wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Poster # 3 "M" Said:

"Here you can see already from the #1 comment here what happens. Somehow the dialog is out of whack. If you look closely at what Ferraro said, she said that Obama would not be where he is if he weren't black. He has admitted that this is true. If he were not black he would just be another of 9 freshmen senators. That is not the same as saying that he enjoys an advantage because he is black and I don't recall Ferraro actually saying that. She has also said that if her name were Gerald, she would not have been VP candidate in '84. But people hear things that are not actally said and then they run with it. Ferraro is not innocent here, I think she was engaging in a put-down, but I also think that her comments came from a place of frustration that is real."

If Barack Obama was a white candidate, he would be the modern day Jack Kennedy.

hey, hjs [111]!! i mentioned tribalism as a metaphor for every other nation in my original comment [100]. picky. didn't you even like my jokey analysis? geez!
i say we discuss this the next time the word maven lady is on lenny's show. you and me, okey dokey? [i guess as a metaphor for 'alright', or even the 'b' word!]

and i will leave everyone with a heartfelt sentiment from a lovely friend of mine from Bombay: "All politicians lie, cheat, and steal. I just vote for the politician who's going to lie, cheat and steal for my priorities." now you all have a self-serving and fulfilling weekend like i'm going to.

I made this point right after the show, but it did not post?

I would like to simply point out that the last caller in referring to the issue of race for which prior the speaker whom responded to her statement made the claim that race was not as significant, yet contradicted her self in her response to the caller with the new claim that racism is alive and well.

This is the exact issuance I see with what I will with much reserve call the caucasian delimia; the contradictions expressed within their own beliefs as well as are too willing to vacillate the truth to tailor their points in doing so loosing sight of their own statements.

m,
Yeah, our locations determine a lot of what we hear. And, weirdly, how we think. I changed a lot in my years in NY, becoming much more conservative, which, really, was still super liberal. Now back in "flaky" California, I find myself letting go of some of those NY thoughts.
To be honest, I don't believe any of the three candidates on much. They're all lying about taxes and Iraq, and they have to. The economic ground is shifting right under our feet, which will affect our presence in Iraq. I don't like any of their records, either! Sigh. oh well. gotta sign off. Have a great weekend, and try not to think about this stuff!

Well, that is perfectly legitimate. My husband and others in my family feel that the tone someone sets is more important than the actual substance, and there may be something to that argument. I gave up listening to rhetoric a long time ago, prefering to look at the record of deeds done and the actual proposals made. I don't buy BHO as this peace candidate and I'm really bucking the liberal orthodoxy in my own communtiy when I say this, but I think a lot of his positions are slightly to the right of hers.

But at the same time, I know that his candidacy makes a whole lot of people feel really empowered and I celebrate that. I wish that more of his supporters among the people I run into could be a little less nasty and personal about her while they promote him. My criticisms of him are purely on public policy, I think he is a fine senator and I'm sure a fine person. I also do not buy into any of the Ayers/Wright etc. garbage. If he wins the nomination I will vote for him without hesitation. I do not hear the reverse from most of his supporters but maybe that's got more to do with where I live and work.

2 years ago, during the disaster in Lebanon, I visited my old boss in NY and his family. We were talking about Hillary, and I said, I can't support her in anything because she's a lightning rod, people just hate her. And he said, yeah, but women hate her the most. And I disagreed with him at the time. Now I still disagree with him, I think she engenders more hatred from guys, but I've become really pissed off with her during this campaign. I don't like her old-school (the bad side of old-school) politics, her usage of repub talking points, espec. during this last debate. Like I said, I'm nervous about Obama, but Hillary hasn't convinced me.

I'm sure anyone male or female will look at a failed campaign and figure they'll do it differently. But there has been so much nastiness leveled at her for so long that has so little to do with her actual record that I would be discouraged from even thinking about it (not that I'm the type).

Hil surprised me as a senator. I was not at all enthusiastic about her run in 2000 but voted for her to avoid Rick Lazio. Then she preceeded to build enough support in deeply Republican territory upstate that they could not even find a credible candidate to run against her in '06. She and Carolyn Maloney worked tirelessly to get additional benefits for sick 9-11 workers and she has not gotten a lot of credit for it because it was not well covered. She crossed the aisle in the Senate and worked with Reps. who had voted to impeach B. Clinton. Sure the record is checkered, the war vote and that stupid flag burning bill. But Barack's record isn't all that distinguished either and neither meets the Feingold standard. You don't see him running for president.

m,
I think every woman who is considering a run for the president (they've gotta already have a pretty big ego) looks at the Clinton campaign and thinks:
there is no way I would have said that
They all think they're different because their circumstances will be different.
I can understand why it would be a mixed bag. That sounds aggravating! I hear a lot of people say the same thing about him. A lot of people say it's his fault that congestion pricing failed. He's too arrogant. Too bad, because he has good ideas.
Yeah, I'm in CA now. It does look different.

#186. Interesting point about white males on TV. I would submit that the same is true in the movies. Maybe it's considered "safe" to have those characterizations because white males control most of the levers of power so there is less of an implied threat in doing that.

I have noticed that the white male boob in the movies often ends up with the cutest female. What does that tell us?

Perhaps it will take longer for other women to consider a run for the White House after watching what happened to this one. Perhaps not. I hope not.

In much popular television comedy white middle aged men are depicted as idiotic buffoons. Almost every one is some sort of variation on Homer Simpson. Right wing news gasbags are lampooned by Steven Colbert every weeknight. The kind of cluelessness exemplefied by George Allen's "macaca" incident and subsequent political flame out are highlighted and lampooned constantly. People like Maureen Dowd, John Stewart and Chevy Chase have built entire careers around this. That's life in the public arena.
THIS IS WHAT CONCERNS ME:
In 2008, almost 40 years after women started attending Yale University, this bright aggressive but flawed Senator and wife of a former President appears to be the ONLY viable female presidential candidate of her generation. Everyone can't be "opting out" to raise the next generation of ivy league candidates, write novels, write blogs or start consulting businesses.
I do my own laundry, take the kids to school, do some cooking (although I dislike it almost as much as my mother). If she's nominated I'll vote for Hil.

Hi eva:

This may sound like a dumb question: are you actually living in CA right now? I thought you were just from CA. That is interesting. It must look different from over there.

I'm not sure who is supposed to plant the trees.

Another good thing about Bloomberg, I think the city has gotten more democratic under him, more access to more places. Love the bike paths. Love the parent coordinator in the schools. But I was struggling with a 6-year-old in distress and being told that his services would be delayed because no one was home in the new regional offices (the districts had been dismantled).

Definitely a mixed bag.

m,
sorry, I meant, what don't you like about Bloomberg?
interesting answer, thanks for filling me in. I'd read about the autocratic side, but mostly in regard to congestion pricing. I hardly ever think about the west side stadium or the practical issues of school transport. I miss the petri dish aspect of New York - that you could actually get something done because it's this wonderful sample of people. And they actually do interact quite a bit more than we do out west, they're more engaged. Maybe they have to be, but I really miss that aspect of the city. How are the new trees he planted? There are supposed to be (eventually) one million of 'em.

Hi eva,

I did not say I did not like Bloomburg. I said he was mixed for me. I like the no smoking rules and the movement to get restaurants to list the contents and calorie count of the food they serve. I think that the 311 service is outstanding. There are probably other things that I could think of but that's a start.

Here is what I don't like: He has a tendency to be very autocratic in some situations where more nuance might work. He changed the bus pick-ups in the middle of the school year, stranding dozens of children and then when parents complained he told them to stop whining. When the school governance was overhauled back in '03 he completely left the special ed kids behind and it was up to us to try to navigate a system that was just as tough as the former system but with fewer people that understood it. We were told that "there would be glitches." Unacceptable when you have a first grader to worry about. I also think that the west side stadium and the congestion pricing were sold in a way that was very misleading and dishonest and that is the reason that both went down.

m,
interesting, why don't you like Bloomberg?I think MB has a better chance of getting stuff done - less bureaucracy, smaller state, more cohesive population.
hjs,
I went through that yesterday: glass-steagal, welfare "reform", biggest tax cut for the rich EVER, failure to address terrorism early, basically being a Democrat in name only. Note that the first two factors later helped build the $109 million fortune in speaking fees. Unless that's chump change for you.

hi eva: #176;

Thanks for the clarification on the dates. I was sort of watching this unfold from afar. I was so impressed - I had never seen anything like this before. Now Schwartzie (that's cute) is really out front with global warming and a number of other issues. It reminds me of Bloomburg, although I have real problems with Bloomburg - he's a mixed bag for me, but I respect anyone who does not blindly toe the party line.

