Talking New Hampshire, race, and gender issues on the radio at 3:30 ET

What they were calling weakness I saw as strength

I'm haven't been a big fan of Sen. Clinton for the last few months for a number of reasons.  At some point I'm sure I'll end up posting on why I don't like her as a candidate, and it will mostly have to do with her stands on issues, and from what I've perceived as the inauthenticity that comes from acting like the "inevitable" candidate.

That said, I don't think Sen. Clinton ever looked more human -- more authentic -- than she did when she perceived herself as someone who was going to lose in New Hampshire.  She acted like a candidate I could easily vote for.  When she got angry at Edwards and Obama when they were piling on her at the Saturday ABC debate, when she showed disappointment at losing in Iowa, when she showed deep emotion at an audience question -- Heck, that she was finally talking to the media openly, and very emotionally and sincerely answering questions from the people who came to see her speak! -- well, she hasn't looked more "real" to me as a person or a candidate than she had for those five days between Iowa and New Hampshire.

And frankly, Sen. Obama never looked worse than he did in those five days.  He started playing it safe, he seemed to "phone in" his debate performance, he piled on Sen. Clinton  -- the hopefulness and authenticity he displayed before Iowa seemed to be lost to the same "inevitableness" arrogance that Sen. Clinton was suffering from prior to Iowa.

I've come to the conclusion that what I want to see most from the candidates' behavior is displays of humanity, and a hunger for my vote.  Where they stand on the issues is very, very important to me, but I believe that as importantly I want them not to take my vote for granted between now and next November -- when they start acting like they're the "inevitable" candidate, they're working on losing my vote.  I like these two candidates candidate related behavior better when they're a little on edge.

And that all said, seeing the misogynistic media coverage also made me want to vote for Sen. Clinton.  I don't live in New Hampshire so I couldn't have, but I agree that all that misogynistic coverage -- pretty much most of the MSM coverage in the past five days that wasn't related to her issue positions -- gave me some serious pause.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 15:36:27 PM CST

Yes, getting to see the human being behind the steel curtain.

Markos's metaphor, which struck me as very apt.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 17:08:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In her shoes

In 2000 I was a speaker at the Democratic Convention.  I am the only Latina Lesbian to have ever done such a thing.  Giving this speech was one of the scariest things I have ever done in my life.

Senator Clinton is now the first woman to have ever won a primary.  I have no idea what kind of pressure this has caused her, in campaigning, in presentation, in every aspect of what it took to get to this point.  I find it very nauseating that all of a sudden many people are inside her head, declaring her tears to be real, fake, manipulative.  No one knows but her and I find it really infuriating that all of sudden every politico knows what she thinks and feels.  

Many millions of women in this country and the world over knows what it feels like to be diminished because we show emotion.  We also know what it feels like to be the target of sexism as well as racism.  As Pam has pointed out, there are millions of  us who get that special burden and throw in the lesbianism and we are triple winners.

So now millions of people are getting to see in High Definition what we have been talking about for a long time.  This is what a gender gap looks like.

---

by: miss wild thing @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 17:45:32 PM CST

Steinem should know better

She's a professional writer. And I am not, but I could think of a way to analyze the issue with less offense.

"Despite conventional wisdom, gender may have a thicker glass ceiling than race in the highest reaches of American electoral politics." (debatable)

yadayada

"A male presidential candidate, of whatever race, is still seen as the defender of his own family, and thus capable of starting the war machine to defend the American family. Women aren't supposed to push The Button, or even pick up a combat rifle, in this culture. White women and black men may face overlapping challenges in convincing voters of their competence in other matters, but in the current time of war, a female presidential candidate will face a unique electoral challenge in asserting the ability to be Commander-in-Chief".

end

---

by: NancyP @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 19:29:22 PM CST

Are we all talking about the same article?

Or do you really think that if it were Achola Obama running, anyone would be taking her seriously?

Women Are Never Front-Runners

By GLORIA STEINEM
Published: January 8, 2008

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father - in this race-conscious country, she is considered black - she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you're not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama's public style - or Bill Clinton's either - without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I'm not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That's why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

I'm supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I'm not opposing Mr. Obama; if he's the nominee, I'll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old - for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy - while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It's time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman."

---

by: Pollyanna @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 19:53:19 PM CST

More fear-mongering.

"Too many (other) people won't vote for a black man" and, paraphrased from another post here in the last few days, "The south will NEVER let Hillary win, they hate her too much."

We have to choose who's electible, not who's right for the job.  

Lions and tigers and bears.  Oh my.

I'm voting for Kuchinich if he manages to stay on the ballots long enough for me to.  At least he has gonads enough to believe I won't destroy his marriage if I get one of my own.  And to say so.

I don't really much care if the Democratic nominee is Hillary, Barack, or John.  I think any of them will do as good a job as can be expected considering the mess they're inheriting, and at least none of them would be putting too many fundamentalist bigots in empty judicial seats, and beyond that I don't think there's a hill of beans of a difference between them in what they'd manage to accomplish.  I'll vote gleefully for whichever of the three is still standing when the dust settles, come the national election.

Clinton is not gonna be our hero.  Obama is not gonna be our hero.  Edwards is not gonna be our hero.  One of them is going to be our next president.  But not our hero.  Not the LGBT community's hero.

But I do see a hero out there in the wings.  A collective hero, or a collection of heroes, take your pick.  Those supposedly self-absorbed gen-Xers, the young folks who somehow managed to grow up open-minded enough that Teh Gay can't be used to terrify them.  We won't be their cause but we won't be their mortal enemies, either.  They won't go out on limbs for us but they won't devote their lifetimes to throwing roadblocks in our way either.  And that's enough.  We can walk our miles, do our work, fight our battles and win our rights under those terms.  It's enough. It will be enough.

Now if these kids aren't a'scared of Teh Gay, I don't imagine they're all that frightened by Teh Woman or Teh Black Man either.  Bigotry and ignorance walk hand-in-hand and these kids have grown up in an information flood, with diversity streaming into their homes, however remote those homes, however segregated their communities.  Gotta love the Information Age.  

The fundamentalists are floundering at the bottom of their barrel.  Their worst enemies are now reality and science; they mock them both, in desperation, without even realizing how... well, how flat-out assinine that is.

I don't know if our youngsters will manage to pull it off in my lifetime but I'm pretty sure they'll manage to pull it off in theirs.  Unless the fundies manage to blast the entire world back to the stone age before the missles rot and reason prevails, they'll get it done.  

I am old, and tired, and finally, hopeful.  And it feels good.

---

by: Rae @ Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 23:47:02 PM CST