Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 29th, 2008 04:01 am (UTC)
Sorry, she lost me in the second paragraph. Her bait and switch only works, I suppose, if you do have a natural bias against women in offices of public power. Maybe it's true for a lot of Americans. I can't honestly speak for them. For myself, it's entirely off the mark.

The things that bother me about Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with gender and race respectively and everything to do with whether or not I believe that they can both get elected and do the job. In Hillary Clinton's case, the Republican Party would be foolish to focus on attacking her gender. Exit polls are already showing that female voters are turning out in record numbers this year, and were they to try this tactic, I believe they would only alienate the moderates with their tactics. However, they have plenty of ammunition to use against Hillary Clinton, much of it involving the scandals that arose during her husband's administration. This is her greatest detriment in electability, hands down.

The central issue here is this: I think this article is off the mark. I think this country is ready for its first female president just as it's ready for its first African-American president. I'm not so sure it's ready for President Hillary Clinton. I certainly think she could win the nomination, but if she does, I think she may very well get chewed up and spit out by the Republican PR machine.

*hugs* Just my thoughts. :)
Jan. 29th, 2008 04:07 am (UTC)
Playing the oppression olympics is futile. Racism and sexism both suck. I chose my candidate based on neither.
Jan. 29th, 2008 07:45 am (UTC)
Opression Olympics... good phrase! =D
Jan. 29th, 2008 04:57 am (UTC)
Even though I think some of Gloria's assertions are off-center here, I fully acknowledge that there have been sexist remarks and heckling against Hillary, and it is a shame.

Luckily, it seems the people that I surround myself with and whose opinions I value are all choosing their candidate based on reasons outside of sex or race. While I myself am still flip-flopping against details of platform and track record, none of it has to do with sex or race, either. =)

ETA: In weeks more recent than the linked article I am actually seeing fewer reports of sexism and racism, Democratic in-fighting and the surrounding media hype excluded. Am I missing key news reports or has there actually been a shift toward hashing out the actual issues and platforms as the competition gets tighter? Maybe instead of being cynical this time I am attempting to hope that there are more people in this country that are above and beyond choosing their candidate based off of sex or race.

Edited at 2008-01-29 05:12 am (UTC)
Jan. 29th, 2008 04:59 am (UTC)
great article
Jan. 29th, 2008 05:32 am (UTC)
Oh come on, you can't link an article like that and not give your own thoughts on it.

Jan. 29th, 2008 06:41 am (UTC)
Can. Did.
Jan. 29th, 2008 07:46 am (UTC)
Too throw-uppy tonight to do much other than gurgle. =P~
Jan. 29th, 2008 03:39 pm (UTC)
I do think that Steinem is onto something in that the sexist remarks thrown at Clinton get a lot less play than comparable race-based remarks do/would wrt to Obama.

She loses me by playing oppression olympics - especially when she says she isn't.
Jan. 29th, 2008 07:07 pm (UTC)
I've never been a huge fan of Steinem's. I posted the article because it made me think, even if I didn't necissarily agree with the bulk of it. However, I've been of the opinion, though, that Clinton's gender has been a more polarizing issue than the media lets on, and that much of what's been unacceptible to the public would be less offensive if she had a penis.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )