home

Feminists For Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat

A very well written letter from a group of feminist intellectuals who support Hillary Clinton was e-mailed to me, also at HuffPo. I reprint it on the flip:

NOTE: Comments are now closed

Feminists for Clinton

We are women who support Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States. We do so because we believe that she will be the best president for the entire country. And as feminists, we also believe that Clinton is the best choice for attending to issues of special importance to women.

We write to you now because it’s time for feminists to say that Senator Obama has no monopoly on inspiration. We are among the millions of women and men who have been moved to action by her. Six months ago, some of us were committed to her candidacy, some of us weren’t, but by now we all find ourselves passionately supporting her. Brains, grace under pressure, ideas, and the skill to make them real: we call that inspiring. The restoration of good government after eight years of devastation, a decent foreign policy with ties to world leaders repaired, withdrawal from Iraq and universal health care: we call that exciting. And the record to prove that she can and will stand up to the swift-boating that will come any Democratic nominee’s way: we call that absolutely necessary.

Clinton’s enormous contributions as Senator, public servant, spokesperson for better family policies and the needs of hard-pressed women and children are widely known and recognized—even by her opponent. Her powerful, inspiring advocacy of the human rights of women at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 was heralded around the world as a stunning departure from the normal anodyne role of First Lady. Corporate special interests managed to defeat the health care program she advocated in 1994., and her own leadership opened the plan to attack. But she kept on fighting, acknowledging her mistakes, and in ensuing years she succeeded in winning expanded coverage for children. Now she has crafted the only sensible and truly universal health care proposal before the voters.

On the Iraq war, many of us believe she made a major mistake in voting for Joint Resolution 114 in 2002—along with the 28 other Democratic senators, including John Edwards and John Kerry. But we also note that her current opponent, when asked about that resolution in 2004, responded that he did not know how he would have voted had he been in Congress then. We do not know either. But we do know that at the time, his opposition to the war carried no risks and indeed, promised to pay big dividends in his liberal Democratic district.

Now, the two candidates have virtually the same plan for withdrawal from Iraq. And on the critical, broader issues of foreign policy, we believe that Senator Clinton is far more consistent, knowledgeable, modest, and realistic—stressing intense diplomacy on all questions and repairing our ties with world leaders.

We are keenly aware that much is at stake—not just on national and international security, but on the economy, universal health care, the environment, and more. Our country needs a president who knows the members and workings of Congress, and has a proven record on Capitol Hill of persuading sympathizers, bringing along fence-sitters, and disarming opponents. There is an irony in her opponent’s claim to be able to draw in Republicans, while dismissing her proven record of working with them as a legislator. We need a president who understands how to make changes real, from small things like the predatory student loan industry to large things like the Middle East. Hillary Clinton has the experience, knowledge and wisdom to deal with this wide range of issues.

Our country also needs a president who has a thorough mastery of “details”—yes, details – after eight years of Bush and Cheney. The job of restoring good government is overwhelming, and will require more than “inspiration” to accomplish it. We believe that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Justice Department, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency, and many more can be restored to full and effective functioning only by a president who understands their scope, regulations, personnel, problems and history. Knowing these “details” and acting on them are essential to begin the healing and recuperation of the country.

How many of us have heard brilliant and resourceful women in the workplace dismissed or devalued for “detail-orientation” in contrast to a man’s supposed “big picture” scope? How many of us have seen what, in a man, would be called “peerless mastery,” get called, in a woman’s case, “narrowness”? How many women have we known—truly gifted workers, professionals, and administrators—who have been criticized for their reserve and down-to-earth way of speaking? Whose commanding style, seriousness, and get-to-work style are criticized as “cold” and insufficiently “likable”? These prejudices have been scandalously present in this campaign.

With all this in mind, we believe that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for president, because she is the surest to remove the wreckage and secure the future. Politics is not magic. Hillary Clinton as president promises what government at its best can truly offer: wise decision-making and lasting change.

Ellen Carol DuBois, Professor of History, University of California, Los Angeles

Christine Stansell, Distinguished Service Professor, History Department
University of Chicago

Gloria Steinem, writer, New York City

Michele Wallace , Professor of English, Women's Studies and Film Studies, City College of New York and CUNY Graduate Center

[and many many many many more . . .

< Obama as the Next McGovern? | Where is Obama on Gun Rights? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Where do I add my name? (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by goldberry on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    Of course, the list would be pretty long and you wouldn't be able to print it here.  But that sure is an impressive list.  The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pantsuit grows hourly.

    Good Question! nt (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:50:37 PM EST
    Yeah, me too. I want to sign on. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:17:26 PM EST
    Good! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:27:30 PM EST
    I just posted this link at your blog to make SURE you see it!  

    Parent
    Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuit (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:12:36 PM EST
    Sounds a little exclusionary.

    I guess I'll go read some Camille Paglia for some balance....

    Parent

    Excellent Letter (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by xjt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    And thank you for posting it. It is amazing how dismissive some people even on the left are of the label "feminist," as though the cause of women's equality is somehow laughable or not as serious as the struggle for equality of other groups, such as African-Americans. It's disturbing to see this double standard. Let's hope we don't see anything like that in this thread.

