political campaigns

While I’m being ripped to shreds over at Comment Is Free (!) for my piece called “A Hillary Supporter’s Remorse,” I’m sharing a comment from Marjorie here on GWP in a post. I urge folks to check out what Gryff has to say in our comments too. I love it when there’s this kind of back-and-forth going on over here, and just wanted to thank both of them for their insights and thoughts. Here’s Marjorie, with an eloquent essay of her own:

I vowed way back in 1992 that, no matter where I lived in the world (at the time I thought I’d be living in Asia or Europe), if HRC decided to run for president, I’d drop everything and return to the US just to help out in her campaign.

As it turned out, I’m in Colorado and have devoted some of my weekly columns for the local paper on her campaign and credentials, not to mention donated some hard-earned cash to her campaign. However, as far as putting my life on hold to volunteer my heart out…er, let’s just say that that hasn’t happened yet.

I suck at fundraising (my own family turned down a request to donate $25 each to an awareness walk for a disease that I have), can’t stand the telephone, and literally break out in hives when I have to do any kind of public speaking. I can barely make it to my next door neighbor’s house without shaking in my shoes. In other words, I’m not the kind of campaign activist you want on your team. And yeah, I feel like I let HRC down, too.

I would love to see HRC win, but while I remain the eternal optimist, the numbers are not looking good. However, I appreciate the McCaskill quote you referenced in your article. Hillary’s a big girl, she can handle her own campaign and will step down from it when she’s good and ready. At this time I still think she’s the best candidate and always will, and apparently millions of others feel the same way. If nothing else, I appreciate that HRC seems to understand the loyalty and passion her supporters feel for her and the responsibility that entails. To retreat now — even if that would seem to be the logical choice — would be an awful blow to those who worked so hard on her behalf.

I think that, for her as well as for myself and countless others, this election is about more than just a call for “change.” What bothered me about the 2004 election (and why I didn’t vote for Kerry but for Nader instead) is because I felt that the Democratic theme seemed to be, “It’s better than the alternative.” There didn’t seem to be a really strong push to field a worthy candidate, just a half-assed attempt to throw any warm body into the ring as an alternative to Bush.

Now, though, not only do we have two strong candidates, but they’re both non-traditional ones. Now that we have an election worth bothering about, it’s actually become personal, far more than any election I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime (I’m 36). Suddenly, I’m seeing my hero, a woman I’ve admired for 16 years, whose life and accomplishments I’ve followed for just as long, on the verge of literally becoming the leader of the freakin’ world.

For that reason alone, I think that even if you’ve worked in politics in the past, I can only imagine that losing now would be even more difficult simply because we had a chance to make history…and failed. This isn’t about a Democrat winning anymore, but a woman actually winning the White House, something a lot of us didn’t think we’d see for decades.

By the way, I would be very surprised if Obama extended the olive branch and offered Clinton the VP-ship, and even more so if Clinton accepted it. Maybe I’m just projecting my own profound disappointment, but I can’t imagine that happening after the exhausting bitterness of the last few months. And quite frankly, that would hurt like hell.

Cheers,
Marjorie

A piece I wrote for Comment Is Free over at The Guardian is now live: “A Hillary Supporter’s Remorse.” Is anyone out there feeling the same? Please feel free to weigh in, there or here. (And thank you to Gryff for your awesome comments below! You motivate me.)

As MOMocrats aptly notes, the most recent debate between the Democratic candidates was disappointing to most of us, with questions again directed more towards mud slinging between the candidates rather than substantive issues about domestic and foreign policy. So the MOMocrats and their readers came up with a list of “Questions We Wish ABC Had Asked.” Then they submitted them to the candidates.

In a MOMocrats exclusive, Barack Obama answers the questions that should have been asked during the last debate. Click here to read the interview, in which “he finally gets to discuss the issues, not his apparel or acquaintances.”

Did HRC respond, does anyone know?

I just saw a clip from The League of First Time Voters on CNN and must say I’m impressed with what CNN is doing over there. I just watched a panel of young women — first time voters, all — talk with the host about the issues. Nice site. I urge folks to check it out.

