It is sexist to comment on Senator Clinton’s cleavage. It is sexist to call her voice shrill because women have higher pitched voices then men. It is sexist to comment obsessively about Senator Clinton’s relationship with her daughter and husband when not doing the same to the male candidate. It is sexist to require the female candidate to make peace with her inner voice while not requiring the same thing of the male candidate. It is sexist to call a female candidate a bitch. It is sexist to comment on the way a female candidate dresses while not doing the same for the male candidate. While you have been spending your time on you tube, so called liberal columnists for the New York Times and Washington Post as well as pundits on so called liberal tv like CNN and MSNBC, have assidiously been working to promote all of the commentary mentioned above.

Senator Obama has said nothing and his supporters in blogworld have said nothing. In your posts, you have said virtually nothing about this. That’s sexist and that’s my point. You and many of the people who support your candidate are happy to sit quietly while Hillary Clinton is subject to attacks not based on issues but based on gender. This may provide a temporary tactical advantage to Senator Obama’s candidacy; it sets a terrible precedent for any woman audacious enough to seek the presidency.

As for racism in the campaign, it is disgusting to claim that Senator Obama is a follower of Islam when it isn’t true. Any suggestion that this came from the Clinton campaign is innuendo and slanderous. Bill Clinton did mention that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice. That’s not racism, its factually true. Please don’t try (as pundits often do) to claim you have any special insight into why he said what he said. What ever you think of the comment, it’s factually completely accurate.

Senator Clinton’s comments about the role played by President Johnson in signing civil rights legislation was not racist, it was accurate and the comments was praised by many civil rights leaders of the time, black and white. Senator Obama’s criticism of the comment was a cannard.

As far as I can tell, the only questionable comment pertaining to race that came out of the Clinton campaign was when Governor Sheehan’s husband referred to Senator Obama’s youthful use of illegal drugs. I think that was designed to inspire racial feelings and was disgusting. Senator Clinton promptly dismissed the man who made these comments from her campaign. She acted quickly and appropriately. When Mr. Johnson of BET made similar remarks, he was reprimanded, but in my view, not severely enough.

If Senator Obama wins the nomination it certainly doesn’t mean that the people who voted for him are sexists. But don’t tell me that the sexist barrage directed agaisnt Senator Clinton will have had no effect. The effect will be real, it will be lasting and it will discourage female candidates in the future, the ones, Gharlane, that you like as well as the one’s that you dislike.

With best wishes.

please do not post comments that are excessively long. they get caught in the filters and the moderators on duty have to free them.

