The Woman Thing

Ron Brownstein opens his latest column with what is, I think, a pretty powerful anecdote:

While the small crowd milled and munched, Suzanne Zilber, a local psychologist, spoke with passion about the prospect of electing the first woman president. She recalled that her daughter Charlotte, now 12, had been confused and disappointed when she saw only men as she looked through a sticker book about U.S. presidents a few years ago.

I think most people think it would be too crass to simply put "Hillary Clinton has ovaries" out there as a good reason to vote for her, but it's hard to look at the gender gap in the primaries and not conclude that this consideration is, in practice, driving a lot of votes. What's more, contemplating this anecdote I'd be hard-pressed to deny that it actually sounds like a reasonable good reason. I think the alternative choices are probably better, but this is a reminder that Clinton presidency, too, would be a unique and exciting opportunity in many ways.

Comments

I suppose, but I think it would be a much more 'unique and exciting opportunity' to have a black elected to the White House. Few people get worked up anymore over 'uppity wimmin'; 'uppity black folk' is still an issue of controversy in some places.

(No, I'm not shilling for Obama; he's below even Hillary on my list of preferred Dem nominees).

However, it's hard to top Hillary if schadenfreude is your chief criterion. In fact it's the only thing I can think of to recommend her candidacy, other than that she would suck far less than any GOP nominee.

Posted by r€nato | December 19, 2007 1:30 PM

"I suppose, but I think it would be a much more 'unique and exciting opportunity' to have a black elected to the White House. Few people get worked up anymore over 'uppity wimmin'; 'uppity black folk' is still an issue of controversy in some places."

Yup. If I'm voting purely on the basis of symbolism, I vote Obama over Clinton.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 1:33 PM

And do we really want to give little Charlotte Zibler the message that the only way she can become President is to marry one?

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 1:35 PM

That's one reason I'm really disappointed that she doesn't have the political outlook and plans which are more to my thinking about what we need.

Similarly, I like Obama, but I'd like to be able to support him much more. But so far I can't.

In fact, I don't really like the fact that the outlook and policies I like in Edwards aren't being carried by someone with an even more innovative biography -- although, for what its worth, the first millworker's kid in office would be somewhat interesting. Not anywhere near the degree of precedent-breaking as first woman or first African American & multi-ethnic man, but, there ya go.

I'd really, really, really rather be supporting some super-combination of our candidates, but I can't.

Posted by El Cid | December 19, 2007 1:35 PM

It would be be if she wasn't married to a former president.

Quite a few third world countries have seen some leader's wife or widow rise to power in the wake of her husband.

Posted by David | December 19, 2007 1:35 PM

And you should remind yourself that the opportunity to have a capable woman as President will probably not recur for a long time if we pass on Hillary now. I cannot think of another woman since Eleanor Roosevelt with the stature. Giving her a miss now because because of the clinical hysteria of Republicans will probably mean we never see a woman President, with the United States evolving to a fundamentalist, white patriarchial banana republic.

Posted by bob h | December 19, 2007 1:37 PM

Pretty pathetic that most of the early commenters here are too churlish to simply say "Yes, it would be a great thing to have a woman as a president." While I may end up voting for a different candidate, I can still say that it would be a great thing if my daughter's first political memories coincided with a woman as president (sure would beat my hazy recollection of Nixon).

Posted by Joe | December 19, 2007 1:38 PM

If only Hillary were a bit more like Margaret Thatcher. Then I'd vote for her.
Yes, it would be nice to have a woman president, but only if it's a woman who is worth having as president.
And if you think Bill is going to keep his hands off the interns, guess again.

Posted by if only | December 19, 2007 1:41 PM

That little 12-year-old girl is a radical feminist.

She'll probably grow up to be a Swarthmore-educated gradeschool teacher. In fact, she's probably being taught by a Brown-educated gradeschool teacher RIGHT NOW.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 19, 2007 1:43 PM

It may or may not be a great thing to have a woman as president. It has unmistakeable symbolic upside, but I tend to think that Hillary, if elected, will ensure that we would never have a female president for at least 2 more generations through her really awful political views. Still better than Romney, though.

Posted by David B. | December 19, 2007 1:43 PM

Pretty pathetic that most of the early commenters here are too churlish to simply say "Yes, it would be a great thing to have a woman as a president."

Actually, my first thought was, 'I can think of a lot of women I wouldn't want to be president; gender (or skin color) is secondary to character and their position on issues which I believe are important.'

Does that pass your churlishness test?

Posted by r€nato | December 19, 2007 1:47 PM

Says Joe: "Pretty pathetic that most of the early commenters here are too churlish to simply say 'Yes, it would be a great thing to have a woman as a president.' "
Actually, Joe, that's a pretty pathetic comment. What would be a great thing would be to have a great president. After the past few years it would be a great thing to even have a competent president.
I don't understand how one can get so excited about having a woman president as if it doesn't matter what kind of president she will be. Don't be so goddam shallow, Joe. Please grow up.

Posted by male | December 19, 2007 1:48 PM

I cannot think of another woman since Eleanor Roosevelt with the stature. Giving her a miss now because because of the clinical hysteria of Republicans will probably mean we never see a woman President, with the United States evolving to a fundamentalist, white patriarchial banana republic.

