This kills.
Favorite quotes: “She’s a bitch. I’m a bitch. Get used to it.” “Bitches get stuff done.” “Bitch is the new black!” (You gotta see it in context to not be offended. I personally found it v. funny!)
women’s leadership
Ellen Goodman had an interesting column last Friday (“The Female Style — Modeled By a Man”) in which she notes that Hillary Clinton has become “the tough guy in the race” and Barack Obama “the Oprah candidate.”
As Goodman explains, “He was the quality circle man, the uniter-not-divider, the person who believes we can talk to anyone, even our enemies. He finely honed a language usually associated with women’s voices.” She quotes political science professor Kathleen Dolan, who sees Obama as “the embodiment of the gentle, collaborative style without threatening his masculine side.” Dolan adds, “He’s being more feminine than she can be. She is in a much tighter box.”
Goodman offers a brief history of leadership studies and concludes with a provocative question: “So, has the women’s movement made life easier? For another man?”
I spoke to Goodman for her piece but she didn’t end up quoting me. I wish I could have referred her to both Renee Cramer and J.K. Gayle, who were having a similar conversation here on GWP, while I was off feeding sheep!
In his astute response to Renee’s post, J.K. Gayle shares some great links, which I wanted to share with everyone here. Comments J.K.:
Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, the world’s greatest scholar on womanly discourse and on presidential rhetoric, has conceded (to some of us at a conference recently) that Barack Obama is using feminist rhetoric. Kohrs Campbell is the one who wrote that famous “Hating Hillary†article a while back, in which she looked at the rhetorics of hate around Clinton. (I asked if she thought Toni Morrison, who endorses Obama, could fairly call him, if elected, “our first woman president.†Kohrs Campbell, who likes the idea of a true woman president sooner rather than later, replies: “yes, you could call him a ‘womanly’ presidential candidate.â€)
In a related post, Hugo Schwyzer offers “A few notes on feminism, symbols, and youthful Obamophilia.”
(Ellen, ask me again, and I will refer you to GWP readers!)
Well, she inspires the heck out of me. And Jennifer Baumgardner too.
There’s a pro-Hillary letter going around that I thought I’d post here, since tomorrow’s GUEST POST is pro-Obama. (Please note: this is not Girl with Pen playing it both ways, but rather Girl with Pen very much wanting to maintain an open forum where readers and guest posters are free to share their opinions!) Here’s the letter, for those who might be interested, with info about how to sign on, below….
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 restored, 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 1994 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. 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 now 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 right now 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.
If you wish to sign on, please send your name to Ellen Dubois (edubois@history.ucla.edu). Please include any relevant affiliations and titles.
Ellen Carol Dubois, Professor of History, University of California, Los Angeles Christine Stansell, Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago
Maureen Dowd’s “A Flawed Feminist Test,” which appeared last Wednesday in the NYTimes, generated much heat, of course, in the feminist blogosphere. I am only just catching up. But I am thrilled–thrilled!–to share this letter published in the NYTimes last week by “Making It Pop” graduate Alisa Guthrie! GO ALISA! On so many levels.
I’m crushing on Nicholas Kristof this morning. Just read his NYTimes oped, “When Women Lead,” in which he notes that “modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.” He cites all sorts of great research and shares his “pet” theory about why a queen might have had an easier time that a democratically-elected woman president:
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man….Women have often quipped that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all. Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.
A sidenote: Last week women leaders released statements praising the “historic, inspirational candidacy” of Hillary Clinton.
But back at the NYTimes, let me also point you to Peggy Orenstein on The Daring Book for Girls in “Girls Will Be Girls” and my friend Annie Murphy Paul on “The First Ache,” in case you haven’t yet read…And happy weekend!
Oh boy oh boy I just can’t seem to stop yapping on this one.
But first, I’d like to frame this post with a note that I by no means believe that all opposition to Sen. Clinton is sexist in nature. And, as blogger Amanda Marcotte smartly notes, opposing sexist pandering against Sen. Clinton isn’t the same thing as endorsing her. (Even though I, in this case, did.)