this was pointed out when your comment at 187 which was caught and freed with a MODNOTE at the end. in case you did not see it, i’ve cut and pasted it into this comment.

~~~ModNote: In the future, please break up long posts such as this into several comments to avoid it being caught in the spam filters .~~~

your petition comment was moderated because it exceeded fair use – which is usually understood to mean one uses less than 200 words or so and then give a link to the site so people go there to read it.

For starters, I certainly agree that both sexism and racism are rampant in America. Oddly, you appear to discuss sexism to the exclusion of racism, which is a factor in the Obama campaign, and it’s a factor in the attacks directed against Obama by the Clinton campaign and their surrogates. Clinton surrogates have also used the fake “Barack’s a secret Muslim” meme against him. Do you have any comments on that?

Second, I do not present myself as being either nonsexist or nonracist. I am anti-sexist and
anti-racist, and I know that I live in a society that is both sexist and racist, and I am not immune from either. The best I can do is struggle against it, in myself and in others.

Now, your original post in this thread read as follows:

Here’s the problem, the left is as sexist, or even more sexist than the right.

No disagreement that both the left and the right are sexist. You’ll have an interesting time proving that the left is more sexist than the right, but if you want to, have at it. But I’m not taking your word for it. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s worth it. There is certainly sexism, and racism, and anti-Semitism, and all the other isms and ills, on both sides of the political spectrum, and everywhere in between.

McCain supporters, Obama supporters, Romney supporters have all gladly joined in the sexist chorus against Hillary.

Probably so, although you’ve not demonstrated your characterization of a “sexist chorus.” I’m willing to concede the point for the sake of argument.

Hillary Clinton is the best chance that women have of breaking the ultimate glass ceiling in politics.

Best chance? Really? Why? Because she happens to be a woman candidate, running now, regardless of her record or her merits?

If she can’t be nominated by the democratic party it will set the cause of women in political life back by a quarter century. It will prove that a better qualified woman has no chance against a less qualified man. Great message for our daughters, isn’t it?

And here’s where you lost me. First, you make the bare assertion, without substantiation, that Clinton is better qualified than Obama, and that she’s the better candidate for the country. I disagree with that, as do many others, including feminists, as I pointed out, and for reasons that have everything to do with feminism. I described the reasons why they and we do so, something you have failed to do. I dispute your assertion that “If she can’t be nominated by the democratic party it will set the cause of women in political life back by a quarter century.” I have explained why, and I explain in even more detail below. But in brief, that sentence assumes, without demonstrating, that if Hillary loses then it must be because of sexism, and for no other reason. That is the central problem I have with your reasoning, and none of your responses to date have addressed that problem.

Now, on to your last post.

You are certainly right that there are quite a few passionate feminists supporting Senator Obama. I think you would agree that there are probably more supporting Senator Clinton (see Emily’s list endorsement as just one example). Dueling quotes from Obama versus Clinton supporters elucidates nothing.

I’m not interested in a numbers game about whether “more” feminists support Clinton or Obama. I’m interested in their reasoning from feminist principles, examples of which I presented. That’s not a “dueling quotes” game, it’s a presentation of reasoning from principles. Sorry if that’s opaque to you.

Here’s the problem. Senator Obama is the media darling. Hillary Clinton is deluged with sexist criticism and commentary. …..

I don’t listen to MSM that much, and I don’t watch it at all. Literally. I have a TV but it’s permanently off. Every now and then I see quotes. I see YouTube clips. I agree that sexism has been directed against Clinton, and some racism against Obama. There has been some push-back against both, almost certainly not enough. So I can’t really comment on whether there’s been more racism against Obama, or sexism against Clinton, or for that matter sexism against “Breck Girl” John Edwards. (Yes, sexism gets directed against men, primarily by claiming that they’re — gasp, horors — “girly girls”, and Edwards was relentlessly feminized in the media, because they were scared of him.) I can say that in the blog world (check, for example, the TPMElectionCentral blogs) that lots of Obama supporters have voiced disgust at sexism leveled against Clinton. I also think that Obama supporters have probably construed some comments as racist when they were not (Bill’s “fairy tale” comment comes to mind), and some Clinton supporters have construed some comments as sexist when they are not. I don’t however, concede the assertion that “remarks pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s gender are left uncommented on by most so called progressives, while similar invective directed against Senator Obama’s race would never be tolerated.” Clinton supporters make that assertion all the time, but it’s very, very easy to claim bias, and much more difficult to back it up. Same with the assertion that Obama is the “media darling.” Several months ago Clinton was the presumptive nominee, and she was routinely described as “inevitable”. Did that make her the media “darling?” Again, it’s easy to claim bias, difficult to substantiate.

In my opinion silence in the face of an injustice is just as bad, but you might not feel this way.

Silence in the face of injustice is not quite as bad as actively committing injustice, but it can be damn close (speaking as a Jew, I have a certain historical perspective on that one, as the world mostly sat by and watched a few million of my people get rounded up into ghettoes, shot, gassed and burned). So I think I agree with you that silence in the face of injustice is pretty bad. I disagree with you that it’s “just as bad.” That’s a minor quibble. But judging just from my own impressions, Clinton supporters have been just as unlikely to call out racist attacks on Obama as Obama supporters have been unlikely to call out sexist attacks on Clinton.

