A question for feminists

[Cherchez la Femme]

First, apologies for having to post this in the lounge, as it'll probably draw at least some derogatory comments from happily a vast minority of our 'enlightened' Democratic men. I'm brand spankin' new and haven't been able to donate to DU so I cannot post there; and I probably won't be able to afford to donate for a while, either, as I'm a struggling artist combined with recently leaving my partner; and with THIS economy combined with the value of the American greenback... :(

My question to my fellow feminists is how they feel about Obama jumping in on an already historically unique presidential campaign?
To be specific, I've been wondering what the talk would be if a woman with relatively little Washington and national political experience jumped into an historic race where a more experienced black man first announced his candidacy for president. A man who has a very possible chance of winning where the woman strongly challenged him with a real chance of defeating him.
Both of these, of course, presidential candidates representing one of our two major parties.

I have no doubt there would be at least a modicum of protest: 'Why couldn't she wait?' 'Let him have his chance.' 'Why does she have to ruin it?' 'Why is she butting in?'
Even down to: 'Has she no respect?'
And if a white woman, it's sad to say but I do think the race card would be played.

I don't think I need to point out that there hasn't been a peep, at least in my internets perusals, of these correlational arguments used against Sen. Obama. Perhaps there have been but I sure haven't seen them.


Please note I do not mean to upset people who are for Barack Obama, my question is strictly concerning the response concerning a woman (of any race, really) challenging a non-white man in this their first historic contests and what, if any, complaints would be used.
And no, if it were a Caucasian man I would not wonder; for this is not a dual encroachment upon an historical race. In the future, after both a non-Caucasian man and a woman have already ran for this office, this would not be a legitimate query as the historical importance and significance would previously have been achieved therefore would be nothing new
...kind of like the precipitous drop in interest after Apollo 11's successful mission.




I hazard to ask, but why is it that one must donate to be able to post in a Group? Is it just the need or desire for money?
--actually I hope it is something like that, as 'extortion' is certainly too harsh a word, hopefully, for a Democratic forum even if they need operating funds desparately! I hope this doesn't get me banned, I have no thought or intent of 'legal action' whatsoever (something which I've seen seems to alarm sites to the point of auto-ban, Wikipedia being the first to come to mind); I just don't understand it and simply feel it's a legitimate question.
That DU had a Feminist forum (group, if there is a semantic difference, which appears to be so) was one of the primary reasons I finally signed up here. What had previously deterred me was the constant and sometimes very vicious infighting in the General and Political boards, and this was BEFORE the start of the presidential run!

I'll greatly miss joining the discussion and networking with you all. :cry:
I do hope to run into some of you here on this board, though.
And if there are any suggestions to other Democratic feminist boards, I'd love to hear them! :)

Namaste, Sisters and Brothers.

[BlueIris]

1. I'll see if I can get you a star later so you can discuss this in our feminist forum.

I'm not going to touch your question, though, sorry.

[Cherchez la Femme]

22. Thank you for the offer, but

being the recipient of charity bothers me.

[Maddy McCall]

2. Not going to touch this in the lounge...

I would respond if it were in another forum, just not here. It's a question that will bring some scorching debate.

[Cherchez la Femme]

21. First

apologies to all for not getting back to the thread sooner, had a family accident & spent one of those interminable Emergency Room marathon stays :(
I think everyone has experienced one of those. If not they're truly lucky, someone loved hurt is bad enough but then to pile on one of those instant coffee machines with the little paper cups? :puke:
:grin:

Ah, scorching debate... nothing wrong with intellectual debate with strong views, I just wonder why it is for people to become so vicious. It denotes a lack of respect, and that's sad to see especially in a site that should be/is supposed to be unified. I guess one can't change human nature, even with the intent of civilized give-and-take.

Thank you for you comments anyhow. :hi:

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. The boy I married made that point. I guess that's why I still

love him after all these years.

[Cherchez la Femme]

29. Wow

You are indeed a lucky woman!
Congratulations for keeping love alive for years, it seems to be getting rarer and rarer.


Now I hope no offense is taken by others that I think that may be a somewhat rare reaction :D

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. My dear Cherchez la Femme!

Excellent question...

Good luck getting any answers...

And...Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Cherchez la Femme]

27. Thank you

for the welcome :)

[Xipe Totec]

5. Why enter the lounge with drawn sword?

Vast minority of our 'enlightened' Democratic men?

Tsk, tsk.

[Cherchez la Femme]

26. What's wrong with that?

Edit:
I didn't want to change the title -- my title was meant what's wrong with the wording of my post, not what's wrong with 'entering with sword drawn', which when you read below you will see was not the intent or point of the post. /edit

The 'enlightened' passage was directed solely towards those who would post a derogatory comment, I thought that was plain or I would have attempted to make it clearer. There must be some gentlemen here who would respond negatively. I've seen some posters in the Feminist group who make it a point to argue there. It was a compliment to call it a vast rather than a ~regular minority... or do you think there is a majority here who would respond negatively?

