she felt a bit rooked. She got her Master's Degree and also invested many of her hopes into her daughters. She knew that until women occupied the spaces men had always called solely theirs, it would be hard to argue we were "just choosing" to become homemakers or nurses or other helping professions.
I have thought about my mother's dream that her daughters -- and thus women -- would continue to demonstrate that they were as good as men a lot lately, while observing the candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton. She's not the first woman to run -- from Belva Lockwood (1884 and 1888) to Shirley Chisholm (1972) to Carole Moseley Braun (2004), we've had a handful of women gutsy enough to go for the top job -- but she is by far the most serious contender, as demonstrated by the infrastructure and money she has been able to attract. Like Oprah and Madonna, she has 100 percent name recognition, but unlike them, she has co-written and sponsored important legislation, is a very successful two-term Senator from a huge state, spoke of women's rights as human rights at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, and blocked the confirmation of the FDA commissioner to protest the long delay in approving Plan B for over-the-counter use. Of most direct benefit to me, she has created by far the most detailed and only truly universal health care proposal now before the voters.
The reasons people give for not supporting her range from her war authorization vote to fear that her husband will dominate the rest of the election cycle or the White House, but what I hear more is the fact that she's just not "electable" because, as some say, wrinkling their noses, "she not likeable." Creating this self-fulfilling prophecy, the media have piled on, chalking up 62 major incidents of egregious misogyny in the last six months, according to a tally of anti-Hillary sexist episodes in the primary campaign compiled by Melissa McEwan. As Stan Fish wrote on his New York Times blog, to mention her name is to prompt an archive more of vitriol, most of it reflecting a frightening level of woman-hating.
At my Brooklyn polling place on Super Tuesday, I unambivalently -- proudly! -- voted for Hillary Clinton. As I left the building, I started to cry. I'm often moved by voting, but it was a big deal to me, at age 37, to pull the lever for a woman who so clearly has what it takes. More than that, Senator Clinton has endured the attacks and derision we all know happens when women step out of line. She is becoming a sort of martyr-feminist, putting herself out there at great personal cost to put some reality behind our "free to be...you and me" rhetoric. I spoke with other friends who reported being utterly choked up. "I have devoted 40 years -- practically my entire adult life -- to bringing about this possibility, this fulfillment of what seemed an unattainable dream," an older friend wrote me in an email. "It's hard for me to understand those feminists who are voting for an unknown quantity instead of her, when they have this chance of a lifetime. Especially since the rivals' positions are so similar." Other women reported voting for Obama, then feeling surprised at how happy they were that Hillary did well on Super Tuesday. "I felt it would be selfish to vote for her," another friend told me.
Hillary Clinton is my mother's age. What might it mean for a woman of her generation to achieve what we all assumed would go to her daughter's generation? Sometimes I wonder if the pain of those missed opportunities, of wondering what could have been accomplished if one had simply been selfish or lived in a different time, is behind some of the commitment to making sure we don't have a woman in the White House except as First Lady.
A bitter reality is beginning to sink in for me, a daughter of the Second Wave. Here we are: several generations raised with the mantra that a "woman" could be president, and learning that we don't mean any woman who actually exists.
I, for one, don't just want a woman in the White House. I want a President that understands that what is good for the corporations isn't, usually, good for the Country. I want a good President that also is a woman, and when that person comes along, I will vote for her.
There is a pattern of lying that is hard to dismiss
She lied about why she was given her name.
She has lied about the circumstances surrounding her vote on the war.
You can read about this in the NY Times Magazine article called Hillary's War.
She signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries.
Well we know what that pledge was worth.
She totally misrepresented Obama's statement about Reagan and "the party of ideas"
And as I write this, she is lying about Obama and his relationship to the Exelon Corporation.
Character flaws have lead to the downfall of most presidencies.
Nixon and his inferiority complex. Penchant for security and paranoia.
Bush II and his need to show daddy how wrong he was in his low estimation.
And of course, if it were not for stains on a blue dress, Gore would be president and we would not be mired in Iraq.
Bob Boorstein former deputy for media relations on HRC's task force said, "I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I've ever know in my life."
HRC threatened to demonize member of Congress opponents to her health plan.
Bill Bradley stated, "You don't tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them. It was obviously so basic to who she is: The arrogance, the assumption that people with questions are enemies."
But I am sure you recall how Obama's victory stunned the world.
The Clinton campaign was in shock.
Mark Penn and Patti Doyle were getting a lot flack and a loss in New Hampshire seemed imminent.
HRC achieved an impressive win in NH and everyone looked forward to an interesting contest.
The spirits of the Clinton campaign were revived but they looked forward with trepidation to the South Carolina primary.
Up to that point they considered the Africa-American community part of their core constituency.
When Obama demonstrated that he could win in a predominantly white state, they were concerned that Blacks might view him as a viable candidate and desert them.
At that point the press, politicians, no one was using the terms: race card, civil war, etc when talking about the race.
So fearing a loss of support within the Black community, what did the Clintons do?
They acted in ways to bring about that very result!
Insanity! Pathological!
Her Martin Luther King/Lyndon Johnson remark was totally gratuitous and started the firestorm.
It was not misrepresented in the press.
And then Bill follows with his "fairy tale" comment and the Jesse Jackson comparison.
The "Bill in a China Shop" act was alarming friend and foe alike - the condescension, the sense of entitlement, the racism.
Over night Bill Clinton became Obama's secret weapon and embarrassing questions in the debates and in the press followed.
Admittedly, if the Clinton's had been more sensitive, she still would have lost the Black vote, but certainly not by those huge margins.