Have you, WigWag, said a single word about racism directed against Obama? If you claim that I am under an obligation to oppose every single instance of sexist stereotypes being used against Clinton, then I submit that you are under an equal obligation to oppose every instance of racist stereotypes being used against Obama.

I do acknowledge the sexism directed against Clinton. Where I disagree with you is in your conclusion that if she loses a particular race, it must be due to sexism, as well as the obverse claim, that if she wins a particular race, it must be attributable to her record and her merits, as opposed to her status as a woman. And I repeat what I have said above, and the women I quoted have discussed at length: Clinton may be a woman, but she is NOT the feminist candidate, her anatomy and chromosomes notwithstanding.

Two other points; you disparage my comment referring to the fact that women will get the message that they have no allies when sexist attacks are directed against them and the left remains silent, as “shallow identity politics.” I wonder why you think that its not shallow identity politics when African Americans give their votes to Senator Obama by margins of 70-80 percent but it is shallow identity politics when I suggest that true progressives would fight sexism tooth and nail.

You are, at best, putting words in my mouth. Why do you think that I think what you claim I think? You are also rewriting the history of your own posts. I agree with you that progressives should fight sexism tooth and nail. I disagree with you that a Hillary loss MUST be attributable to sexism.

The Clintons came in to this campaign with a sense of entitlement and inevitability. I have already posted on why I think Eight More Years of Clintonism would be a very bad idea for this country. Better than McCain, but still bad. I haven’t even scratched the surface of why, but I did mention it, and you have ignored that point. Do you acknowledge that it is just barely possible that people might agree and pick a different candidate for reasons other than sexism? Why is it that a Hillary win MUST be attributable to her own merits, but a Hillary loss MUST be attributable solely to sexism?

I think that African-Americans voting for Obama simply and solely because he is black IS shallow identity politics. I think that Jews voting for (ugh) Joe Lieberman simply and solely because he is Jewish would also be shallow identity politics. I think that Latinos voting for Bill Richardson simply and solely because he is Latino would be likewise. I don’t doubt that there are some women, some African Americans, some Jews, and some Latinos who practice that. But that was not my point, and you have twisted my point in to something you would like to respond to, rather than what I actually said. Let me quote it to you again: “It just can’t be possible, can it, that Hillary could lose the nomination, not because tried-and-true tactics for destroying women have worked, but because people didn’t like her record, her policies, her political connections? Or because they were tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Or because someone else, who just happened to be male, was more inspirational? Nah, couldn’t be. Gotta be sexism. That’s the ONLY possible explanation.” The “shallow identity politics” I refer to is the assumption that no factor other than sexism can be discussed if a woman candidate loses. “Shallow identity politics” is what Clarence Thomas practiced when he presented the eminently justified attacks on him and his record as a “high tech lynching” during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. I don’t enjoy seeing Clinton supporters using Clarence Thomas’s tactics.

In your post you say, “Barbara Boxer damned right” Hillary Clinton just barely better than McCain (that’s a paraphrase). Perhaps you missed my point that if a candidate with all the advantages (money, fame, passionate supporters nationwide)Hillary Clinton has can’t secure the nomination, the chances of someone you would prefer (like I guess, Barbara Boxer)stands no chance at all.

I didn’t miss it. I just disagree with it. And I pointed out why in my previous post. You still fail to even consider whether a Hillary loss could be attributable to something OTHER than sexism. Did you miss that point?

Two other points; you disparage my comment referring to the fact that women will get the message that they have no allies when sexist attacks are directed against them and the left remains silent, as “shallow identity politics.”

If you construe every attack on Clinton as sexist, and every loss of hers as being because of sexism, then you have presented us with a foregone conclusion. And that’s what you wrote: “If Hillary Clinton can’t get the nomination the chance that the women you mentioned or any other woman will become president in the forseeable future is essentially nil. My guess is that you would agree that this would be a bad outcome. The tried and true approach to destroying a woman candidate will have worked (once again)and it will be amply evident to women everywhere that they can’t rely on their so-called progressive allies for support. You present NO OTHER REASON for Hillary losing the nomination than sexism. None. It just doesn’t hit the radar screen that people might, you know, disapprove of her record or something. I disagree with your premise: I believe that some other woman could very well get the nomination, even if Clinton could not. And the reason HAS TO DO WITH HER RECORD, and her connections, and Clinton family history of militarism and Republican-lite governance. It has to do with Clinton taking more money from the military-industrial complex than all the other Democrats combined, and far more than any single Republican candidate. It has to do with Mark Penn and Burson-Marsteller. It has to do with the DLC. It has to do with Ickes, Rubin, McAuliffe, and Emanuel, and Holbrooke, and on and on.