    My heart is singing- Thank you for posting it. nt (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:44:42 PM EST


    The more I think about this (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:07:23 PM EST
    The more I am disappointed by so-called 'progressive' blogs because this is so not getting front page at firedoglake, dailykos, huffpo, etc.

    I'm a guy and I'm outraged...

    The conclusion is entirely obvious...

    As Larry J put it (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    Dkos is the most bizzare realization of Orwell's Animal Farm there is.  

    Markos have been assimilated, and only thinks about his traffic and his career.  Ditto Arianna and Josh Marshall.

    Parent

    I haven't seen anyone say it better! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by BluestBlue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:35:53 PM EST
    What a cogent, civil, and practical display of the facts and issues at hand, as well as the case for why Hillary Clinton is the right person at the right time!

    I'd love to add my name and stand with those women. They've got brains and make sense, like Hillary and like me.

    Beautiful (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:40:17 PM EST
    They put into words much better than I ever could why I truly admire Senator Clinton. With all the attacks and the bandwagon of support for Sen Obama it is a little sad to think such an accomplished woman is not quite getting the respect and acknowledgment she deserves for everything she has done.

    I guess it is more important to be popular than accomplished.

    American Idol vs. Survivor. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:43:38 PM EST
    But wait...shelf live may be shorter than we thought...

       http://www.slate.com/id/2184536/  I can't seem to get the hang of links...yet...

    Parent

    Shelf life......sheesh.. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:44:19 PM EST
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:45:44 PM EST
    This otherwise strong letter repeats the highly misleading argument that Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq war resolution.  As explained by Media Matters -- hardly an anti-Hillary outfit --
    the very next sentence of Obama's statement . . . was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case [for authorizing the war] was not made."

    But many of you must know this -- this was what Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment was actually about and it was discussed extensively then.  Is there a legitimate defense for this assertion that I am not aware of, or have people decided to keep saying it despite the fact that it is misleading?


    does it bother you at all (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:52:38 PM EST
    that Obama seems to have a habit of saying one thing, then in the next sentence, contradicting himself?  That sort of circular reasoning may work in debate club, but this is real life--you can't vote "present" in the big leagues.  You have to take a stand and not backpedal.  You can't say, "I'd have to think about it," one minute and then the next say, "Of course I will."

    At least not if you want to win elections.

    There is a reason the AP said that Obama could have a really good debate with himself.

    Parent

    Not in this instance (none / 0) (#52)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:00:21 PM EST
    because it was during the 2004 election and he was shilling for John Kerry like a good Democrat.  I hope he repeats the performance if Hillary gets the nomination!

    Parent
    His sentences are not dichotomous (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:18:54 AM EST
    in this case, at least.  First, he says that he does not know what he would have done at the time if he had been in the Senate then.

    Next, in your line, he says that from his vantage point now, he can see it differently.  Exactly what Clinton and others have said.

    Parent

    yes and no (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dc2008 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:48:13 PM EST
    I agree that it's largely a good letter, and of course the signers have every right to advocate for their candidate of choice, as do we all. But there's one argument made in this letter, on a centrally important point, that I don't think is intellectually sound. The signers claim that there was no political risk for Obama in speaking out against the war, and that doing so was political beneficial in his liberal district.

    But Obama wasn't running for reelection in his liberal state senate district at the time, or at least that wasn't his major target. He was seeking to become a US Senator for Illinois. Illinois is not especially known as a liberal bastion. Also, he clearly must have had a future run for the presidency at least somewhat on his mind at that time -- people certainly were describing him at the time as someone who could be a presidential contender. So I think that part of the letter discounts the importance of that speech in a way that intellectually doesn't face up to the most relevant facts, and hence doesn't give Obama enough credit.

    The bottom line for me is that while we don't know for sure what Obama whether Obama's vote on Iraq if a US Senator at that time would have matched what he said in his speech, we do know for sure what Clinton did with the vote. I view that vote as the central test of leadership of our time, and she failed it. I agree with what Lincoln Chafee recently told Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone, voting to authorize the Iraq War should disqualify one from being President. (Kerry and Edwards wouldn't have been my top choices either.) There were 20+ Senators who did better -- as one of the Democratic Party's most well known leaders, Clinton had a special responsibility to stand up. When I watched the footage of her floor vote supporting the authorization for the war, I simply can't believe that she believed what she was saying, because it just didn't add up.

    the war (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    In 2002 he was not running for anything. In 2003 he took that speech of his website. In 2004, when he was running for the Senate, he said he was unsure how he would have voted.

    And what are Obama's anti-war efforts? One speech. I find it very discomforting that he gets so much mileage from that one speech. I mean he voted to fund the war. If he was truly against it he should have placed a protest vote like some other did. His one vote would have not stopped funding for the war.