But that is the history of Clintons - they divide their friends and they unify the opposition.
And that is exactly what will happen if she is the nominee.
The problem with hillary is not that she's a woman -- it's that she's a spinning, triangualting, poll-pandering candidate with no positions other than those she thinks will get her elected.
Yes, she's smart. But she sponsors a flag-burning amendment; votes for Iraq without reading the NIE report; then votes with Bush on Iran? Not to mention the Patriot Act, torture etc. etc. etc.
Hillary's problem is not that she's a woman -- it's that she's compiled a record so completely devoid of a moral center, that she's abhorent to any thinking progressive. In fact, I'd say Hillary's problem isn't that she's a woman, it's that she's too much like the men we've seen in politics.
After 7 years of Bush, voters want more than blind ambition. They want vision, moral clarrity, and courage to buck the trend when the trend's wrong.
Quick... yourAmerican Idol is on TV starting his speech with" Four score and ....
I am very troubled at what is happening with the feminist movement lately, or at least what this campaign has unearthed. It seems that many feminists are so wrapped up in breaking this glass ceiling that they are willing to do anything to get Hillary there--including lying about Senator Obama's record on choice (New Hampshire) and including saying ugly and nasty things to other feminists(including men) because they don't support the same candidate. Are we really going to further the causes we believe in by tearing each other down?
And, from the perspective of a mother who is raising sons and a daughter, "crying" is not a bad thing, or a derogatory word. We don't have to have brass balls, none of us, and raising our daughters to think that they must have them in order to get ahead in this world injures them emotionally. And raising our sons to belive that it is okay for girls to do anything they need to do in order to get ahead (like lie, like belittle other people, etc.) injures their self-esteem. We'v got to get past this or our future generations will be saddled with some serious baggage.
Spend most days going around bad mouthing Senator Obama, I think she is a paid Troll at 10 cent per pos, most of her post makes little sense.
That said, this piece literally brought a tear to my eye this AM. Was it real? Was it hormones? Or was it cynically staged? Oh, wait...There was no on else here, so that last one is irrelevant.
It captures what was both wonderful and heartbreaking about HRC's history-making campaign. She wasn't the first woman to run for prez; but she is (was?) the first to have a real shot. All three candidates had their shortcomings, as noted above. But the reality is, this hasn't been a level playing field. People talked about HRC being where she is because of Bill's coattails. How come we never heard that concern when Bobby & Teddy ran for office on the coattails of brother Jack? Or W on his daddy's coattails? We heard concerns about dynasty. How come we never heard that about Bobby? Ditto W? We heard she cried, was a non-feeling robot, a calculating bitch, an ambitious power hungry bitch who would go to all lengths to win (unlike her male opponents?). We heard that she was too conservative/too liberal, that she cackles, that she shamelessly exploited her daughter and mom (unlike all those other candidates with family members in tow?), that she pandered to women, and on and on. Whatever happens, I tip my proverbial hat to HRC for putting up a good fight in this kind of environment. I think she made some cracks in that marble ceiling she talks about sometimes on the campaign trail. I hope Baumgardner is wrong; but I fear her conclusion may be right on the money for the foreseeable future.
The issue was not with her "exploiting" her family as all politicians do. It was the double standard with which she did it and the attempted at press censorship under the guise of feminism to illicit sympathy that a lot of people find annoying.
Bobby did ride his brothers coattails but I'm pretty sure people critized him for it. Just because she is a women doesn't change the nepotism.
She's fine as a candidate and if it comes down to it I will vote for her - not because she is a woman but because she is better than John McCain.
Don't believe the Clinton "Where's the Beef" lies. Find out for yourself.
www.womenforbarackobama.com
A MAN with Hillary's resume would never have been given a shot, either. Hillary's CV makes George Bush Jr.'s pre-presidency look accomplished.
~~
Let's wait, and celebrate the candidacy of a woman who can run on her own accomplishments, not her husband's.
While in the beginning, people thought Obamo was an unlikely candidate - a women no way. However I don't think people are saying sexism doesn't exist-it does- no question, racism too. As a society we need to work on that.
That said, my mother is also Hilary's age and she’s a corporate executive, my husbands mother is a leading psychologist -these women are my role models. They did this on their own while they received support from their husbands they did not benefit beyond that.
Honestly the idea that Hilary’s name is being brought up as some kind of Feminist ideal is incredibly ironic.
She’s a women, no matter how you spin it , famous for being bill’s wife. She is not a trailblazer. I live in NY I can assure you that it is highly unlikely she would have won the senate seat as an unknown lawyer who was a Goldwater girl. Let get serious and save our feminist outrage for those who really deserve it.
When I look at Hillary's candidacy, there are so many other, far more important considerations... some positives, some negatives, to be weighed.
We simply can not ignore the fact, that Bill Clinton is part of this, either. I believe it was in New Hampshire, where exit polls revealed that a healthy majority of Hillary's voters would support Bill instead, were he on the ballot.
In my view, this would NOT be the first woman president, it would be the first CO-ED presidency. And I really don't think that would be a good thing for our country.
are you married
to kevin klien?
JJDGHIOUEGF _EIOU{EOIOHG+{EROGI
whoops,
my cat just walked
across my
keyboard.
I've read of just as many people insinuating that they should vote for her just Because she's a woman. Does that make sense?
with all due respect ... you leave me with the impression that you don't know what you're talking about. I seriously doubt that you're a resident of the state of New York.
what positive qualities does she have to be president?
intellect, experience, the capacity to translate ideas into action ... and yes ... wizzzz-dom!!