There was no intent to insult anyone, no figurative or literal sword was drawn. I'm sorry you took it that way, but I still don't see how it was construed as negative. Why did you take it so?

[KitchenWitch]

6. I see someone starred you.

I would take this to either GD-P or the Feminist group.

Not that we in the lounge do not enjoy a lively debate, but this is where we come to unwind and not have our asses burned.

[Cherchez la Femme]

30. Oh, sorry

Didn't realize that :blush:
I posted it there because I seemed to note more mentions of the Lounge in the Feminist Groups posts than GD Politics; so I went where I thought more sisters would see it.
Yep, I have much to learn.


Sorry again, I didn't mean to harsh y'all :D


I'm starred? Wow, well thanks to whoever was so generous -- if you'd please drop me an email I'd like to thank you privately and personally.

[alarimer]

7. I am not sure he thought those things when he dicided to run.

I bet it was more like this:

Someone said they wanted another popular candidate to enter the race because of Hillary's high negatives (at least in some circles- I am not among them) because they figured she would galvanize the right wing for sure. And he had a lot of positive reviews from his appearance at the 2004 convention. A popular, charismatic figure also. And maybe someone they thought they could control if he got elected. So someone ran a focus group or took a few polls or whatever and persuaded him to run.

[Cherchez la Femme]

32. I'm not accusing or suggesting he did

In fact I do not believe he did just for that reason. I think he intended to run early long before he was even elected to the U.S. Senate so how could he know he would be running in the primary against a woman? I was just wondering in terms of men vs. women in this society and country and especially wondering about the difference in responses if the genders were switched around. After all, even here, the sexist language against Hillary has been worrisome and worth examining; at least in my eyes.

[noamnety]

8. I don't like the idea that people are supposed to "wait their turn"

to run for any office in this country.

I'm a strong supporter for affirmative action for women and minorities both. I don't, however, support the idea that if a minority or women runs for office, other people are morally obligated not to even apply for the job.

Personally, I think the underrepresented minority in our government that we need the most is the person who is unwilling to fund illegal occupations. One woman in office (or one black person in office) is eclipsed by a few million murders.

[zingaro]

9. cherchez la femme

I agree with those who've said nobody needs to wait a turn or spoil history. It's my own personal semi-feminist, global-perspectivist belief that the most qualified should lead, regardless of sex, color, preferences, or otherwise.

Second, love the username. Were you a La Femme Nikita fan? :) Welcome to DU.

[Cherchez la Femme]

34. to lwfern too

I'm not sure of etiquette here, and don't know if responding to every post would be considered 'spamming' or not so, since both replies are similar I'll respond in one

Actually, it's just a reiteration of a point I already made (but if I don't respond directly to you, you may not see the answer): I'm wondering about the difference in responses if the genders were switched around not suggesting that anyone 'wait their turn'. Mr. Obama has every right to run whenever he wants to, that I don't deny.
Do I wish he ran later, in four or eight years? Personally, yes. But that certainly shouldn't make a whit of difference to him whether he should run, so my feelings on that are virtually meaningless.


Actually I never saw La Femme Nikita, which is strange because I'm an Independent & Foreign movie fan (well, whatever I can catch on Sundance and Indie Channels). I have always liked the name/phrase because of the many different meanings it can simultaneously have, especially in my situation; plus I'm a Scorpio (beware! :evilgrin: --but I'm one who's a big softie, not that much sting in me) femme who likes femmes --OK well soft butch is hot too :loveya:

Thanks so much for the welcome!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. How did the Black man in your analogy achieve his position?

Did he do it on his own, as Obama did, or though a family connection as Hillary Clinton did? It's an important distinction for feminists IMO, because nepotism is inherently antithetical to feminism. It's not as though women have not arisen to head-of-state via being the wife or daughter of a leader before: Cleopatra, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Isabel Peron, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and Benazir Bhutto, just to name a few. Did the status of women in their nations improve significantly under any of their reigns? Not really. And why would it, considering that all of them gained power through an entrenched patriarchal system? It wouldn't be in their self-interest to challenge the status quo, and most of them, quite frankly, didn't.

I'm not slamming women for taking advantage of the same system that has benefitted men for millenia. I'm just saying that we shouldn't apply the label of "historic" to things that really aren't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Ah, yes, Margaret Thatcher, daughter of ...

... a guy on the local town council. And wife of a businessman that no-one had heard of, who had no interest in politics at all, even when he was married to the Prime Minister. You may be right that the status of women didn't improve under her, but you do have to accept that she got where she did purely by her own efforts.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. Which Hillary Clinton cannot say.