    Parent

    no, wouldn't have stopped funding (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:59:50 PM EST
    but might have stopped his presidential bid.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:06:40 PM EST
    I highly doubt that. There were others, like Sen. Feingold who constantly opposed the war and spoke out against it and are in good standing as national figures. I think it would have made his judgement argument fool proof. But I guess he has already sold that to everyone.

    Parent
    you mean stand-up (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:54:55 PM EST
    the same way Obama did as soon as he got to the senate, the way he screamed from the senate floor demanding this senseless war be ended?  The way he refused to keep funding the war he so strongly disagreed with (knowing full well that his vote would not matter because of the overwhelming bi-partisan support)?

    You mean that BizarrObama?

    Parent

    You set the bar very high (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:02:30 AM EST
    The only major Presidential candidate who opposed the war before it was waged was Obama....You want to render that meaningless because Obama did not man the barricades with Code Pink....

    The contrast is between Obama and Hillary--Hillary has followed, rather than led, public opinion on this:  for the war when most everyone else was; finally against it, when most Democrats were.....

     

    Parent

    Nice letter (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:02:30 PM EST
    and probably right for the moment.

    This one is for the girls (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Allin on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:24:15 PM EST
    I just made a post for that video (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:46:22 PM EST
    great video, perfect to end a day here entrenched in debate over sexism.

    Parent
    Thanks for sharing the video (none / 0) (#127)
    by BluestBlue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:58:11 AM EST
    It was beautiful!

    Parent
    Great letter (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:28:58 PM EST
    Hillary is good for all Americans, not just women.  Hillary represents men, women, children, seniors, the rich, the poor, industry, labor, the healthy, the sick, investors, consumers, and all of America.

    Feminism and Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by KendallJ on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:33:33 PM EST
    This was such a great letter by feminests for Clinton. Another peice that rang true for me is that Clinton has a clear understanding of the underpinings of our econimy. She really understands the long term effects of the redistribultion of wealth in this country that Bush created, as well as having the solutions to rectify the problem. She understands and has the remedies to reel business in and to begin restoring fiscal responsibility.

    I'm still waiting for solutions from Obama. He seems to have problems with understanding the gray matter in the world. In this respect he is nieve and his inexperience is glaring. Clinton is the clear choice.

    I wish that by intruding (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:39:04 PM EST
    that you could have brought some clarity to the discussion...but you didn't.

    jgarza reacts to the Feminists letter by suggesting his paranoia as being labeled a sexist because of his reaction.

    As Mark Twain said, and forgive me if blow the quote..."Better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

    unless obamamania2008 and jgarza are the same (none / 0) (#114)
    by white n az on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:13:07 AM EST
    and I really believe that to be the case because of the continued confusing and confused responses in the same thread...

    seriously...what is your point?

    I ask because I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I thought I made that fairly clear already.

    Parent

    management style (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:43:28 PM EST
    the ability to look the other way while one of your law firms biggest clients that also happens to be your largest fundraiser and contributor and for whom you have written many letters of commendation happens to be one of the bigger slum lords on the south side of Chicago...that's management style...the ability to always find the bright side

    As one of the low-information,blue collar, working (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    class types that supports Hillary Clinton I find it amusing that we are so often a target of such dismissive language. Truth is people, we get one vote apiece just like all the arrogant people that look down on us. And I always vote. And by the way, it doesn't take a college education to get information and even to comprehend it.

    The difference this election is that I refuse to hold my nose and vote for someone. I voted for gasbag Kerry even though I was convinced that by the time he got through explaining his policies and positions the election would be over.

    This time I will not, cannot vote for Obama because I perceive him if not a sexist then someone that uses subtle sexist words to pander to the sexists whose vote he wants.

    In my little, ill-informed, working class world people get only so many chances. I was disturbed by Obama's arrogant dismissal of Hillary Clinton with the "you're likable enough Hillary". But then, just recently, the "real" Obama opened his mouth and said:

    "She was having tea"       Strike 1
    "Hillary's claws came out" Strike 2
    "When she's feeling down,
     Periodically"             Strike 3

    Just what I think and feel and why.

     

    Sorry after (3.66 / 3) (#26)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:06:05 PM EST
    Gloria Steinems terrible op ed "Women are nNever Front Runners" discounting the significance of a black man winning Iowa, and discounting the struggle of any minority that isn't female, I have trouble taking anything she writes seriously.

    Also I would have preferred it to stay positive, rather than discount Obamas opposition to the war:


    But we also note that her current opponent, when asked about that resolution in 2004, responded that he did not know how he would have voted had he been in Congress then.

    Also i found this paragraph particularly judgmental:

    How many of us have heard brilliant and resourceful women in the workplace dismissed or devalued for "detail-orientation" in contrast to a man's supposed "big picture" scope? How many of us have seen what, in a man, would be called "peerless mastery," get called, in a woman's case, "narrowness"? How many women have we known--truly gifted workers, professionals, and administrators--who have been criticized for their reserve and down-to-earth way of speaking? Whose commanding style, seriousness, and get-to-work style are criticized as "cold" and insufficiently "likable"? These prejudices have been scandalously present in this campaign.