Quick hit post-game coverage of yesterday’s results:

Allison Stevens at Women’s eNews (“Women’s Vote Gives Clinton Pennsylvania Win”) notes, “White women went particularly strong for Clinton, with 64 percent backing Clinton and 36 percent for Obama.” And goes on to quote Ellen Bravo: “‘Some of it is gender identity and some of it is admiring her on other grounds,’ said Ellen Bravo, an Obama supporter who is former director of 9to5, the National Association of Working Women, an advocacy group in Milwaukee. ‘Some of it may also be race. I don’t think it’s so simple.'” Obama, in turn, drew heavy female support from African-American, young and anti-war women.

PunditMom shares insights culled from Pennsylvania college students.

And over at Addie Stan, some folks just want to Make. It. Stop.

Check out this must-read piece from Marie Wilson over at HuffPo, called “Leading Like a Girl: For Men Only?”, which concludes:

I am on a crusade to have women risk revealing their authentic selves. As a group who bring important attributes to leadership, who can also be tough and in control, women’s leadership, having been honed at the foot on the table, has lessons and positive possibilities for us all. We have made it safe for men to play like the girls. Now is the time to claim our own ability to do the same.

Along the way, Marie touches on men’s and women’s investing styles and the gendering of political leadership styles. One of the smartest slants on these topics I’ve read in a while. Thank you Marie. (And thank you to Catalyst’s Laura Sabattini for the heads up!)

I just wanted to send a shout out to all the commenters on Samantha’s guest post on Friday, “Feminist Awakening at 14, and to those who cross-posted! I’m hoping to coax a few more posts from Sam, because, as I think ya’ll agree, she’s dynamite (as are the other writers of Writopia Lab). Sam’s post was picked up around the blogosphere, and I wanted to share tidbits from the commentary:

Nancy Gruver, at orb28 blog: “Samantha’s post reminded me that, even if teenagers can’t vote yet, they can still have a big impact on politics by speaking up.”

Gloria Feldt, at HeartFeldt Politics Blog: “It’s always intriguing to learn how political opinions are formed, and this young women clearly has a mind of her own–and better yet, she talks publicly about what she believes.”

Patti Binder, of What’s Good for Girls blog: “Stand up and shout it from the roof tops– your message, your voice needs to be out there!”

El Profe of Political Observations: “An extraordinarily well thought-out piece filled with sensitivity, nuance, intelligence and hopefulness for the recovery of our browbeaten nation. Samantha is a person of insight. New voices such as hers are what will be needed in the world that she is inheriting. Bravo Samantha.”

So Sam…when can we at GWP expect your next piece?! Your readership awaits 🙂

Samantha French, age 14, is a student at Writopia Lab,, a writing enrichment program located on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. She’s written an incredible piece for Girl with Pen and though it’s longer than the usual fare and I still haven’t figured out how to do jumps (help, anyone?!), I’m publishing it in full because it’s just so well written. Go Sam. Did I mention Sam’s 14?! Here she is. -GWP

As we all know, the buzz around America’s college campuses is Barack Obama and how he represents change for America. According to the media, he has overwhelming appeal to the country’s so-called “youth.” And it’s true. The phrase “yes we can” is being inhaled faster than pot brownies and Jell-O shots at a frat party. However, what the media seems to be consistently ignoring is the opinions of the country’s real, good old-fashioned, disenfranchised youth: high school students. Who are almost unanimously pro-Hilary.

OK, so I’m dreaming.

As a female freshman in Bard High School Early College, one of New York’s more liberal high schools where nearly two-thirds of the student body are females, there is not huge support for Hillary, which makes me sad. Many people at Bard, both male and female, support Obama because they are “tired of the Clintons” (a notion which they have obviously been fed by their parents. Think about it: the last time a Clinton was in office they were eight at the very most).

At first, I agreed with them. My dad’s a die-hard Obama supporter and so are a lot of my friends. But the turning point came for me when I saw how upset and truly devoted Hillary was to the race after her defeat at the Iowa caucus. The moment that the cameras revealed her sad eyes, I realized that I was seeing in her something rarely seen in any presidential candidate: a human being. While my father continued to be very pro-Obama (re-recording Twisted Sister’s “I Wanna Rock,” titled, I Want Barak,)—and put pressure on me to agree with him—I felt a connection with Hillary after that night.

A “conversation” with a boy in my English class the next day clinched it for me. At 9:00AM, the morning after Hillary’s Iowa defeat, I came into my English classroom and sat at the table, looking around at my fellow students, their tired eyes skimming the pages of the New York Times or finishing up homework at the last minute, some finishing their Dunkin Donuts coffee.