That is part of my objection to Obama. I think his record is too cautiously party line. But, both you and hjs have your reasons for supporting your candidates and I think that people can look carefully at each candidate and decide what's important and vote based on that. Even while we have access to the same facts not all of us will swing the same way. This is what makes a democracy. People of course have the right to vote based on anything they like, I'm just saying that I have more respect for people who really check it out.

eva
why do you call a US senator Hillary? cause she's a girl???
Senator Clinton is tough and she not "suffering sexism." I'm not worried about her.
as I said early some (Feminists) judge the senator for not dumping bill after he stepped out on her.
true some GOP don't think Clinton was a good prez they are wrong. by what measure was he not a good president?

hjs,
if you think Hillary is suffering SO much from sexism in the runup to the NOMINATION, what on earth do you think she'll suffer in the general election? And you accuse me, a former Edwards supporter who went to the Obama camp after Edwards dropped out, of having "rose-colored glasses"? And why do you keep calling Senator Obama "bama"? Is it the "O" key on your typepad?
Yes, there are valid concerns about "dynastic succession." And BTW, not everyone thinks that Bill Clinton was a good president, not even counting in the Lewinsky scandal. Feminists who would like a female president who did NOT come in on her husband's coattails are as valid, if not more, than those feminists who are voting for Hillary solely because she is a woman.

eva,
OH please. dynastic? when was the last time we got a new senator in this country without a death? why do incumbents in both house of congress always win. democracy's on its death bed. what about the 2 party system dynasty?
2 bush then 2 Clintons are no dynasty. bush the elder and bush the lesser are not even on the same page. the Clintons have been good for this country and now people complain they are good business people. and why is the senator said to be riding on Bill's coat tails. maybe she pulled him up. he's the screw-up (personal life only) and she pays. talk about sexist, make me sick. if you think bama can win u have rose color glass on, this is a racist country.

u people sure do care about the silliest things. no wonder we'll all be eating dogfood by 2020.

hjs, #175
to be honest, I think it's unwise to brush off concerns about dynastic succession. These are valid concerns. But I think people are so frightened these days that part of Hillary's appeal is actually this dynastic succession factor. That concerns me. But it's true that when times are rough, people are more willing to go with "the devil they know."
I'm supporting Obama, but I'm not CRAZY about him, just as I know a lot of my friends supporting Clinton wish they had someone they also felt better about. (Proably because a mess of us would rather vote for Edwards, and if Edwards were still in the race, some of those people would say, "I'm really voting for Elizabeth." People have learned to hedge their bets...

m,
November 2005 was when Schwarzie had the ballot measures up, he bombed, then appointed Dem Susan Kennedy his chief of staff on Nov 30, which was a big deal.
For some reason, I date the "apology" speech as early 2006, prob. January. But maybe it was Nov 2005 or Dec 2005. I can't find a transcript of the speech. I just remember everyone here walking around in the winter rain saying: I've never heard THAT from a politician before. It was a novel trick, in part because he sounded so damn sincere and sorry. This is a hard state to govern, but he's got some assets - good Dem advisors, and he's pretty flexible. He's really grown in office.

david 170,
i think what Mitch 148 and keith 90 are saying is, sen clinton is disqualified because the USA elected bush's son. they havn't said how long such a prohibition should last.
2 generations??

"You are allowed to make jokes about sexism and we're supposed to laugh them off."

Lets stop doing what is expected.

Re: #161 and #171 Glad we were able to provide some entertainment :-)

I think that the excuse of not having a Clinton or a Bush in the White House is weak. If you don't like the policies of either then fine. But someone's last name is almost as bad a yardstick as his/her gender or race or religion, for that matter. I would have not problem at all with Obama being a Muslim if he were one, just as Romney's Mormonism was not nearly the most objectionable thing about him.

148 Mitch, if it hardly matters that the families differ politically, what's the point of having elections at all?

To me it matters a lot that they differ politically. Otherwise, let's just let Congress start appointing a president every four years.

yes m
we should all vote for the Democrat, on the Working Families or the Green party line to encourage multi party democracy in the states

Lesbian with hairy armpits?
Yes.. I am one - and a feminist and a professional artist and educator.

I feel really bad about Nader. He had such a great legacy fighting for consumers' rights. He is to a large extent the reason we have OSHA. But now he mounts these increasingly pathetic runs for the presidency. I'm afraid that is what most people will remember about him. I agree with hjs, I would like to see the Green Party built to where it is a viable presence. People running for local offices on the ticket might help. Something needs to be done about the egregious rules about access to the NY ballot. I usually vote for the Democrat, however, if I can do it on the Working Families or the Green party line I do it.

#162, jh
What do you have against Arnold Schwarzenegger? I did not vote for the recall, and was very unhappy about his election, but all in all, he's arguably been an improvement.
I was FLOORED when he apologized to the people of California in early 2006 for not having listened to us. FLOORED. I have never heard a politician make such an admission. Since that time, he has done a fairly good job, and here in CA, that's rather high praise.

hjs,

He's kind of a curmudgeon, and doesn't know how to play the game at all. His campaigns were all conducted in the wrong manner, and he has zero chance of being elected. However, he has an extensive background in environmentalism, humanitarianism, and consumer rights. It's safe to say that even if the popular vote were to sway in his favor, corporations would find a way to block his election.

I was one of those people in 2004 who shook a fist at Nader supporters. I now realize that you cannot blame the candidate, since he didn't force them to vote at gunpoint. Sometimes it boils down to voting in accordance to your beliefs, or maybe for the general good. This is not always an easy decision.

NADER
what has he done. has he spent the last 7 year building a party?
he just pops up to hear himself every 4 years.

BORED,

I too kind of long for Nader...

I also have to consider the kind of person it takes to actually run for the presidency with the intensity of these two. I watched the first part of the debate the other night, went out for an hour, and came back. They were still standing in exactly the same place.

Imagine if, on top of your other accomplishments, you were suddenly required to have a degree in theater. They both had to memorize lines to be recited in a random order, with some improv and debate mixed in at appropriate times, all the while being aware of every facial expression and twitch. They did this for two hours! This requires a great amount of resiliency. As sincere as they both appear to be, you can't be entirely innocent to get to this point (and I don't think this is a bad quality).

I think they both have good hearts and good intentions. The only reason I'm pushing for Clinton is due to a quality many find to be negative, her ability to play the game. I think the next POTUS needs to have a few tricks up a suit sleeve to begin undoing the damage of the last 8 years, and allow for a successor who can then genuinely continue without having to resort to as many tricks.

Carter was also (and still is) an amazing humanitarian. He made a few minor mistakes (like all presidents), but the right wing trumpeted his "inexperience" and we ended up with Reagan. I don't want to see Arnold Schwarzenegger elected any day soon!

will & M
but which on of u is right...

It is not what we want but what is true : )

Sure, William if it's that important to you I will keep that in mind.

Ok M I will defer also, just remember I am well informed and have actually informed you today of something new!!!

OK, William. I am going to defer to the excellent BL moderator's request that "we end this spat." It is obvious that we are not communicating very well with each other. I wish people would listen better and not assume we know what other people are thinking.

@jh You are right. Thanxs for the link. Honestly when you listen to either of them talk about blowing up everything that america doesn't like and giving insurance companise new people to rip off it makes me long for Ralph Nader.

scnex,
You got it. As the muslim protagonist of VS Naipaul's "A Bend in the River" referred to it, it's the amazing ability of white people "to say one thing and do another." The young character meant it as a compliment, how they could at once have the beautiful Age of Enlightenment and Voltaire, and be able to abstract that ethical inheritance (and actually use that ethical inheriance) to colonize people in Africa.
But aint no difference between them and anyone else, it's just a matter of style. And, perhaps, the favor we accord to the style of those in power. As the Athenians once famously said, "you'd do the same thing if you were in power." Shortly after this, of course, they shot their entire wad in the Pelops War.

