Lynne Glasner, Gina Hardin, Karen Sellars, Annie Shreffler and Ellen Emerson White researched the superdelegates mentioned in this article. Editorial assistance: RedDeer.
In November 1965, Jackie Stevenson of Minnesota was a single mother, caring for two small children. Although employed, she couldn't get a bank to give her a home loan. "I was not allowed [a mortgage] because I was a single mother," she says.
Stevenson was regularly denied charge accounts for the same reason, even at a department store where she worked. In 1973, when Minnesota organized its Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party's Feminist Caucus, Stevenson was ready to join. "I was ripe for such a thing."
Now, more than 40 years later, Stevenson still plays a vital role in the caucus, the only one of its kind in the nation. She's also actively involved in the state party, a DNC member and superdelegate who supports Sen. Clinton.
In an election year where every delegate counts, female superdelegates may play the role of king-maker (or queen-maker). Since February 5th's Super Tuesday primaries, Obama has gained 55 superdelegates while Clinton has lost 5; this has narrowed the gap between them to less than 30. Despite Obama's gains, a strong feminist tide continues to run in Clinton's favor. Declared female superdelegates support Sen. Clinton over Sen. Obama by significant margins, and female superdelegates are endorsing at a faster rate than their male counterparts, according to OffTheBus's Superdelegate Investigation.
Many female superdelegates like Jackie Stevenson who have endorsed Clinton appear to have done so on the basis of generational and personal ties and because they self-identify as feminists.
Drawing from hundreds of superdelegate profiles compiled from interviews and material available online, OffTheBus researchers found that, of the 278 female superdelegates, approximately 116 have declared support for Clinton while 70 have pledged support for Obama. In addition, whereas 67 percent of female superdelegates have already committed to one of the two candidates, only 53 percent of male superdelegates have done so.
Female superdelegates who support Clinton feel they are backing a strong and experienced candidate. In most cases, feminism plays a key role in how they judge political issues more generally.
"When I first took my petition [to hold legislative office] around to get signed," said Pennsylvania superdelegate Ruth Rudy in an interview with the Associated Press, "there were people who said, 'I just don't think a woman is capable of handling the job.'"
Despite these hurdles, Rudy won a seat in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1983, where she served for 13 years. During this time, she also served two years as the President of the National Federation of Democratic Women.
Rudy's casting her superdelegate vote for Clinton. "I'm supporting a women's group... It's the women of America who are putting votes up for Hillary," Rudy explained to the Centre Daily Times.
Quite a few of the female superdelegates interviewed by OffTheBus feel that Clinton is being judged too harshly due to her ties to Bill. They dismiss claims that she's riding his presidential coattails. (For a separate OffTheBus article examining this theory, click here.)
Stevenson is quick to point out the double standards facing women in American politics.
"Hillary Rodham could have done a lot of this herself." Stevenson feels Clinton definitely could have become a senator without the help of her former-president husband. Stevenson mused that Clinton could have even become senator of Illinois, had she stayed in the state of her birth.
Faced with everything Clinton's been through, Stevenson feels most of us would give up. She admires the Senator for her perseverance through the 1990s insurance battles and the scandals surrounding her marriage.
"It's like tearing a person up into little pieces and putting them in envelopes and sending them everywhere," Stevenson said.
In explaining her support of Clinton, Stevenson points to noted feminist Robin Morgan's updated essay "Goodbye To All That," originally published in the 1970s discussing the politics of accommodation and sexism. The ending sums it up best: "...I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman-- but because I am."
Early in February, when MSNBC correspondent David Shuster suggested Chelsea Clinton was "being pimped in some weird sort of way" by the campaign, superdelegate Judith Hope of New York was quick to respond:
"You know, no matter who your favorite candidate for president may be, can American women continue to look the other way while the national media spews such sexist contempt?
"If we learn nothing else from this long Democratic primary season, we now know this: It is still 'open season' on American women," wrote Hope in an email to Eleanor's Legacy supporters.
Judith Hope enthused her support for Sen. Clinton's candidacy over a year ago, just as it was made official. "I think it's an exciting moment in history for New York women, for American women and, in fact, for women around the world," she told USA Today in January 2007.
Female superdelegates who support Obama are just as quick to describe themselves as feminist. They don't see a vote for Obama as being at odds with feminism. Instead, they see Obama's voting record-- pro-choice, pro-woman, and pro-family-- and ability to build an impressive grassroots and fundraising machine as compelling and rational arguments to cast their votes with him.