Come on. Hillary is the only thing standing between us and The Handmaid's Tale? Hysterical much?

And just to set the record straight, at least as far as I'm concerned, I don't support her candidacy because I perceive her as being more of the DLC/Republican-lite crap which characterized Bill's tenure in the White House. That might have been suitable for the 90s, but not now. This country needs to be yanked hard towards the center, and maybe even somewhat to the left.

I should vote for Hillary just because she's a woman? No thanks; I like to make decisions with a bit more depth than that.

Posted by r€nato | December 19, 2007 1:52 PM

"the first millworker's kid in office would be somewhat interesting"

Really? Is there something in particular about the occupation of millworker that makes it interesting? There have been many presidents who grew up poor, most recently Clinton, Reagan and Nixon.

Posted by too many steves | December 19, 2007 1:54 PM

YES, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman is a good reason to vote for her. Just like the fact that Jackie Robinson was black was a good reason for Branch Rickey to sign him. It wasn't a SUFFICIENT reason to sign him, just as Clinton's gender isn't a sufficient reason to vote for her (and indeed, I don't plan to). But it's an argument in her favor. Having a 43 male presidents and 1 female president is better than 44 male presidents, all else being equal.

Posted by OhioBoy | December 19, 2007 1:59 PM

I commented on the thread where Matthew endoresed Edwards - shouldn't Democrats (of all people) pur some thought into an affirmative action rationale for voting for Hillary or Obama?

If, as Matthew says, two candidates are reasonably close (as Matthew says with respect to Edwards and Obama), why wouldn't you vote for the minority or the woman? It would help to rectify past descrimination, and introduce diversity into our Presidency - both of which are important goals of Democrats, no?

Or is affirmative action only applicable to those people who are considering giving (non-political) jobs or slots in schools, and not to personal preferences for political candidates? To me, there is a disconnect between what some Democrats say about other areas like jobs or education and what they are doing in re voting.

I, for one, think that personal affirmative action for political candidates is a very good idea - the fact that Obama is black and Hillary a woman both goes into my decision that I could potentially vote for them (as opposed to Edwards, who I'd never vote for).

Posted by Al | December 19, 2007 2:01 PM

If only Hillary were not a pod.

Posted by john o. | December 19, 2007 2:02 PM

OhioBoy, that's not true. Women can't govern, except for rare exceptions. Let's not risk it.
Ask any man who has served with a female administrator. It ain't fun to answer to an emotional and incompetent woman who only got there on the basis of "we need a female in this position," and who is thus insecure so she carries a chip on her shoulder. No, that would not be good for world peace.

Posted by uh uh | December 19, 2007 2:03 PM

For all their faults, I'd be really excited with any of the three most-likely Democratic nominees for President. I think we need to keep this in perspective, especially when we compare to the field in 2004, and (worse) compare to the Republican field.

Posted by Jon | December 19, 2007 2:03 PM

. . . with the United States evolving to a fundamentalist, white patriarchial banana republic.

As opposed to what we have now?

Women can't govern, except for rare exceptions.

I shall assume that this is a parody, for your sake, and mine.

Posted by S.G.E.W. | December 19, 2007 2:09 PM

What about PMS? What happens then?

Posted by liz | December 19, 2007 2:10 PM

I'm not sure there's ever been a better example of bad-faith concern-trolling than Al's comment.

Posted by Ryan | December 19, 2007 2:11 PM

Hillary Clinton doesn't have ovaries; she has 3rd and 4th fists!

Posted by Chuck Norris | December 19, 2007 2:15 PM

Clinton presidency, too, would be a unique and exciting opportunity in many ways.

In that it would drive Andrew Sullivan over the edge to clinical insanity and/or mass murder?

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 19, 2007 2:20 PM

Al, because you don't automatically pick people based on race. You just give them the same chance you'd give a white guy. Obama and Hillary got a chance as far as I'm concerned. Edwards is the only candidate who believes the same things I do, and on the issues that really matter to me. I'll still gladly vote for Obama. I know people like me will have a seat at the table with Obama. I won't vote for Hillary, because the only people who have a seat at her table are corporate gurus, union busters, and entertainment moguls. The Clinton's have a long history on shitting on my part of the Democratic party, I won't support a party that nominates them.

To be more succinct, we have reasons to support the people we support. REAL reasons. I don't know what to say to people who think you go with a person who shares your genitalia when they disagree with 90% of what you believe. There's nothing to say to someone like that.

Posted by soullite | December 19, 2007 2:23 PM

Maybe I misunderstand the term "concern troll", Ryan, but I don't think I am "concern-trolling". I'm calling the Democrats hypocrites for advocating that others engage in affirmative action (when people are giving others jobs, or slots in schools) but refusing to engage in affirmative action themselves in their political choices.