I would have LOVED to support a woman in this election; however, HRC's not the one. It's NOT that I hold her to a higher standard because she's female.

Any means to an end doesn't work when you are a leader. Her campaign has been negative in ways that damage relations between people. Her husband was way out of line.

As a Jew of Native American ancestry, I think Barack embraces an idea of repairing the world that includes all people...sees the unity that can be achieved if people walk a sacred path, including one with their partners; whereas, with Hillary her dismissive sarcasm regarding that outlook offends while showing she’s out-of-touch with her Native American heritage.

Yes, I am angry that women are often not treated as equals. Anyone who demeans women in the public arena should be shouted down, and in the private sphere stopped. I took Fey's embrace of "bitch" as a 'women united will never be defeated' stance.

Barack should and does speak out against sexism because he knows it denigrates his mother, wife, daughters and all women. It is discrimination. Yeah, it’d be great if Barack were female…but he's not and I won’t hold that against him.

When he’s president I expect to see many female members of the cabinet and in other leadership postions; in the future I know another woman will emerge as a leader, one deserving to be president.

And if by some chance HRC wins the nomination, I will support her candidacy.

Alice 103 ( you don't play!!) Now this, what you said, is without doubt:

" . . Campaigns are indicative of how a candidate will work in office. Hillary has surrounded herself with bad advisors, run a primarily negative campaign, and rested on her "co-presidency" as her "experience". . ."

Geez! Obama's "Our time has come" is an all-inclusive call for people who want positive change. Because you hear it on 125th Street no more makes it a Black thing than if you heard it in Chelsea or Park Slope makes it something else.

BORED,

Trust me, I've been denying the existence of Mitch McConnel for many many years. :)

I have no issues with negative criticism of Clinton, provided they are coming from the right place. I just have a problem thinking this is the case in all examples, because you don't even hear some of the same people referring to our current POTUS in the same way. I mean, I'm not surprised if right wingers call her a "c___" because I don't expect much from them in the first place. It does however sicken me when coming from (a few) Obama supporters. Feminists who actively support Omaba have even noticed this behavior, and it's very troubling. You don't want to think your liberal male peers are a-holes, but sadly this is the case sometimes.

If you feel like watching, here's the video that's been making the rounds. It illustrates how sexism is still accepted in the media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM&feature=email

Some of it is overly dramatic and cheesy, but you can get the message in the first half. It's basically a compendium of clips that illustrate why we're really pissed off at this point.

I'm still dreaming of both of them on the ticket, in either order. If we can get both Clinton and Obama supporters united, can you imagine...?

Jay Jay: I heard Lucy Kellaway (sp?) on the BBC a year ago talk about how she never thought of herself as having an edge for being attractive when she was young. She didn't think she was particularly 1) attractive or 2) flirty, she just thought she made it because she was smart and hardworking. When she hit forty, she realized that she'd been given a lot of advantages because of her youth. When you're young you don't understand the extent to which you were accorded privileges/bonuses/promotions based in part on your youth-sex quotient. It's like the older guy at the pool told me when I said in mixed company: "Why would Eliot cheat on Silda? She is SO much better looking than "Kristin"." And he said, very pointedly: "Kristin Is sexy. BECAUSE. She's YOUNG."

Mireille and hjs,
Right on, I judge Bill for cheating (mostly I judge him for cheating UNWISELY - if you can't keep it in your paints, choose discreet women!), but I don't judge Hillary for standing by him. (Or not stand by him, if she'd made that choice.) Marriages are difficult things, and men tend to stray. That's life, as they say. That's also probably genetic, if you think of the XX or XY chromosome distribution as a random "genetic" determination. (Not genetic as we ordinarily define it.)

#99

It hardly matters that the two families are not the same politically. What matters is that there are people voting for the first time, in this Presidential election, whom all of their lives the country has been run by two families. And now these new voters are looking at the prospect of voting to continue that trend. If that doesn't put a larger majority of our future population into a mindset that believes this is okay in a functional democracy I don't know what would. I think it will cause severe problems for us down the road. Who's to come after Hillary, Jeb Bush? Then after him Chelsea will be primed and ready. That is certainly not what I want.

M

You know exaclty what was my main statement, and you stated "I challenge you to find that statement on Geraldine regarding Jessie" that seems, funny!

And for the nature of these comments their not meant to be used to attack other people!!

(Dude) I'm not dude.

Very articulate.

this race has all the irrationality of the Redsox Yankees rivalry.

I would like to simply point out that the last caller raised the issue of race after the speaker which responded to her statement made the claim that race was not as significant, yet contradicted her self in her response to the call with the new claim that racism is alive and well.

This is the exact issuance I see with what I will with much reserve call the caucasian dilemma; the contradictions expressed within their own beliefs as well as the willingness to vacillate the truth to tailor their points, thus in doing so loosing sight of their own statements.

jh I understand what you and other are saying. Just look at mitch mcconnell's comments last week. what I fail to understand is how sexism by the media has caused HRC campaign to be the great failure that it has been. She runs a bad campaign and instead of being panned for it we are supposed to blame sexism. In reverse B Obama runs a great campaign but his success is due to his being black. my issue is that we have never had a poor president i don't see anyone crying for that. This whole race has turned into a pissing contest.

#126, Jay Jay:
I hear you. I know what you're talking about. I think you're right. I'm not (yet) forty, but I've seen that kind of sexism in the workplace.
Really absurd, freaky, scary sexism in the workplace. Stuff that makes you feel like Alice down the rabbit hole.
But I'm not voting for Hillary. If you'd run Barbara Jordan or Barbara Boxer, yes. Or Pelosi. Or DiFi, whose political career began when I was just a girl here in SF. But no to Hillary. I vote on the individual, not on who's the biggest victim.

Sorry, William. Wrong again. I did not challenge you on the Jesse J quote, I meant to challenge you on the inside track you seem to think you have on what the Clinton campaign is thinking and telling people like Ferraro to say. If this was not clear, well that is the nature of these comment pages. I am not attacking you at all, I am challenging your statements that you do not seem to be able to prove. No one can claim to know what someone else is thinking. Note, above I said "you seem to think" you know what HRC is thinking.

I did think that Ferraro's remarks were derogatory. That is not the same as saying they are racist. Shades of gray, dude, not balck and white.

Ultimately, both sexism and racism are pretty nasty things that those of conscience should work ardently to eradicate. Though I, too, have been guilty of it on this discussion board, it seems to me now to be a waste of time to try to weigh which is worse. It's counterproductive, moreover. Injustice is injustice is injustice.

That being said, race and sex are important factors in this primary season. British writer Richard Dyer says in his book WHITE, that "Race is not always the only issue, but it is never NOT an issue." (paraphrase) I feel the same is true with sex, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. These identifying factors are socially salient and election cycles are not exempt. However, to base one's vote wholly on sex or race is foolish and short-sighted. There are important issues at play. That being said, we are coming to the end of 8 years of a guy whose only merit seems to be that more people in Middle America would "like to have a beer with him," so I suppose there are worse criteria on which one may base his or her vote.

eva,
you're right and I fail to understand why people bring up Sen Clinton's reaction to her husband's conduct and staying married to a "cheater" as a bad thing.
and also it's a certain type of women you thinks this is a fault. It's not one of my criteria

I wouldn't say that there's NO shame and NO taboo on sexism. I mean, I think we can agree people aren't going to think nothing of a man saying that men should beat their wives, or that women shouldn't vote, etc. etc. But the acceptance of "soft" sexism is certainly much greater than that of "soft" racism.

And part of this is do to the fact that many more women will laugh at sexist jokes than ethnic minorities will laugh at racist jokes made about their particular race. Unfortunately though, that's going to require a long time of changing people's attitudes. Never an easy task.

#119 wrote:
"My priorities lie in striving for equality for humans with vaginas, regardless of race."
That's funny. My priorities lie in striving for equality for everyone.
Given your quote, I can't help but think of Animal Farm. To paraphrase Orwell: "Some vaginas are more equal than others."