The point of my response wasn't that no woman had ever arisen without family connections, it was that Hillary's would detract from the "historical" nature of her possible presidency.

[Lyric]

15. I'm sorry Lounge

But this is utter crap, and I'm tired of hearing it. If I posted a list of every dark-skinned male national leader who's come to power in history, would that make Obama's candidacy any less "historic"?

Both Clinton and Obama are historic candidates for our country. The nepotism charge is both absurd and insulting. Nepotism is something that happens internally; a person in power appoints a family member/friend to power without considering other candidates who are just as qualified. That is not even close to what's happening here. Hillary Clinton was not "appointed" to the job; she has to campaign and fight for it, just like every other candidate--for which she's also criticized, since apparently it's not nice for girls to run negative ads. :eyes: This is NOT nepotism. Not even close.

Criticizing Clinton on the issues is fine. Trying to convince people that she doesn't deserve a chance at the Presidency because she had the audacity to fall in love with a man who later became the President is ridiculous. If being married to a leader doesn't automatically qualify someone to be a leader themselves (something often repeated here at DU), then it also doesn't automatically disqualify someone either.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. Bullshit. She was practically appointed to the NY Senate in 2000.

They handpicked a state (where she never lived) where she'd have an easy shot at getting elected. Do you think an unknown woman named Hillary Rodham would have been elected to the U.S. Senate in a state where she'd never lived? (They siphoned fundraising and attention away from Al Gore at the same time, for her race and ultimate goal of becoming president. But that's a whole nother story.)

She is running on her husband's record ferchristssake!! Her 35 Years Of Experience(TM) is a mirage.

There is nothing about nepotism that excludes a political ascension based on family connections. Dynasties are not a healthy thing for democracy. Surely out of nearly 300 million people in this country, there are a handful outside of the Clinton family who are qualified to be POTUS.

[Cherchez la Femme]

42. Doesn't matter

at least in my analogy, at least to satisfy my question.
I brought it up because it's happening, and even though it involves Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the query is really not about them.
To me, the question is no deeper than I presented it although I do see, especially in this current political climate, how it can be read that way. It's much more aboiut gender specifics and how women are talked about and treated over political considerations.

I can see where one can deepen it and make it more personal, look at it in (more) depth; but if one goes that route one can enter levels upon levels, utilize more and more specifics, draw upon more and more historical comparisons, and make it more partisan (if you can call comparing two Democrats against each other 'partisan') instead of in general. I never mentioned nepotism, nor have I really considered it, for I believe if Hillary was somehow in the same position and had the same experience(s), she would very probably have run even if her husband hadn't previously been president.

I never wondered, for the purposes of this question, if women were better off under other women leaders.

In other words, I would still have the same question if the same circumstances, the same mix of people and when & how they entered the race, happened in the Republican party.

Like THAT would ever happen! :rofl:

And I agree it wasn't, and isn't now, in a female politicians self-interest to challenge the status quo. The more white-man past-presidential she acts, the better her chances. In fact that is why I believe Hillary is a hawk: a stereotypical woman would be thought of as 'soft' (at least on war) and in this country and climate that would be (presidential) political suicide. As much as I'm against war, we can't afford someone who would nix it no matter what happened
--by that I mean a true WWII scenario, a true just war, not this joke of an Iraq invasion nor the country-wide Afghanistan war based on revenge of a virtually country-less person which even though indulged in deliberately let our target, Bin Laden, go!
To be more precise, Bin Laden's actual country and where he draws his most support, money and minions is actually Saudi Arabia; if we had to go to war in and against a country that IMHO, is the state we should have invaded!
Democracy, even a Bush-league democracy, couldn't happen to a nicer country. Sorry, I'm being mean.

Anyhow, politically Ms. Clinton would HAVE to be a hawk if she wanted any chance of winning.
I may have some --perhaps naive, perhaps legitimate based on her triangulating predilection-- idea that after a win she would go with the (vast) majority of the American people who want us out of this war, but that's unsure and remains to be seen. Perhaps.
Who knows?

I also think you can't get any more historic than the first woman running for president and the first black man running for president of the United States; at least who are candidates of one of our two major parties --ones who actually stand a chance of winning.
But that's just me.

Off the (slight) tangent, your questions on a certain level are valid but for the answer to my query they really aren't cogent.

This entire post is clumsily put, apologies, but is in no way meant to be offensive in any way or in any amount. I'm hoping you get my general drift :)

[RainDog]

11. Why is Hillary running?

She has so many negatives among the democratic base, that's what I think your first question should be. For the good of the party, why couldn't she see her campaign would be a distraction? Your analogy has no context and is, therefore, not representative of the current campaign situation.

I suppose I don't understand how Obama is somehow "intruding" on Hillary's bid for prez. Was that also true for Biden or Dodd or Kucinich? And if you see how many dems in office have come out in support of Obama - how can you even dare to ask that question? Maybe people don't respond to Clinton as a woman, but rather as someone who is associated with a part of the Demo party that they don't like... and it wouldn't matter if she were male, female, black, blue...

I will not vote for someone simply because she is female. What an irresponsible way to approach politics. I would be happy to vote for a woman for president when I think that candidate would be best for this country. With Hillary, I don't.

[Orsino]

16. The "intruding" meme is a flawed perspective...

...leading to ludicrous supreme Court decisions such as Bush v. Gore.

Both Clinton and Obama "jumped into" the race. It's only Clinton's status as a Washington veteran that engenders this sense of entitlement, and it's Obama's status as a (relative) outsider that allows people to portray him as somehow infringing on Clinton's inevitability.

America, though profoundly conservative in most ways, has managed to open the door for these historic candidates. That both have arrived in the same election year is neither's fault. Blame the nation, rather, that kept them locked out for centuries.

[saltpoint]

28. Agree. We have a lot of great female public officials, any number of

whom are more appealing than Hillary Clinton.

The OP fails to mention that obnoxious ego-driven male, Mike Gravel, intruding on the process. What right does HE have to run for president anyway? He's distracting people from voting from Hillary!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

12. The more the merrier, I say...

A deaf candidate? An Asian-American? Why not?

I only hope that when the time comes for the general election, voters will make history rather than repeat it.

[Shakespeare]

13. We don't have to line up single file and take turns....

...for some preconstructed fairy tale of what does or does not constitute a "uniquely historical" campaign.

And I'm unsure why you think that should be the case.

[quadriga]

17. Last time I checked

The only requirements for somebody to run for the office of President of the United States are as follows:

-be a natural-born citizen of the United States
-be at least thirty-five years old
-have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years

Unless there is some quasi-official historical review board that I don't know about(Illuminati not withstanding);-)then why can't Obama run for the position?

[redqueen]

18. There would be protest (and there is) no matter what anyone does.

That's just how people are. We just have to get on with it.

[monmouth]

19. As a femnist, long before it was even called "femnist".. I want the person

most pleasing, intelligent, and generally accepted, not only by this nation but globally. I want an honest (as much as is possible for a pol)who I truly like. I don't like Hillary, I no longer respect Bill, I think they're both dishonest in numerous ways and wouldn't vote for her ever...period. Being a femnist has everything to do with "thinking for ones self, going up against the "traditional - women only/men only" mindset.

As a woman, she most certainly does not represent me...

[joshcryer]

25. I hope it at least bothers you that Hillary has to earn 1.4 million more votes than Obama to tie...

...him in delegates.

I consider it the sexist system in action.

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. That's an AMAZINGLY STUPID thing to say.

Clinton has run a horrendous campaign. She has lost almost every single state that awards delegates by caucus (where turnout is almost invariably lower than in primaries, thus affecting the vote totals). Were the states Obama and Clinton have won swapped, as well as the percentage they won them by, Obama would be in the same position. It is the system we have; delegates are awarded proportionally according to rules determined by state parties, and not by a fixed ratio of voters to delegates. Only a brain-damaged moron could suggest there's anything 'sexist' about it. I REALLY hope you're being sarcastic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. ROFLMAO!

That's hilarious!

You should start a thread about it.

[loyalsister]

20. I think Obama had bottom up pressure to run

His '04 convention speech hit a nerve with a lot of people and he started geting that question and pressure right away. I have a friend who was at the convention who said she thought Hillary's hopes went out the window that night.
They are two very different candidates in that regard.
The only thing that is inevitible is a truly history making general election. And our chances of having the first president who is not a white male is something that has excited the party. Despite the bickering, could there have been some intention behind it? Misogyny and racism aside, there are Republicans who are excited by it, too. A lot of people want to be part of history.
Our own preferences aside, having both of them in the primary increases those positive qualities.

[joshcryer]

24. Nah, he found it politically opportunitistic in running, that's about all.

He knew if there were *two* "minorities" running, then the "fad" of it all would split. Had Hillary run without him running she'd have the nomination wrapped up, and vice versa.

It's no coincidence that the race has a near split in popular vote and delegates (with Hillary having to earn more votes per delegate).

[saltpoint]

23. "My husband was the president. Vote for me."

Hillary Clinton's narrative is the traditional model women's success as referential to a husband's success, not a feminist narrative.

Should male candidates step aside for female candidates based on when they announce? The Constitution says otherwise.