I presented plenty of reasons, in my own words and others’, why people might oppose a Clinton candidacy — reasons having nothing to do with sexism, and in some cases, reasons having everything to do with feminism. You have ignored every single one of them (except for the throwaway line that the “litany of criticisms of Senator Clinton could be easily rebutted.” Because if she loses or is opposed, it’s gotta be about sexism.

My final question to you is, don’t you think its sexist to attribute Hillary’s New Hampshire victory to women motivated by the faux crying episode. Do you think that’s how women vote? They see a sister cry and they decide to abandon their principles and just give her their vote? Do yu believe they ignore their view of which candidate can best help their family and their situation in life and instead make their decision based on a television clip that anyone could see is bogus. You can’t have a high regard for women if you think that.

That’s not how I remember it being portrayed (again, mostly from YouTube clips and quotes. I really don’t watch TV. Really.) The portrayal I recall was: Women (and men) came out and defended Clinton from sexism directed against her in the MSM arising out of the “crying” episode. And I certainly attribute at least a portion of her margin as a reaction from women and men against that kind of sexism. I think that’s natural and in some respects even laudable, although it’s not the motivation I would choose to cast my vote. But once again, the way you portray this episode demonstrates how you are trying to twist a narrative into something that better suits a single-issue focus. The narrative wasn’t “women voted for Hillary because she cried,” it was “women voted for Hillary because they were pissed at Chris Matthews and the rest of the sexist media who used sexist stereotypes against her after she cried.” But that doesn’t fit your narrative. I also resent your repeated insinuations that if I disagree with you, or your narrative, or how you present it, then I must not “have a high regard for women” or disrespect how or why women vote, especially when I never said such a thing. In fact, I said nothing about the “faux crying episode” at all. Nothing. You brought it up, and then proceeded to presume to know what I think about it. Please stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. Thank you.

One additional postscript, you can dial down the indignation. I never said it was good for women or anyone else that Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of England.

Sigh. My point, for the umpteenth time, is that a woman candidate is not necessarily either a good candidate or a feminist candidate. Margaret Thatcher is a glaring example of that principle. Marilyn Musgrave is another. So would Phyllis Schlafly if she were to run for office. Condi Rice. The list of awful women may not be as long as the list of awful men, but it ain’t short, either. And I think Clinton (both of them) are a lot closer to Margaret Thatcher than their supporters care to admit.

I am indignant, btw, at what Thatcherism, Clintonism, Bushism, Blairism and Reaganism have done both to the UK and the US — not to mention the rest of the world, which doesn’t even have a say in whom we elect, but which suffers the consequences. Sorry if that offends you. And I don’t want to see more of it.

So you tell me, gharlane, who is more progressive, the conservatives in Europe or the so called progressives in the United States?

Well, if the sole measure of progressivism is a willingness to nominate or elect a woman of any stripe, regardless of record, policies, positions, etc., then I guess the progressive prize goes to the European conservatives. But once again, I don’t buy the premise. And I might add that a lot of European (and Canadian) “conservatives” stake out positions well to the left of United States “centrists” and in some cases, even “liberals.” They certainly stake out positions to the left of Hillary Clinton. And all of this renders your whole “who’s more progressive” construct logically suspect.

BTW, Chancellor Merkel’s first name is Angela.

I have no particular illusions about Obama, btw. He was never my favorite. My favorite was Kucinich, with Dodd and Edwards sort of tied for second. Richardson was in there too. And guess what? It had nothing to do with the color of their skin or their anatomy. It had to do with their records, their stands, their policies. Regarding the two Democrats left standing at this point (and more’s the pity), I think Obama’s advisors are somewhat less corporate and distinctly less warlike than Clinton’s. But progressives are going to have a fight on our hands to get real progressive, feminist, antiracist, antipoverty, just and peace-oriented policies passed no matter whether Clinton or Obama gets the nod. I just think it will be harder — significantly harder — with Clinton. Obama has a decent record of community organizing among ordinary working-class and poor folks, and I harbor some faint hope that he can be persuaded (by us) to remember those roots, even as the corporate suits running the Democratic Party and the country continue to mold him in their image (although not for public consumption). I also think that, for whatever reason, Obama has shown that he can win over independents, which will be crucial in a general election, and Obama has been shown to inspire people to get active in politics, often for the first time, which is crucial to the future of our battered, tattered, endangered democracy.

For those reasons, and those reasons alone, I prefer Obama over Clinton. Clinton’s record, on too many crucial issues, is too unambiguous for her to merit my support. And I think that that record just might explain some of the opposition to Clinton. Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton doesn’t get the nomination, or, God forbid, gets the nomination but loses the general, you’ll consider the possibility that she wasn’t the right candidate, for a host of reasons, rather than assuming that it had to be sexism.

Also for the record, if Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her and support her. Holding my nose, which I am really $%#@!&! tired of doing with Democrat after Democrat after Democrat, but I’ll do it. In particular, Supreme Court nominations will be too important to let the election go to McCain or any other Republican.