    Essentially saying that if i prefer Obama's management style, that I'm conforming to some sort of sexist line of thinking.

    My guess is that if you buy this line of thinking, you are already a Clinton supporter.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    First of all, Christine Staunsell wrote this letter.

    Second of all, YOU have trouble taking Gloria Steinem seriously? YOU?

    Well, a very SERIOUS person like YOU is questioning this letter while providing no argument whatsoever, well that REALLY makes me rethink all of this . . .

    Heh, thanks for the chuckle.

    Parent

    The argument was that Steinem (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:28:18 PM EST
    discounted Obama's win in Iowa and that she defines the struggle for equality in strictly feminist terms.....

    It is an argument.  If there were a link to Steinem's comments, it could be a very good argument.

    Parent

    My guess is if you don't, you are male. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:14:59 PM EST
    Or at least you've never worked as a female in a male-dominated atmosphere.

    Parent
    I don't either (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Maggie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:05:35 PM EST
    I'm a woman and I have worked in a male-dominated work place.  My field is hugely male-dominant.  Indeed, for many years I was the only woman in my department.  

    And yet.  I've deleted the long comment about how counterproductive the notion that women's styles are underappreciated in comparison with men's was in my life.  Let's just say that not only do I not buy it, but that one of my big life-lessons was to learn that shrugging off those sorts of concerns led to a massive reduction in the sorts of slights that used to prompt those concerns in the first place.  You don't win respect by expecting to be disrespected and whining about it when you are.  You win respect by expecing to be respected.

    So please stop speaking about women as though we were some sort of monolithic group.  I tend to find it disrespectful of those of us who actually do have different opinions or experiences.

    Parent

    Where do I sign up? (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:35:25 PM EST
    [You don't win respect by expecting to be disrespected and whining about it when you are.  You win respect by expecing to be respected. ]

    Really, all I have to do is stop whining? The glass ceiling will vanish with that little wand waving?

    Where do I sign up?

    Blaming the victim of opression and sexism, yet again.  

    Well, for the record: Yes Hillary refuses to be a victim and so do we.  She gets up and works every day.  She earned the respect due her long, long time ago.  

    She is a terrific role model.  To borrow from Princess Di's mother: I am proud to bits of her.


    Parent

    Hold on (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by standingup on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:14:51 PM EST
    Acknowledging that these attitudes and problems still exist for women does not negate you or others who have found ways to be successful in spite of them.  It is great that you have accomplished this for yourself.  But there are still many who have not been able to do this and it is not because they have expected to be treated with disrespect or whined about it when it happened.  

    Parent
    Then I consider you lucky Maggie. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:19:00 PM EST
    Until I decided to kiss the corporate world goodbye two years ago, I advanced further than any women in Finance has yet in that company. I am sure that my experience is the majority one. If you can't relate to what these women said, then I won't, and wasn't trying to, speak for you.

    Parent
    yes i'm male (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    and i'm not supporting Hillary so i must hate women.  Jeez how did you know.

    Parent
    You are the one who blew off their (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:01:48 PM EST
    experiences in the workplace and said
    My guess is that if you buy this line of thinking, you are already a Clinton supporter.

    Jgarza, I don't know a women period that has worked around a group of men who hasn't experienced what these women said and worse. They didn't even go into the truly sexual part of discrimination.

    How would you like to open your desk drawer and find a condom blown up like a balloon jump out at you? How would you like to be the only professional women in the office and find your name on the kitchen clean-up duty list with the hourly women workers and not one male, even the hourly ones, had their name there.

    I like men and being a sports freak, I spend more time with them than I do women. My men friends understand how I feel and respect what women go through in these circumstances. You can't even take what they said at face value because it might somehow be seen as giving Hillary Clinton a little credit for what she has had to go through.

    Parent

    this has nothing to do (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:17:08 PM EST
    with Hillary Clinton, and those who support another candidate.

    Jgarza, I don't know a women period that has worked around a group of men who hasn't experienced what these women said and worse. They didn't even go into the truly sexual part of discrimination.

    the idea that you equate sexual discrimination, with those who don't support Hillary is troubling.

    Parent

    I don't Jgarza. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:24:16 PM EST
    I was just addressing your response to these women. You said anyone who feels the way they do would already be a Clinton supporter. I think you are wrong and I know Obama supporters who think HC and women in general have gotten a raw deal. How can you not see that?

    Parent
    if (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:29:13 PM EST
    you think that every argument made against Hillary Clinton has sexist undertones, why would you not be?

    Parent
    Just because someone can see that HC (none / 0) (#79)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:39:16 PM EST
    has to fight that battle doesn't mean they can't support Obama. Are you saying there are no Obama supporters who are enlightened enough to see sexism against her but still support him anyway? There are other reasons for choosing a candidate.

    I'm a Clinton supporter but I've seen all kinds of racist remarks about Obama. I can defend him without voting for him in the primary.

    Besides, no one is saying that every argument against Hillary Clinton is sexist.

    Parent

    NY NOW (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:29:47 PM EST
    certainly sees any criticism of Hillary as sexist--to say the least....

