Gender and the Clinton Campaign

Sexism reigns on '08. Even here on Gather, I find dozens of sexist comments, article and jokes about Senator Clinton, but not one racist joke. There is the occassional Obama is a Muslim email, but nobody takes those seriously. Just yesterday, when the Obama in Kenyan costume photo was out, the Obama campaign screemed racism, yet when Senator Clinton replied there are numerous photos of me on native costumes, everybody ignored her. The media is so affraid of making a racst comment, they do nothing but praise Obama. We are all so worried about the race card, we are setting back the women's movement a wholer generation.

It seems to me, that whatever Hillary does, people find fault with it. Of course, that's true with all of the candidates, but the difference seems to be that people don't make fun of Obama's huge ears or the fact that McCain's cheeks make him look like he's storing nuts for the winter.

Not only is sexism rampant, often women are the worst perpetrators. Some of the reasons I've seen given right here on Gather for her not being someone's chosen candidate are, frankly, offensive and show the ignorance of the person making the comment.

And if appearance had a place in campaign issues, Clinton should actually have a bit of an edge if we were dealing with a level playing field on that issue. Neither Obama nor McCain are exactly prime specimens for the segment of the population they represent. So why appearance issues for Clinton keep popping up is a mystery to me - except when the concept of sexism is applied.

Sexism may play a role in Clinton's unpopularity, but let's not simply choose the data to fit our prejudices.

I am a middle-aged white man who was happy to vote for Clinton and felt strongly that it would be valuable to have a woman in the White House. However, when I researched her background and that of Obama and then watched them in the debates, I switched. Having a great natural leader who can force Congress to pay attention to an empowered public provides tough competition for her. However, I have grown to dislike her arrogance, the self-centeredness of her rhetoric, her sarcasm, and the false way in which she portrays her record. When her campaign brought out the dirty tricks in full force, I actively turned against her.

I'm sorry, but this idea of sexism keeping Clinton down is just fanciful. The fact is that she has turned herself into a hawk who's closer to McCain on security issues, and Obama is a *better* candidate who's not a hawk, though not exactly a dove. The American people are sick of war and the way Bush's idiotic foreign policy has ruined our reputation abroad, and Hillary seems to want to continue along the same lines. It's been said that she had to make herself seem "tougher" because she's a woman. So does that mean she's acting "tough" but really isn't? Or is she really "tough"? Either way it's her own fault for running as a Republican-lite when what the voters want is a new day, a new attitude. That's what we get with Obama.
One last point: the "experience gap" is a joke. Sitting in the White House as First Lady does not count as elected experience. She's got less than one Senate term more experience than Obama. What counts is JUDGEMENT and on the votes on Iraq and Iran, she showed she doesn't have it, he showed that he does.

I must say that Obama has not reached out to me and many other woman. I am turned off by his attitude towards women and his lack of a clear record on women's issues. I will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I loved the part of the interveiw that said of Obama was a woman, no one would take him seriously. I believe of John MCain picks a woman, Obama will certainly lose.

While I believe the attacks on Hillary Clinton "for being a woman" are more frequent than similar attacks against men politicians, I found the live radio discussion disappointing in its forgetfulness of the unfair and/or imprecise media treatment of MALE political figures, paralleling today's treatment of Hillary Clinton: 1) Bella Abzug's attack on G. H. W. Bush ("He's [a wimp] not even a man") during the televised Democratic National Convention ( '88? '92?). 2) Media making fun of appearance of Micheal Dukakis riding in tank, 1988 3) Media's imprecise criticism of Al Gore ("acts arrogant", "I would rather have a drink with G. W. Bush"), 2000.

Next, I question the radio show's generally uncritical acceptance of Hillary's "experience" (one small example: 7 years elective office versus Obama's 11). Why no mention that, despite admirable years as a lawyer, her political life depends heavily on marrying a powerful man and riding his coattails? This old fashioned "way to power" for women may not be among today's best examples of liberated women succeeding on their own merits.