~~~ModNote: In the future, please break up long posts such as this into several comments to avoid it being caught in the spam filters .~~~

You are certainly right that there are quite a few passionate feminists supporting Senator Obama. I think you would agree that there are probably more supporting Senator Clinton (see Emily’s list endorsement as just one example). Dueling quotes from Obama versus Clinton supporters elucidates nothing.

My main point througout my string of posts on this subject, is that people who think of themselves as progressive are just as guilty of sexism as people who they think are right wing. This is what I said…

“Here’s the problem. Senator Obama is the media darling. Hillary Clinton is deluged with sexist criticism and commentary. The media feels free to comment on Hillary’s cleavage, her style of dress, the timbre of her voice, her relationship with her husband, her relationship with her daughter, the fact that she’s too smart and wonkish and not in touch enough with her feelings, whether she shed a tear, etc. While Senator Obama may not endorse these comments, his silence and the silence of his supporters is deafening. I don’t even necessarily blame Senator Obama for his silence, he wants to win and will do anything to accomplish it. That’s okay, Hillary Clinton would do (and has done)the same thing; that’s just politics. But you have to admit, remarks pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s gender are left uncommented on by most so called progressives, while similar invective directed against Senator Obama’s race would never be tolerated.”

If you want your post to be a meaninful response to what I said, this is what you have to address. I would certainly be interested in hearing your comments, if you want to make them.

By the way, I acknowledge that the sexism of many Obama supporters is an act of ommission (not speaking out, but instead, remaining silent)not an act of commission (making sexist comments themselves). In my opinion silence in the face of an injustice is just as bad, but you might not feel this way.

