Letters to the Editor
-
@walter map
yes, and yes. Your post brings up another interesting point, one that probably explains why few women run for office.
HRC is being accused of riding Bill's coat-tails. Yes, her campaign is based on her "35 years' experience" which is rightly open to debate. She is at least as qualified as any other candidate in the race in all parties, and certainly more qualified than #43. And yet, it seems perfectly ok to dismiss her law career as "well,she worked for Walmart!" and her experience as first lady of Arkansas and the US as "Well, all she did was serve tea!" which is complete bull. Her entire resume is dismissed as "She'd never have done X if it weren't for Bill!"
Did being a popular politician's wife give her advantages? Mais bien sur. But she hardly sat on her a$$ her adult life. I'm sure she is a big reason why Bill is where he is today. She's smart, politically canny, policy wonky .... and she knows how things work in the West Wing, even if she wasn't a "working" member of the Executive Branch. It's worth something, even if it's not worth the whole ballgame.
Then we get George W Bush. Who clearly never would have gotten out of middle school were it not for family connections. (Could you imagine any woman running on his cv? She'd be laughed off the ballot!) Yes, the Opposition mentions this, but the Base is totally ok with a pedigree as a qualification for Commander-in-Chief. Then look at McCain and Kerry and their wealthy wives: they get a little flak, but nothing like "You'd never be her without her!"
And then, in contrast, we get several women who are elected to office as widows of the former seat holder. But then it's seen as noble, a great wifely thing to do, and I'm always amazed that no one really says "Wait. By being married to X, she somehow inherited all his positions, knowledge and charisma?" It's another example of women being judged on the merits of their male family, instead of on their own merits.
-
"She also could have done a better job rising above the sexism issue, as Obama had done with the race issue."
You mean the way he gave a huge speech on race in America?
Imagine if Hills had given a speech like that. It would have been immediate death of her candidacy. LOL
-
speaking of misogyny and baldfaced idiots
Looks like the devil may finally be calling Teddy home.
Perhaps his fate will be to have to sit next to a lake full of scotch that he can't reach.
I blame that prick as much as anyone for this obama debacle and the pending implosion.
-
misogyny exposed by Clinton campaign
And Appalachian racism has been exposed, as well ...
-
last dozen pages of CRAP
I like pie.
-
Did you see how our exchange about opressing the males - calvin klein boys - ice cream party, made it into the conversation? :)
YEAH...
and...pffffft...he didn't even read my side of the posts.
I'm so sad...
But yeah...what you quoted walter....was something I wrote KIDDING about how I was a feminazi and was going to take over the world...
Pwhahahahah!
and that lead us to talk about rounding up the weaker ones and killing off the stronger ones....
and then I established Ice cream sundays....
or fridays...
but anyway...pick on someone your own sex. jeeez.
-
As a black woman
I can attest to both sexism and racism in our society. And if I feel i'm being treated in some -ism sort of way I can often tell which way it is but who's doing the treating.
I can also say however, in all honesty, that i think much of the bias against Hillary was Clinton-ism. Yes, we all subconsciously view women differently - that doesn't make us sexist automatically. But people are MORE USED TO seeing women in positions of influence than say, Black people in positions of influence and therefore, I believe any voting bias against her because of her gender is extremely rare. That is NOT to say that gender didn't play a role in how she was perceived etc I am simply saying that it only cost her votes in rare circumstances.
(After all, if people were afraid of a woman running things, she would have TANKED after the New Hampshire tears incident. People would have said "see?! women aren't fit for the job!" Instead she won it. A sign that we wanted to see her humanity instead of the Clinton-ism position of her as a purely ambitious razorblade of a person.)
I think she was done in by poor campaign management, adverse feelings about the Clinton Dynasty, failure to really read and understand the American psyche, reliance on past proven political tactics (ie fundraising and old style campaigning), technological impairment and a well executed campaign by a dynamic rival who, as a virtual unknown, was prepared for an uphill battle on all fronts.
I don't dislike Hillary whatsoever. I think its insulting to her as a woman and as a candidate to reduce her losses to simple sexism. I have NEVER have played the race or gender card with respect to my own shortcomings and would probably dismiss anyone who was click to "come to my aid" with these as explanations of for own failures before I have first had a chance to examine real, concrete reasons for them first.
Don't do Hillary any "favors". She made plenty of mistakes in this primary. As the woman I believe she is, she will learn from them and doesn't need people to cry SEXISM on her behalf.
-
Well
Wanting to "totally obliterate" Iran, claiming victimhood while disclosing $109 million in household income over the years....I could go on and on.
Let's be clear - the biggest "victimhood", "I'm oppressed" feminists out there have always been college-educated wealthy white women. It's pathetic.
Hillary is a hypocrite and a power-mad, clumsy liar. That's why people don't like her.
It has nothing to do with "misogyny" which is a bugaboo every wealthy white woman raises when she doesn't get her way.
It has to do with low character, incompetence and dishonesty - all of which have been quite clear to any observer watching the "progress" of her campaign.
-
@walter map
Are your ears (finger tips?) burning?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18zernike.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
There's nothing scientific about this this piece; it's largely anecdotes and opinions from wonks. But, I think it adequately answers the questions you and I have been posing.
Most interestingly, I thought, was the part about women "needing to be asked" to run for higher office, as opposed to men like Edwards or Obama, (or Kennedy?), who seem to "know" they "should" run even if their resume is a little thin.
Is the "needing to be asked" a mindset in the would-be women office-seekers? (If so, women need to get over that post-haste!) Or is it that, without a base already established, getting money and support is so difficult as to be insurmountable? So women do the "slow and steady" route at the state level, or in the congress, and when their resume is long enough for them to be considered "qualified," they've become too "establishment" to be "authentic", or to relate to the "real Americans"?