So, let's get this straight, he got their on affirmative action? His record really isn't real and he's there because...he's black? Now, what do you call that. We talk about the 'isms like their all the same. But I've lived long enough to have experienced them both sexism and racism and the funny thing is I've worked for very liberated women who where very strong on women's rights, except they didn't stand up when other women of different backgrounds where fighting that same ceiling and when you get right down to it they stood back and watched for the most part and some of them where just as bad as their male counterparts, finally being accepted they didn't want to rock the boat. Some may have stood up but its been my long experience that not many and there are still many women bumping into that glass ceiling eventhough it was title seven that really opened the door. It wasn't solidarity then, now it's Women Ya! I'm speaking of the women who are in my age group, we got FMLA without pay, we got parenting leave and then they got spousal leave. But it's better than it was. Now having had my say, I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat if she wins the nomination and say good run to Obama. If Obama wins I'll vote for him and say the same to Hillary. I would be happy if either of them win, because it's historic regardless and the door will have a crack. We must stop with the "them vs us", "red vs blue", "black vs white", "hispanic vs everyone", Our country has to be more important than our differences. Our commonality as Americans (un-hyphenated) must take presedence in this time when we are being assailed from all sides. Some of it of our own making, some not. So if he wins I would hope that we will give him the same support, that we would give any nominee and vice versa. McCain, while a nice man is so far off where we need to go that anyone considering him should truely check their priorities. He stands for women's rights but there are other issues that are just as important and it's those you have to consider as well. The problems we face were not created overnight and they won't get fixed overnight, but we can't keep doing what we're doing and expecting different results. Change starts with perspective, then attitude, we have to change the perspective and the attitude about what it means to be American today in this place and time. I've given up my grievances with race, sex etc. Im willing to choose the candidate who will take us on a different path and unite our country whoever that may be. It can't be much worse than it is now and hope must be the arbiter. Oh, by the way, just because she's a women doesn't mean she thinks like one. So don't be fooled if he picks a women will you say if she was a man no one will take her seriously and that she's only their because....she's a women? Or will you vote for him because she's a women? Some woman in the White house is better than none, you think? I don't, our country deserves better than that - we've seen what happens when people are elected that shouldn't have been. We can't afford to make that same mistake again. Oh, one more thing - I voted for Geraldine Ferrero and cheered her on.

Part of it may be that the country is not ready for a woman. Now, however, what it seems we are seeing is the bandwagon effect. No one wants to be seen as backing a loser. Now that Obama has begun to surge ahead, many are finding rationalizations for backing the apparent winner where earlier they may have backed another candidate.

Sexism, unfortunately, has become an acceptable part of our culture. It's everywhere and therefore excused and laughed off (nervously) in many every day situations and circumstances. A normal part of life. I think women sit on the sidelines too often unwilling to say anything because their jobs, education, promotions, and sometimes relationships are at stake. Senator Clinton's run for the presidency of the United States has made the issue public and focused a spotlight on how the field really is not level and fair. It makes alot of people uncomfortable because once you are aware how can you really ignore it. There is always denial of course as evident by some of the callers who phoned in to On point.

Next time we send out our First Lady to other countries to talk about women's rights/human rights, lets first take a really hard look at ourselves no matter how ugly and frightening it might look. I feel sad that women are about to miss the opportunity to make a real difference!

People when asked why they don't support Senator Clinton, they first mention her vote on Iraq. Well, folks I can't imagine how you would have voted given the circumstances. Let's roll the clock back to Oct. 2002. One year anniversary of Sept. 11th attacks (huge memorial event in NYC, dominated the media for weeks). Let's not forget that Senator Clinton is the senator from New York. The country is very concerned about security and is feverishly patriotic. The Republican party has a majority in both the Senate and House. The President is very popular and has widespread support. Saddam Hussein is beating his chest once again so he doesn't tip his hand to Iran and other enemies in the region (however Sept. 11th changed the mind set of the American public and our leaders to be more proactive and protective). The Bush Administration dominates the media/talk shows and is hard at work building the relationship between Sept. 11th and Iraq. The reality is, that even if Senator Clinton did not cast a vote it would NOT have made any difference. Voting for the authorization actually bought time and forced the Bush Admin to go to the UN. Senator Clinton did not take her vote lightly and showed great leadership and good judgement. Senator Clinton does not need to apologize for doing her job! If the public was so clairvoyant and enlightened at the time, why weren't there protests in the streets, calls and messages to the White House and Congress in protest, and more media scrutiny?