Judy Bevans of Vermont, originally an Edwards supporter, was impressed by the amount of young people Obama attracted, and his grassroots organization.
"He speaks to the future, not that Hillary says anything about the past. That spoke directly to me," explained Bevans.
She also, like many of the female superdelegates supporting Sen. Clinton, identify with the historical obstacles facing women. Bevans points to the pressures of working in a traditionally male-dominated field.
"Years ago, I was the first woman fire-fighter in Westchester County, New York." Initially Bevans didn't give interviews or speak to the press about her unique position.
"I thought that if I gave interviews, I wouldn't be considered serious by the others," said Evans.
Not all Obama supporters came to their choice as easily. Mary Long was working at the Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, in the 1960s. In a 1999 interview with Georgia Women's Movement Oral History Project, Long explains "I would see women come in with such damage to their bodies based on all of the back road, back woods, back alley abortions, and how they tried to do self-induced abortions, and whatever."
One night, a young woman came to the hospital, nine-weeks pregnant and recently abandoned by her husband, hoping to terminate her pregnancy. This woman became Mary Doe in the Georgia case Doe v. Bolton, a companion case to Roe v. Wade. Long became one of the nine plaintiffs on the case, bringing federal action in Northern District of Georgia.
"...As a nurse, I just really felt that it was much better for women to have safe abortions. And it would be a woman's choice. I don't think anybody is out here yelling, 'Abortion! Abortion!' What we're saying is that it's a woman's choice, and I don't want to make that choice for anybody," Long explained to Janet Paulk during the interview.
Since then, Long's been involved in numerous health-based initiatives, programs and coalitions, and was involved with Georgia State University's Women Collection for many years.
Mary Long thought long and hard before announcing her support. In coming to her decision, she thought about balancing the need for a woman candidate with how her constituents voted: Georgia voted overwhelmingly for Obama-- he won the primary with 67 percent of the vote. She was elected to the DNC in 2007.
"It's not a personal decision, it's a decision about representing Georgians. I'm still a feminist, no matter what," Long explained. "This is not falling off the wagon at all; sometimes you have to make a rational decision."
Female superdelegate supporters of Sen. Clinton disagree. For Stevenson, it's now or never. Stevenson, who's in her early 70s, doesn't feel there will be another woman candidate in her lifetime. "If there is, I'm not sure who [it would be]."
In a state where Obama won handily with 66 percent of the vote, Stevenson faces pressure to change her endorsement. She feels criminalized by her support of Clinton, but refuses to back down. In fact, Stevenson empathizes with Geraldine Ferraro and the recent fire she's come under.
"How dare they criticize her for saying what most people in this country are thinking... If Obama was a white male..." Stevenson trailed off, not completing the thought.
Along those lines, she remarks, "I see and hear an anger [in the Democratic Party] that I've not been aware of in all my years of involvement."
Others see that anger, too, and are hoping to avoid an August convention meltdown. There are 92 female superdelegates that have not yet endorsed a candidate. Many of them, including both Christine and Nancy Pelosi, are committing their votes to the leader in pledged delegates.
"Many of us are elected by the grassroots of the party," explained Christine Pelosi, in a February interview with the Huffington Post. "And I cannot imagine going home in November to those people and trying to phone bank for someone who did not capture the [pledged delegate] vote..."
Betty Richards, an unpledged superdelegate of Texas, agrees, and doesn't think the decision of the nominee should be left up to the superdelegates. On CNN's American Morning, she stated that she "really [has] a problem with superdelegates making the decision....I just don't think that that's the way it should be."
Committed superdelegates for both Clinton and Obama have reserved the right to change their votes based on the pledged delegate numbers, including Clinton supporter Sen. Maria Cantwell and Obama supporter Rep. Zoe Lofgren. Although the superdelegates have the right to endorse whomever they choose, party unity in November is becoming a bigger priority than personal preference.
CHECK THIS NEW WEBSITE:
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/prohillary/
As this article illustrates, many party members have a deep sense of investment this cycle in a particular candidate or perspective. Most of us do or will realize that the challenges we face collectively far outweigh the push/pull of our own perceptions regarding the campaigns and the causal factors of success or failure of one candidate or another.
This process will in the final analysis lead to a plurality of the electorate selecting a democratic president the country can rally around as we face some of the most challenging times in the history of our republic.