[The Stranger]

62. Ouch.

That was well struck.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. A somewhat different question:

suppose, for the sake of argument, that we'd already HAD a female president, who served two terms, and left office fairly popular. Further suppose that this hypothetical female president had a husband, who left a successful career as a corporate attorney to serve as First Spouse; and that, at the tail-end of his wife's term, he carpetbagged his way to a safe Senate seat in a state where he had no roots or substantiative prior connections on the basis of name recognition, and served in the Senate as springboard to his own presidential run. Is this man qualified, on the basis of the above experience, for the presidency? Is he more or less qualified than an opponent who has a longer term of actual firsthand experience in elective office? If not, why not?

[Cherchez la Femme]

56. Let's see now

you're throwing a heck of a lot more variables in while changing the basic playing field.

My question had to do with gender and historical, or 'First Ran' races, and what comments they engender;
and yours?

If your hypothetical person is eligible to run, and he gets any votes, more power to him. IMO at least.
People move, both Democrats and Republicans. If they're allowed to run for office in their new home area, then they're allowed to run.
Perhaps your argument would be better directed towards the hypothetical voters more than that imaginary candidate.

Again, my question is not to debate the pro's and con's of either Barack or Hillary; it is a gender specific question. Moreover that question is engendered because it is actually happening. Gender and sex (ism), not Barack and Hillary and least of all Bill.

I never said anyone had to take turns. I did wonder what would be said, not necessarily by whom, by the current constellation of gender and race convergences.
But I've read enough of DU that y'all will blow up whatever you desire, no matter the intent, especially if you have a bone you absolutely must needs to pick... so I may as well save my breath.


May I remind those who cannot seem to divest themselves from hating Obama/hating Clinton (pick one) and making it the focus of every minute and aspect of their lives, the time soon comes where there will be ONE Democratic candidate and we are all going to have to come together and back her or him.
How are you going to withdraw all that rancor?


Edit: editing out a strangely occurring emoticon

[varelse]

66. Welcome to DU :)

May I remind those who cannot seem to divest themselves from hating Obama/hating Clinton (pick one) and making it the focus of every minute and aspect of their lives, the time soon comes where there will be ONE Democratic candidate and we are all going to have to come together and back her or him.
How are you going to withdraw all that rancor?

I love you already :D

[Spider Jerusalem]

68. Those aren't 'a heck of a lot more variables'.

That's Hillary's curriculum vitae.

I don't see that the fact that she's the first viable female candidate for the Presidency is a good or even rational reason to vote for her; there are many other factors that should be considered.

If, say, Elizabeth Dole, or Condoleezza Rice, were running for President, as a Republican, would gender trump politics to the point where you'd vote for them? From your basic argument (the historicity of the 'first viable female presidential candidate' as a reason for voting), it rather sounds like the answer may be 'yes'. And I have to question the rationality of that.

[Sparkly]

33. I just don't see his candidacy as "jumping in on" hers.

I think he evaluated the circumstances and, like her, decided this is the year when things are in place for him to run and there might not be another chance like it.

[NeedleCast]

35. Because it's not a corrination...

I know, it's been repeated here over and over but that doesn't make it any less true. You say your question is "why did Obama jump in to an already historic race..." Your assumption seems to be that because a female was running for the Democratic nomination that that should ban all other minorities or historically repressed people from running.

Since she threw her name in the hat and up until Iowa and even Super Tuesday Hillary has acted like she expected the nomination to be handed to her. That, after the Biden's and Gravel's and Kucinich's and other candidates who were likely to have little popular appeal had been ground into the dust, Hillary would be declared the nominee and that would be that. She declared herself the winner on more than one talk show a year before the Iowa vote and it so struck the wrong chord with me. It wasn't self-confidence, it wasn't a bold prediction. It was arrogence.

I'll say for the record that I like strong, independant women. Initially it was what attracted me to Hillary and before I started looking at the primary options I was pretty sure I was going to vote for her in the Primaries. However, the more I watched her, the more I felt myself shift away from her arrogent "it's already a done deal" attitude. Obama didn't win me...Hillary lost me.

Again, as to your question about Obama jumping in, why can't the question be reversed? Why shouldn't Hillary wait until Obama has had a chance to run his historically unique campaign? When did we, as Democrats say with one voice "Hillary, it's your turn?"

[Vinca]

36. I'd like to think people base their vote on more than gender or race. nt

[Recursion]

37. That sounds like this race

To be specific, I've been wondering what the talk would be if a woman with relatively little Washington and national political experience jumped into an historic race where a more experienced black man first announced his candidacy for president.

That sounds like this race. Many of us who support Senator Obama do not find Senator Clinton's argument that she has "experience" to be compelling, or indeed even cogent.

[NashVegas]

40. I Wouldn't Accuse Obama As Jumping On, Either

At least no more than anyone else did.

However:

I have no doubt there would be at least a modicum of protest: 'Why couldn't she wait?' 'Let him have his chance.' 'Why does she have to ruin it?' 'Why is she butting in?'
Even down to: 'Has she no respect?'
And if a white woman, it's sad to say but I do think the race card would be played.