That said, here are two pieces to share today in which I’m quoted yapping about Hillary, sexism, and media: The Guardian, Pavement Pieces.
As it turns out, I am SheSource’s “Expert of the Week.” I am always happy to speak about Hillary, but I am NOT into putting people down who support Obama. Especially women. And I hope other women speaking out publicly this week aren’t either. We got more important things to talk about. ‘Nuf said.
(Thank you, Gwen, for the heads up!)
Our HuffPo piece is now up, here. Comments, there or here, most welcome, as always!
And to readers and friends who are fervent Obama supporters: I will fervently campaign for your man if he wins. On that, you’ve got my promise.
I’m taking a stand for Hillary. Keep an eye out for my HuffPo piece being posted hopefully early today — I’ll crosspost here when it goes live 🙂 I cowrote it with a close friend, journalist Rebecca Segall. Strength in numbers and all.
Thank you to everyone who sent me articles and wrote heartfelt comments and emails, in support of both candidates. I am so moved by the passion this election is inspiring in people young, old, and in between. In my opinion, that’s the real win here — a resurgence in civic engagement in a nation where 7 years of an undemocratic regime have profoundly broken our trust.
And may the best of two amazing candidates win.
For the first time in my voting life, I’m torn. In five days, I’ll need to pull a lever in a New York Democratic Primary that matters. And I don’t know what to do. I want to vote for Hillary. I want her to be electable. She moves me. And so does Barack. I like much of what both of them stand for. I want to speak out publicly for one of them. But who?
Every day this week feels heavy with meaning and momentum. Take yesterday. My Wednesday begins with the forum I created for More magazine (“If Hillary Wins…â€) going live. On my way to the luncheon to celebrate Susan Morrison’s new book 30 Ways of Looking at Hillary, scrambling for a public place with wireless so I can email the contributors and broadcast the news, I end up in the great phallic palace, Trump Tower.
At mid-day comes the parmasean emulsion, served up at the restaurant Daniel along with brilliance from Susan Morrison and a number of the contributors to her anthology. Between walnut-crusted fish filet and hot chocolate upside down cake, and chats with Leslie Bennetts and Leslie Savan, I jot down the following:
Among the many comments that served as impetus for Morrison’s book, she says, there’s this one: “I’d sooner vote for a ticket of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan that pull the lever for Hillary.†Gross. “I take Hillary personally, too personally,†writes Jane Kramer in the book. Yes, and don’t we all? Letty Cottin Pogrebin, repeating a sentiment oft overheard, notes “Hillary is Presidential, Obama is inspirational; it depends what you’re looking for.†Judith Thurman feels “Hillary is using her husband’s credit card.†Sorry, I don’t buy it. Susan Morrison: “Clearly, we haven’t all collectively figured out what we want from a woman leader.†Personally, I couldn’t agree more.
The day ends with my beloved Only Child coeditor (now a novelist!) sending out her “First and Last Political Email,†voicing her support for Hillary. “Dear Friends,†Daphne writes:
I’m choosing to be thrilled that we have two such qualified candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, and in November I plan to fully throw my support behind whoever is nominated, as I’m sure will all of you (unless I’ve accidentally sent this to Republicans).
That said, I agree with the NYTimes: inspiring plans to start anew and beautiful rhetoric aside, I believe Hillary Clinton is the most qualified to hit the ground running next January. I’ve wavered on my support of her because, though her campaign keeps talking about experience, I’ve never been educated on the nitty-gritty details. So I was happily surprised to receive a quick and impressive rundown recently by one of her full-time volunteers.
I’ve gone through her website and weeded out all the promises and plans, which any candidate can persuasively and confidently lay out. Instead, I’ve highlighted her actual concrete accomplishments. Attached is a brief cheat sheet for anyone who, like me, is leaning toward Hillary, but can’t articulate why.