    Parent
    The letter is tendentious when describing (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:18:15 PM EST
    the ideal attributes of a President.  If you like details and Hillary's style, then you will like Hillary.  It is fairly circular.

    I don't like dismissing someone's point of view based on gender.....That's not equality.

    It seems as though criticism of Hillary is deemed per se criticism of all women.....The identification with Hillary is significant.

       

    Parent

    say what? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:17:22 PM EST
    of course men are practiced at devaluing women.

    If you want to posit that you prefer Obama's management style, that by itself says nothing about sexism...the only thing that suggests your sexism is your own comments.

    At the end of this process, there will be an insult to women or to blacks because one of theirs will have lost. If you are a black women, you will lose either way.

    Of course, we could look at it the other way...that women and blacks win either way here but I just don't see how the notion of winning by losing comes from your narrow perspective.

    Parent

    You can't take Gloria Stenem serious??!! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    Maybe you should read the entire Gloria Steinem article and put in context of what was happening in the media that week. And maybe you should do some reading on Gloria Steinem.

    The thing that really hit home with me was where she said that if any woman had come on to the presidential scene with 2 years of national experince and no foreign policy experience she would have been laughed of the room in a matter of minutes.


    Parent

    right (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:29:51 PM EST
    The thing that really hit home with me was where she said that if any woman had come on to the presidential scene with 2 years of national experince and no foreign policy experience she would have been laughed of the room in a matter of minutes

    yes i love how only things Hillary has done are allowed to count as "rational" experience.

    Parent

    Yet you imply (none / 0) (#37)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:34:38 PM EST
    that the letter is saying something negative with this:

    But we also note that her current opponent, when asked about that resolution in 2004, responded that he did not know how he would have voted had he been in Congress then.

    How is that negative?  Really?

    Parent

    It has been addressed (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    It is an attempt to demean the fact that he stood up to the war, it is a distortion.  

    Parent
    Joe Wilson says (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:45:47 PM EST
    When he (who was in the middle of battle against the drum roll to the War) looked left or right around that time, Obama was no where to be found.  

    Gore spoke out and became ridiculed.

    Joe Wilson spoke out and we all know what happened.

    Obama? Yeah, we all know:
    A noun, a verb, and a 5 year old speech.  

    I have a question for you:

    How many other speeches did he give?? If you are a leader, you just don't pack up and go.  You fight.  Prove to me that he fought against the War.  Prove to me that he did all he could to stop it.  Prove to me that he put something on the line.

    One speech doesn't make a leader.  MLK's "I have a dream" is arguably the most powerful speech I have heard.  Is that all MLK offered?  Did he have no history before and after that speech? Was it an empty rhetoric offered by a golden voice? Did he not go to jail for the promise that speech offered? Did he not, literally, put his life on the line for what he conveyed in that speech.

    Obama just gave a speech and went back to his comfy fireplace.  GIVE ME A BREAK.  

    Parent

    Hillary is a hawk (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:35:48 PM EST
    according to her voting record.....It just doesn't end with her vote on Iraq--she has gone off trusting Bush again with her vote on Iran.

    Obama's concern about mission creep in Iraq is a valid one given her voting record....

    Parent

    Nice try with trying to go off the track. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ghost2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:32:49 AM EST
    Could you kindly ANSWER those questions which I asked?

    Parent
    Giving a public speech (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:50:14 AM EST
    in 2002 was putting something on the line....Few would even do that....Could he have done more?  Perhaps, but he was not a federal official....Hillary was, as was Bill who said that to be a great President you have to be President during wartime and he regretted not having that opportunity.

    Now, please answer my question, do you not agree that Hillary is a hawk based on her voting record of not only favoring the Iraq war, but in also being one of the few Democrats to vote in favor of that horrid resolution on Iran?.....

    If you like hawks, Hillary should be right up your alley.....How being a hawk fits into a feminist agenda is anyone's guess.

    Parent

    and I love how everything positive (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:41:12 PM EST
    that has ever been uttered about Hillary Clinton is met with your default, "But Obama __" (fill in the blank.)

    I repeat: it is not always about Obama all the time.

    Parent

    thats funny (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    I repeat: it is not always about Obama all the time.

    clearly it is since the feminists can't help but bring him up in their letter of support.

    to rip off a quote from Hillary:

    I don't know why all these women are obsessed with him.

    Parent

    Do you really want to (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Maddie In Florida on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:45:32 PM EST
    have this person consume all the energy in the thread?

    I suggest we ignore Jgarza. He just wants attention

    Parent

    Huh?! (none / 0) (#47)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:49:58 PM EST
    I don't even know what you are implying Hillary's "rational" experience. What part of the experience she has laid out sounds irrational to you?

    Parent
    i never implied, or said her (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:25:51 PM EST
    experience wasn't rational.  

    I said that he supporters claim that only her type of experience is rational, and imply that her type if experience is the requirement to be president.

    Parent

    ok. (none / 0) (#73)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    I don't know about you, but I really think that "community organizing" does not qualify you for being president, and that is something he constantly refers to.