In your post you say, “Barbara Boxer damned right” Hillary Clinton just barely better than McCain (that’s a paraphrase). Perhaps you missed my point that if a candidate with all the advantages (money, fame, passionate supporters nationwide)Hillary Clinton has can’t secure the nomination, the chances of someone you would prefer (like I guess, Barbara Boxer)stands no chance at all. All the sexist talking points made by the main stream media and blogworld could easily be directed against Barbara Boxer or any woman that you might prefer. If it kills a Clinton candidacy it would surely kill a Boxer candidacy. Your unwillingness to acknowlege (and fight)the profound sexism directed against Senator Clinton because it temporarily benefits the candidate you prefer, destroys the prospects for woman candidates anywhere, anytime. That’s what sexism of the left is all about.

Two other points; you disparage my comment referring to the fact that women will get the message that they have no allies when sexist attacks are directed against them and the left remains silent, as “shallow identity politics.” I wonder why you think that its not shallow identity politics when African Americans give their votes to Senator Obama by margins of 70-80 percent but it is shallow identity politics when I suggest that true progressives would fight sexism tooth and nail.

My final question to you is, don’t you think its sexist to attribute Hillary’s New Hampshire victory to women motivated by the faux crying episode. Do you think that’s how women vote? They see a sister cry and they decide to abandon their principles and just give her their vote? Do yu believe they ignore their view of which candidate can best help their family and their situation in life and instead make their decision based on a television clip that anyone could see is bogus. You can’t have a high regard for women if you think that.

One additional postscript, you can dial down the indignation. I never said it was good for women or anyone else that Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of England. I was merely answering another post which asked if conservatives would ever consider nominating a women. The answer was, at least in England, they did. Her name was Margaret Thatcher. I could also have pointed out that the current Chancellor of Germany, Andrea Merkel, is also the head of the conservative party there. So at least in Europe, conservatives are willing to advance women candidates to the highest office. In the United States, progressives remain silent when a credible women candidates is attacked about her dress, her demeanor, the timbre of her voice and her relatinship with her husband and daughter. So you tell me, gharlane, who is more progressive, the conservatives in Europe or the so called progressives in the United States?

More shallow identity politics. It just can’t be possible, can it, that Hillary could lose the nomination, not because tried-and-true tactics for destroying women have worked, but because people didn’t like her record, her policies, her political connections? Or because they were tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Or because someone else, who just happened to be male, was more inspirational? Nah, couldn’t be. Gotta be sexism. That’s the ONLY possible explanation.

For the record, it’s possible to be progressive, and not “so-called” progressive, and still to not support a particular woman for a particular candidacy. (Marilyn Musgrave, anyone?) It’s possible for progressives to look at someone’s record and to decide that a progressive politics would be best advanced by someone who just happens not to be a woman.

BTW, you can’t have it both ways. You wrote up-thread that Hillary’s New Hampshire victory couldn’t possibly have been about issues of sexism, Hillary “crying”, or anything else. But a Hillary loss HAS TO be about sexism, and those tried-and-true ways for destroying women, and the perfidy of “so-called progressive allies”? Sorry, like I said, you just can’t have it both ways.

And the Clintons, BOTH of them, are corporate, Republican lite. They both, Hillary included, surround themselves with the same old corporate DLC insiders who have been such a disaster for the Democratic Party over the last 20 or so years. More of that is the LAST thing we need.

Clinton has taken more money from the military-industrial complex than any single other candidate, R or D. She took in more than all of the other Democratic candidates COMBINED, and 60% of the total given to ALL REPUBLICANS. This is the woman you want to elect to the Presidency?

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-bucks-the-trend-and-rakes-in-cash-from-the-us-weapons-industry-397281.html)

You want four, or eight, years of Mark Penn and Burson-Marsteller? (Just what did they ever do for women? At least, women who work for a living or are poor?) You want four, or eight, more years of Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, and Rahm Emanuel? You want four, or eight, more years of cut-throat Clintonism?