The democratic party will also have many engaged members that will take the lessons learned from this cycle and apply them to a higher level of activism within the party to our collective credit and benefit.
We must confront racism and sexism in this campaign. People have been excusing any such behavior because based on their personal feelings towards the person.How trite and petty which is what I find on most of these threads. I have found Obama playing to the sexual stereotype card and I am angry as hell. We are more tolerant of sexism from candidates than we are of racism. I am getting tired of it. Neither sexism nor racism should be tolerated period. No other senator like Leahy would say the stupid things he said if he were referring to a male candidate. John Kerry would be so stupid to beleive that Obama can deal better with the Arabs because he is black. Being Black or Being Female doesn't give you innate talents.
No we have stupid articles examining the women's superdelegate vote. They get asked why they are voting or not voting for another woman. African American candidates get grilled on their "loyalties" to either Clinton because of previous relationships or Obama..one of their own. Stop the insanity.
Fight Sexism and Racism wherever you find it. Not simply because you like the person. Because it is wrong. This is a historic election. How we behave now will effect the future in ways we don't even know about yet.
I love this quote:
"Women must help other women. I have this saying that I use quite frequently, which is that there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other. A woman with power must understand that, in actuality, her role is to help others. For a woman who wants to be at the center of power, she must understand that her power is actually maximized by encouraging more women to participate in the system."
~Madeleine K. Albright former U.S. Secretary of State
That said, I still don't know how I will vote yet. I would love to push the button for a woman. But when i choose it will be for the candidate I think can best lead the country with preference given for race, gender, age, or even P.O.W. status.
What do I see in Clinton that makes her an admirable woman? Nothing. I mean seriously. I am at a loss to figure out why people think that "I was married to the president" as qualification FOR president is in any way "forward" for women. I am only 43 but my understanding was that women would be equal when they could get things on their own merits, not ride on a husbands coattails.
I could overlook that if I thought she was running a competent campaign - but she is not. She has totally mismanaged and misplanned, and behaved overall like a "spoiled princess". Her refusal to see the writing on the wall, combined with her low manipulation tactics only reinforce any and all negative gender stereotypes.
And if that weren't bad enough, whenever she is criticized, she herself hauls out the gender card and plays it. "Oh the boys are picking on me".
I truly do not understand how -ANY- self respecting woman can watch her behavior and think she is any sort of a fit representative of women, nevermind women in power.
She makes me ashamed.
Two days ago she called for Bush to boycott the opening ceremony at the Chinese Olymics, but this wasn't the first time she has challenged China. NYT 9/6/ 95"She talked so eloquently about human rights, and I thought it was very effective, because all of the women here will know that the wife of the President of the United States also thinks about these things," said Maria Kamm, a delegate from Tanzania and member of Parliament there. You should be ashamed.
a) Vote for because of
or
b) Vote against because of
we are guilty of ISM. It's just a matter of filling in the question marks with what form we practice.
1. Deny -She tries to lie herself out of her own lies.
2. Distract -She says well look at what Barack's minister said.
3. Excuse- I misspoke. I was sleepy. I was told that there were snipers somewhere in Bosnia.
4. Whine -WAAAH, the boys and the media are picking on the girl! Boohoohooo. Mommy, he's spending more money than me.
5. Dismiss- She shows up on SNL or Leno and makes lame jokes about her lies.
You choose to support a whiny, lying loser. Judging by the way you write, I think it's safe to say that you DID NOT get your 1st 7 years worth of lessons. Or, according to your own twisted reasoning, you are black. Keep telling yourself that you are civilized. Your post speaks for itself and it's screaming Dumb Savage.
1. Deny- Twice he denied his campaign had spoken to the Canadian Consul
2. Distract- Hillary lied about NAFTA. She attened meetings so it must be true.
3. Excuse- I was a bonehead to get involved with Rezko. No one knew he was a crook.
4. Whine- Rev. Wright is like a "crazy uncle" so why should I explain why I went to his church for twenty years.
5.- Dismiss- She was embarrased by her exageration and had the courage to face it head on. Sen. Obama will not answer questions about the donations from Antonin Rezko. he dismisses any question he doesn't want to answer.
You know so much about a man you never heard of two years ago. All too common.
You can't tell me he's "Worthy" or Senator Clinton?