Suddenly, I found myself in a debate with other kids about the caucus the previous night and who was for whom. Our teacher was quick to join in, turning it into a discussion which lasted for a good part of the class. The conversation turned to the obvious gender/race issue and one boy was quick to raise his hand when the question of what we thought about a female president came up.

“Well,” he said. “Because she’s a woman, it’s likely that she won’t really be able to perform her duties at ‘that time of the month.’”

Hold on. Rewind… OK, what did he just say?

The girls in my class instantly reacted with high-pitched comebacks and shouting. My friend stood on her chair and said rather loudly, “OH MY GOD COULD YOU GET MORE UN-P.C. PLEASE?” Another girl shouted: “I get my period too, but I come to school every day! I walk up and down stairs!” There was so much noise that I could barely get what I was saying out, so I stood up on my chair and screamed: “SERIOUSLY JUST SHUT UP. I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND IT’D BE NICE IF YOU ALL COULD HEAR ME!” The class instantly became silent.

“OK, so,” I took a deep breath and sat back down. “Hillary is probably post-menopausal so that is a completely invalid argument.” A chorus of agreement sounded from the girls.

The boy, who was recovering from all the screaming, replied defensively. “Well, it was my grandma who said that about Hillary.”

“And your grandmother’s how old?”

“80-something.”

“Your grandmother grew up in a society where women were seen as housewives and probably the last time she went through a menstrual cycle was in the 1970’s when women were still fighting for their rights!”

It was the moment that those words came out of my mouth that I realized I was totally pro-Hillary. Everything my father had instilled in me about Barack Obama melted away. Though I still care about the policies presented by each candidate, it ended up coming down to something bigger. It became about realizing the importance of taking a feminist stance in modern America and how important Hillary’s campaign is to feminist history. Not only do I agree with her healthcare policy and her method to get out of Iraq, but I also feel that she is hugely inspiring.

Since my “feminist awakening” as I guess you could call it, I have signed up for Hillary’s website and watch coverage of her rallies. Just today, I watched a video of a rally of hers in North Carolina where Hillary spoke to a huge audience of predominantly women. When she was taking questions, a young boy told her that both of his grandparents had died of heart disease. He asked her what she planned to do to prevent that from happening. She smiled warmly and promised the boy and the rest of the audience that if she were to be elected she would fight for equal health coverage and protection from such diseases. It is moments like that that make me feel that Hillary would be an amazing president; I believe her historical commitment to health care together with her maternal, relatable qualities would benefit America greatly.

My friends try to convince me to switch to being pro-Obama, and though I may sway a little at times, I’ll get an e-mail from the Hillary campaign or read an article about her and it reminds me of why I love Hillary so much: she has a genuine connection with the people. She is kind of like a mother-figure in that she is very compassionate and approachable, but also very powerful

My generation has witnessed turmoil and corruption during Bush’s terms as president. What we need now is a bad ass mom (with a bad ass track record) to whip this country back into shape.

Continuing where the post below left off: I asked the panel on media coverage of Hillary here at WAM! to comment on the age divide among women around the election–and how it’s being framed in the MSM–and it seems to have sparked some rather heated (YAY!) conversation. Here are snippets:

-An African American woman declares herself undecided, but poignantly voices her desire to hear more about Obama’s policy positions. “Inspiration, words, great. But what do you stand for?” she says.

-A young white woman speaks from the heart about her feelings about Obama, then asks, “As a feminist who is supporting Obama, what can I do to continue to combat sexism?”

-Betsy Reed (from the panel) notes, “There’s a sense among older women that younger women are abandoning the cause. And younger women are saying to older women, ‘You know, we have more complex political identities.’ The difference in voting may be portrayed as a catfight, but it’s bringing a lot to the fore. “

-Carol Hardy-Fanta brings up the troubling news of that new report about the high percentage of Obama supporters who say they will vote for McCain if Obama doesn’t get the nomination.

-My Woodhull colleague Elizabeth Curtis “outs” herself as a young woman who is supporting Hillary and questions the assumption that younger women are voting for Obama and older women for Hillary without backing these statements with any research. [Note from GWP: The stats from SuperTuesday and Junior SuperTuesday do show it…] She notes the lack of coalition on the side of the Dems. And she asks the question that I think is THE question: “What we can start to do–right now-to work together to ensure that the Democrat will make it to the White House?”

-Carol Hardy-Fanta notes that there have been more Democrats coming out to vote than Republicans–twice as many, it seems. If that continues, the Dem has a chance. She calls upon us to respond to friends who make those inane “I’m going to vote for McCain” comments by calling them on it.

YESSS. And my own thoughts on this are expressed in the Washington Post oped I coauthored the other week with Courtney. If I weren’t working like hell on my book proposal, I’d be tempted to write another one. But for the moment, instead, I’ll just have to be satisfied with calling defectors losers.

I HEART WAM! And it’s been such a pleasure to meet bloggers–Jill and Holly from Feministe, Amanda from Pandagon, Hugo Schwyzer–and many other folks I’ve long admired. Always grateful to make connections new and old. I’ve finally dragged my computer out and am live blogging here from the final session, “Cleavage, Cackles and Cookies: Analysis of News Coverage of Hillary Clinon and the Presidental Election.” So here we go:

Allison Stevens of Women’s eNews is moderating and offers out the following statistics, via a recently released report from The Center for Media and Public Affairs (a non-partisan org that tracks coverage):

84% of on-air comments about Obama have been positive
43% of on-air comments about Clinton have been positive

What gives?

Barbara Lee, social activist and philanthropist, frames the convo with a look at the difficulty women governors–her expertise–have in getting elected. She notes that voters give female governors high marks. Once voters have seen women governors in action, they LIKE them. But it’s the getting elected part that’s hard. Voters have doubts about whether women are capable of leading at the highest levels. They must be perceived as both competent and likeable–not an easy feat. There’s also “hair, hemlines, and husband” phenomenon–everything about a woman candidate has to be just right. Once in office, female govs exceed and redefine voter expectation. But here’s the upside: The higher standards are producing women governors who excel in the eyes of the voters. And while voters demand more from women, they also give them great credit.

On Hillary, Barbara restates the obvious:

“The media coverage–particularly cable tv pundits and talk show hosts–has been maddening. Rarely, has the historic nature of her campaign been celebrated. Rather, it’s been demeaned.”

Carol Hardy-Fanta, Director of UMAss Boston’s Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy, reruns clips of the news coverage of Cleavagegate and Hillary’s Cackle, calling attention to the throughlines. A thought: News stories about Al Gore’s sigh, John Edwards’ hair, and Hillary’s cackle–initiated at Republican headquarters?

Since Cookiegate back in 1992, Hillary has had to straddle different and changing ideas about women. Back then, the break with the past was seismic. Until Carter’s campaign, Presidents’ wives didn’t sit in on Cabinet meetings. Hillary was the first President’s wife who came from having a major career. She was trapped between an outdated past and an uncharted future. Since then, she’s faced all sorts of double standards. Most recently, she’s been accused of using a “mommy strategy” to soften her image.

Additional obstacles include this: Since 9/11, citizens willingness to vote for a qualified woman candidate for Prez has actually decreased.

Betsy Reed, Executive Editor at The Nation, refers to the “tsunami of misogyny” we’ve seen–it’s a “breathtaking amount of venom.” According to the race playbook and the gender playbook, blacks are seen as traitors, while women are seen as weak. Betsy also addresses ways that Hillary’s gender and Obama’s race have helped them in their campaigns.

Alison asks: What does this campaign mean to future female candidates and future candidates who are people of color?

Carol Hardy-Fanta: “Hillary started off as the one to beat. She had name-recognition, money, the establishment, and a popular former President behind her. She had the ‘unassailable lead.’ She was the first woman who had wiped away the large structural barriers to a woman becoming a nominee. She made some mistakes, but compared to John McCain’s mistakes? If Hillary can’t even get the nomination, I don’t think we’ll see another woman run and win until my daughter is a grandparent. And what of the fact that Reverend Wright gets so scrutinized while McCain gets a free pass on Pat Roberston endorsing him?”

Betsy Reed: “It’s unfortunate that Obama has not been able to call out the sexism that Hillary has experienced. He hasn’t called out some of the racism that he’s experienced. It’s as if the very accusation is suspect somehow. We need to figure out a better way of talking about these things, and waging protest when appropriate.”

Ok, off to ask a question for the panel, so am signing off for now….

(Image cred)