Also, talk about getting a pass from the media and from voters: if Obama had been implicated in a cynical howler as blatant as Sniper Gate his run would be over, but like Bush, whom everyone quickly learned to expect nothing but stupidity from from the beginning, Hilary, advancing under the depends-on-the-meaning-of-is-is Clinton banner, is expected from the start to be a liar. Feminists should be embarrassed ... embarrassed to be placing such symbolic stakes in any one person. If you mean her victory to stand as a symbolic victory for all women you need to brace for her failure to be a failure for, because on your terms in the name of, all women. Hilary's turning the clock back for women, not advancing the cause. Get your eggs out of her basket.

I have to say, I've been concerned about how the word "bitch" is now perfectly acceptable on tv and radio in a way that it wasn't in the past. Ten years ago, it was a rarely used curse word. Now you hear it all the time.

But bitch is also one of those words that feminists do seize upon sometimes as being this general insult to women in power, but this is a narrow interpretation. The majority times that people use the word, they are using it as the female equivalent of the word "asshole" or "bastard". It's a targeted remark about a specific person's behavior. Crude? Certainly. Curse words are crude. But it doesn't necessarily translate to being anti-woman. But, as I said, I still think it's a word we're becoming too comfortable with. And it is being used increasingly in ways that I think is destructive.

Women can be creeps and jerks just as much as men. And it doesn't mean they're empowering themselves by treating people like dirt.

BORED,

"Why puzzles me is that white women being oppressed as they are can be racist towards anybody."

Certainly. But as you see, anything that can be construed as racist like Ferarro's comments are given a field day in the media, while no one pays any mind to the "joe-on-the-street" dudes who think a woman isn't capable of doing the job. It blows my mind.

#114, hjs
Thanks for the explanation. But I'm failing to see how this woman's comments about what she would do in that situation are an argument in favor of voting for Hillary?
We vote on the individual. Not on who's the biggest victim.

M

Let's start from the beginning again, I Illuminated you regarding the issue of Geraldine regarding the Jessie statement, I was right and well informed and you challenged me on this issue! you finally admitted that she did say that derogatory statement, and you understood it as so and now that you cannot win the argument so you attack me for being right! you your self have adimited that I was right and then claim that I cannot back up my statements when all along we discussing the Geraldine issue. Now you claim it was all along about being a proxy, dont we live in a happy world were we change issue to our own moods.

[[BL Show Responds: It's high time we end this spat. Please remain civil and keep your comments relevant to the discussion on the air. Thanks!]]

#123 Johnjohn: Let me enlighten you. If you look up the etymology of that particular word you will see that it is gender specific.

I wonder if Imus would have caught so much heat if he had just said "ho's" and not what he did say.

As an older college student, as much as we would like to think that we are at the "dawn of a new era for women" with the first female presidential candidate, watching the way most of my young female classmates behave and allow male classmates to behave towards them leads me to believe that the way to fight sexism is not by complaining about it but by educating our daughters that their value as human beings goes beyond their sex appeal.

I have a young teenage boy. It has been very hard, to say the least, to talk to him about the respect women deserve when all he sees around him are women whose clothing and behavior are nothing more than an advertising for sex. To be perfectly honest, I am a woman, and even I would have a very hard time treating one of those girls shown on "MTV's Spring Break" coverage, for example, as a serious person. Can't imagine what the males around them think of them.

Respect is not something you demand, it is something you earn, so as long as we have young girls and women advertising sex so openly through their behavior and clothing while allowing males to treat them as nothing more than a sex object, the end of sexism will not happen any time soon. We, the older generation, can complain as much as we want, but as long as girls and women continue to base their self-esteem on their degree of "hotness", women will continue to be treated as "second class citizens" for years to come.

As an older female, I remember the really ugly days in the workforce. I started at $55.00 a week and the boys started at $65.00 a week for the same work. Little by little, I was educated on how bad things were. In my later years, I was always mystified by the young women coming into the workforce who sneered at the feminists movement, announcing clearly they were "not feminists." It appeared they took for granted the hard work and sacrifices the early feminists had to endure to make a few dents in the system. It's no surprise that middle aged and older women are for Hillary. They KNOW it ain't over. The young ones just haven't been bruised yet.

One last point - the treatment of Bill Richardson was perhaps the ugliest moment of the Clinton campaign. Anyone who ever worked for her husband, or received favors from him, is now required to support Hillary? or suffer the wrath of Bill? Bill has continued to press others, and (as mentioned before) used his significant influence in PA to garner support among current politicains there for Hillary. How can this be good for women? How can his influence be limited?

I see a few Archie Bunkers have invaded the conversation. Keep it classy, fellas!

Why is calling someone a bitch immediately referred to as sexist? It has nothing to do with being a strong woman – at least for me. Besides how exactly do you refer to a woman who is a rather nasty person. Many men are called jerks and that is not exactly considered male-bashing. In a political context, one important factor why I despise Rudy Juliani is not just because of his policies, but that he is a down-right jerk. In spite of my concurrence with many of Hillary Clinton’s stated policies, I find her a rather unpleasant personality and for lack of a better word – a bitch. So far I have always voted for her but am not sure if I would anymore – both her performance as Senator and a presidential candidate has been pretty abysmal. Now will some old-time feminist accuse me of misogyny?

"AM" 116: Why don't you school me, or why don't you hip me to how up-to-date the guests and their line of reasons was to whatever is current today?

I would consider supporting Barbara Lee for president, but not HRC.

I agree with steve:
---------------------
Maybe if Hillary wasn't a mean and dishonest person, people would react more positively to her.

It's not her gender, it's her personality. Tina Faye, deal with that.
----------------------------
Also with the caller who said that she runs on her husband's cotails. Yes she has an amazing carreer, I respect and admire her for that but if she wanted to completely hold her own she shouldn't have mention her experience in the white house time and again.

I consider myself a femnist in the right sense of the word. I am a black woman and consider myself woman first and then comes color if you will or everything else for that matter but I don't think a woman should win just because it's a woman or because it's her time. I am an Obama supporter because he is better and I do think he has the experience. Even better experience to become president.

Check the record on how many bills he has passed in is little years of congress as well as the different subjects if you will and compare that to Hillary's.

I can go on and on but let me end by saying this. I admire Hillary for the things she accomplished and I don't condemn her standing by her man nor do I see it at week. Your guest is right. That is her business and women should stop telling each other what to and respect one another opinion more without being so jugemental. Having said that I hope she respects mine to support Barack Obama.

Cheers.

Alexis,

Here's the thing: I have firsthand experience as a woman, but I do happen to be white. I would never claim to know about what African Amercans have endured, but have always been in support of whatever they tell me will make their lives better. I also apply this support to all marginalized groups.

I think people tend to most passionately fight what applies to them personally. My priorities lie in striving for equality for humans with vaginas, regardless of race. This doesn't mean I hate others. "White female liberal powerbrokers" have only experienced sexism firsthand, so why the constant criticism of them as a group? I really think they're receiving an undue amount of crap from both the misogyniosts AND some of the people they've supported over the years. At least they're trying. Is it better to just sit back and give up altogether, or risk being told you're not doing enough?

What puzzles me is when minoity males act in a sexist manner. Am I not allowed to call them out on this? If we all have different degrees of oppression and are supposed to support each other, this behavior doesn't make sense, does it?

William #98. You misunderstood my challenge. I wanted you to prove that Ferraro made the comments at the Clinton campaign's"behest." I doubt that you have an inside track on that.

You cannot ligitimately make the claim that you are better informed than I. You mentioned a quote which I looked up, so I defer that one to you. However, you are given to making statements that you cannot possibly back up.

Really, isn't true feminism about voting for the candidate who will be most transformative and willing to do upopular things..like raise the cap on the social security payroll tax... in pursuit of social justice. The Clintons gave us the very anti-woman "welfare reform".. and Obama is the more transformative candidate. So, Ms. Bennetts said, quite rightly, that you could be concerned with the sexism and still prefer Obama- but the program somehow became a call to vote for Hillary in order to take a stand on feminism. And blacks have come further than women???..no, I don't think so, by any standard. .

"Bill" 111, you clearly don't know what feminism is in its many current manifestations, both academic and otherwise. Just say no to mindlessness.

