What Women See When They See Hillary (or Hillary's "feminist problem"), from The Nation

[jefferson_dem]

What Women See When They See Hillary
By Lakshmi Chaudhry, The Nation. Posted June 27, 2007.

Putting Hillary Clinton in the White House would shatter an enormous glass ceiling, yet many feminists aren't cheering at that prospect. Here's a look at how some of Clinton's most ardent supporters became her biggest resisters.

"I love so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!" exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, "Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you." Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described "Hillary resisters" -- those who believe that "she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn't really take a position unless it's completely safe," as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, "who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can't stand her position on the war, who don't trust her as far as you can spit."

This rather dramatic change of heart encapsulates one of the great ironies of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency. Many of the very same feminists who were her most ardent supporters as First Lady are now fiercely opposed to her historic bid to become the first female President of the United States. The woman once described by Susan Faludi as a symbol of "the joy of female independence" now evokes ambivalence, disdain and, sometimes, outright vitriol. The right wing's favorite "femi-nazi" now has to contend with Jane Fonda comparing her to "a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina."

So what's up with the Hillary-bashing? "Women don't trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her," wrote Susan Douglas in a May In These Times article titled "Why Women Hate Hillary." A month later, in her Newsweek column, Anna Quindlen declared, "The truth is that Senator Clinton has a woman problem."

Not exactly true, as it turns out. Hillary Clinton was the number-one choice of 42 percent of likely Democratic primary women voters in a recent Zogby survey, compared with 19 percent for Barack Obama and 15 percent for John Edwards. And her favorable rating among independent women is a whopping twenty-one points higher than among independent men.

Let's be clear: Hillary has a "feminist problem," and more so with those who lean left.

<SNIP>

http://www.alternet.org/story/55300/

[Vanje]

1. Is not a woman problem thats plaguing HRC among female voters

Its an Iraq war problem.

[Captain_Nemo]

31. It amazes me that liberals can diss her, a feminist, while they fawn over Obama and his religiosity.

The criticisms against her is far more vicious than what is handed to the male candidates.

I see liberals as wanting a Daddy ie; Nader, Obama. Someone they can rally around. Someone who can lighten their spirits.

Such naive thinking. We have problems in our world that can literally kill us.

Liberals should always ask themselves: What do we want and who is going to best help us get there.

She announces her feminism. A very radical thing to do. And, the liberals just yawn while Obama talks about God and shit like that and the liberals fawn. Disgusting.

[Captain Hilts]

2. This is an excellent article, no matter how you feel about HRC.

She's not my choice, but the digs against her here are really stunning.

This article discusses the issues relating to her dispassionately. A nice change.

[rinsd]

23. I agree.

I thought this would have been worse but it basically just looks at the issue of women and Clinton.

[genie_weenie]

3. HRC is not my choice but,

I do understand that getting a woman into the WH *may*, may be worth a woman like Hillary. Just for the "paradigm shift". However, since I live in IL and IL is going to be a Dem state regardless of my vote, if she is the candidate, I'll vote 3rd option.

[Perry Logan]

4. Then kiss goodbye to habeus corpus...

...and internet neutrality, abortion rights, etc. Brilliant move there.

[genie_weenie]

22. Please explain why I can "kiss goodbye to habeus corpus..."

et al in your comment. What makes my vote brilliant? Hmmm?

[MrPrax]

24. Why don't you explain...

why your intent on giving money and supporting a rightwing corporate warmonger...

Is the LEFT suppose to cut this puppet slack, coz she's a woman? Other than being popular, her husband's reign was a complete disaster for the Left.

If you don't understand what that posters comments means then you should probably NOT engage in political discussion...

[genie_weenie]

26. No. If you read my first post

It clearly states if HRC is the democratic presidential candidate I intend to vote 3rd party. Additionally, I mentioned it might (large caveat) might be worthwhile to consider having a woman (even HRC) break into the WH.

And lay off with the insults, huh?

[CTyankee]

30. Then who do you support in 08? Ralph Nader perhaps?

Going all the way with your argument would seemingly put you in the Nader group, if I have heard correctly what he has said recently (and if he decides on a 3rd party run this time). I would prefer reforming the Democratic Party to a 3rd party since we see what THAT got us.

But I'll let you speak for yourself...

[genie_weenie]

32. My vote in IL for pResident DOES NOT MATTER!

Illinois and all it's electoral votes are going to go to the Democratic pResidental candidate. Voting, at the federal level, is a farce. It is a method to continue to delude the masses that they control the Government.

[paulk]

5. hillary's "feminist problem" is not much of a problem

Being on the outs with the likes of Jane Fonda, Nora Ephron, Medea Benjamin, et al., is not going to hurt her in an election.

It's going to help her.

[DURHAM D]

6. If I didn't know better I would think

the Clinton organization helped with/placed the article.

It is spot on. She is running on experience and ability - not gender.

She has positioned herself politically as a moderate (like most of the country) while causing them to forget she is personally a liberal feminist. She is fortunate to have the correct enemies.

As the article points out - none of the men in the race (for either party) would be considered contenders if they were women.

