“Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
1 of 2
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, though Senator Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.

One thing we can tell from recent polling though is the absolutely stunning gains by Obama. It’s clear there is a political platonic shift happening larger than I’ve ever seen.

I mean, he won South Carolina by OVER TWICE as many voters as Hillary. Unbelievable! I’ve been surprised at how people don’t seem to talking about that. Turns out the polls were way off there as well – many S.C. polls had him up around 10% the day before. Obama won by over 25%. Amazing.

When he talks about change I keep asking what that change will be

If you have a few hours, you might want to poke around at this link:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

It’s one of the most detailed “plans” I can ever remember seeing from a candidate.

I really like a lot of what’s in there. There’s some middle-of-the-road stuff, but not much. There’s plenty to critique Obama about, but the frequent “all speech, no details” complaint ain’t one of ‘em IMO.

I also like that Hillary has some details to tell the public about her plans. I like her goal of universal healthcare tremendously (since it’s almost Edwards!). I don’t like her votes on Iraq, Iran, and, retch, the flag issue!

I don’t know why Obama took his signature speech against the Iraq Invasion off his website when he decided to run for the Senate. I don’t like that he watered down his bill on requiring nuke energy sites to report leaks, eventually giving control to the NRC and the nuke energy plant companies themselves (d’uh!). It was when R’s controlled the Senate, but he gave them everything they wanted. So his bipartisan dream sort of scares me.

When he talks about change I keep asking what that change will be. We’ve had extraordinary change over the course of the Bush Maladministration, almost all of it extraordiarliy bad, even if he did say that R’s had most of the ideas the past 10-15 years (Clinton’s two admiinstrations and now Bush’s two–uh, was he sure about his dates?). I like his ability to bring out young people. Then I ask if they know what they’re supporting or moving toward. I don’t like that Obama dissed the movement people of the 60’s and 70’s when he spoke to the Reno editorial board.

But, mostly, I want to know why he doesn’t talk more about his plans and give his change idea some substance.

So, by Tuesday….gotta make the vote.

He’s on the graveyard shift, I go to bed at 10 and get up @ 5:30 so we are in dofferent orbits. Since WUGA is the flagship for the entire Georgia NPR network my guess is that he plays it pretty straight.

You can listen to TRex’s program online (though at this moment I can’t get it to work).

Nevada ia as excited as California about Super Tuesday. You’d think they were caucusing again.

Are you guys sending people down to work the doorbells? ;-)

I know we Californians are always up in Nevada trying to turn out the vote!