Posted by Al | December 19, 2007 2:24 PM

If Hillary wins one result will be the biggest damned apoplectic paroxysm in the Nation of Wingnuttia ever witnessed. Merriam Webster will remove the word "cooperation" from the dictionary as it will be rendered null from disuse. There will be fits of hysteria break out all over the land, especially in government settings. It won't be pretty, civil or sane. Ann Coulter will become a billionaire. Rush Limbaugh will flush his opiates so plentiful will be the endorpins flowing through his veins. The deaf, blind and lame will heal themselves so they may walk, nay run, to a Sean Hannity radio tour stop near them and touch the hem of his garment. Buckle up!!

Posted by steve duncan | December 19, 2007 2:26 PM

For many of the women that I've talked to who said they were voting for Hillary, her gender was the deciding factor AFTER considering everything else. They were happy with all of the top three candidates and said that they were all equal to each other. But the tiebreaker came down to voting for the candidate who would do something special - break one of the most visible glass celings in the country.

It's difficult to describe because I'm not a member of that minority group. But it's pretty much a matter of "All else being equal, a woman president would be special." And for many voters, the Democratic candidates are very close to each other.

Posted by Alex | December 19, 2007 2:30 PM

Soullite - I understand that. However, I'm not saying that you ought to vote for someone unqualified (whatever your definition of "qualified" - if you think, e.g., Condi Rice is unqualified to be President, I can accept that) just because they are black or a woman. But if you think that both Edwards and Obama are qualified, why do you judge them solely on their merits, and no weight whatsoever on their race? I mean, if two students are both qualified for U of Michigan, do you think that UM should judge them solely on their merits as students - giving no weight whatsoever to their race? Maybe you do, but most Democrats don't. Similarly, most Democrats advocate that companies engage in some type of action to help break the glass ceiling that prevents women from getting to the very top executive jobs. Why not the same here with your voting?

Posted by Al | December 19, 2007 2:32 PM

".....one of the most visible glass celings in the country."
Posted by Alex | December 19, 2007 2:30 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think quarterbacking an NFL team to a victory in the Super Bowl ranks a bit higher in terms of visibility. Why are women evidently shut out of an opportunity to do that I wonder?

Posted by steve duncan | December 19, 2007 2:36 PM

Yup. If I'm voting purely on the basis of symbolism, I vote Obama over Clinton.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 1:33 PM
-----------------------

The ideal would be a black lesbian, maybe a member of Dykes on Bikes.

Posted by Nick | December 19, 2007 2:36 PM

"the first millworker's kid in office would be somewhat interesting"

Really? Is there something in particular about the occupation of millworker that makes it interesting? There have been many presidents who grew up poor, most recently Clinton, Reagan and Nixon.

Posted by too many steves

Probably not to everyone. And certainly there's nothing magically special about that particular form of employment for blue collar origins.

But I grew up in the rural South where textile mills were the big thing, and the industry had a huge, huge impact on the development of the modern American South, even with one of the biggest strikes ever in 1934.

So from that fairly particularist viewpoint, yes, it's kind of interesting.

Posted by El Cid | December 19, 2007 2:42 PM

Clinton presidency, too, would be a unique and exciting opportunity in many ways.

In that it would drive Andrew Sullivan over the edge to clinical insanity and/or mass murder?

Okay, that's the best reasoning for voting for Hillary yet.

Posted by Persia | December 19, 2007 2:43 PM

I'm not fond of the idea of Clinton as the Democratic nominee; just not a big fan of her foreign policy, mostly. However, I can't say I don't feel what Matt's talking about: I find that I keep wondering what the chances are of Obama or Edwards picking Sebelius or Napolitano as his running mate.

Even though I'm not supporting Clinton, I find myself feeling something like "it'd be a shame not to get a woman now that we've got one being taken seriously for high office." Alas, I also feel the same way about Obama, which leaves me the problem of wanting both! It seems very unlikely that Obama would risk a woman as running mate (a black guy's scary enough to the morons of the 4th Estate, but a black and a woman--horrors!) And if Edwards gets the nomination, he's very unlikely to pick a woman of color for his running mate since there are currently few with the requisite claims to national stature.

Edwards/Winfrey anybody? (snark)

Posted by The Big Rodent | December 19, 2007 2:56 PM

Edwards/Winfrey anybody? (snark)

Posted by The Big Rodent | December 19, 2007 2:56 PM
-------------------

Napolitano.

Posted by Nick | December 19, 2007 3:00 PM

I vote for Angelina Jolie.

She's had so much firearms training that she wouldn't need Secret Service protection, so we save money.

She's also able to talk with anybody - Pakistani officials, poor people, kids - not exactly the crowd Clinton is used to talking to.

She's motivated, compassionate, anti-war - and with a drop-dead stare that will freeze all opposition in their tracks (and if that doesn't work, she'll either give them a blowjob or slash them with a knife - imagine Hillary doing either.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 19, 2007 3:04 PM

If Hillary wins one result will be the biggest damned apoplectic paroxysm in the Nation of Wingnuttia ever witnessed.

This is, perhaps, the best argument in favor of her presidency. It would allow the rest of the country an opportunity to rub the noses of the right in failure day after day, holiday after holiday, year after year and remind them that they're just a fringe cult, and that the rest of the country actually prefers the clintons.