    My point is that he has had 2 years of national level experience of any kind and no international experience and contrast that with Sen. Clinton's life's work.

    Parent

    Experience (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:45:39 PM EST
    Obama has been in the Senate for 3 years; Hillary for 7.

    Before that, Hillary never held elective office.  She was First Lady for 8 years.  I would like Bill to say exactly how Hillary helped him (aside from health care), e.g., Hillary had this great idea re:  x, y and z.  But Bill tends to be vague about Hillary during the White House years.

    Before Obama was in the Senate, he was a state legislator for 8 years.  He has been in elective office longer than Hillary.

    Hillary was a full-time corporate lawyer in the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock; Obama was a full time civil rights lawyer....and law professor at the University of Chicago....

    She has more experience but not as much as she trumpets--and she certainly has not been in public service her entire adult life....  

    Parent

    You would take Ellen Carol Du Bois (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:16:09 AM EST
    seriously, the first name on the list, if you knew her or even anything about her and her work.  I had her as a prof, and it turned my life into a new and rewarding direction ever since.  And mainly because she is as tough as she is brilliant and never let any of us get away with anything but painstaking research and careful, critical thinking before we came to our decisions.

    I know she brought the same brilliance and analytical ability to this decision . . . so I'm so glad that I don't even have to try to disagree with her on this one, because I never saw her -- then and in many years since, as I've continued to watch her -- lose an argument.  

    My advice is to lissen up and study up on what Dr. Du Bois has to say here.  It could be on the test -- and it could be a pop quiz with no warning.  Get your arguments and evidence ready.

    Parent

    As I've said before (none / 0) (#29)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    I'm a tepid Obama supporter.  And so you can count me as one who read and liked what I read in this statement.

    Also I would have preferred it to stay positive, rather than discount Obamas opposition to the war...

    Honestly, I didn't take this as an unduly negative statement so much as an attempt to better contextualize what was at stake comparatively for the candidates.  Though there are several competing statements with feminists endorsing Obama, I was struck by the mature and level-headed tone of this statement (Feminists for Clinton).  I didn't find it negative at all.

    Parent

    I found none of it unduly negative. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Compound F on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:26:17 PM EST
    This is a battle of details, sort of.  I still remain suspicious of the Clintons and Obama.  Sorry, but none have rocked my world.  I look at them all with a jaundiced eye.

    Parent
    Please don't refer o Hillary (none / 0) (#91)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:18:19 PM EST
    as "the Cintons".

    Parent
    But Hillary takes credit for the 90s economy (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    She often talks about how "we" did this and did that in the 90s.....

    She relies on Bill's record...

    Parent

    I have listened to her speeches (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by hairspray on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:59:16 PM EST
    very carefully to see if I detected and "we turned the economy around in the '90's' and I have not.  What I have heard her say obliqely is that we had a good economy in the '90's after a Clinton cleaned up the mess from Reagan/Bush...etc.  It has always been referred to as a Democratic administration and not my husband and I.  If you have heard otherwise, I would like to hear it. I think that our Democratic candidates should stress the good economy to counter the tax and spend liberals mantra of the GOP, but it seems the left wing would rather choke than give credit where credit was due.

    Parent
    Same difference (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:23:08 AM EST
    It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, etc....

    "Left Wing"--I guess that is referring to Obama supporters.  Has the McGovern swiftboating emanating from camp Hillary sprung forward so fast?...

    Hillary has advocated more extensive intrusion in the private market than has Obama via her health insurance mandates and moritorium on foreclosures....Straight out of Huey Long....She is the more liberal on economic issues....

    Parent

    Obama's Management style (none / 0) (#110)
    by miriam on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:04:49 AM EST
    What is Obama's management style?  I heard him describe himself as someone who could not hold onto a piece of paper for more than 5 minutes without losing it. That his desk is a "mess". Why do I not find that reassuring?  Perhaps because it reminds me of the current White House occupant?  

    Parent
    Obama is big picture (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:52:46 AM EST
    I like that style....Clerks can file the papers...

    And there is detail if one cares too look....  

    Parent

    So please speculate for me (none / 0) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:12:57 PM EST
    What percent of the popular vote is the "feminist intellectual" endorsement worth?

    I've been watching the endorsement game all campaign, and I really can't figure out what it gets either candidate.

    There are powerful women (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:15:41 PM EST
    in the media who have yet to declare.  To them especially I imagine that it means a great deal.

    Parent
    no matter the purpose (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    considering all the crap that goes on in the msm, to read someone else who is intelligent and engaged echoing what I (and other women) have felt for a long time.  There is nothing wrong or unseemly about women supporting other women.  It is refreshing, actually, and give lie to the notion that only "low-information, blue collar, working class" types support Clinton.

    So, to those of you who ask what's the big deal or who does this inspire: it inspires ME.

    Parent

    I thought it was a well written letter (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM EST
    Other than that, I do not have much to tell you.

    Parent
    It was extremely (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Coldblue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    well written.