As reported in last week’s Nation:

Dan Slater, vice chair of the Colorado Democrats, endorsed Obama in part because of his concern that a second President Clinton would take steps to dismantle the 50-state Strategy. “With Clinton you get the same professional DLC types who’ve been making the same mistakes for thirty years,” says Slater. People associated with the Clintons–Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer–have been Dean’s loudest critics. James Carville took his last swipe at Dean after the 2006 midterms….

Unfortunately, the party powerful have a long record of preserving their power first. Rahm Emanuel famously cherry-picked candidates to back in the 2006 primaries. His successor at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Chris Van Hollen, vowed to maintain a hands-off policy in primary contests. Suspicions were raised that there may have been pressure from on high, however, when Angie Paccione–whose grassroots campaign nearly beat maniac homophobe Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado’s 4th District last year–bowed out last fall after one of Senator Salazar’s staffers entered the primary against her. It left the same bad taste in Colorado as did Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to throw a fundraiser for old-school incumbent Al Wynn, who’s facing a movement-stirring challenge by Donna Edwards, in Maryland.

In the end, trust and motivation matter. No amount of sweet “we” talk and Internet tools can patch up a party that’s trampling on its partners or cowering when it has promised to stand tall.

Plenty of feminists (Laura Flanders, Frances Kissling, Katha Pollitt) are supporting Obama over Clinton because of their FEMINIST values. Voting for a woman just because she’s a woman, while ignoring the rest of her record, is the worst kind of identity politics. Clinton’s war votes, both on Iraq and on Iran (Kyl-Lieberman), her political connections, her votes on the “Religious Freedom in the Workplace Act” (which would, for example, allow pharmacists to refuse to prescribe morning-after pills to rape victims) and much more are all exceedingly troublesome.

It is far from established — despite your bare say-so — that Clinton is more qualified than Obama. And feminists don’t think it’s established either.

Pollitt:

[R]ight now, I’m supporting Barack Obama. On domestic politics, their differences are small … But on foreign policy Obama seems more enlightened, as in less bellicose. Maybe Hillary Clinton’s refusal to say her Iraq vote was wrong shows that she has neo-con sympathies; maybe she simply believes that any admission of error would tar her as weak. But we already have a warlike president who refuses to admit making mistakes, and look how that’s turned out…. Obama is a candidate in a different mold. He’s a natural politician who connects with people as Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, just doesn’t, and appeals to the better angels of their nature. He sparks an enthusiasm in people–independents, the young, the previously disengaged. An Obama victory could have big positive repercussions for progressive politics….. Plenty of feminists support Obama, by the way. for example Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL, and Ellen Bravo of Nine to Five. I signed a letter from “New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama.” Other signers include the historians Linda Gordon, Alice Kessler Harris and Ros Baxandall; the sociologist Judith Stacey; the political scientist Ros Petchesky,and writers Margo Jefferson and Meredith Tax.

(http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=25&pid=279745)

Flanders: “”I’d like to believe a female president would be good for the advancement of “womanhood” worldwide. But so far Senator Clinton’s votes have not been good for Iraqi, or Palestinian, or a whole lot of global womanhood.”

(http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=280397)

Kissling:

…I still don’t buy Clinton as the women’s candidate.

I’m a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women. Barack Obama is a close second, with Hillary Clinton a distant third. At first, as a feminist, I felt strange, almost embarrassed not to support Clinton, but it wasn’t a tough decision. I did some soul searching, and in the end there were too many issues of principle on which she was willing to compromise. Her commitment to practicality over principle made it hard to be enthusiastic about her candidacy. …

[Being a feminist] means an unrelenting attention to the questions of exclusion and marginalization, and to leveling the playing field. Asking whether Clinton is that person is not just a fair question, it is the feminist question. In answering that question, the history of centrist Democrats and Clintonism must be confronted.

Now, I’ve never been a centrist Democrat and everything I have seen of Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council confirms that women are far down their priority lists. … [W]hatever the reason, there is no evidence that Clinton’s feminist history currently influences her thinking about women, or that it is any further advanced than Obama’s and Edwards’ thinking.