Feel free to delete it, or to continue your passionate campaigns for Obama, as I know many of you are, and with great reasons. Please don’t reply to this e-mail, and know that I will not send another political e-mail until 2012 (hopefully, not til 2016). I hope I haven’t stepped on any toes.
If anyone would like the cheat sheet, email me (my email’s at the bottom of the blog) and I’ll pass it on. And ok, Girl with Pen, embarrassment of riches notwithstanding, it’s time to take a stand. Stay tuned.
I’ve been thinking so much about Hillary these days. And lately, I’ve been thinking about how media coverage of an “intergenerational divide” in women’s support of her may be fueling, and not just documenting, discord among women across generations. I’m very eager to see some analysis of the age divide after primary season is over and we’ve all had a chance to chill.
My feelings about Hillary keep evolving. But no matter what you think of her, it’s still hard not to be intrigued by the prospect of a woman in the White House.
As I mentioned here recently, the February issue of More, my new favorite magazine (hey, I’m almost 40!), includes a forum in which I asked women who have themselves accomplished many firsts to weigh in on what a Hillary presidency might look like. I’m pleased to announce that the much extended, online version is now live. Check out the very different perspectives of Margaret Cho, Daphne Merkin, Lynn Harris, Dee Dee Myers, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Suzanne Braun Levine, Mary Catherine Bateson, Marie Wilson, Gloria Feldt, Pat Schroeder, Pepper Schwartz, Jane Swift, Nell Merlino, Blanche Wiesen Cook, Linda Hirshman, Kellyanne Conway, and Seema Gahlaut–and please feel free to share the link! The forum is rich–far richer than the squabbles we keep hearing about in the news–and I feel it’s so very important to infuse substance, even if speculative, as is the case of this forum, into the public conversation. So, have at it. Please join the conversation and share your comments over at More’s site.
And for an interesting More article on Hillary and the age divide, don’t miss “Our Hillary Problem”. Here, Katherine Lanpher interviews Donna Brazille and asks why some older, elite women voters are ambivalent on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. I don’t need to refer you to articles on younger women’s ambivalence, because you’ve probably all read them by now.
Ellen Goodman had an interesting column last Friday (“The Female Style — Modeled By a Man”) in which she notes that Hillary Clinton has become “the tough guy in the race” and Barack Obama “the Oprah candidate.”
As Goodman explains, “He was the quality circle man, the uniter-not-divider, the person who believes we can talk to anyone, even our enemies. He finely honed a language usually associated with women’s voices.” She quotes political science professor Kathleen Dolan, who sees Obama as “the embodiment of the gentle, collaborative style without threatening his masculine side.” Dolan adds, “He’s being more feminine than she can be. She is in a much tighter box.”
Goodman offers a brief history of leadership studies and concludes with a provocative question: “So, has the women’s movement made life easier? For another man?”
I spoke to Goodman for her piece but she didn’t end up quoting me. I wish I could have referred her to both Renee Cramer and J.K. Gayle, who were having a similar conversation here on GWP, while I was off feeding sheep!
In his astute response to Renee’s post, J.K. Gayle shares some great links, which I wanted to share with everyone here. Comments J.K.:
Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, the world’s greatest scholar on womanly discourse and on presidential rhetoric, has conceded (to some of us at a conference recently) that Barack Obama is using feminist rhetoric. Kohrs Campbell is the one who wrote that famous “Hating Hillary†article a while back, in which she looked at the rhetorics of hate around Clinton. (I asked if she thought Toni Morrison, who endorses Obama, could fairly call him, if elected, “our first woman president.†Kohrs Campbell, who likes the idea of a true woman president sooner rather than later, replies: “yes, you could call him a ‘womanly’ presidential candidate.â€)
In a related post, Hugo Schwyzer offers “A few notes on feminism, symbols, and youthful Obamophilia.”
(Ellen, ask me again, and I will refer you to GWP readers!)
Well, she inspires the heck out of me. And Jennifer Baumgardner too.