    Thanks for posting it.

    Parent

    It counters well an earlier letter (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:21:08 AM EST
    by feminists for Obama.  So it has a lot of value in doing so.

    Parent
    All in all (none / 0) (#2)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:13:42 PM EST
    this was a very nice statement.  Thank you for presenting it here.  I intend to pass it along to many friends.

    is there a link somewhere for the (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    authors, it goes on forever!

    Got it in a e-mail (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    I could cut out the authors I suppose.

    Parent
    thanks, that's much better (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:29:37 PM EST
    a link (none / 0) (#15)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:43:13 PM EST
    The only online link I have seen thus far is from HuffPo (no comments) - but curiously (or perhaps not so curiously), they drove it off the front page..

    Huffington Post link to 'Feminists Letter'

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:45:27 PM EST
    Christine gave me no link.

    Parent
    It indicates that perhaps (none / 0) (#8)
    by felizarte on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:25:50 PM EST
    Obama may not have the "educated" women in his camp after all.

    It seems safe (none / 0) (#11)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    to conclude that neither camp has cornered the market on credible intelligent women supporters.

    Parent
    Feminists can't all agree with one another. (none / 0) (#14)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:41:14 PM EST
    I'm not sure about this, but I think there is a full page ad that is coming out in a local Wisconsin paper tomorrow. Its an ad that is sponsered by a 100 Wisconsin women for Obama.

    I read it on Mark Halperin's The Page on time.com, but he has since removed that story.

    Parent

    Thoughful and Strong - Thank you (none / 0) (#12)
    by Boo Radly on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:39:19 PM EST
    for sharing this. Who else has it? You know you will be attacked for posting it - just when I find a sane blog.

    Thank you!

    It's nice that it doesn't go negative (none / 0) (#18)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM EST
    but saying that they are inspired by Clinton doesn't necessarily make Clinton inspiring to others.

    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:49:13 PM EST
    And you or anyone saying Obama is inspiring to them does not make Obama inspiring to others.

    Not sure what your point is.

    Parent

    the point is to take (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:50:19 PM EST
    a lovely, inspiring letter written by and endorsed by a group of well-respected and educated women and reduce it to meaningless.

    Parent
    It seems so (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:52:46 PM EST
    But I would never speculate as to Bob's motives.

    Parent
    no, because you try to be fair (none / 0) (#24)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:53:45 PM EST
    I suppose I will, too--Bob, what did you mean?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#25)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:05:43 PM EST
    Bob's comment just sounds like more of the dismissive attitude of Clinton/her accomplishments that most of the more "spirited" Obama camp has tried to hammer around.  I'm not buying it...the letter was true inspiration with substance, sans the vague concepts.

    Parent
    but wait, there's more... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:13:04 PM EST
    Come on, folks.  It's a letter, not a doctoral thesis or a manifest.  Why does it have to be explicated for unsightly passages?  Why does it have to be interpreted as an implicit dig at the Great and Mighty O?

    It's simply a message that says, "hey, Clinton supporters out there--we are with you.  We understand this historical moment and we are here to take your hand and march toward that ultimate goal, that dream that seemed laughably impossible when we were girls."

    It has nothing-absolutely nothing-to do with Obama and everything to do with intelligent, well-educated WOMEN supporting intelligent, well-educated WOMEN.  It was not written to challenge your manhood or denigrate your vaunted position in the world.  It was simply written to inspire...and judging from what some women have commented here, it has worked.

    And I would say shut the he*l up, but that would be unladylike and y'all know I am a lady.

    Parent

    "When we were girls" (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:50:50 PM EST
    It seems a little exclusionary.....It should be about the best candidate, not about electing a woman.....  

    Parent
    according to Mark Halperin (none / 0) (#112)
    by white n az on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:06:29 AM EST
    you get a 'pussy' either way (why did Time hire him anyway?)

    Parent
    Do not try to tell us how we (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:30:59 AM EST
    "should feel" at this moment in American history -- not women's history, mind you, but American history.

    Argue with us or the letter-writers re their thoughts, sure.  But to tell anyone how they should feel is controlling . . . and that is the sort of behavior that crosses the line.  Cool it -- or just try to go tell my African American neighbor how he "should feel" about seeing someone much like himself and his son taken seriously for president.

    And I don't know how my neighbor will vote.  We discuss our stands and thoughts and even feeling about this moment, but we never would tell each other how we "should" feel.  We simply celebrate it together . . . before we go our separate ways in the polling booth.  And I know that he will vote how he thinks is best, and I will do the same.  

    And then, when we come out of our polling place, we will celebrate how we feel about being part of this moment -- as we all "should."

    Parent

    Guess What (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    Not everyone finds Obama inspirational.

    Parent
    I certainly don't find him inspirational (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:35:21 PM EST
    I find him boring, No substance. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:02:21 PM EST
    Check this out....

    On Friday, Obama said that he would let Michigan delegates join the convention if it is done without affecting the outcome.........

    Say what!!!