Senator Clinton did not go to war with Iraq. President Bush did. He is the Commander and Chief and the buck does stop there. Let's be real! Obama only shows his inexperience and his arrogance when he says how he was against the war from the beginning. The reality is that he was an Illionois state rep. with no voice or way to influence the outcome at the Federal level. Maybe his one speech only served his future political ambitions not the real issues facing this country.

Maybe, people really need to examine the real reason why they are not supporting Senator Clinton. I think the media's portrayal of Senator Clinton has definitely influenced people's perception and therefore their political decision. Just listen to what people say about one candidate or the other....almost word for word was has been said in the media. Let's give back the power to the people and hold the media accountable for substantive news/information instead of opinion and infotainment That's the only way we will put a stop to sexism and racism. When you have an informed public, then you will have a political race about issues and who is best to serve this country in our highest office. Maybe, we are not there yet!

I truly agree. Before we start giving advice to everyone else we have to fix or at least start to fix on our own house first. It makes us look hypocritical and people don't like it. They don't like the, "do as I say not as I do" mentality. They'll hear what we say, watch what we do and then they'll do like wise, tell us to stick it or worse simply ignore us. What we are telling them is probably correct, but their not our children, their the world and in a lot of cases much older than us. As far as name calling and talking about her looks, if I hear or read it - I'm going to address it. Stick to the issues of her Candidacy. If we don't respect her how do we expect the rest of the world to respect her. If she does get the nomination, it will be hardest outside of the United States there are entire nations that will not sit down and discuss the weather with a women no matter who she is. So let's get a crip - if she wins she'll need our unwavering support and that means everyone. The same goes for Obama - we need to give him the same support.
For them both, we need to give them the same support we gave our last mistake. Lord knows they need the same chance and opportunity. Oh, yea - I know, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen - I think they both can take the heat given the chance.
I want the facts, not the BS. I blog the media when they diverge from the facts and land on the BS - I suggest you all do the same, let them know we're unhappy with the BS coverage and want susbstantive questions and real news. We're spending a billion dollars a day over their and we here our gov't complaining about healthcare, medicare, social security, child lunch programs cost. I'm sorry if we have it like that, we should be complaining about what we're spending at home.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

As far as Irag - Obama was correct - however you slice it. I disagreed with Bush and our gov't when they went to war in Irag. I said what, has everyone up there lost their minds. Bad decision. I was right also. But I'm not in public office so no one but my friends and family new my opinion. However, again I was right. It didn't take rocket science to see that, that was a very bad decision and then to invade a country of that with that meany people and size with only 30,000 troops - I wanted to know what they were smoking up there. You couldn't invade Massachusetts with 30,000 troops and hold it. They'd give you h---ll if you tried. So, I can't imagine what they were thinking. But time and money will tell - they were most definitely wrong on the decision and the execution. Now it's well past our ability to correct or fix. So we need another solution and we need it asap. The surge is wack-a-mole, so don't be fooled. As far as her decision, part of being a leader is making decisions - you want most of them to be the right ones but when there not you learn by it and hope to mitigate the damage. No politician can say they've never been wrong about a decision. They can change their minds if they have the heart and admit they were incorrect, the problem some have is she has said that yet. It's politics and I'm happy to have a discussion about their voting records, plans and directions for the country - but we mustn't forget it's still politics and they are going to make each other look the least appealing as possible - it's still up to us to decide in which direction we want our country to go. I do know, I don't want to travel the path we're on anymore. Just remember, we can fight like dogs over this, but when it's over, whoever wins - we reach across the aisle shake hands and get on with the business of putting this country back together - afterall it's the country that's important, as it goes so shall we all - otherwise what are we doing here?

We don't need another dynasty AND we don't need this WAR. It has NOTHING to do with sexism. No one is entitled just because a member of their family held the office. This is not Pakistan (Bhuttos) or India (Neru-Gandhis).

It's not sexism, it's politics. Kerry had his swiftboats and McCain had his black love child. Politics is not always about issues; all sides play that way. Clinton's team passed around the year old photos of Obama in costume for the sole reason of feeding the Obama is a covert Muslim fear. It's all dirty. Clinton and her supporters; especially those on the show today, need to stop their whining. It's not the media's fault she's losing; she's running a terrible campaign, a testament to how bad a job she would do as President. Maybe the mud-slinging, dirty politics and attack ads will work for her.