The money that flowed into party's, the nation's that donated, amazing. The only problem is.....the media is also involved. No more little boy at the corner, announcing..."extra...extra...read all about it". Now, It's.....all gone. The CIA is especially interesting...they are the external link to other countries and product, whether it is drugs', money laundering etc., I know why the Clinton's were so suspicious for so many years....so many fire's to put out....they did it well...and elected for second term. Camelot II....Oh My. Gosh, she is "entitled", look at all the fire's she had to put out? Only in California....does it read like a book. A Satirical Murder Mystery. I wish it was sold 'only in America', unfortunately includes the entire globe. Ask a few people politically inclined? How American voters have enabled this 'crap' into office. And, willing to do it again. This time because she's a woman. How pathetic. American!
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies.
You may trod me in the dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.
Comment by Dr. Angelou: There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a girl, grow up and live long enough, you can become an old female. But to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies. Hillary Clinton is a woman. She means to rise. Rise Hillary.
Oh...wait....
I am a 51 year old woman who has experienced being raped and an abusive marriage, so by some of those bitter female superdelegates I should be voting for Hillary because I should blame men for all of my problems. I do not choose to live my life as a victim but as a survivor and I have no respect for any woman who uses the victim or gender card as a means to get ahead, which is exactly what Hillary is doing. Most self respecting and strong women would have left a philandering husband like Bill years ago, but not Hillary because she knew he could get her where she wanted to be. As a woman I think that is disgusting and in no way speaks to her as being a strong woman on her own.
Furthermore, this talk about "I'm not voting for Clinton because she's a woman, but because I am" is the greatest case of circular logic this side of Logic 100...it's the same basic argument, turned back upon itself. These arguments for her by women are just glorified sexism, dressed up but still sexist, and just as sexist as many men's put-downs of women.
Let us indeed hope that the female superdelegates (well. OK, ALL superdelegates) think very carefully before casting any vote.
Anybody who would vote for Mc "Crazy ass" Cain deserves him for a president. Hillary will answer the phone, alright. The question is... which one of her personalities will be talking? The crier or the liar...the fighter or the whiner. She is a super smart lady. She has just run this campaign like a "newbie". That's her own fault.
Barack has run his campaign like a streamlined, efficient well-oiled machine. That's why he's ahead. That's why people of all races ages and genders are voting for him. Not media bias, not racial bias, not gender bias. He's not perfect. He knows shady people and his spouse speaks too candidly sometimes. (The same things can be said about Hillary.) Barack is competent, capable, honest, trustworthy and a true patriot. If Hillary and McCain had Barack's foresight we might not have 4000+ soldiers dead and Billions of dollars wasted. We can't trust them with the presidency after they made those stupid, unpatriotic blunders.
.
Someday, we will have a decent, honorable woman to vote for. There are such women in Congress and the Senate - really experienced, capable women - but they didn't have the chance she had - because she was married to Bill. I agree with you Nancyann, Hillary is a liar and we don't need another liar in the White House. She can't be believed, she has no credibility. She is Pinocchio (sp) in a pantsuit.
[....] "Someday, we will have a decent, honorable woman (AA) to vote for. There are such women (AAs) in Congress and the Senate - really experienced, capable women (AAs) - but they didn't have the chance she (HE) had - because she (HE) was married to Bill. (A MAN). I agree with you Nancyann, Hillary (BARACK) is a liar and we don't need another liar in the White House. She (HE) can't be believed, she (HE) has no credibility. She (HE) is Pinocchio (sp) in a pantsuit (SUIT)."
Do you not see the blatant sexism here? Do you really NOT? If you replace the words and phrases as I have done, above, can you NOT SEE how if you used the same words and phrases about an African American, you would be accused of racism?
Every single time I see words like yours I know I'm listening to somebody who thrives on "isms" - whether they are age, race, gender, homosexuality, etc.
What you are saying here is that Hillary Clinton, because she seeks POTUS, is a liar, not credible, Pinnocchio in a pantsuit, as you put it. You suck up the media swill about HRC as easily as you sit down to take a drink of something, without EVER bothering to question what it is you are being told! And you believe every word out of Barack Obama's mouth - whether these words are true or not.
THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF
It is bigotry to vote for (or against) someone based on gender or race - it should be the best person, and clearly she isn't.
Why couldn't we get the chance to vote for Jane Harmon or Louise Slaughter? I could get behind them and others but Hillary? No way. I honor the truth more than that. I'm tired of a liar sitting in the Oval Office. Male, female, a liar is a liar.