[w4rma]

7. Hillary isn't running on experience, except as being married to a former President.

Hillary wouldn't be considered a contender if she wasn't a woman.

[DURHAM D]

13. Pig slop. eom

[Nikki Stone1]

15. So the fact that she is a Senator is unimportant?

Hmm...

[w4rma]

20. How did she become a Senator? (nt)

[jefferson_dem]

8. So, with Hillary, it's all about "politics", eh?

It's all about political calculations - carefully picking her enemies so she can *appear* more moderate in the eyes of the general public.

Nothing about principled judgment or bold stands on policy?

Ack!

[DURHAM D]

11. So I gather your choice would be one of

the less qualified men. Men who have made political choices as well.

[paulk]

12. since when have elections been about politics?

Policy, judgement, values... people vote on who they want to have a beer with. Look at who's in the White House!

[jefferson_dem]

18. Elections are about politics but politics doesn't always have to be about *winning*.

Shouldn't we also consider how one wins and what she or he plans to do if they do win?

The "picking correct enemies" argument just serves to reinforce the concern that many have about Hillary - it's all about political calculation

[paulk]

27. I don't know how to respond to this argument

If you're running for President, I don't see how it isn't about winning. What is it about? Making a point? Do you think Gore or Kerry were satisfied with just making a point? Will Obama be satisfied with just making a point if he loses?

I'd be more concerned by a nominee who doesn't understand "political calculation". Political calculation gets you elected. I wish both Gore and Kerry had been as adept at manipulating the media as the Hillary camp is - then Bush wouldn't be in the White House and we wouldn't be in the fix we're in.

The old adage - "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game" rings pretty damn hollow after the last seven years, IMHO.

[paulk]

9. it wouldn't surprise me, either

sometimes it helps if you get to choose your "correct enemies".

One thing I think the Clinton's understand, perhaps better than any of the other candidates, is how to use the media to shape public perception. Afterall, if it was used against them for so long by the opposition, I would hope they learned something from the experience.

[Captain Hilts]

25. Yeah, I don't give a rat's ass what Jane Fonda thinks about anything. nt

[Bitwit1234]

10. BASH BASH BASH BASH BASH

Golly gee whiz and jumping jelly beans if democrats didn't have Hillary
Clinton to bash what would they do. There are a lot of posters who can't stand the other candidates. But do they constantly bash and slash them? Heck no...no wonder the republicans run wild with saying the democrats are in dis-arry...this type of crap proves it.

[ieoeja]

16. You've obviously never read ...

... anything by this poster ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3343261
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3342939
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3340745

Or this guy...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3342938

HRC gets attacked more than most. But to answere the question do certain posters "constantly bash and slash" particular candidates, "heck, yes!"

[jefferson_dem]

19. Thanks. I also doubt that the poster actually read the article in the OP.

As others have mentioned, this is hardly a "bash piece."

...it was published in The Nation.

[ieoeja]

21. Forget the article. Apparently didn't even read last part of the OP.

"Hillary Clinton was the number-one choice of 42 percent of likely Democratic primary women voters in a recent Zogby survey, compared with 19 percent for Barack Obama and 15 percent for John Edwards. And her favorable rating among independent women is a whopping twenty-one points higher than among independent men.


Not what too many people would consider Hillary bashing.

[Nikki Stone1]

14. "You expect more of a woman" (Edwards voted yes on the same resolution.)

http://www.alternet.org/story/55300/?page=2

Clinton's supporters also argue that women candidates are unfairly subjected to higher standards, especially by women themselves. It's why antiwar feminist organizations like CodePink are less likely to give her a pass for her Iraq vote than they would, say, John Edwards. Explaining the reasoning behind their "bird-dog Hillary" campaign to The Nation, founder Medea Benjamin wore her double standard on her sleeve: "You expect more of a woman."

When it comes to presidential politics, this double standard also works in subtler ways. "There's not one man of either party who is at the top of the race right now who, if he were a woman, would be taken seriously," says White House Project's Marie Wilson. "We wouldn't tolerate the lack of experience or the marital history . If Obama were a woman, and I don't care how articulate or wonderful, we'd be telling her that she didn't have enough experience." Or, as Susan Estrich wrote in her 2005 book, The Case for Hillary Clinton: "Imagine if Hillary weren't a woman. She'd simply be the best-qualified candidate, with absolutely everything going for her ... . If she were a he -- Harry Rodham, let's say -- the Democratic Party would be thrilled." Of course, come 2007, the party establishment is suitably enthused about Clinton. And for their part, progressive feminists would say that their problem with Hillary Clinton is not that she is a woman but that she has turned out to be no better than Harry Rodham.

[Triana]

17. DAMN good points there....

points the double-standard very well. I'm not a big Hillary fan but as a woman candidate she certainly has been UNFAIRLY judged by these double-standards applied to candidates depending on their gender.

[Captain Hilts]

29. We expect women to be more liberal than men. nt

[riqster]

28. Hillary will get my vote in the General, if she's the nominee

We could do, and in fact have done, a helluva lot worse.

By the time anybody gets to the point where they can be seriously considered for POTUS, they are gonna have a shitload of baggage.

As to I'll vote for in the primary-damfino. It's early days yet.