People need a little defeat and humiliation before they're willing to re-examine their views, and a Clinton presidency would help that. And if they don't re-examine their views, then I'm ok with merely having them experience defeat and humiliation.

It's not enough just for a Democrat to win the election. The Republicans need to be humiliated.

Posted by Tyro | December 19, 2007 3:05 PM

I disagree with Tryo. After 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush Jr., it's time for someone to be elected who is able to heal the wounds. Having Hillary as president may be nice revenge, but it would not be good for the country.
Obama is the only one of the Democratic candidates who has proven an ability to attract support from across the board. I know many Republicans who are absolutely sick of Bush, but who simply cannot see themselves voting for H. Clinton. Yet they are open to voting for Obama because they want a conciliatory presidency. This despite the fact that Obama is a progressive.
And by the way, the "rest of the country" does not "actually prefers [sic] the Clintons." B. Clinton won the presidency with less than 50% of the vote (due to Ross Perot).
I believe that Obama could easily win a majority, govern from the center-left, heal the nation, and restore America's standing in the world. H. Clinton will not accomplish this.

Posted by anti-Tyro | December 19, 2007 3:14 PM

What about PMS? What happens then?

The most important PMS in this race is a certain Possibly Muslim Senator. And I think that's just great for our country. Good for him!

Posted by Bob Kerrey | December 19, 2007 3:17 PM

Al, The reason we support affirmative action is because we believe in equality of the races. If black people make up X amount of the population, then it is natural that they would be similarly represented in all aspects of life. That they are not is evidence of racism. If black people don't make a similar portion of the population in a university as they do in the population over-all, that can only be the result of racism. So you force people to choose some members of that race. Because the races are fundamentally the same, you will end up with the same quality of student.

The big problem is the inherent class bias of selection in college applications. The primary reason white students have more points for acceptence is not due to test scores or GPA's, it is due to criteria like extracurricular activities and comming from 'competitive (wealthy) school districts'. This makes it far more difficult for minorities to be accepted in those colleges because they are more likely to be poor. This creates a system wherein historic racism perpetuates massive racial discrepancies today.

Hillary Clinton is not competent to lead this country. She is corrupt and plutocratic. She serves the same narrow elite that Bush does, and I'm not interested in a kinder friendly Republicanism. Obama does not, in my view, understand the threat our nation faces from a Republican party that has broken every norm of standard politics. A political party that accepts torture, indefinite detention, corporate rule, and ignored the rights of the judiciary and legislative branches is a paper's width from fascism. Most people won't be that blunt, but I've seen this movie and I know how it ends. At least Edwards will push back against all of this corruption and decay in our system from the last 3o years.

Posted by soullite | December 19, 2007 3:20 PM

It would allow the rest of the country an opportunity to rub the noses of the right in failure day after day

Subject the Right to Clinton's central-planning fallacies as revenge for Bush's central-planning fallacies. How nihilistic.

Posted by Shinyk | December 19, 2007 3:25 PM

"....they are open to voting for Obama because they want a conciliatory presidency."

Posted by anti-Tyro | December 19, 2007 3:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any Democrat could extend their hand in a gesture of conciliation and assuredly be met with a collective punch in the nose from the Right. There will be no conciliation whatever the effort from the left to achieve it. The Right views the crushing of the Left the same way they see the need to snuff out Muslims, gays and anyone else unwilling to accept Jesus as their savior and lead a life hewing to biblical tenets. That and eliminate all taxes and always send lots of money to the defense industry. And you're gonna have that goddamned baby whether you want to or not!! (unless of course it interrupts Brittany's undergraduate studies).

Posted by steve duncan | December 19, 2007 3:25 PM

I don't understand how one can get so excited about having a woman president as if it doesn't matter what kind of president she will be.

Agree, and I'm a lifelong feminist... although I guess I'm more exacting than 'gee, I just want to see a woman behind that podium on tv.' We need great leadership a helluva lot more than self-congratulatory pablum that won't translate into anything more than more effective management of lousy policies.

It's not enough just for a Democrat to win the election. The Republicans need to be humiliated.

Huh... I agree, but that's the biggest reason I won't vote for HRC. The Clintons only won elections & occasional battles; they did not win the partisan war or actually bring any segment of the right down. And I've noted with interest how matter-of-fact a lot of the political right has been about the likelihood of a Clinton nomination, and I find it disturbing.

Posted by latts | December 19, 2007 3:28 PM

anti-Tyro, my first choice is actually Edwards. The time for healing is after the recriminations, punishments, apologies and *repentence*. Obama will be a great candidate for the 2016 elections. Now, not so much. Bill Clinton tried to govern from the center, too, and all it got him was stomped on by a group of irratinal right-wingers. Unfortunately, Obama is in for a world of hurt.

And say what you want, but the fact remains that Bill was a very popular president. Right-wingers never internalized this simple fact, and the only way to make them realize it is with the brute force of a Clinton victory in 2008. And then maybe they can think about where they went wrong back in 1992 when they started harboring their Clinton hatred.

Posted by Tyro | December 19, 2007 3:30 PM

anti-Tyro, just because Obama may be conciliatory does not mean there will be any healing or support across the board. Clinton has shown more of an ability to work with Republicans than Obama has. And please don't assume that your couple of Republican friends speak for the majority of Republicans when it comes to voting for Obama.