Clinton got us in this war; it's her fault as much as it is anybody's. All her "experience" certainly failed us all then. I'd rather go with the person who was right then, than the person who won't admit how wrong they were. Then she compounded the mistake with Revolutionary Guard vote; she just gave the President another blank check.

I believe at her core she is a racist and uses African-Americans for political power. She has mostly just taken them for granted and her policies show she has low expectations for their capabilities.

Just to be clear, S P., there *were* protests all over the world including all over the United States in the runup to the Iraq war. Not everyone bowed to the pressure to give Bush a blank check. And even if we forgive and forget on that vote, how the heck do you explain making EXACTLY the same mistake on the Iran vote regarding the Republican Guard? Bush could claim, if he bombed or invaded Iran, that Hillary supported him. Poor, poor judgment on her part.

I think the most salient point raised in the discussion was that Barack Obama, had he been a female candidate with the same amount of experience, would never have been considered a credible candidate. The other crucial point made was that sexism has gone underground. Nowadays, thankfully, most people are becoming aware of the evils of racism and more likely to curb this in themselves. Most people would be embarrassed to be caught in a racist remark or action. Sexism remains rampant yet unchallenged by many. One proof of this assertion is the fact that many of the hateful, anti-woman comments about Hillary have been made by women, not men. In 2008, one would be hard-pressed to find African-American people leveling such attacks on a candidate who is an African-American. Sexism is deeply embedded in our consciousness and, sadly, is very difficult to uproot, confront and eliminate.

It is clear that sexism is pretty comfortable for people. I noticed that most of the men denied that sexism has had any role in Hillary's campaign. It is very convenient and easy to simply act like women are just feeling like sexism exists-this attitude is invalidating and naive. The fact of the matter is that men and some women resent a strong, accomplished, hard-line woman who speaks her mind and stands up. These are qualities that are applauded in someone like John McCain and yet are criticized in Hillary. This is why she has been targeted from day one. So, don't tell me it isn't sexism.

I, too, supported Geraldine Ferraro, but I must say that hearing her now was very disappointing. She wants so badly to blame all of Hillary's problems on her gender, yet the statistics are now indicating that women are turning more and more to Obama. I consider myself a "feminist" whatever that means in 2008, and I would love nothing more than to elect a woman president. HOWEVER, it has to be the right woman. Ms. Ferraro was so critical of Obama as her defense of Hillary. He is not the only thing she needs to defend Hillary against. The one part of the campaign that sticks out for me was when Hillary cried and everyone thought it was a human moment. If John Edwards had cried and had that "human moment" do you think it would be welcomed as it was for Hillary. Was this not a sexist response? I think we need to get back to judging our candidates by who they are instead of what they are. Can we look at them as something other than a woman, and African-American and a potential member of the Gray Panthers?

I am so tired of the paternizing and superior atitudes of Hiliary Clinton's female supporters. From their high and mighty world view women, who do not support Clinton (WWDNSC) are unintelligent, air-heads, easily brain-washed by the "OBAMA" media and sexist men because they are too stupid to think for themselves. They further believe that WWDNSCs are pyschological derranged women
engaging in self-hatred. These poor fools do not understand that white women are the most discriminated group in this country: most of them are in jail or killing for driving while female, they get followed in stores, police follow them in non-female neighborhoods, they are still prevented from entering the lobby in certain jobs wo have no idea that a glass ceiling even exists, they walk down a street and everyone thinks they are either going to rob them or beat them up....

Reality check for female Clinton Voters

1) Level and fair playing field: Senator Clinton started this race as the FRONT-RUNNER. She had the support of almost all the democratic establishment (including Blacks), and more money than both the Republican and Democratic candidates. She had the prestige of a former 1st lady, name recognition, experience, and a greatly beloved ex-president as her #1 supporter. Bottom-line, she started with an A+, top of the hill, with everyone else way, way below. Her supporters are trying to re-write history and peg her as a little o'le disadvantaged victim. Give me a break!