There’s a pro-Hillary letter going around that I thought I’d post here, since tomorrow’s GUEST POST is pro-Obama. (Please note: this is not Girl with Pen playing it both ways, but rather Girl with Pen very much wanting to maintain an open forum where readers and guest posters are free to share their opinions!) Here’s the letter, for those who might be interested, with info about how to sign on, below….
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 restored, 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 1994 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. 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 now 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 right now 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.
If you wish to sign on, please send your name to Ellen Dubois (edubois@history.ucla.edu). Please include any relevant affiliations and titles.
Ellen Carol Dubois, Professor of History, University of California, Los Angeles Christine Stansell, Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago
Maureen Dowd’s “A Flawed Feminist Test,” which appeared last Wednesday in the NYTimes, generated much heat, of course, in the feminist blogosphere. I am only just catching up. But I am thrilled–thrilled!–to share this letter published in the NYTimes last week by “Making It Pop” graduate Alisa Guthrie! GO ALISA! On so many levels.
I’m crushing on Nicholas Kristof this morning. Just read his NYTimes oped, “When Women Lead,” in which he notes that “modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.” He cites all sorts of great research and shares his “pet” theory about why a queen might have had an easier time that a democratically-elected woman president:
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man….Women have often quipped that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all. Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.
A sidenote: Last week women leaders released statements praising the “historic, inspirational candidacy” of Hillary Clinton.
But back at the NYTimes, let me also point you to Peggy Orenstein on The Daring Book for Girls in “Girls Will Be Girls” and my friend Annie Murphy Paul on “The First Ache,” in case you haven’t yet read…And happy weekend!
Oh boy oh boy I just can’t seem to stop yapping on this one.
But first, I’d like to frame this post with a note that I by no means believe that all opposition to Sen. Clinton is sexist in nature. And, as blogger Amanda Marcotte smartly notes, opposing sexist pandering against Sen. Clinton isn’t the same thing as endorsing her. (Even though I, in this case, did.)
That said, here are two pieces to share today in which I’m quoted yapping about Hillary, sexism, and media: The Guardian, Pavement Pieces.
As it turns out, I am SheSource’s “Expert of the Week.” I am always happy to speak about Hillary, but I am NOT into putting people down who support Obama. Especially women. And I hope other women speaking out publicly this week aren’t either. We got more important things to talk about. ‘Nuf said.
(Thank you, Gwen, for the heads up!)
Our HuffPo piece is now up, here. Comments, there or here, most welcome, as always!
And to readers and friends who are fervent Obama supporters: I will fervently campaign for your man if he wins. On that, you’ve got my promise.
I’m taking a stand for Hillary. Keep an eye out for my HuffPo piece being posted hopefully early today — I’ll crosspost here when it goes live 🙂 I cowrote it with a close friend, journalist Rebecca Segall. Strength in numbers and all.
Thank you to everyone who sent me articles and wrote heartfelt comments and emails, in support of both candidates. I am so moved by the passion this election is inspiring in people young, old, and in between. In my opinion, that’s the real win here — a resurgence in civic engagement in a nation where 7 years of an undemocratic regime have profoundly broken our trust.
And may the best of two amazing candidates win.
For the first time in my voting life, I’m torn. In five days, I’ll need to pull a lever in a New York Democratic Primary that matters. And I don’t know what to do. I want to vote for Hillary. I want her to be electable. She moves me. And so does Barack. I like much of what both of them stand for. I want to speak out publicly for one of them. But who?
Every day this week feels heavy with meaning and momentum. Take yesterday. My Wednesday begins with the forum I created for More magazine (“If Hillary Wins…â€) going live. On my way to the luncheon to celebrate Susan Morrison’s new book 30 Ways of Looking at Hillary, scrambling for a public place with wireless so I can email the contributors and broadcast the news, I end up in the great phallic palace, Trump Tower.
