Ugh.  Identity politics.  How inspiring.  Yech.

And yes, I am curious to know how one can be both the establishment candidate and the radical choice.

Tonight and tomorrow someone could make a fortune selling an umbrella that would shield us from sour grapes.

The "women grow more radical as they age" point seems to be awfully dubious -- Steinem acts like it's an age question, whereas it's probably a generational one. You can find a lot of Republicans from the 60s or 70s who are/were more liberal than today's lot; do Republicans also grow more radical with age?

Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.

Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.

Right on brother Tep - Steinem = dinosaur.

"Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot."

That is the most obnoxious statement I've read so far this election cycle. It is mind-numbingly dense. It's up there with Sean Hannity's assertion that the Republican party is the party of civil rights because a larger percentage of Republicans voted for the civil rights act 1964. True? Yes. But completely missing the fucking point.

Gloria, here’s a question for you: In the time when the Constitution granted black men the right to vote but not women, would you have rather been living as a black man or white woman?

Oh gee, everything must have been great for the black man because he was had the "right" to vote. Good lord, I don't recall reading about large numbers of women being lynched.

Of course we have to still make strides towards gender-equality, but we don't have to pull random facts out of the sky to support nonsensical arguments.

thanks, sister wandrey. But what does Tep + Steinem = ?

Oy.  I just read the whole thing.  Did she really describe successful women in the boardroom as "obedient family members"?  Like, say, wives of presidents?  Does that count?

She supports Clinton because she had "on the job training" in the White House??!?  What, pray, was her "training," beyond being an "obedient family member"?  Dear God, the cognitive dissonance in the piece is amazing.  (The ridiculous conjectures she makes about black men are also inane beyond description.  Who knew that having a smattering of convenient black men handy was so "masculinity affirming"?)

Embarrassing.

I think she had a point about sexist tropes in Hillary coverage not being challenged enough.  Having said that, she should not have tried to get into a pissing match about whether sexism or racism is the more oppressive force.  For one thing, as a woman who is not black, her conclusion that sexism trumps racism is pretty self-serving.  She should have outline her grievances about sexism in Hillary's coverage and left Obama out of it.

Without wading into the ridiculous argument of which is worse, racism or sexism, I'll just point out that her premise is obviously wrong when it comes to actual electoral results:  Two black governors.  Ever.  One current black senator.  Three in the past 150+ years.

Is it so hard to believe that most people (at this point) are rejecting Hillary Clinton, and not Generic Woman Candidate?

This nonsense is enough to make you run, not walk, over to the Obama camp.

The problem with our youthful imaginations is that they harden over time into a mental bourgeoisie, yet we lack the gonads to unleash a Cultural Revolution on our own minds.

We cling to our ideas as we do to an old car with a blown clutch, a marriage long gone cold, a sickly cat in need of euthanasia.

Let us celebrate Ms. Steinem for the veracity and, dare I say, virility of her youthful ideas, and look away, politely, from their current mummification.

Chotiner: "Last time I checked there were a lot more women than African Americans in the Senate."

Yes, and there are a lot more women (of all races) than African Americans in the U.S.

Chotiner: "Black men who tried to vote faced various obstacles."

Yes, but while many black men were able to cast their vote, no women (white or black) had that freedom.

Chotiner: Steinem "needs to supply more evidence [that] we elect women less often than [do] other countries."

How many women heads of state have their been world wide? How many women heads of state have there been in America?  

 Steinem is right to point out in her editorial that there is absolutely no "right way" for a woman to act when she runs for the highest office, as the most recent Clinton: bashing has demonstrated: If a woman is tough she's considered a bitch; if she's soft and dares to look as though she's on the verge of tears...well, she's just not tough enough to lead the country. Now that's an "Ugh."

Does anybody remember her "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle line"?  

In any case maybe Gloria, who was quite a looker when she was young--and remains one--should talk about the advantage beautiful women have over more average types.  Would this beautiful woman be fill in: (married to a really rich guy, selling pharmaceuticals) if she were less attractive.  Life's hard, Gloria.  Obama's charismatic, good looking, inspiring.  Life ain't fair.  Though I do think some of the Hillary attacks are misogynist.  On the other hand, I'm going to say something incredibly sexist:  It's easier to be inspiring if you're a man.  I suppose I myself would feel more bitter if Hillary didn't bug me so much.  Life's hard.  And I don't mean that facetiously.

Continuing on today's Plank theme of gender and politics, it's worth checking out Jonathan Alter's

The fallacy at the bottom of all this thinking is that our first concern ought to be to install ASAP "the first woman president" or the "first black president" as if this is a good in and of itself.

I heard a woman voter, and supporter of Hillary, interviewed on public radio yesterday evening saying that the most important issue this year was getting a woman elected to the White House.

Absolutely absurd.  And, if you are truly a follower of Martin Luther King, you would care only about "the content of his character" in choosing your president.

In thee perilous times, getting the best leader for the job is the only issue of any import.  And if that happened to be Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Gloria Steinem, well, their femaleness, or blackness would be at most, an interesting piece of trivia.

If Margaret Thatcher had been an American, she probably could have won the presidency in 1988.

