Voting For Hillary "Because I Want The Girl To Win."

My vote is for Hillary. Her health care plan will save us billions and is based upon Schindlers list. Like Schindler, Hillary will save 1100 physicians and eliminate the rest. Prostate cancer will be considered a cosmetic condition, and will not be covered by insurance. That way we will really stick it to overpriveledged white men

Thank you, Wendy,

You said it all - I agree with you completely! - We need Hillary, and we need her now! Obama would be ok as her Vice President - he could build up experience this way so that he might really qualify to be our president one day. 

You have said it all so well, so convincingly. I hope enough voters out there read this and finally understand just why Hillary should be out next president, and the responses you gave to those "knocks against her" are just the way I feel. I might add to the first one that she has acknowledged that she did vote for the war, but that was then and this is now - aren't people allowed to change - especially when the real truth finally comes out? Most congressmen/women voted for the war back then - they wanted to support their president, who they mistakenly thought wouldn't have proposed such a move it weren't so needed, especially in the light of 911 - they were misled by this "leader" of ours, and today most if not all would want to put an end to this never-ending, deadly war ASAP.    

Sorry - wrote too much!

Hillary's assumption that she deserves the nomination? Or her campaign's repeated dirty tactics? Her campaign has smacked of the worst type of white, liberal paternalism in its presentation of Obama and his campaign (which, of course, has its own flaws). The last thing this country needs is another manipulative presidential dynasty, it's just not good for democracy. And I would dare say it is not good for feminism to appoint its modern spokeswoman, someone who has no qualms with employing Rove-esque techniques to accomplish her goal. To potential destory her own party, because of her own power hunger and ultimate poltiical desires. So listing the three objections that you do are, ultimately misleading. And I don't think I am alone in being someone who was always somewhat middle ground about Hillary (and would consider voting for her) but has been so soured by this entire campaign that it is now out of the realm of possibility.

Also...

"It’s no surprise that Americans support a guy of any color before we support the white woman; non-white men got the vote in the U.S. a full fifty years before women did. As a nation we are historically more open to color when it comes with a Y chromosome."

Ignoring the Geraldine Ferraro-esque tone of this statement, while the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, this ignores the repression of black voting rights throughout the United States, not to mention the Jim Crow Era and southern segregation. Women surely have gotten the short end of the stick in the United States, but I surely guarantee that it does not compare to the historic treatment of African-Americans.

She's such a mudslinger!!  It totally makes me lose respect for her...can't she talk about what she's going to do while in office instead of wasting time on Obama?  Seems like these candidates are all putzes, including the one without one. 

okay, how is this piece in any shape or form compare to the other two? I think bitchphd in her article for Obama did a better job Supporting Hillary.

But then, I spurn the media, so maybe I don't get how this post is in any way intelligent or feminist. I'm more feminist than this post, and I don't really consider myself much of a feminist...

er comparable, not compare...

Great post. I'm with you on all of it.

This post in a previous comment -- "Women surely have gotten the short end of the stick in the United
States, but I surely guarantee that it does not compare to the historic
treatment of African-Americans" -- WOWZER, is that a throwback to the sexism of the 1960s civil rights movement or what??

Wendy, I loved your book and think you're awesome, but comparing Obama to the quarterback? Lame. This is one way that politics is different from pop culture: just because Obama is good-looking and can make a speech does not mean he is simply a vapid charmer who cruised his way to the top.

 For one thing, he is exceptionally intelligent: not only did he graduate from Harvard Law and serve on Law Review there, but he was the president. You don't get to be the president of any Law Review, much less Harvard Law Review, by being a smooth-talking charmer. He then went on to teach constitutional law at Chicago, another job they don't give away to cute guys.

 Also: he may make being a politician look easy, but he works very hard. He started out his career as a community organizer, one of the most challenging, exhausting - physically, emotionally, mentally - and thankless jobs around. Then he worked his way up through the Illinois State Legislature for eight years. 

 Seriously, if you want to support Clinton, more power to you. But likening Obama to the quarterback from "Election" is just silly.

haha, and labeling someone a sexist who is making a point of historical accuracy isn't wrong or mudslinging? Great way to debate or discuss a point of philosophy or interpretation. Please. I was responding specifically to Wendy's post, which I otherwise enjoyed. She made the claim that historically speaking, it wasn't surprising that America would vote for an African-American man before women precisely because African-American men received voting rights before. And I took issue with her point as being both ahistorical and at the least poor logic. But please, feel free to label someone as a sexist rather than rationally debate a point. That REALLY does a service to the movement that you purport to belong to.

It's very interesting to me how this image of Obama the "new politician", the "agent of change", the bringer of hope, sticks and has grow to mythic proportions.  Sorry, but Obama is a carefully crafted product, an old school political hack - Chicago style, which if you're not from here, isn't pretty.  He's a mixed race guy form Hawaii who never lived the American black experience until he decided being black would be a good move for him as a political commodity.  For real street cred he got aligned with the Trinity Church, which gets along real well with Nation of Islam down the street, which pulls big black Chicago democrat machine power around town, which gets along well with the Daley black machine, etc.  If you need to raise money you get in bed with Rezko, etc, etc.  Is this bad?  I don't know, I don't know another way, that's how things get done here, that's how you get elected in Chicago.  Does his Madonna- like self invention make him less genuine in his ideals? I don't know, maybe not. Is a well designed ascent utilizing one's ethnic attributes as a catapult a bad thing?  Not necessarily.  But please, don't for a minute think he's any different than the oldest, most seasoned, most crusty hack of a politician.  He's not.  He's literally the same product, different package.  He's very smart, and a good, viable contender; but essentially offering a very hazy outline of generally accepted democratic party standards.