At mid-day comes the parmasean emulsion, served up at the restaurant Daniel along with brilliance from Susan Morrison and a number of the contributors to her anthology. Between walnut-crusted fish filet and hot chocolate upside down cake, and chats with Leslie Bennetts and Leslie Savan, I jot down the following:
Among the many comments that served as impetus for Morrison’s book, she says, there’s this one: “I’d sooner vote for a ticket of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan that pull the lever for Hillary.†Gross. “I take Hillary personally, too personally,†writes Jane Kramer in the book. Yes, and don’t we all? Letty Cottin Pogrebin, repeating a sentiment oft overheard, notes “Hillary is Presidential, Obama is inspirational; it depends what you’re looking for.†Judith Thurman feels “Hillary is using her husband’s credit card.†Sorry, I don’t buy it. Susan Morrison: “Clearly, we haven’t all collectively figured out what we want from a woman leader.†Personally, I couldn’t agree more.
The day ends with my beloved Only Child coeditor (now a novelist!) sending out her “First and Last Political Email,†voicing her support for Hillary. “Dear Friends,†Daphne writes:
I’m choosing to be thrilled that we have two such qualified candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, and in November I plan to fully throw my support behind whoever is nominated, as I’m sure will all of you (unless I’ve accidentally sent this to Republicans).
That said, I agree with the NYTimes: inspiring plans to start anew and beautiful rhetoric aside, I believe Hillary Clinton is the most qualified to hit the ground running next January. I’ve wavered on my support of her because, though her campaign keeps talking about experience, I’ve never been educated on the nitty-gritty details. So I was happily surprised to receive a quick and impressive rundown recently by one of her full-time volunteers.
I’ve gone through her website and weeded out all the promises and plans, which any candidate can persuasively and confidently lay out. Instead, I’ve highlighted her actual concrete accomplishments. Attached is a brief cheat sheet for anyone who, like me, is leaning toward Hillary, but can’t articulate why.
Feel free to delete it, or to continue your passionate campaigns for Obama, as I know many of you are, and with great reasons. Please don’t reply to this e-mail, and know that I will not send another political e-mail until 2012 (hopefully, not til 2016). I hope I haven’t stepped on any toes.
If anyone would like the cheat sheet, email me (my email’s at the bottom of the blog) and I’ll pass it on. And ok, Girl with Pen, embarrassment of riches notwithstanding, it’s time to take a stand. Stay tuned.
I’ve been thinking so much about Hillary these days. And lately, I’ve been thinking about how media coverage of an “intergenerational divide” in women’s support of her may be fueling, and not just documenting, discord among women across generations. I’m very eager to see some analysis of the age divide after primary season is over and we’ve all had a chance to chill.
My feelings about Hillary keep evolving. But no matter what you think of her, it’s still hard not to be intrigued by the prospect of a woman in the White House.
As I mentioned here recently, the February issue of More, my new favorite magazine (hey, I’m almost 40!), includes a forum in which I asked women who have themselves accomplished many firsts to weigh in on what a Hillary presidency might look like. I’m pleased to announce that the much extended, online version is now live. Check out the very different perspectives of Margaret Cho, Daphne Merkin, Lynn Harris, Dee Dee Myers, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Suzanne Braun Levine, Mary Catherine Bateson, Marie Wilson, Gloria Feldt, Pat Schroeder, Pepper Schwartz, Jane Swift, Nell Merlino, Blanche Wiesen Cook, Linda Hirshman, Kellyanne Conway, and Seema Gahlaut–and please feel free to share the link! The forum is rich–far richer than the squabbles we keep hearing about in the news–and I feel it’s so very important to infuse substance, even if speculative, as is the case of this forum, into the public conversation. So, have at it. Please join the conversation and share your comments over at More’s site.
And for an interesting More article on Hillary and the age divide, don’t miss “Our Hillary Problem”. Here, Katherine Lanpher interviews Donna Brazille and asks why some older, elite women voters are ambivalent on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. I don’t need to refer you to articles on younger women’s ambivalence, because you’ve probably all read them by now.