And, P.S., if Maggie had won the presidency in '88, she would have kept it for two terms.

On a related note, there a plenty of actresses who have proven that a woman can uplift and inspire.  

Hillary lacks that ability.  When she attempts the feat, her voice hits a high, unpleasant, unconvincing register.  She simply lacks any rhetorical gifts.  And if she changed genders-- but nothing else-- tomorrow, that would not change.

Unispring at speech making is a major deficit for a politician.  Particularly one running for the Bully Pulpit.

And yes, I realize that rhetoric is not Bush's strong suit, either.  Which has been a major problem for him.  But, he at least comes off like a guy you'd enjoy  having a beer with.  Usually required to win the American presidency.  

A woman needs to make the analogous connection to win.

Inpirational non-actress women, even in far more sexist times: Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, Golda Meir. Off the top of my head. I'm sure there are gazillion others. But perhaps they do have an uphill battle to climb, for whatever reason )Not necessarily that they do mre child-rearing!)

What epicciuto said. Moms rule. If Hillary's to even have a chance, she needs to play the Mom card for all it's worth.

Help the puppies, not the yuppies. Laser beam on Working Families, etc

Dr Danny, you raise one of the more salient points.  Never in the past, has First Ladyship been considered to be significant political experience.  Certainly not of a magnitude to make you "highly qualified and experienced" for the preisdency.

Outside of having a law degree, what made Hillary's experience in that honorary position any better than Jackie's, Eleanor's, Mamie's, Pat's, etc.  None of whome had any pretentions about the presidency, even the very politically active Mrs. Roosevelt.

The minute you say you won't hire me or vote for me or rtake me seriously because I'm (a woman) (black), you've already lost the game.

Leaders don't beg for leadership positions.  They lead.

boys + dumb = commenters

Eleanor Roosevelt never had delusions of being president? (think United Nations)

The job of first lady is "drinking tea?" Not Barracks only sexist statement.

"women were never lynched" - true enough, most were rarely let out of the house, unless of course it was to work the farm, suffer 18 hour days in the factory, cook all the meals, raise all the kids. But then again, the men folks did protect them.

This entire thread is an embarrassment.

Chan, first of all, glad to see my favorite opponent back again.  Missed you.  While I think that Hillary had much more of a political role than prior First Ladies, I'm not entirely sure that redounds to her credit, since that role includes the notable failure of her health care plan.  Unless she's arguing that she was an unelected co-president, the main benefit her time in the White House yields would be her skill as a campaigner, which should be self-evident (if it exists) by this time.

And epic, suffice it to say that I am thrilled to the point of giddiness to see you round these parts.

We're a fairly male-dominated crowd here at Talkback so it's just piling on, but I think Isaac is right to call out Steinem.  

In 1992 I worked on the Senate campaign for Carol Mosely Braun (a twofer) and "Let's Make History" was an eye-roller but a successful one.  Carol was remarkably charming and smart, despite some judgment lapses and really bad campaign manager.  It's very difficult to ignore identity politics, but if you are going to use your race or gender, you have to be subtle like Obama ("the cynics said it couldn't happen") and not like Clinton.  If Moseley-Braun can jump from Recorder of Deeds to U.S. Senate, I think Barack can go from a partial Senate term to POTUS.  

prbiley, Eleanor Roosevelt undoubtedly had strong political interests.  She sought to influence the Democratic Party and the nation.  She sought to be a kingmaker at times.  And she had a strong following in the Party.  As well as being respected as an elder statesman.

Her activities on behalf of the UN were not informed by an active interest in the presidency.

And, given that the nation had only recently passed a Constituional ammendment limiting presidential terms to two, it's unlikely that there was great sentiment for a Fifth Roosevelt Administration, so close on the heels of the Fourth.  No matter how much she was admired.

And, by the way, Eleanor was a somewhat polarizing figure, although nothing like Hillary.  She leaned more overtly Left than FDR, and like Hillary, mainly lacked her husband's natural political skills.

Chotiner would do better to confront some of the issues raised by Steinem. It's easy to mock her over-the-top statements, but there are some real questions in that op-ed piece. Someday, apparently not this year, America will elect its first woman as president. For a relatively progressive nation, it is surprising how long it has taken and how long it is going to take.

Hillary is a terrible example to hang this on, because she is easy to vote against for lots of reasons unrelated to gender, and Obama is a star. But I can see Steinem's frustration. Why indeed, with 50% of the population to draw from, are we stuck with Hillary as the first woman to come close to a major party nomination?

Epicciuto: My statement was excessive, but the bottom line is you had to go back several centuries to find two examples.  I guess Benazhir would count, as well, though she stands for a dynasty.  As for Maggie Thatcher, I don't think she she offered the same kind of "morning in America" excitement of Reagan.  And she was polarizing.   Nor do I think that Angela Merkel does.  Actresses are give inspired performances.  But I don't really remember an actress inspiring me to feel that my country is far from dead.  

I don't think we are incapable of being inspired.  Perhaps one day we'll evolve to a point when women, who've thus far played a small role in just about everything, will be able to "move" us.  And maybe there'll be more women, who are only just beginning to play pivotal roles in the world, etc., who can bring us to this level of excitement.  