The sad fact is that Clinton has felt compelled to run as a stereotypical male. In her own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids’ access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. She has missed the opportunity to talk about what it really means for women to be equal in this country. She has shown no interest in using her extensive international experience to push for more women in party leadership, state legislatures and even the Senate. A woman candidate who considered her gender a strength (as opposed to something she needed to overcome) would announce a series of measures specifically designed to ensure that women’s needs and rights were at the forefront of her agenda….

I do not want a feminism that is part of the status quo, and so I do not want the first woman president to be a Clintonian. Every time Hillary Clinton puts on the mantle of the Bill Clinton presidency and reminds us of how important it is to be practical and work with the other side to get things done, I think of every cowardly practical choice that Bill Clinton (or should I say the Clintons together) made. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” sellout of gays in the military; the abandonment of Lani Guinier; a failed healthcare reform package that would have sacrificed women’s reproductive health to the Catholic Church’s demands as moral arbiter; a welfare reform bill that actually hurt poor women and their families; and presidential approval of a permanent ban on Medicaid funds for poor women seeking abortions.

The women’s movement, along with other progressive movements, did little to challenge the Clinton administration to live up to its campaign promises. And now it seems that the longtime women’s movement is falling into the same trap over Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Just read the feckless and stale defense of Clinton’s record on the war posted on the National Organization for Women’s Web site to get a sense of how willing some in the feminist establishment are to defend any woman, regardless of her track record.

But some women aren’t buying it. We’d like to see a woman president, but more than anything we want to be able to say at the end of the first woman’s tenure in the highest political office that it really mattered. That the first woman president did things no man would have done, that feminist values were at the core of her decisions — and that the country was on the road to further transformation.

(http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/01/10/kissling_clinton/)

So spare us, please, the shallow “if you don’t elect a woman then you’ve set the cause of women back a quarter century” line. Electing the wrong woman could set that cause back even further, and if that woman is tempted to show how Tough she is, or how Centrist she is, by say, attacking Iran or selling out poor people (most of whom are women, and who were pretty much sold out under Clinton 42, with little to suggest that it would be different under Clinton 44), it could set the cause of the United States back, possibly irreparably.

Barbara Boxer for President? Damn right. Hillary Clinton? “Better than McCain” isn’t much of a rallying cry.

I’m sorry, but I see a free ride from the MSM and voters who don’t scrutinize him half as hard as they do other candidates. And THAT is very insulting, in my opinion.

“Sexism and racism are still very strong and real, and they both should be dismantled as much as possible. Debating which one is stronger than the other seems like a waste of time. Both need to be destroyed.”

Amen. But to give one candidate a pass because he is overcoming racism, and subject another to harsh scrutiny because she is (only) breaking a far more pernicious barrier is not the best way to destroy these fetters.

If Hillary Clinton can’t get the nomination the chance that the women you mentioned or any other woman will become president in the forseeable future is essentially nil

I just don’t think that’s true. The fact that our two main candidates are Barack and Hillary is showing that we’re entering a whole new era in America. I think a Barack win or Hillary win opens up a lot of minds, especially in younger generations. I’m liking where this goes no matter which one of these two wins.

Simply put, if Obama had been white, he wouldn’t have made it past even Gravel. OTOH, if Hillary were a two-term black male senator she still would be the best qualified candidate.

Ah, that’s just silly and ignorant. And there goes that “qualified” thing some more. What does that mean? So you want the most entrenched, insider politician you can find? I want the exact opposite.

Obama has gotten himself into this position all on his own. His story is already one for the history books. No connections. No money backing him. Just hard work and hope. Lots of it. To dismiss his accomplishments as a result of his skin color is incredibly insulting. Sexism and racism are still very strong and real, and they both should be dismantled as much as possible. Debating which one is stronger than the other seems like a waste of time. Both need to be destroyed.