Of the handful of women in national politics, there was a hanful of them that I would've supported for President. Hillary was not one of them. But after listening to some of the debates, I felt better about her, and I decided I'd definitely vote for her if she got the nomination. Then her luck started to turn. And as soon as the word "elitist" left her lips, I decided that I'd rather a one-term Republican disaster than a one-term Democratic disaster for the next four years.

That said, I am glad she is in the race, and I'm glad that she has blazed the trail for better women to make another attempt in a few years. But not only do I hope that it encourages another female Senator or Governor to make a run for the Presidency, but I hope that it encourages more women to become senators, governors, and congresswomen so that we will have an even larger pool of women on the national stage to choose from.

112 eva
I was talking to a caller of the show. she said she's better than senator Clinton because if her husband cheated (which he never would!?! right...) she would divorce him. or something like that.

#97, Zak,
Right on.
And in the end, we're voting on the individual. Racism or sexism don't factor in as much as whether we trust the INDIVIDUAL or not.

#40, what does that comment ("Your husband WILL cheat on you") have to do with the campaign? Either campaign? Any campaign?
Yes, the personal is political, but this is getting ridiculous.

j 100
racism is also universal. every nation has their "other"

Great posts BORED.

Feminism is self-defeating: whining that society types you as whiners doesn't fly. Finally now in academia Women's Studies is being replaced by Gender Studies. Feminism is still too rooted in essentializing tendencies. Younger voters actually get it.

Just say no to Boomers.

107--disagree, please see 99

Edward #94 Hmmm. Strident. Sounds a lot like shrill. Why don't you walk around female for a decade and find out for yourself? Every white person should walk around balck for a decade too.

By the way, I'm a huge Michelle Obama fan (#93)

#90, that is an excellent point. HRC as a president makes me think of political dynasties in "democracies" like India and the Philippines, rather than more enlightened democracies like those in Western Europe where electing a female PM is no big deal. Such is the poor state of our democracy that people will vote for flawed candidates like HRC just because she's a woman.

I find it stupid, that the host seems to suggest that everyone should vote for Hillary beacuse some idiot said something wrong. This is not the biggest loser show where its important to show that women are equal to men, we are talking about choosing the next president.It doesnt matter if its a he/she or black/white/brown, we need the best.

No one ahould judge a society by the people who abuse its laws. Its like saying if one person in america is a rapist all americans are rapist. That would be so wrong.

I work in a office where we have 10 departments and all the department heads are women, in our office of 1600 employees there are only 300 men. The CFO is a women. So now do i start crying out sexism. stupid.

I think educated journalist and talk shows host should have the courage to talk about and write about the real issues in the presidential race and not aspire to do an Oprah or Jerry springer.

We live in a misogynist, sexist, patriarchal culture. That is should not be a surprise to any conscious female human. Are all men sexist , misogynistic and patriarchal - of course not. Never-the-less, we must all contend with the reality of women's inequality. I think Hillary Clinton is intelligent, strong and competent. I also think she is conservative, heterosexist and not a feminist so I would never vote for her. Further, if Hillary Clinton restricted her discussion about her experience to only the period during which she has been a public servant, then I believe your guest's comments would be valid. She has not. Hillary Clinton continually presents her experiences as First Lady as part of her resume and while I'm sure she had some input and impact on President Clinton (and some First Ladies have done amazing things with that position) I think it's crazy to apply those experiences to her preparedness to BE president. Yes, she has experience (as a person, as a lawyer, as a woman, as a mother, as a citizen, as a human being) not all of those experiences are relevant to running for president. Watching her husband be president is definitely not part of her applicable resume.

At least Leslie Bennetts was able to address basic issues like the caller's question about whether the word "feminism" has been sullied by the assumption that it's mere quibbling to object to someone's treating women as less human than men (as in "I'm not a feminist but..."). The other guest seemed completely out of it and unable to respond to even the simplest questions. There are so many capable and brilliant feminists out there of all kinds--from journalists to activists to academics--it's amazing that we're still settling for this kind of dim-witted pseudo-representation. I'm glad WNYC had the sense to get at least one thinking feminist on the show. Even if they did relegate the show to a day when Brian Lehrer was not the host (par for the course).

I think it's ridiculous that this even aired. Learn how to take a joke.

You can vote, you can work. We've got decent jobs and good homes. But a comment about ironing a shirt is a cry of "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

Men in this country could face crippling child support because of one night's mistake, or in some states, because a woman just chose to put his name on the birth certificate. That's sexism. A joke is a joke. If you don't like someone's sense of humor, change the channel, change the radio station, pick up a different paper.

Campaigns are indicative of how a candidate will work in office. Hillary has surrounded herself with bad advisors, run a primarily negative campaign, and rested on her "co-presidency" as her "experience".

She's not qualified. And not because she's a woman.

People are ashamed to be seen as racist, but there is no shame in sexism.

Is there any such thing as a "playful" racial joke a white person could tell on a television "news" show?

I am tired of these femminists thinking that Hillary get's the "bitch" label just because she is a tough woman. Could it be that she gets the label because she is a deceitful, dishonest, coniving, manipulative woman who happens to be running her campaign on smear tactics, that include injecting the race card, against a candidate who is running with a positive message.

And yes, "Coattails" is how she got into the senate, how she succeeded within the senate, and has used her husbands connections in this race as well. I can't believe true femminists want the first woman president to have gotten their on behalf of her husband. It's an absurd suggestion that they should feel embarrased by.

2 things:
racism is cultural, sexism is universal. and yes, we could get into a valid debate about the details of how tribalism as an evolutionary aspect of human nature plays into both, and we should.

the other thing, and hopefully on a lighter note [atleast for me] is that maybe there is a good reason that Hillary should run for vice president, but only because it's the presidential race after this particular administration and her qualifications [because of a woman's natural ability to do heavy lifting and cleaning]:
I think that she has the stomach to clean up the what's happened via the vice president's office via Cheney, and that B Obabama doesn't have that 'lizard brain' that she does.
I would like to see Hillary drag Dick Cheney out from that deep, dark hole that he's dragged this country down into, into the sun, watch him burst into flames for laughs because she could use one, and then proceed to clean up the mess he's made of this country. Meanwhile, Obama could provide political cover because of his mad people skills. That's all. Have a nice weekend.

90--you're not the first I've heard raise this concern, but the Clintons and the Bushes are hardly on the same political page. If they were, I think that argument would have more merit.

M

I am the one who informed you of the quote that you were not aware of, I was am much better informed than you, I make it my business to understand the issues fully, unlike you who challenged me to find this quote that you denied existed. You contradict your self, It was my pleasure to Illuminate you!!!

I'm sorry...so we can say "bitch" on tv and people can say some mean and hurtful stuff about Hillary Clinton and women in general. It's true, sexism is an issue. I still think it's unfair to compare the barriers of sex to the barriers presented by race. In US History, 35 women have been US Senators. That's obviously too few, given that women represent 50% of the population. HOWEVER, there have only been 5 African American Senators, only 3 of whom have been in office since efforts of the reconstruction. Sexism is real, it's mean and it's big. But the lot of women has improved more rapidly than the lot of African Americans thanks to the systemic injustice and the cultural punishment of racism.

hill is a fighter that's why u hate her

Who was that speaking on your show about "scary things like hairy lesbians" Betty Friedan? It seems like the Lavendar Menace is required again! The speaker was quick to explain the length of her marriage. To a man I assume.

People don't like Hillary because she is Hillary. She has high popularity negatives just like most of you stident feminists. (I guess that is why you can relate to her.)

You feminists lost your credibiliy with your support of Bill during his "problem" with his intern. You didn't support the oppressed woman when it came to great political power.

Hypocrites and liars.

Like your first caller, I am a feminist and an Obama supporter and see nothing hypocritical in this. In fact I think Michelle Obama is a far better role model for young women than Senator Clinton. A year ago I was looking forward to voting for a woman for president; as a New Yorker I have voted for both Clintons. But I have been deeply disappointed in her campaign's tactics, which I think have exploited various stereotypes of women depending on which will poll best.

Of course I am offended by some of the comments which have been shouted at Senator Clinton from hostile audience members (and Senator McCain), but I have been more offended by her attacks on Senator Obama, which prey on people's fears and risk diminishing the democrats' chances of winning in November and advancing policies which both Clinton and Obama have championed. To me feminism should teach us to respect all individuals, and Obama's campaign has embodied this far better than Clinton's.