2) Superior qualifications, 35-years of experience, ex-co president:
If Senator Clinton has been leading the good fight in public office for 35-years and has no major accomplishment to show for it (bills with her name, foundations, etc.) then I can't for the life of me think of what she will accomplish in only 4-years. And if she was co-president for 8 years, she is not eligible to run again. Sorry, term-limits.

The Facts: Clinton went to law school, sent up a law-firm, made mega bucks, and did some "community service". Continued her "service work" just like every other 1st lady of a state, and 1st lady of the White House. Continued working at her law firm.

3) If Obama were a white woman, he would not be where he is today (A.K.A. affirmitive action for men).

So let's visualize: a very tall, attractive, blonde, white woman with a stellar academic record. Published 2 best-seller highly rated books, left corporate law to work hands-on the community for years. Held office in her state, now a U.S. senator. Runs for president with only grass roots support, is honest with integerity and class. Gets jaded voters to care enough to vote. Yes, I'm sure "she" would be laughed off the stage.

If Clinton were male: starts out as the Front-runner with "guns" loaded. Claims to have 35-years of experience with no proof except for 2 elections to the U.S Senate, time as 1st husband during his wife's term as governor and president. Comes across as a complete hawk, refuses to take responsibility for past mistakes, runs a very negative campaign by making personal attacks at opponents and mis-representing their record. People question his integrity, honesty, and executive power in his hands (Bush lite). Lectures AT the public, letting them know that unlike everyother president in our history, HE will be ready on day 1, becuase he knows exactly what we need. "Overlook that major mistake I made before by thinking health care policy papers and the real-world of medicine are the same. That was simply poor judgement, I've learned my lesson. I have new policy papers!" Wow, I would really vote for Clinton if she were male but sorry, I'm sexist and I can't think for myself.

4) We don't know ANYTHING about Obama:
Guess what, we stupid WWDNSCs know of 2 published books that go into DETAILS about Obama's life from birth until now.

5) The biased liberal media have given Obama a free-ride:

Wow, I guess those bribes worked after all. All those republican CEOs of the networks are so easy to fool. All Obama has had to do is sit in his lazy-boy all day reading novels and counting his wins. Imagine how easy it will be for Obama to take over the entire world with the helpf of the media.

6) Obama hates women and says bad things about them:

Sure, what with being raised by a strong hard working single-mother and a grand-mother, along with marrying an independent and intelligent wife, close to his 2 daughters....boy does Obama hate women. He must be plotting daily how to make the world worse for all these women in his life.

Guess what ladies, racism and sexism exist. Some people use these as excuses, others keep their eyes on the prize and fight their way to the top.

Senator Clinton has only had to fight for an election 2 times in her 60-years on earth. Other women of her generation have had to fight all the way from class president to local government to national seats. The only person who has had a free-ride in this campaign is Senator Clinton. Many, many, more women are a thousand times more deserving of being the 1st woman president than Senator Clinton.

sorry about the errors in the post above, I'm posting from the small keyboard on my phone.

Derek W. I agree that there were protests against the war in Iraq but most of them were not in this country, they were abroad by people in other nations. We have 300 million people in this country....where were they? To say now that you were for or against the war is really pointless. We need to look at where we are and the Bush administration need to fix the situation as much as possible before they leave. The next president needs to have a plan and be ready from day one. The military and their families have sacrificed alot for this country, we need to move forward to help them.

As far as your comment on Iran, I would suggest that you read the actual bill and its' ammendments (S.Amdt. 3017 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)). Apparently, Obama and McCain didn't even bother to vote.

Bravo to ROBERT Y. who brings out what's wrong with America today so succinctly!
I also was so sick of the women on these forum who whine and try to portray Hillary's defeat in "sexist' terms rather than attributing it to her being the WAR PRINCESS, a stance that most Americans are against.

Hillary is losing DESPITE all the huge effort the media and big money of military and Israeli lobbies given her to promote her as the FRONTRUNNER even before anyone else enters the race!

Hosemite H. wrote pretty much what I would have liked to write, thanks. I just wanted to add another woman's name for those who whine about all anti-Hillary comments here are from men :-)

Here is an old article about Hillary with what she would love everyone to forget about now. If you want to know why Hillary is such a big War Princess, you can also search the site for "Follow Hillary's Money" to note that she was the favorite candidate of the military-industrial complex who bet on her carrying wars and assuring their profit.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428