Posted by confused | December 19, 2007 3:32 PM

The Right views the crushing of the Left the same way they see the need to snuff out Muslims, gays and anyone else unwilling to accept Jesus as their savior and lead a life hewing to biblical tenets. That and eliminate all taxes and always send lots of money to the defense industry.

Strange that no one on the Right other than Rich Lowry (tepidly) and Rush Limbaugh has really had anything negative to say about Obama.

Stranger that the Right has been more hesitant than the Left to speculate on Edwards and the (probably fraudulent) "love child" story.

Stranger, still, that the candidate who most closely fits your description, Huckabee, is receiving a fiercer reception from elements of the Right than even Hillary (a figure viewed by most of the right as a borderline Communist).

Posted by Shiynk | December 19, 2007 3:37 PM

Electing a woman to president would advance equality in our society. Nominating Hillary over Obama or Edwards would not advance that cause. Its pretty simple really.

Plus, you have Obama as the number two Dem in the polls. How can you possibly argue that we should vote for Hillary instead on the basis of fact that she's a woman? You're going to explicitly choose her over Obama for that reason? I don't know... if you're not an idiot that makes you borderline racist, in my opinion. Its pretty much contingent on you to show how electing a woman president is more important than electing a black man (somehow). Otherwise you are indicating that this kind of affirmative action is important to you, but not with regards to blacks.

Honestly, Obama's blackness along with his foreign policy superiority keeps me from fully supporting Edwards. Hillary had her shot to persuade me... and then shot herself instead.

Posted by mpowell | December 19, 2007 3:40 PM

I would prefer four years of Hillary Clinton as president to another four years of Bill Clinton as president. Her ovaries aren't an important reason, but fine, the historical significance is worth something. But that's as far as I'm willing to go. I greatly prefer Obama or Edwards to either Clinton.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 19, 2007 3:41 PM

Bill Clinton tried to govern from the center, too, and all it got him was stomped on by a group of irratinal right-wingers.

Well then I guess it's a good thing that Obama has never expressed the least bit of interest of governing from the center, and is, in fact, the only one of the top 3 candidates who doesn't have a history as a centrist. Convincing moderate conservatives to support liberal policies seems a far better approach.

Posted by J.B. | December 19, 2007 3:53 PM

It reminds me of a great quote from a random British member of the Labour party, back when they were trying to increase the numbers of women in parliament by requiring all-women short-lists in many districts. Pippa Norris quotes this in her paper "Breaking the Barriers: Positive Discrimination Policies for Women"

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/acrobat/QUOTAS.PDF
page 8

"A lot of socialist parties have direct discrimination and certainly I do think increasingly you ought to have quotas in some form. I mean, people always resent it, because they say you've got a stupid woman doing that instead of an intelligent man. But, frankly, we have so many stupid men at all levels, that I don't see why we shouldn't have a few stupid women. You've got to have a bigger representation of women, and therefore to start off with (positive) discrimination is the best way to do it...But it won't last forever."

Posted by Christy | December 19, 2007 3:53 PM

But it's an argument in her favor. Having a 43 male presidents and 1 female president is better than 44 male presidents, all else being equal.

Posted by OhioBoy | December 19, 2007 1:59 PM

OhioBoy:

I have to ask if you would say that if the woman president would be Ann Coulter or Michele Malkin or Mona Charen instead of Hillary Clinton?

All things being equal, my guess is that you would not and would rather have 44 male presidents instead of having the first woman elected President be a conservative.

I'm also guessing that the same would hold true for Suzanne Zilber. She would not support a conservative woman for President and dear little Charlotte will just have to remain "confused and disappointed" about the lack of a female president because Mommy will not put gender solidarity over ideology.

Posted by Chicounsel | December 19, 2007 4:08 PM

Do we actually know that she still has her ovaries?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 19, 2007 4:12 PM

The right wing in any nation has one good purpose--to remind us that right wingers exist in every nation and they are paranoid and aggressive people who must be kept in check by the rest of us.

Posted by Nick | December 19, 2007 4:24 PM

As for his three months in a Pennsylvania prison, he wrote:

“After 10 full years inside the GOP, 90 days among honest criminals wasn’t really any great ordeal.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/19/5904/

On election rigging, GOP style.

Posted by Nick | December 19, 2007 4:29 PM

Think what you want, but Hillary Clinton is the smartest one of the candidates and everyone knows it! Her knowledge of the issues, policies and history are exactly what is needed to repair the mess inflicted on us by this Republican cabal. And the media has been complicit all the way, and continue it's crowning of an empty suit, the least experienced candidate. Mr Obama has only two years in the Senate, has chairmanship of the European Affairs committee without ever calling one hearing, never voted up or down on the Iraq War Resolution or Kyl/Lieberman ammendment, but claims the higher ground, can't give one clear policy answer on his policies for change as President. Just Nonsense! Idiocy! Here we are again, electing a president because he gives good talk, without saying anything (sound familiar?) The current word on the talk show circuit regarding Mrs. Clinton is 'castration' OMG, the sexism is disgusting. The men are petrified! This is the crap we base our decision who our next President will be. Not me. Senator Hillary Clinton is the most competent and experienced candidate and is the right person for this very difficut job. My vote goes to Hillary,

Posted by rureddy | December 19, 2007 4:31 PM

Chicounsel, anyonw who puts 'gender solidarity' ahead of their own deeply cherished beliefs is a bigot. There really isn't any way around that.