I call myself a feminist--I'm not ashamed of the world--but I'm also a realist.

STGLA:  I like your point about subtlety.

Boys will be boys...dense, macho, misogynist. And boy, do the boys on this thread prove it. Anyone of you children wanna answer pbriley? Or redemption438 (sorry, don't know your gender -- if you're a boy child, you're clearly the exception here -- and you're right on). ChanRobt -- nice to see you back, but are you really under the illusion that there was the remotest chance that any woman woulda been considered for president in the '40s/'50s???? Which planet are you on???

Mollysimon -- in case you didn't revisit the smiley thread, many thanks for your kind words -- and I guess we still sorta don't agree -- re Obama, at least. I still don't want Clinton, don't want Obama.

I want a Democrat who can win...but I guess we'll see soon enough about whatever's been happening in NH...and choke over the idio-pundit assessments about what it means for the "future," if there will be one....

Mollysimon -- maybe the difference between the likes of Merkel and Thatcher and what happens here is that Americans look for inspiration and hope and change and all that crap....??? Maybe Europeans are just more informed and more practical...???? That's independent of gender...And I worry, with attitudes like the little boys are expressing here, that women ain't gonna get to the top in any kind of routine, everyday way in these parts for a loooonnnggg time....

mollysimon & eppicciuto-

For what it's worth, I've always thought that the most inspiring speech of the Clinton presidency came not from Bill, but from Hillary, her women's-rights-are-human-rights speech in Beijing.

That said, she hasn't done very much to inspire me since.

And her vote on the Joint Resolution on Iraq was enough to put me off her for good.

As for whether the press treats female political candidates unfairly, well, duh. Isn't this all too obvious?

Men, most men, have trouble dealing with a woman in any position of authority, let alone the presidency of the most powerful country on earth.

Some years back, there was a woman on my coop board who did more work, more effectively, more intelligently, more diligently, than any other man in the entire development. But at board meetings, no one else took what she said seriously. (I was president and found myself having to repeat what she said before anyone else would credit it.)

After one meeting, I remember driving back with her in the same car, and pointing out the obvious: that the other men on the board couldn't even hear what she said. "Because," I said, "you're a woman."

I remember watching her flinch when I said this. And at first, I think she thought I was coming on to her.

It took a few momments before she saw that I was just describing what was obvious. It didn't change anything, of course. The other men on the board continued to ignore her, even after I publicly chastised them (repeatedly) when they didn't listen to what she said.

All of which is to say, men, as a whole, have difficulty taking women seriously, especially as presidential candidates.

But Hillary isn't simply a woman running for president. She's Hillary. People on the right hate her, people on the left hate her, people with no political affiliation hate her. And it doesn't necessarily have much to do with the fact that she's a woman.

epicciuto-

Sorry for the typo above, inserting an extra P into your name. . .

Lisa, would you care to reconcile Steinem's obvious disdain for women gaining access to the boardroom by being "odedient family members" and her granting Hillary credit for her time served as First Lady?  What, pray tell, are the qualifications for being First Lady besides being married to the president?  How does her time in the White House as the spouse of the president qualify her to occupy it on her own merits?  Or would you simply rather continue to disdain those of us who have posted because we have Y chromosomes?

Actually I think Eleanor Roosevelt was extremely inspiring, as was, I think Amelia Earhart.  It's certainly do-able.  You know who else? Shonen Knife. I saw them a couple of weeks ago and was very very inspired.

About that stupid, stupid op ed - she starts out trying to make her "women have it tough!" arg by positing, basically, "what if Obama were female?" but the same hypo could be used to ask "what if Clinton were black, came from nowhere, and had never married a president?"  Like she even could have married a president if she weren't white.  Steinem is repellently blind to her own privelege, which undermines her credibility as a feminist as nothing else could.

drdannyu...if I haven't managed to make it clear yet on one of these 3, is it? threads on Stenem-Clinton, my agreement with Steinem is on the one overall point that men (and women) just apply different standards and have different expectations re men and women -- see JosephCuomo above -- he gets it. Too many, most it seems to me, of the male posters here don't get that.

I basically disagree with much of what Steinem says on specifics, and certainly with what she says on Clonton specifically. Just frustrating to me that it's 2008 and that damn glass ceiling is still so obviously there...

i obviously agree that women face tall odds on the national political scene.  I would have to be a fool to disagree on that score.  But I think that Steinem shoots herself in the foot by making an internally contradictory argument, and by making unbelievably ham-handed statements about racial identity in America.

LISAH:  Yes, Americans DO look too much for hope and inspiration--hence, George Bush and, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan.    If it's Hillary and McCain, I'm voting McCain.  Even though he may just keel over three months in.  

Joseph Cuomo:  I think you make a great point.  I was sort of getting at that in my previous point, about us having to evolve enough to be able to look up to a woman, but didn't make it nearly as clearly as you.  Your story was very bracing.  I live in a VERY sheltered little planet and don't often come against this painful reality.  

mollysimon & LISAH-

Thanks for the kind words.