The guest says this isn't a contest between sexism and racism, but she is treating it exactly as such.

This is the best thing I can offer in response to this frustrating conversation. Check it out if you'd like; it touches on a lot of the issues raised in today's conversation.

-----------------------

Here is a link to a New York Times op-ed article that Gloria Steinem wrote a while back:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html

Democracy Now invites Steinem and a Black feminist scholar from Princeton, Melissa Harris Lacewell to talk it out.

Watch the streaming video and read the transcript, but if you don't want to read watch the video.

Here's the link:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics

It's not because Senator Clinton is a woman that I don't support her. It's because I think the presidential line-up of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is an unhealthy one for a democracy. That sounds more like an Aristocracy than an elected democracy.

Could you imagine if Obama was behind and blamed the whole thing on his being black. Its such a cop out to say that HRC is losing because she is a women and the fact that she is running a bad campaign.

Give me a break with the oppression olympics. The fact is Hillary's politics are terrible and I'm not going to vote for her because of that. I wouldn't mind voting for a female candidate with better politics, but not Hillary. Both guests were unabashed Hillary boosters. How about a bit of balance next time?

#76 - Obama joined the church of racist Rev. Wright because he was advised that the way to gain political power among blacks is to be part of a black church

Obama certainly identifies as a black - though he was raised in a white home and his mother is white- unlike Tiger Woods identifies as a human being though he grew up in a mixed-race household.

Reality check: the reason why people feel Hillary Clinton is riding her husband's coattails is because he campaigns and fundraises constantly for her and is widely considered to be potentially her greatest campaign asset. She also pins a lot of her claims for experience on her time as First Lady, a position she gained solely by virtue of being married to the president.
If Hillary Clinton's candidacy is losing, it's not because of sexism -- it's because she is the weaker candidate and has run a weaker campaign.

Yes Karen! Agreed.

Eva look at the streets - how much trouble and expense women go to to look good

Jonathan Kirk, 52
agreed. i don't understand why some women think other women should act as they would when their husband has been caught cheating. (i do know why. because they don't want to think about their husband cheating)

People who can't get over Hillary's behavior during Lewinsky should try having their most horrible life event plastered all over the media for months. Good lord.

I thought she showed incredible grace and fortitude.

And anyway, IT'S HER BUSINESS.

Get over it, and back to real issues.

PS: I favor Obama.

Look, true and fair enough that Hillary is fighting a difficult fight bc she is a woman, but that is not the sole reason many people are against her. I was raised by a tough as nails single mother who worked harder, still works harder than I can even fathom, so I have respect for what Hillary is attempting, but for me her last name disqualifies her, and not bc I am worried or stuck on her riding her husband's coat tails, she is competent to hold the position. For me the matter lays squarely in it not feeling like a democracy, a functioning democracy, if we go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton. I agree with the woman who said she wanted to vote for a female and is upset that its Hillary being the first woman to serioulsy have a chance at it. It feels like a wasted effort on the feminism front.

William #53 I am not admitting anything of the kind. I looked for the quote because I am interested in the truth, not hyperbole. I still think that people like you jump to conclusions based on what you THINK you hear, not on what the person said.

#60, jh--

Why does Barack Obama have to apologize for everyone? Obama has apologized fervently for Jeremiah Wright...when Geraldine Ferraro won't even apologize for himself.

71--just ask any of the 9/11 first responders who are grateful for and have benefitted from Sen. Clinton's leadership to help them.

That's the first of many things I could add.

She claims its not a contest between racism and sexism them immediately says that the sexism has been more virulent on during the campaign than racism.

Obama is not even black. he's another white man running for office. his mother is white, was raised by his white mother and grandparents, he grew up in a white house. where is his blackness?

I am female and a doctor and I came of age in the 1970's. What I see in the nomination contest is the same thing I see everyday...Smart, hard working woman with a resume full of experience is asked to step aside and sit down to make way for the younger man with a resume as thin as tissue paper.

Re: the flag pin issue, no one has challenged Hillary for not wearing a flag pin!

#47
I don't think it would be "feminist" of me to choose a candidate purely because she's a woman, when another individual has what I consider to be superior ideas and leadership capabilities.

I agree. But I wonder how many blacks are not voting for Obama on his ideas and leadership capabilities and simply because he is black.

For everyone who thinks that Obama is the anti-war savior...had he been in the US senate at the time of the vote, he would have voted for the war, just like Clinton. I'm sure of it. He does what he needs to do to keep himself in the game.

If you are looking at experience what about Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd? What has she done for New York besides prepare for this run for the Presidency?

Must respond again, since you are addressing the "coattails" issue. The point is NOT that Hillary is not working hard in the Senate. But several of her strong PA supporters (including Rendell) have joined Hillary due to long connections with Bill. And there IS the biggest question of his significant power, influence and lobbying which cannot be ignored if he is back in the White House.

ouch, did I just hear one of the two feminists say that all sort of NEGATIVE things have been associated with "feminism" like "lesbianism"! I'll take the kind of feminism that doesn't leave some of our sisters behind.

I think the Hillary sexism talk is too too too too deep - too deep.

To compare Rudy with Hillary based entirely on their marriages, as the guest is now doing, is disingenuous, to say the least. She is more sexist than the people she is accusing of sexism.

See again as a response to the other caller, the guest is not responding to main issue with Hillary is that she is not a good candidate. Is she the best woman available? Isn't she riding the coattails of her husband? Would she have become Senator if she was not a Clinton? Is that what Feminism was about? I don't care about her family life. What exactly are her so-called qualifications through achivements? If not how is she inspiring me as a regular voter, no she is not.

A speech on gender would probably not be received as well because it would be perceived as just a gender version of the race speech. Right or wrong, she would be seen to be "copying" Obama. Could she make it at some point? Sure. But at this time, it will flop even if it's dead on.

I'm a black person so i support Barack Obama because he's black and I don't support Hillary Clinton because she is a women.

The point that it takes years to realize you, as a woman, are making less money than your male peers highlights the tragedy of the recent Supreme Court decision for all women. It is the reason I will vote for the Democratic candidate--to make sure the courts don't become too conservative.

I don't want to vote for Clinton because I don't trust her. She seems to say anything to win, whether it's true or not. I am uneasy with the thought of her negotiating with other world leaders. On the other hand, I would be proud to have Obama represent our country.

The NOW-New York State newsletter has an article (available at http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html) by Robin Morgan (a well-known feminist writer who's been writing on the subject since the '70s) that points out that the equivalent to "Iron my shirt" for a black candidate would be "Shine my shoes." Yet we're not hearing anyone say that to Obama, are we? And McCain took a radio host to task for emphasizing "Barack *Hussein* Obama" in introducing him, which throws his answering "How do we beat the bitch" with a laugh & "That's a good question" into telling contrast.

Obviously Mrs. Clinton's sex (not gender) has been no impediment to her becoming a) a multimillionaire b) a US Senator and c) a (barely) viable candidate for President.

Don't get me wrong...I think Obama's heart is in the right place and he'd probably make a fine president (and will of course vote if he's the nominee). I'd feel a lot better if he addressed and renounced the sexism among those few of his bad apple supporters and the media. This would go a long way in beginning the healing process.

Trust me, you do not want to alienate female Democrats in this election.

It's exactly on the terms of the complaints of this show's guests that the media makes the big deal they do of Hilary's being a woman. It's unprecedented. We're a society who still hasn't gotten behind our sexism, so it's perceived to be a barrier she has to surmount, and so the media watches for that as the guests do. Meanwhile the guests cry "double standard" but that goes both ways, because so much of their complaint is wolf-crying that their support of Hilary, so much of their excuse-making, seems as much because she's a woman as other's rejection of her is. One of the posters above said: "Maybe if Hillary wasn't a mean and dishonest person, people would react more positively to her. It's not her gender, it's her personality. Tina Faye, deal with that." Exactly. So she gets called a "bitch." Yes, that's a gendered term. Any man described on the above terms would be called an "asshole": gendered term. The differing terms betray sexism, perhaps, but they're both in response to qualities that are worthy of criticism whatever the gender and that they earn the terms "bitch" or "asshole" should come as no surprise to anyone.