When white men who want an increased minimum wage and see great a corporate influence in our society vote refuse to vote for Obama, and instead back Mitt Romney, that is racism. When a single woman who despises NAFTA and hates the DLC votes for Hillary over Obama or Edwards, thats bigotry too.

Posted by soullite | December 19, 2007 4:55 PM

Some great posts.

BTW, for details on how Somali refugees are faring in increasingly-xenophobic Minnesota, see (the facetiously titled):

'Minnesota's Own Version of "Verjudung," or How Somali Refugees Threaten Christmas In The Upper Midwest'

Michael Blaine, "Rudely Stamped"
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com

Posted by Michael Blaine | December 19, 2007 4:56 PM

Vote for a black/woman because it would be nice to have a minority in that position? 2 words: Condoleeza Rice.

Posted by blah2 | December 19, 2007 5:29 PM

No doubt about it. Hillary is the President America deserves.

Posted by kafka | December 19, 2007 5:45 PM

This is, perhaps, the best argument in favor of her presidency. It would allow the rest of the country an opportunity to rub the noses of the right in failure day after day, holiday after holiday, year after year and remind them that they're just a fringe cult, and that the rest of the country actually prefers the clintons.

For the most part I agree with you, Tyro, but unfortunately, I think the bolded part is just wishful thinking. 28 percent of 300 million is about 84 million. What you're describing would definitely be a lot of fun and all else being equal maybe it's worth it for that alone, but even Hillary Clinton won't humiliate 84 million conservatives
enough to make a lasting impression.

Posted by Cyrus | December 19, 2007 5:50 PM

"I disagree with Tryo. After 8 years of
Clinton and 8 years of Bush Jr., it's time
for someone to be elected who is able to heal
the wounds."
Hey did I miss a history lesson? who was the last big healer? Bush Sr.? Reagon? Carter? Nixon?
Johnson? The division between one side of the country and the other is there and the closest we've come to a healer is the centrist leaning Clinton who drove the far right and the far left crazy. The centrist stuff that Nixon did was bizarrely balanced by his paraniod nature and his criminal activity and his refusal to end a war. Reagon and Bush Sr. were extremists and tore our nation further asunder.
Its so clever to lump bush's years and clinton's years together as if they were similar but blame the craziness of the clinton years on the right who hated him and then remember to also blame the bush years on the same right that stole the election and started two wars and ended or curtailed basic rights in our country and tortured suspects without conscience.
Lets blame the left for not being loyal to a democrat and for not actively opposing the bush years vehemently enough.
Obama will enter washington and be as ineffectual and as hopelessly naive as carter was.
Hillary is center left and left center and has the political smarts and toughness to work with everybody and out work most who have brought parts of our country to our knees.
She knows how it goes and how to keep going. its all been done to her and bill and they got the better of Newt and the rest- to our benefit.
A woman president would heal a wound most of us refuse to acknowledge and Hillary is our Eleanor Rooseveldt.

Posted by Michael | December 19, 2007 6:41 PM

Ha. Wish I weren't too late to the conversation, but I love the idea that it's "hard" to not conclude that the gender imbalance must result from women liking Hillary b/c of her ovaries. Couldn't possibly be men DISLIKING Hillary -- not because of her ovaries of course, men are more rational than that! -- ask Andrew Sullivan! -- it's just a gut feeling, not an aversion to ovaries!

As a woman, I feel I am somewhat-immune to the Man Crush phenomenon that drives at least a lot of (male) Obama voters (not to lump them all in with Sullivan...). My resulting dispassionate analysis makes it pretty easy to conclude Hillary is the best choice.

Posted by anon | December 19, 2007 7:30 PM

The place for racial and gender preferences is at the entry level, and possibly at mid-level points where discrimination can be reasonably alleged (pattern and practice). And it'll just take a while for that to work itself out at the top. And what are you going to do about the likelihood that fewer women than men are willing to focus fanatically on a goal like climbing to the next level on some abstract "ladder?"

Is Obama going to *do* something better because he is African? Is Clinton going to *accomplish* something, other than the obvious first-woman symbolism, just because she is female?

Role models for children? Is that what you think you're voting for? The person with his/her finger on the button, who can wield all kinds of influence to further or counter the insane plutocratic slant of this gov't, is most important as a role model for confused children?

We really should have a separate election for a head of state, someone who can do all the symbolic king/queen stuff, who doesn't have to actually know how to get a huge evil bureacracy to act marginally less evil. For that office, sure, elect an African or a woman, and next time whichever you didn't elect this time.

It is neither sexist nor racist to say that presidential candidates should be judged on the content of their character. And on what they will try to accomplish that they actually might be able to.