As for the feminist issue, I think it's comical that women feel Hillary's too old school, old boys club, not inspiring, not offering enough hope.  What the hell does a woman have to be in this country to get elected?   While so many of us swoon over Obama, in a naive high school like crush, we're passing up a golden opportunity, the best thing that's come along in decades.  Give it another look girls... and boys.  

how is voting for someone primarily because they share the same genetalia as me in anyway radical?

both this post and the bitch phd one seperate feminism from other forms of social justice.  as if there are feminist goals and other goals, and they can be prioritized and worked on seperately.  part of the reason that some feminists of the previous generation have been so vilified now and found their movement dwindeling is the refusal to see the interconnected nature of oppressions and to expand their definitions of feminism to include dismanteling the power structure as a whole, rather than making it possible for some women to advance within it. 

 on that note, neither obama nor clinton are particularly feminist canidates, as both advocate oppresive free market ideologies.  they are all we got though, and if we were to rank them, to me clearly obama is the most feminist canidate because i believe his policies would improve life for the majority of people, and the majority of women. 

 yes, as a white woman i think it would be neat-o to see someone who looks like me as president.  but if i can expand my definition of what is good for women (and people) for a moment to see past me, i can see that what would be more neat than having a president with a hoo-hah would be if we stopped bombing people, if we started to address the racism and police brutality in this country, and if we could have someone at the top who wasn't quite as deep in the pockets of old power as hillary is.

 and would white women please stop talking about how black men have had it better somehow than us, it is embaressing as all hell.      

"As a nation we are historically more open to color when it comes with a Y chromosome."

What a great line.  Love it.

How about the 20% of Democrats who will vote McCain if Clinton is the party nominee?  For whatever reason, good and bad, a Clinton nomination very likely means a McCain victory.

 And yes, I got that number on a cable news network last night. In this case, I trust it--I've talked to many lefties who claim that they'd vote McCain over Clinton, no question. Depressing, but a cold reality.  The Rush effect? Republicans voting Clinton because she's so beatable?  At a certain point, I've got to worry about what vote will prevent bomb bomb bombing Iran. (And yes, I'm Jewish.)

Finally, there's the speech. How about, as John Stewart said, a candidate who talks about race as if we are adults?  

Good point, Adam. I am tired, ever so tired, of the so-called "feminist" line 

"...non-white men got the vote in the U.S. a full fifty years before
women did. As a nation we are historically more open to color when it
comes with a Y chromosome."

I call bullshit, and Oppression Olympics. Gold medal goes to the disgruntled (white) sister. 

I guess all those black men who were given the vote after the Civil War were so busy VOTING they forgot they were living under Jim Crow, trying not to get lynched (as were, unfortunately, some black women) on any insane pretext, trying to figure out where their promised 40 acres and a mule went, and trying to pass bogus "literacy tests" when attempting to actually vote. Gee, wonder why they weren't voting when they had the right to? Black women were totally out of luck I suppose.

And I guess the VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVES in the South in the 1960s were unnecessary because no one had been intimidated and physically kept from voting prior to that time. Because you know when the laws enabling something are on the books, then of course it means people go out and do it in droves. Immediately. With no barriers.

Not to mention that when "women" got the vote, it was (wealthy, educated) white women who benefited. So suddenly "elite suffragette" stands in for all women? Early 20th Century Factory Girl technically could vote, but did she take time off from her pre-40 hour work week to do it? If so, in what numbers? 

1) if you're gonna parse, parse more closely. What specific demographic? In what region? In what era? What class? As compared to who?

2) why should it matter who got enfranchised first? What is the nature of that "first"--how enfranchised was enfranchised? What bearing does that have on our time and place now? Shouldn't our focus be that unless the least among us have advanced, then no one has advanced?

Geez. 'Woman' does not equal 'white (educated, high SES) woman.'

You make some valid points, but what is your solution?

Are you suggesting that the women should just sit in the back of the bus in silence?

We have many problems, which all deserve consideration and open discussion.  Womens rights and civil rights are issues that interrelate on many levels.  Saying one aspect is important while another deserves to be ignored will not bring our society any closer to the ideal of equality.

Well, here's a concept: vote issues, record, platform, and how well they run a campaign.

Interesting. Why does the removal of white privilege from the equation "(white) womanhood = universal womanhood" feel like someone is asking you to "sit in the back of the bus?" (Your words, not mine.)

We have many problems, which all deserve consideration and open
discussion.  Womens rights and civil rights are issues that interrelate
on many levels.  Saying one aspect is important while another deserves
to be ignored will not bring our society any closer to the ideal of
equality.

My point exactly. So let's skip the Oppression Olympics about who's more oppressed, agreed? So you tell me, what does it look like when you walk your walk?

For me, it means I don't automatically vote for the woman, especially if she acts in a way that hints she'll "triangulate" away any of her progressive principles at the slightest chance. Or if she runs a lousy campaign that consistently takes the low road. Or if she'd have a hard time explaining her war vote and refusal to read the NIE in 2002 to anyone who is or is related to an Iraq war vet. Etc, etc, etc.

Wendy, awesome post.  And Marla Patinkin, I love your comment.  It's like the empoeror who wears no (or no more than anyone else) clothes.

Ultimately, on the issues, including war, including healthcare, careful analysis indicates that HRC is as or more progressive.  Understanding the history of the war votes, where people were at the time, etc. clarifies the difference there.  Feminists should care about whether or not BHO has a women's issues section on his website or has ever demonstrated any genuine interest in the topic.  And tossing his grandmother under the bus doesn't count.