I am a 63 year old feminist of yore. The first time I checked out Obama through his speeches and his website, I was so happy. My appreciation for him has only grown. He has tuned into a genuine urgency for the need to change the way things are done and he has a platform that is progressive and smart. I am so impressed with his technology policy, for example.

My problem is that most of my friends, my "sisters," are avid HRC supporters. Because of my support for Obama, they no longer speak to me about politics and generally leave me out of events. If the subject of the presidential race is raised, people look at me and then change the subject. "Let's not talk about it front of HER." It is infantile, these are my old, good friends. We've been through thick and thin together.

I have tried to have a dialog with my friends, but they just won't talk about it. When I suggest that HRC is not quite experienced in the way she implies, I am brushed off with as if I was stupid and uninformed.

What I am trying to say is that I feel the tone has been set by the HRC supporters, not the other way around. I have been flooded with emails of the Robin Morgan "Goodbye..." piece. I was appalled by it. The world has changed, but my "sisters" insist on their nostalgia, their old paradigms, old language, old grievances. They, of course, pursue their agenda in the same all-or-nothing tone that turned off so many young women, not to mention many other forward thinking people, in the first place. The world has changed and these boomer feminists continue to throw down the gauntlet for HRC, this uninspiring, Rovian, throw-back politician of the first magnitude. What are they thinking?

Bill Clinton was shameless and lied to a Grand Jury. Hillary Clinton did just as much as she could to discredit women whom Bill victimized. These are not honorable people. Our young women of today are smart. They are very clear about what the Clintons represent. For that I am amazed and grateful. I do not "hate" HRC. I do believe that we have got to wrench the power from this establishment and move into the future, swiftly, urgently.

"They, of course, pursue their agenda in the same all-or-nothing tone that turned off so many young women, not to mention many other forward thinking people, in the first place. The world has changed and these boomer feminists continue to throw down the gauntlet "

That's the way Hillary looks to me. Seriously, kinda obsessive and creepy. Way too intense about winning to care who gets in her way. As if any opinion that clashes with her own is obviously uninformed.

I'm a 40 year old woman, living exactly the life I want with the full support and appreciation of my kid and husband. I can work and have, I can stay home and raise my kid, and am. I'll probably go back to school after she's grown and gone, but maybe not. My husband loves AND respects me either way. I'm not sure if I'm a feminist. I guess maybe I never had to be. Thanks for that, Isabella and all your friends.

My 15 year old daughter thought feminist meant you liked "girly" clothes rather than just jeans. She and all her friends think Hillary is nuts, and they don't want her to be president. Partially because they think she slept her way to the white house and then sold herself out by staying with Bill for her "chance" to run. It has never occurred to them that there won't be a female president someday, they're just pretty picky about who will represent them because she'll be historically important.

Once again, Thanks, seriously, you have no idea how perfectly the combination of brave feminists and loving mothers fixed the world.

Nice to hear your story and to receive your recognition for the successes of the 2nd wave of feminists. It was quite a wonderful time, too, despite what Robin Morgan narrowly implies. I have a daughter, also. She is a 38 year old journalist and a big Obama supporter, through no effort of mine. We surprised each other with our Obama news last fall. Hill and Bill are a curious, scary pair. I wish them no ill, but I wish they would just go do good deeds and let the world begin anew.

Actually, to elect Hillary would be to begin anew.

In all the self-righteousness of Obama supporters, bear in mind, he's against counting the votes of two states in the primary. His campaign has blocked democracy - because it suits him.

To block democracy is a deal breaker. And considering Gore's election experience and how close this election is, shows Obama to be a hypocrite when he asks to be leader of this country. Truly, the first order of business is to count the will of all states, not play politics, which is the Karl Rove evil of the past. If he can't do that, he doesn't deserve your vote. He does not truly represent the new, but the old corrupt.

Caution: anger induced statements to follow.

You,sallygo, like most overly opinionated Hillary supporters, are completely wrong.

The DNC and the state party leaders ended up blocking Michigan and Florida's voters.

The party leader's by not heeding the DNC's warning that their votes wouldn't count if they didn't abide by party rules about the timing of their primaries.

The DNC by upholding the ruling WHICH ALL OF THE CANDIDATES SIGNED.

Why should Obama allow the votes which were not supposed to count because those states broke the rules count? Because it would help his opponent? Sheer political suicide. I'm not sure I'd want a president that stupid.