Posted by Fingal | December 19, 2007 10:01 PM

As for disliking Hillary because of her gender, hey, there was a time when I seriously thought I wouldn't mind doing her.

And that's despite her being the exact opposite of me on just about every possible issue: Democratic statist vs anarchist, Methodist vs atheist, lawyer vs I-hate-lawyers, political crook vs I-hate-political-crooks, liar vs I-hate-liars, etc.

She is smart and tough and ambitious (and I don't doubt she can be charming on occasion - probably not to Bill, though) and I like that in a woman.

Unfortunately, she IS all those other things, too - which makes her unacceptable as a President - even if I was interested in having a President.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 20, 2007 12:02 AM

Lets blame the left for not being loyal to a democrat and for not actively opposing the bush years vehemently enough.

Let's you go pound sand up your ass.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 20, 2007 12:08 AM

from women liking Hillary b/c of her ovaries. Couldn't possibly be men DISLIKING Hillary

Probably a difficult case to make.

Ask Hillary Haters why to vote against her and you can usually get a few hundred reasons related to policy. My own short answer is that her book reveals her as a Central Planner and quasi-communist domestically (I can dig it up and quote relevant passages if you like), and her voting record reveals her as, if not a Trotskyist, at the very least a Bush-Trotskyist abroad. Central Planning, domestic communitarianism and "permanent revolution," did very little long-term good for the Soviets, so I don't see why the US should lurch toward the USSR's mistakes, as she would have us do.

Other, more liberal Hillary Haters may have other reasons, but those reasons don't often tend to be insubstantial or easily-dismissed.

Ask Hillary voters for an affirmative reason to vote for Hillary and you get:
-she's experienced--which is debatable, but unverifiable (as has been effectively pointed out by both Obama and Edwards). More to the point, she has nothing on Bill Richardson or McCain in this department
-she's competent--which could be said about every candidate but Gravel and Huckabee
-Bill was popular--Hillary's not Bill (and the latter's act is wearing thin, anyway)
-she's a woman--which is not a reason to vote for this specific woman

None of those reasons are thicker than the air spent espousing them.

With solid reasons to oppose her and wispy reasons for support, "why do so many men dislike her?" is the less-appropriate question.

Posted by Shinyk | December 20, 2007 4:32 AM

Fingal: The place for racial and gender preferences is at the entry level, and possibly at mid-level points where discrimination can be reasonably alleged (pattern and practice). And it'll just take a while for that to work itself out at the top.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I think the best way to do this would be to pump resources and innovation into schools in inner cities and other poor areas. Make these schools the envy of the schools in the suburbs in order to counteract the forces acting against these kids that today have them starting life playing with a bad hand. Do this and the equality will trickle up; give it time and the notion of affirmative action will become increasingly irrelevant.

We really should have a separate election for a head of state, someone who can do all the symbolic king/queen stuff, who doesn't have to actually know how to get a huge evil bureacracy to act marginally less evil. For that office, sure, elect an African or a woman, and next time whichever you didn't elect this time.

This is pretty much like the Canadian Governor-General, except it's an appointed position. This position, the vice-regal of the monarch, started off with British noblemen being appointed (e.g., Lord Stanley of Stanley Cup fame), but their current and previous ones are like the Canadian equivalents of Anna Deveare Smith and Connie Chung.

It is neither sexist nor racist to say that presidential candidates should be judged on the content of their character. And on what they will try to accomplish that they actually might be able to.

Damn straight, which is why I'm voting for Obama. If I went by demographic similarity, I'd be voting for Italian-American Catholic Rudy Giuliani... yecccchhhhh.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 20, 2007 5:22 AM

soullite: If black people make up X amount of the population, then it is natural that they would be similarly represented in all aspects of life.

See, this is the formulation of affirmative action that strikes a lot of people - myself included - as simplistic, and a reason to oppose it as a long-term solution. There is a difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. If we have the latter, than I don't think we need to worry about the former.

I think it's far more important to give black children in the K-12 years good educations and the tools they need to give them college applications equal to those of suburban white students than to allocate admissions based on race rather than qualifications. The same goes at the employment level.

Racism is a complex issue with deep effects, and it works at difficult levels. The legally-mandated racism of the Jim Crow era is gone, and the blatant, explicit racism of the people who supported has gradually become less and less acceptable. But there is also the subtle racism of perceptions (c.f. studies that show that identical resumes with names like Brent Schneider and Tyrone Washington get treated differently). Then there's also the lingering effects of all of these different levels of racism that percolate through the ages. The effects of 400 years of slavery and second-class citizenship on a people didn't automatically fade away with the Civil Rights Act, and they haven't all faded away today.

Affirmative action is appropriate as a remedy to legal racism and blatant racism. As for unconscious perceptual racism, I can see how it may be a worthwhile tool for a limited time, but on a case-by-case basis it must be weighed against its negative effects. Mainly, that it legally enshrines judging people not as individuals, but only as members of a race, working against a meritocracy.