I'm a 30 yo woman and of mixed race. I do get people asking me if I should vote for a woman or a man of mixed race, which I think is one of the silliest questions. I also happen to be gay, so if there were also a homosexual candidate, I'd never finish answering questions.

Whatever happened to the issues? I know I'm being idealistic about this, and I've definitely been followed in stores because of my skin and given less pay than my male co-workers, but when you stop at the labels, then you don't get the right person for the job. When you apply a different set of rules for one person than for another for the same situation, we'll never be able to have the civil society we all want.

At least I assume we all want that.

I don't know if it is universally true that all women, in my generation/(generation Y) feel/are treated the same way nowadays. I think things have really changed a lot. It is true that the sexism in the race for President is there, as it seems to be a double standard in the media. I really think the entertainment industries keep a lot of the stereotypes alive for sexism. Seeing more women in power is key, especially for the Misogynists from earlier generations. But my fiancee makes more money than I do has a better education, and we share responsibilities in the home. I really think things are getting much better for women in New York, maybe not in less developed or less educated areas.

Just tuned in, so hope I'm not off topic. As a former bank VP and now stay at home mom, I have seen different sides to the "feminist" equation. I would love to support a woman (and do support many other female candidates). But Hillary, to me, does NOT represent the kind of woman we want in the White House.

First, although she is bright and hardworking (very ambitious as well), she has attained much of her political success on her husband's coattails. There seem to me to be so many potential conflicts of interest, and it will always be her husband's influence called into question.

Second, I don't think women need to fight like men to be successful. Many of the most successful women I know have earned their success by emphasizing their positive, more "female-like" qualities (compassion, negotiation, intuition, organization) in combination with strength and intelligence. Hillary just seems to be copying the men trying to look tough (eg war vote).

Great show!

48--that is a DISGUSTING thing to say.

Zak #34 How about replacing it with Willie Horton?

M

Thank you for being able admit how wrong you were, but do not convolute the issues with what Jessie said, the issue is what Geraldine said.

Concerning how Hillary handled the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the response to that caller was spot on. It is her business on how she publicly responds to issues concerning her marriage. The same should also be true for men caught in similar scandals.

Should we have lower standards for Hillary because she is a women and this makes use feel guilty? Maybe then I should I'll vote for Obama not because of his politics but because he is black.

#18, Chestinee,
I'm sorry, but the fact that you apologized to your cardiologist for not shaving your legs is irrelevant to either campaign, and proves nothing, nothing, nothing.
Come on, how can men take women seriously if we "reason" like this?

I think that what Hilary proves time and time again - and perhaps she proved with the most credibility with the Monica Lewinsky business, is that she can work through problems. She doesn't run away from them. Isn't that what this country needs more than ever, today?

Just another pathetic attempt tp promote 'Billary'. Why can't you people accept the fact that she really is a bitch and that is why so many people react to her as they do.

As a journalist myself, I've been disgusted, but as a feminist not amazed, at the misogynistic media coverage of Hillary Clinton. But what's been surprising is how many of my age peers (I'm 44) didn't see it coming. Talking about the election, I ask, what does America fear less: a black president or a woman president. In my own thoroughly unscientific poll of liberal cheese-eating media professional pals, it was the former...but now they're not sure either.

We've got one of the most prominent opinion columnists in the country, Maureen Dowd, who is allegedly a feminist, analyzing Clinton's run as purely psychodrama ("Bill owes her") instead of on her issues and merits. To whatever extent The New York Times is supposed to inspire and guide lesser lights in the press, it's completely failed.

For the record, I supported John Edwards I'm now favoring Obama. Because I don't think it would be "feminist" of me to choose a candidate purely because she's a woman, when another individual has what I consider to be superior ideas and leadership capabilities.

Women in there twenties are thinking about these issues. It makes women with goals terrified to get married n ad have children because we recognize in our society that means giving up our dreams to a certain degree. My boyfriend is wonderful and is a strong supporter of my career but when we talk about having a family it is clear to me he has no idea what that really means as far as sacrifice. He is a product of this culture that expect woman to work and do 70% of house work. It not even recognized as a problem.
I’m a Hillary supporter.

How is voting for her an act of enlightened self-interest if you disagree with her politics? If you're voting against your political beliefs, then you are by definition voting against your self-interest as a citizen and a voter.

Your correspondent argues that the bar is set higher for women than for men. All well in good, but this is for the Office of the Preisdent of the United States of America. I'd set that bar pretty darn high, regardless of gender. Unimpeachable integrity is generally the bar I'd like to see...

It's extremely indicative and disheartening to me that in 2008 in which men or women might NOT identify as feminists. Feminism is defined in the dictionary as "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men" and yet the word carries a stigma.

Does this mean that if Condi Rice runs as VP all black women should vote for her.

I am a feminist and I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do not agree with the demeaning comments that have been said to Hillary because of her gender. It is absolutely unacceptable, but that is not a reason to vote for her for president. And I know many women that have not followed the campaign at all and are merely voting for Hillary just because she is a woman. I have also been attacked by woman for voting for Barack. A woman running a Vote For Hillary booth on the street saw my Obama pin and shook her head at me. Then she yelled, "you are where you are because of Hillary." What does that even mean? That I owe my freedom to Hillary? A true feminist would not vote for a woman just because she's a woman. We are striving for true equality, and I think that's what Barack represents.

your husband WILL cheat on you.

Thanks to the efforts of the original feminist movement, I am able to enjoy many of the social advancements without having to fight against men. Because of this, I'm not bitter towards men. Because of this, I don't understand the "bitch" persona. It's twisted, really.

Oh Jessica, did you really just use the tired, "riding on his coattails" argument? NEXT!

What was that shirt Yoko Ono used to wear?

"Woman is the nig*** of the world."

True then, true now.

It's one thing not to support Clinton, it's the WAY you express this opinion that matters. We have Democrats spewing bile against her they won't even allocate for Republicans.

There has been so much coverage of flabby men on TV remarking how she "reminds men of their ex wives" and will therefore not vote for her. I've also seen men of all races ponder whether a woman can actually do the job. Screw that.

As an immigrant to this country I've found that American society is more conservative when it comes to attitudes to women than what is considered a very conservative country, Ireland. European attitudes are definitely different.

At the same time I am often dismayed, particularly in the workplace (as I've worked predominantly with women) at the comments from women about men, particularly when the majority of people in the group are women. Many comments are vicious, mean and frankly sexist against men. I'm not excusing men in the slightest, I have five wonderfully accomplished, smart sisters and I know what the feminist perspective is and like to think that I appreciate and respect it.

Its the old story, men only or women only groups are not condusive to reason and moderation.

#12, I'm sorry...but "Annie Oakley in the duck blind" was a playful joke. The joke was a class distinction, not a gender distinction. The joke would have been the same had he replaced "Annie Oakley" with "Wayne LaPierre" or "Dirty Harry" or "Charlton Heston" or someone else associated with firearms...but the joke would have been clunky b/c it would have been ignoring Hillary's sex. I do NOT think that this particular comment was a sexist joke. I will not argue that Hillary hasn't been witness to sexism and misogyny...but get off the cross.

I found the '88 comment that Ferraro made about Jackson. She said that given his "radical views" (whatever that means) he "were not black he would not be in this race." Not a nice comment, to be sure. Does it rise to the level of "iron my shirt?" Then there was his unfortunate "hymietown" comment. I voted for him and this was a disappointment.

Shouldn't race and sex boil down to celebrating our uniqueness while embracing what we have in common that makes us also equal? A divine paradox I would say.

What's most interesting about a group outwardly targeting Hillary with "Iron my shirt" is how society tolerates open women bashing whereas if a group gathered to outwardly target Obama as being black, it would not be tolerated at all.

I don’t think Sen. Obama is an affirmative action candidate at all---I think he is more the lucky guy who happens to be in the right place at the right time. This doesn’t mean he has nothing of his own to offer, in fact, he has plenty, but it means he is able to go farther on what he’s got than he would have if an almost serendipitous convergence of unseen forces had not occurred.