    That's like OK, Hillary, bring all your CA and NY delegates, but if they're going to put you over the top, they can't come.

    Obama is losing it already.

    Parent

    Jeez, that's typical (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:23:33 PM EST
    Most of the time, I have no clue what the heck he means by what he says.  I don't think it's just me since I have no problem understanding the other candidates.

    Seems like he covers every side of every question and just leaves it all dangling out there highly inspired.


    Parent

    Well, look at it in terms of raw power (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:57:32 PM EST
    Money contributed, volunteers, putting people in the seats....He can mobilize people and that is talent worth something....

    Parent
    Friday huh? (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:50:54 PM EST
    Funny that's the same day that Kos came out with his solution to the MI, FL problem.  It happens to have the same result as Obama's idea.

    So that leads to my solution:

    4.) Split their delegates 50/50. Give Clinton half the delegates, Obama the other half. The states get representation at the convention, but we don't have to change the rules of the game mid-contest in a way that impacts the race unfairly.

    Sure, the Clinton partisans wouldn't like it, but if the issue is enfranchising those state's Democrats, this is the fair way to do it.

    Amazing how they both think that it's a valid enfranchisement only if the votes have no effect.  I always thought that for votes to be valid they had to have an effect.  

    Parent

    Combat medic to PhD (none / 0) (#46)
    by Allin on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:49:15 PM EST
    I totally understand this and very proudly say, "The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pantsuit."  Press forward Madame President.

    Huffpo has buried this (none / 0) (#92)
    by AM on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:19:10 PM EST
    Sure glad you reprinted this because it's not on the Huffpo front page now (Saturday evening). They couldn't wait to bury it.

    Geo Bush is to Fox News (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:26:25 PM EST
    what Obama is to Huffpost....translation: not really news, but propaganda....

    Parent
    Look at the respective campaigns (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:21:53 PM EST
    Neither Hillary nor Barack has held an executive position.  So let's look at their campaigns.....Who ran out of money, who foolishly abandoned the caucus states, who kept people stubbornly out of loyalty.....

    valid point (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:38:55 PM EST
    but that doesn't forgive Barack on his 'bone-headed' dealings with Rezko (his words when discussing the simultaneous purchase of the house and land next door) or the claim that he didn't know what Rezko was doing with the properties (despite writing letters to governmental agencies on his behalf).

    I think that Hillary's campaign vastly underestimated the impact that the main stream media would ultimately play by critically inspecting every word she or her surrogates utter versus the lack of inspection on those coming from Obama's campaign.

    The impact has been huge. Just ask Edwards who found it impossible to get his message across simply because the main stream media made it impossible

    Parent

    That means Axelrod is a manager, but he (none / 0) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:26:31 PM EST
    still looks like a ferret to me.

    Parent
    Also, by that comparison then (none / 0) (#98)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:27:48 PM EST
    George W Bush would be a wonderful president.

    Parent
    Very well said! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:35:01 PM EST
    The similarities between Obama and W are getting more and more scary!

    Parent
    Except that I don't ever recall Bush (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:10:00 AM EST
    saying sexist stuff, the sort of comments we're hearing almost weekly from Obama.  I said this on an earlier thread today and asked for correction, if I missed misogynist comments by Bush, and no one offered any.

    That is really scary.  We deal with enough of this stuff; we don't need it from on high in the White House.  

    Parent

    Dubya a sexist? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:13:14 AM EST
    In a word:  Prolife.

    Parent
    That is different; read my verb (none / 0) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:48:15 AM EST
    I did not say that Bush does not take stands that hurt women, from my vantage point.  (At least he takes stands and does not vote "present" when such issues come before him for a vote. . . .!)

    I said I don't recall that Bush ever said such sexist stuff as Obama does on an alarmingly regular basis.  

    Can you address what I said?

    Parent

    Sure, I can address it (none / 0) (#129)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:15:08 AM EST
    in the form of an EZ syllogism:  

    1.  Prolife absolutism is a profoundly sexist philosophy.

    2.  Utterances in deliberate support of profoundly sexist philosophies (however politely they may be delivered, m'am)are sexist utterances.

    3.  Dubya has made countless politely delivered sexist utterances, but among them all... his prolife fatwas are par excellence.

    4.  Ergo, Dubya is a sexist.

    Hope that helps.

    Parent
    Obama is scary (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:27:23 AM EST
    A little over the top.  Kate Michelman has endorsed him for Pete's sake....

    Parent
    It is not the management style (none / 0) (#111)
    by hairspray on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:06:25 AM EST
    that should be of great concern, it is the nuclear power industry that Obama supports.  When nuclear power gets subsidized the way they want to be there will be no money for altenraive energy and the wheels will come off of it once again. Nuclear power will become king and it will be hard to control that industry.

    Parent
    I thought you said Obama was (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:26:19 AM EST
    the more liberal or left wing, but here you say he is too pro nuke...

    Barbar Boxer stands up for Obama on the issue of the energy bill....Why hasn't she edorsed Hillary?  Hell, she used to be related to her....

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:18:58 AM EST
    Nice summary.