Some of those are already being said, IMO. Not the one about waiting so much, but the implication that she's wrecking his (and our) chance. We've all known Hillary was going to run. Even without the shoe on the other foot, Hillary Clinton and her supporters have been subjected to a constant barrage of attacks, many are gender-based in nature. It's a double standard, but whatcha gonna do? Roll over or fight back?

[Cherchez la Femme]

57. 'she's wrecking his chance'

A woman announced her candidacy first, and "she's wrecking his chance"?

Isn't that a bit backwards? Are these commenters saying once a non-white man enters the woman should bow out?

Do I have that correctly?

[Medusa]

41. As a woman. . . .

I think it's utterly ridiculous that I'm supposed to vote for a female just because I'm a woman. I think it's equally ridiculous that there is this belief that she is somehow entitled to the job because she is a woman. And make no mistake, Hillary is no feminist when she sucks off her husband's record to try and get herself elected. 35 years of experience? She spent the majority of that as a corporate lawyer. When did corporate lawyers (who served on the board of Wal-Mart no less) get to be heroes in the Democratic party? She was APPOINTED to boards in Arkansas by her husband. That's the career of a feminist activist? If her last name would have been Rodham instead of Clinton, she'd never been elected Senator with the stunning lack of inexperience she had when running for that office. Meeting foreign heads of state at White House dinners does not qualify you for the position. And if that's the case, I bet Nancy Reagn, Barbara Bush & Laura are pissed they didn't think about running on their own before now. And exactly how many Senators do you know get to the Senate without having previously serving in some sort of elected office? Damn few. So can the feminist bullshit. She's a feminist when it's convienient for her to be one. The rest of the time she uses her connections (aka BILL) to get where she wants to be. But sorry, the presidency is not a hereditary monarchy and I'm not betraying my sex by refusing to vote for her.

[BlackVelvet04]

43. Frankly....

I'm furious with the Democratic party leadership that pushed him to run and pushed him to the forefront. We finally had a viable female candidate and the Democratic party saw fit to pit their two most loyal groups of supporters against each other. We, as women, are supposed to fall in line again. Well, not this woman.

I seriously wonder if Nancy Pelosi wasn't just our consolation prize ahead of time.

I think Kennedy and Kerry pushed Obama forward out of their own petty dislike of Hillary and I wouldn't vote for either of them for dog catcher, much less Senator.

[NeedleCast]

44. Frankly, This is the attitude that pushed many away from Hillary

That she was the chosen one. That because there was a viable female candidate that we shouldn't have had any other choice. If Hillary wins the democratic nomination it should be on her merits, not because she has a vagina.

[BlackVelvet04]

46. Are you really a feminist? somehow I doubt it......n/t

[NeedleCast]

48. No, I'm not a feminist

and I don't claim to be. I have no issues with the concept of it, however.

However, your implication seems to be that you can't be a feminist and vote for someone other than Hillary. You seem to have no problems with that despite the circular logic that it displays. If feminism is about equality for women, and the premise of your argument is that all feminists must vote for Hillary or hand in their feminism card, what's the difference between feminism and anything else that supresses free choice?

In other words, the arugment you are making - that all feminists must vote for Hillary or they are not feminists - seems to be very anti-feminist.

[BlackVelvet04]

52. No, that wasn't my point at all....

the OP was directed to feminists. Either you have no reading comprehension or you just wanted to use this thread for another place to piss.

[NeedleCast]

53. Going with the no reading comprehension argument eh?

It's a good one when you don't have anything else to back up your argument with. Throw out the red herring that the person you're talking with has no reading comprehension...it's message board classic.

However, you said in your first response to the OP that "We finally had a viable female candidate and the Democratic party saw fit to pit their two most loyal groups of supporters against each other. We, as women, are supposed to fall in line again."

As far as I can tell, no one is asking you to fall in line. You're free to vote for Clinton or Obama. The Democratic party isn't doing shit to stop you. So can you explain what you ment in your quote for me? Since I lack reading comprehension, please break it down for this poor, ignorant savage. Because until then, all I see is another Hillary supporter stomping their foot and getting red in the face becuase, gosh darn it was HER TURN!

[BlackVelvet04]

54. since you aren't a feminist the thread wasn't for you.....

so, no, I won't bother going into an explanation to you.

[Cherchez la Femme]

58. My Goddess...

with Nancy Pelosi as a Consolation Prize, what does that say of the 'regard' they supposedly have of us?

[NorthernSpy]

45. how did it get to be her "turn" in the first place?

Her husband's old machine has been putting out that meme for over a year, and guess what?


Not everyone agrees with them.


Which leads me to a question. Several people threw their hats into the ring, and in fact Obama had his operation up and running before Hillary's. So why do you single out Barack Obama as the supposed line jumper?