I’m sure those who do political advising for a living recognized this early on and convinced him to run now because who knows if those same forces would be in place 4 or 8 years on?

Having the force with him doesn’t diminish or automatically invalidate Sen. Obama but it unquestionably gives him a leg up (I think considerably) on whoever he faces in a primary contest.

What is sad and much more illuminating is how easily a good deal of the Democratic party and almost the entire media threw over the woman candidate, who lets face it, has worked harder to be where she is than almost anybody, including Senator Obama. It doesn’t mean he’s getting something he doesn’t deserve; it just means she’s not getting something she deserves just as much. Life’s not fair---and middle-aged women, no matter how smart, how dedicated or how hard-working, are simply not a desirable commodity in America.

It's true... if someone yelled "Why don't you just stick to sports!" or something like that to Obama there would be a huge uproar. Funny what a double standard there is.

@ m Do you believe that B Obama is now the front runner because he is black because thats what Geraldine Ferraro was saying. Its only after the outrage did she switch it to his being able to run for President.

Hillary has my vote.

She's the best man for the job.

I have it on good authority that the 'Iron my shirt' incident was actually orchestrated by the Clinton campaign...

As someone who has survived a longtime in a male-dominated business, all I can say to the younger women who don't see sexism - just wait, you will.

Shoot! I remember how mad stewardesses made me - plastic and taking all this crap from people with a smile, having to be sexy and perfect to get a job.

How much of that has changed?

I am not going to engage in a tit-for-tat argument here. I put forth that I have heard many supporters for Sen. Obama criticize Sen. Clinton for running for the presidency based on a sense of feminist entitlement. Post #1 exemplifies this. Yet, countless are the times I've walked from the D station on 125th to my office over near Columbia and seen/heard Obama support on the "our time has finally come" motif. So let's just drop that argumentation, okay?

I am still convinced that Sen. Clinton is the best qualified candidate for this election, and her gender has nothing to do with it.

Hillary is one person. I don't understand how you can conflate people's dislike or treatment of her as a person with misogyny? Where in the equation that equals 'misogyny' is Hillary herself factored in as being disliked for who she is rather than because of her gender.

Bear in mind I do agree women are discriminated against most ashamedly in America but there is a big difference between discrimination and misogyny, and a big difference between how one woman who may be disliked and misogyny.

I understand that this issue can be used to drum up interest in feminism but I think it does the cause damage by crying 'wolf'.

steve, is the senator "meaner" bush or Cheney ?

Hillary as president would be symbolically bad for women- can a woman only gain power in this world by following in a male family member's footsteps?

Thanks for covering this issue. The media coverage has indeed been abhorrent and complicit in the blatant misogyny. I was first outraged when Hillary was accused of "playing the gender card" when she was speaking at a women's college!

It's amazing how I've seen men on so many forums claim sexism is not an issue in this campaign. As if they are qualified to make this claim!!

Heck - Cokie Roberts refers to her as Mrs. Clinton as she refers to Barack as Senator Obama.

It's deeper than the work force issue - yesterday i apologized to the cardiologist that my legs were not freshly shaved!

mysterious William #8

I defy you to prove this.

the problem with Mrs. Clinton is not her gender. The problem with Hillary is her vote on the war in iraq and her willingness to use republican talking points to attack her democratic opponent.

few democratic hopefuls have compared their rivals in the primary UNFAVORABLY to their mutual republican adversary. It is like she is saying "if i cannot have the nomination....i will give the presidency to the other party"

This is beyond low...and is also very destructive. Her sex has nothing to do with it.

that said....i am the first to decry misogyny.

Maybe if Hillary wasn't a mean and dishonest person, people would react more positively to her.
It's not her gender, it's her personality. Tina Faye, deal with that.

I do believe that sexisms is out there, particularly related to politics. However, I wonder if there are certain aspects of the current situation that are specifically related to Hillary Clinton and perhaps not solely about women.

Agreed, Hillary has been bashed with both outright sexism and coded adjectives, but one needs to see the blatant racism visited upon Barack Obama. Be it "shrill" or "eloquent," both candidates are being barraged by these coded adjectives. That all being said, while there are still glass ceilings, they tend to be higher for women than for African Americans. While a band of jerks may yell, "Iron my shirts!" pseudo-legitimate, pseudo-journalists on major media outlets have bent over backwards to make Obama both a black stereotype and an Islamic terrorist.

Let's see: "Iron my shirt!" "Annie Oakley in the duck blind" Hillary nutcrackers in people's cars in Park Slope, for God's sake, a lefty neighborhood, Carl Bernstein's "thick ankle" comments, John Edwards criticizing her jacket, "shrill" "How do we beat the B**ch?"

Shirley Chisholm was right.

i think females are better than males in many ways. i will submit. the world would be better off if you did too!

Here's a brief excerpt from my piece that is on my site: www.womenandhollywood.com

Writing about women, Hollywood and feminism, I spend my time talking with women who work in the entertainment business. Many of them are struggling to get movies made and released that are about women and ALL are having a hard time. I have not talked to a single woman who has had someone, anyone say that they would looove to make her movie about a woman over 40 who... What they hear is there is no audience for these movies and women can't be counted on to come and and see movies...yada yada yada.

During this long political season every single one of the women I have spoken to has brought up what is happening to Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in comparison to what is happening for women in the entertainment business. While Hillary is clearly alone in doing what she's doing, these women also feel alone in doing what they are doing.

As a Gen-X feminist, I've been upset at the internecine warfare between my feminist mothers and the third wavers. I've never seen the attraction to Obama, but understand the younger women's desire to believe that we live in a world where voting beyond gender was a feminist act in itself in this supposedly post-feminist world.

But we don't live in a post-feminist world. We live in a sexist world.

I also think no matter what happens to Hillary, she has done some trailblazing for the next woman who wants to run for president -

Mysterious (M)#3,4,and 6

Geraldine has used the race card, on the behest of Clinton's, Clinton will stop at nothing, Geraldine is a racist! In this day and age saying that a black person or any other person of color is were they are because of their race blows in the face of reality, If you believe these comments are appropriate you should examine your own biases, really!!!

Definitely reminds me of how much sexism there still is, how we just folded back into the old ways of seeing ourselves (enslaved, if we only knew it) -

No one said it had nothing to do with being black. What exactly did she say when Jessie J was running?

Funny, Geraldine said the exact same thing when Jessie Jackson was running for president, I guess that also had nothing to do with being black.

How similar!

Speaking of white men on the right, they have indeed taken to full time bashing of Obama. The left is now full time bashing Hillary. This means the left side is carrying half the water for the right. Neat trick, huh?

Here you can see already from the #1 comment here what happens. Somehow the dialog is out of whack. If you look closely at what Ferraro said, she said that Obama would not be where he is if he weren't black. He has admitted that this is true. If he were not black he would just be another of 9 freshmen senators. That is not the same as saying that he enjoys an advantage because he is black and I don't recall Ferraro actually saying that. She has also said that if her name were Gerald, she would not have been VP candidate in '84. But people hear things that are not actally said and then they run with it. Ferraro is not innocent here, I think she was engaging in a put-down, but I also think that her comments came from a place of frustration that is real.

Were Obama to campaign to Black Americans "Vote for me because I'm Black," as is Clinton's frequent call for women to support her --- because she is a woman, all hell would break loose. There is nothing progressive and more precisely not-so-bright about women/men who are supporting Clinton (or not) simply because she is a woman or Blacks/whites/others supporting Obama (or not) simply because he is Black. Add to that, McCain and his age as the sole determinant factor , ye or nay. We can do better people.

As a mid-twenties black woman, the comments of Clinton surrogates Gloria Steinem and Geraldine Ferraro, which I believe were made with Clinton's approval, if not her foreknowledge, have caused a deep sense of alienation from all waves of feminism. Once again, I feel as though I must choose between my gender and my race and for me, race wins. The argument that Obama's success is all about a groundswell of affirmative action sentiment, that he is where he is only because he's black, is deeply shocking and hurtful. White female liberal powerbrokers have clearly formed an old girls' network and they feel their time has come. The message to Obama, and to people of color generally, seems to be that if you are uppity enough to challenge their orthodoxy they will not hesitate to make the same racially divisive arguments as white men on the right.