If the bar of qualification for school, employment, or whatever is set at different levels for different groups of people, then we are implicitly acknowledging that one group of people is not acquiring the qualifications necessary to succeed at life. The remedy to this is not to set different qualifications, but to rectify the situations that are creating this imbalance in the first place. The place to do that is earlier along the chain rather than later. Fix the schools, fix the infrastructure, etc.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 20, 2007 5:51 AM

And also... similarly represented in all aspects of life. Really? All aspects? Music? Sports? At what levels? Should my local government reflect the demographics of my particular city, or of the country as a whole? Any way you slice it, the arguments in favor of affirmative action eventually become arguments for dividing people up into categories and interfering with too many aspects of life. Affirmative action judges us on the color of our skin, not the content of our character.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 20, 2007 5:57 AM

Adam, yes. in a just society that would be equally represented in ALL walks of life. The reasons black folks are so overrepresented in sports is that that is the only real avenue for wealth that most will ever see. Because of this, any black kid with even a modicum of talent will practice long and hard at honing those skills. White kids similarly skilled MIGHT try to hone those skills and hope against hope that they get an NBA/NFL contract, but he likely also has other more traditional avenues to gain money. He doesn't view sports as being his only hope.

White people have every opportunity to only focus on sports. There are no institutional barriers involved. The argument you are making is idiotic, and more than slightly racist. you seem to be arguing that black people are simply better athletes genetically. That makes me wonder what other genetic differences you believe exists.

Posted by Soullite | December 20, 2007 11:02 AM

Adam, my initial post on affirmative actions has already refuted every single claim you just made. I suggest you read it an understand the ACTUAL college application process instead of parroting random right wing talking points born out of white male outrage.

Posted by Soullite | December 20, 2007 11:03 AM

Anon, way to be brave enough to put your name to your bigotted, anti-male opinion. You're a real profile in courage. Shouldn't you be out posting over at Biting Beaver's place or something?

Posted by Soullite | December 20, 2007 11:06 AM

As a woman, I feel I am somewhat-immune to the Man Crush phenomenon that drives at least a lot of (male) Obama voters (not to lump them all in with Sullivan...).

IME, Edwards has a lot more happening in the man-crush category, at least in the blogosphere-- he's like the poster boy for earnest male progressives, complete with the requisite passive-aggressive derision for those who just can't see the same things they do. Obama supporters tend to be younger & more idealistic, as far as I can tell, and one of the reasons I'm leaning in his direction is that I haven't found them nearly as nasty and condescending as Edwards & Clinton supporters, although everyone will be more testy as things get down to the wire.

My resulting dispassionate analysis makes it pretty easy to conclude Hillary is the best choice.

You call it dispassionate (mm-hmm); I call it depressingly cynical, even for politics.

Posted by latts | December 20, 2007 11:08 AM

"everyone will be more testy as things get down to the wire."

Fuck off with your treasonous slander.

"as nasty and condescending as Edwards & Clinton supporters"

Though I would like to congratulate you on spelling those big words correctly.

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 11:16 AM

Do I see a small satiric effort from an Edwards supporter? Or would a face-value interpretation be a better bet?

Posted by latts | December 20, 2007 1:57 PM

"Do I see a small satiric effort from an Edwards supporter? Or would a face-value interpretation be a better bet?"

Given context, I'd lean towards the satiric interpretation.

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 2:37 PM

Soullite, if you're calling for people of different races to be equally represented in all walks of life, then you're essentially saying that you want to erase all differences between different sub-cultures within the United States. I, for one, enjoy the fact that I live in a multi-cultural society with different groups of people with different interests and ways of doing things.

Just yesterday I visited a plant nursery, and I wasn't surprised to see that most people working there were Japanese-American. Japanese-Americans are well-overrepresented in the gardening industry here in California. I don't for one second believe that there's anything about the Japanese genetic makeup that makes them better at gardening, but obviously something about the cultural carryover from Japan has led to many more Japanese-Americans having an interest in gardening than the rest of us. Your argument says this is a bad thing.

To take an even more absurd example, what about Chinese restaurants? Lo and behold, all the Chinese restaurants in my town (which is majority-Asian) are run by Asians. Should I be complaining that the 7% of the local population that is white means that 7% of the local Chinese restaurants should be run by white people? Or is the very notion of a Chinese restaurant offensive to you? Should we all just eat generic American food whose ingredients represent a mix in the same proportion as the demographics? The notion is absurd, but it follows from your argument.

My argument boils down to this: equal opportunities should be achieved by strengthening schools in poor areas. Any remaining differences, then, would be the residue of genuine sub-cultural differences. Affirmative action is a stop-gap measure that is useful in the limited term but ultimately does little to address underlying injustices in society. If you think that makes me a racist, then you have a very distorted vision of what racism is.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 20, 2007 3:01 PM

I've been supporting Obama in this election for a variety of reasons (policy, personality/charisma, comparison with the other choices), and I'm really not a fan of Hillary.

However, my almost-six year old daughter asked me a couple of weeks ago if a woman had ever been president. When I told her "no," she wanted to know why--and I didn't have a good answer.

It isn't enough to make me vote for Hillary; but it is enough that if Hillary wins, I'll be very happy anyway.

Posted by Over the rainbow | December 20, 2007 3:32 PM