[Cherchez la Femme]

59. Not Hillarys turn

any womans turn. The first woman running with major backing from a major party.

As far as I know, this specific woman was firmly running a significant time before challenged.

This is NOT about Hillary/Barack for Goddess' sake! Yes, they're the ones who are the principals in reality but with the same conditions the query would be the same if their names were Michael Jackson and Britney Spears. And yeah, KF was past president, if y'all insist. Whatever.

The question is what would be the commentary if a non-white male had announced his run first, and a popular woman then 'jumped in' and entered the race.
That's it.


The poster above is right; this was directed on getting different feminists opinions and has become, as most threads do around here, a pissing match between Hillary and Barack factions all saying the same old, same old, same old things they've said a hundred thousand times before.
Each.
On this board alone.

I wish I could have posted it in the appropriate Group at the time. It certainly wasn't helped when it was moved into Primaries of all places!
When I saw that, it was plain the entire meaning was, and would continue to be, misconstrued.

Some people obviously were able to comprehend the OP. Others either couldn't or wouldn't.
Whichever way, I'm done answering the posts which extrapolate what wasn't meant and the posts that twist it to reflect their POV, or I should say so they may mount their preferred soap box.
After all, how many times have these kinds of threads been posted? Enough so that a limited amount of OP's (I hope I'm using the right terminology) had to be implemented -- from what I understand a first here.

What have these threads accomplished?
Other than alienate Democrats from other Democrats? Have they changed anyone's minds?
Really? Have they done anything to really change anyone elses mind who wasn't already in that camp?

I have deliberately tried to stay out of GD-P. Not with the deliberately divisive, vicious and hateful things I've read especially when they solve nothing.
And these from alleged Democrats to Democrats, from ersatz Progressives to Progressives!
This at a time where we can least afford to be divided! Or, while we're living the history of the past eight years we're managing to fucking forget it?!

Personally, I think it stinks -- was that a whiff of Rove mixed in?

I do not wish to be a party to these tactics. Period.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

65. But Hillary and Barack ARE the prinicipals!

And I'm really getting tired of these little hypothetical games that aim to show me why I must support Hillary! Don't post an OP like that and sit there and act like it wasn't about what's going on right now and that you're not trying to guilt trip women into supporting Hillary.

Where the fuck were all of you when Carol Mosely Braun was running? Oh yeah, I forgot, she was a good feminist and not a fucking corporate tool like HRC but she didn't have "major backing".

[mopinko]

49. i don't find hillary's race to be historic. women who succeed their

husbands into offices that they have lost, through term limits, death, etc, are as common as mud. hrc may be trying to be the top in that class, but it is an old, old, old phenomena.

[ecstatic]

50. Back then I was a HRC supporter and I was irritated by Obama's

decision to join the race, thus pitting one historic candidate against another. I felt that he had time (was still young) and could run after HRC's term (preferably after doing 8 years as VP). But as the campaign progressed, she has lost my support. I hate that it's come to this.

[Slagathor]

51. We're in a post-feminist world and quite frankly these sorts of meandering posts

are more divisive than anything else. People simply have to get over the idea that people are all that hung up over race or gender any more. Perhaps people trapped in some distant generation, but not the young. The way forward for this country is to put away outdated political screeds and focus on making life better for everyone. The only people who want to make this about gender or racism are either genderists or racists. Neither are needed in the 21st century.

[Cherchez la Femme]

60. We're in a post -feminist world?

And, as a woman, you assert this Slagathor?

Women are completely equal now, right? Nothing to ever worry about for us complaining, divisive wimmins' eh?
We didn't need the ERA. We don't need the protection of Roe vs. Wade to control our own bodies, do we? --something which is NEVER challenged.
THE WHOLE WORLD treats us wimmins just the same as any ole man, right? You did say it was a post-feminist WORLD right? ...so I guess skirts and 'female dress' and burkas are figments of the librul media?
We don't... oh forget it, it's a complete waste of time...


:rofl:

Oh wow.... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Slagathor]

63. Some corrections

you didn't get the ERA. It didn't pass. Roe v Wade does NOT give women autonomy over their medical choices. Instead, it provides gradients of access to abortion services entirely dependent on the medical viability of the fetus. Not only that, but *all* surgical procedures are subject to regulation and oversight.

Lowering the discussion to the level of "but women are coerced into wearing skirts" beggars belief and merely illustrates the absolute bankruptcy of your point of view.

I think that you are confusing a few things here. For example, burkas are evidence of the evils of organized religion. All religions are fundamentally opposed to human freedom, but fundamentalist Islam is particularly hateful, imposing all sorts of asinine proscriptions on a wide variety of quite inoffensive behaviors. It's not an issue only affecting women. The restraints that fundamental Islam place on men are also crushing.

And yes, in the Western World, we do live in a post-feminist times. I think it's time for you to join the 21st century. We live in a fresh millennium.

[iverglas]

55. *all other things being equal*

I guess we now see how difficult it is for a lot of people to address a hyothetical question.

Me, furriner that I am, I find myself in much the same position re the Democratic primary as I usually am re US elections: would I rather pick this one, or pick that one, or shoot myself.

I think Obama is an empty shirt riding a new wave, allusion intended, of phoney righteousness.

I think Clinton is driven by self-interest and the interests of interest groups whose interests I don't share.

I think it would be stunningly wonderful to have either a woman or a person of colour as the head of state/government of the US.

But I backed Joe Biden against both of these two. Not that he's my ideal, or I'd want him as my own head of govt, but he was leagues ahead of both of them in most respects I, as a democratic socialist / social democrat, care about.


Back to the hypothetical question. All other things being equal, if it were a man of colour who was the established, known candidate, and who came with baggage, and a less known and experienced white woman who subsequently declared and based her candidacy on being the candidate of "change", etc. etc., would it be suggested that it was inappropriate for her to intrude on his historic act and opportunity?

It's okay to reject the question as being too impossible a hypothetical to answer, if it is. If you could fly, would you fly to the moon? Stupid question; I will never be able to fly. If an African-American man were like Hilary Clinton, ...? Stupid question; no African-American man is like Hilary Clinton.

But hell, we could imagine all sorts of negatives for the hypothetical African-American man with the head start in the hypothetical scenario, to come up with some rough equivalent. He could be Marion Berry.

The question is: no matter who the African-American man running for the nomination was, would a white woman who challenged an African-American man regarded as having a good shot at winning the nomination and the presidency be criticized for potentially spoling his chances?

Well, I sure think she would. Almost no matter who he was. And I found it a very interesting question, because it actually hadn't occurred to me to ask it, and I have to wonder why!

The man in my living room here in Canada from time to time just announces, "You know why they're doing this, don't you? It's because she's a woman, that's the only reason." I'm pretty sure he knows I know already.

So I'll ask him your question. I think he'll probably agree with me. Yes, a white woman challenging an African-American man's historic candidacy for the Democratic nomination would be criticized in ways that an African-American man doing the reverse is not being criticized.

And the reason is obvious. Women are always the last to get our turn. Or we will be, if we ever get it.

No matter who the woman is.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6916/

The Women’s Movement and Women in SDS

Those of us in the left were very defensive because we worked with men. (At the same time, we didn’t want to do anything that might weaken SDS and its support of the Black Panther Party and militant anti-war activity.) The men in our organizations demanded that we assert and re-assert constantly our loyalty to them, and not to the independent women’s movement. Women within SDS had to denounce separatism, you know, every five minutes in every discussion of women’s issues or they would not be allowed to continue. ... The women were made, within Weatherman, to criticize each other over their women’s politics and their support and interest for working with women. (Given that the young people in the Panthers were under such vicious attack, the argument that educated white women should focus on our own oppression did seem racist. Those who posed it as either/or dominated the argument.) That was part of the dynamic, was that not only did the men criticize, but the women were made to criticize each other to prove how honest they were. That created this enormous divisiveness and distrust among the women that came to characterize the organization.

Plus ça change.


(typos fixed)

[Cherchez la Femme]

61. DING DING DING DING

Someone finally answered the question!
All these posts, a mere 55, I never thought it would happen! :woohoo: :loveya:

I'ma telling you, pulling teeth ain't got nothin' on this! LOL

THank you!
Thank you!
Thank you!

:salaam:
:salaam:
:salaam:

or should it be :curtsy:? :evilgrin:



Edit: In case you're interested, I agree 100% with your take on the two major Democratic candidates which are left. My pick was Kucinich, then Edwards (even a feminist doesn't have to vote based strictly on genetically bestowed genitalia). Now... well I'll just have to vote for whomever wins the nomination.
Oh well, gotta make the best of a given situation, eh? :)
Thanks again for the reply!

[JerseygirlCT]

67. I think that's a pretty loaded question

This isn't Clinton's campaign into which Obama is intruding. This is the campaign for the Democratic party's candidate for President. Both are equally qualified candidates to be running. Despite what Clinton would have the public believe, I do not believe that she has significantly more experience than he does.

My gut response, for all the years now that the talk has been about Clinton running, has been that I'd love to see a woman, but this woman doesn't inspire me. I distrust her, her goals, her priorities. I would very much like to see us turn the page on the Clinton/Bush years and move forward.

One candidate's gender and the other's race are really secondary. Although I understand that either is historic, that in itself isn't enough to persuade me to vote for one or the other. And as a feminist, that's the way I think it should be. Just as I wouldn't want anyone to rule a woman out based on her gender, so I won't rule a woman in, despite my misgivings, only because of her gender.