If he did that he'd be as dim as the Clinton's who wanted the political victory of NAFTA and sold America's jobs to get them. That ended up helping BUSH get elected. Sheer political suicide..but not for the Clinton's just the Democrats.

Not only do I think Hillary Clinton is a terrible choice for President, I think she may actually be a detriment to the Democratic Party as a whole.

Perhaps we could segregate her into the "Poor little Hillary Party".

Actually you are completely wrong about Obama not supporting the count of two states.

Representatives of the Obama campaign, who ARE party people, blocked any deal to recount those states.

It IS a question of democracy. Why is it important? Well, democracy is important. And despite any DNC deal, consider this: the race is unexpectedly close and the results from those states could effect the outcome. Also, consider what happened to Gore in Florida. Justifiably, people could say that the candidate from the party is NOT their candidate, much as they say that the current president is not legitimate.

The DNC is all about deals. Despite your contention that it's all a law of the Democratic land, many, many meetings were held to hammer out a new deal. Clinton appealed in public and private to count those two states in consideration of how close the race it. Obama blocked and ignored and let the clock run out. He does not support democracy. He is uninterested in being more legitimate, if that puts his winning at risk. Obama would be illegimate and we will never know if he has a majority of the voters or the delegates, since two states were not counted. If the race were not so close, perhaps 2 states would not effect the outcome. But they do.

Obama has shown no statesmanship or leadership in support of the deals that were proposed to count two states. Instead, he's the great disappearing vapor on this issue, shrugging his shoulders, saying its party issue, while directing people in his campaign, who could vote in the party governance to do a recount to block. It's about choice. He chose not to lead on this issue.

I agreet hat the race is unexpectedly close, but I believe the problem is a little more complicated than recount or don't recount.It's about whether the results stand or are apportioned some other way.

If you want to get those delegates seated how about apportioning them according to the national distribution of the campaign so far? No Hillary supporter in the country will vote for that one because it would put her further behind.

Just as no Obama supporter is going to let them be apportioned according to an unfair primary result.

If Obama had campaigned in those states (or even had his name on the ballot in Michigan) I believe that he could have won, or pulled so close as to have the results be nearly even.

But the DNC's ban on campaigning there screwed him far worse than Hillary. That early in the race..no one knew who he was. Without a massive state wide campaign he didn't have 1/10th the name recognition of Clinton or even the other candidates. So the DNC's ban put him at a much larger disadvantage than Hillary CLINTON. Everyone already knew who she was.

How about seating the delegates according to caucus results? Caucuses are easy to hold and don't cost nearly as much as a primary. But only Obama supporters want to do that because Obama wins in caucuses. Big Time.

The problem with Florida and Michigan is that their party leadership..with supporters of Obama and Clinton and Biden and Richardson and John Edwards.. screwed up. And now there's no fair way to fix it. Not with Clinton out ther acting as if she had a gun to her head when she signed that DNC paperwork. Now she's made it sound as if somehow Obama, and only Obama, put some kind of hit out on democracy itself, despite having agreed to it too.

What do they call it when the jury is biased by outside information? I don't remember, but that's a factor in any NEW vote in Florida and Michigan. Those voter's have been told that Obama is to blame for this somehow. Not exactly a fair environment for a revote since he had little to do with the initial problems of schedualing the prmary.

...And Hillary Clinton wanted (and still wants, as far as I know) to count the votes from Michigan as they were cast. That would be the vote in which she was on the ballot and Obama wasn't.

Clinton is hardly in a position to cast herself as the shining representative of democracy here. I'll admit I've been disappointed by Obama's failure to step up and push for a sensible compromise, but it's certainly not going to make me *more* likely to vote for Clinton.

Instead of focusing on Clinton - focus on what Obama could do. Clinton was for and openly supported several deals and proposals. No one is tying Obama's hands. He is not helpless. He is free to show leadership here. If he supports more democracy, if he wants to never be accused of being illegitmate, he will step out, speak out, instruct his campaign that he supports what is necessary to count two states.

He has not done that. And his hands and mouth are not tied in this. It is his choice. He is a party member, and he could speak out and show leadership if he desired. His campaign representatives in the party have blocked and refused all proposals. He is not for democracy when it does not suit him.

And by the way, the party rules are for the party to make. There have been many, many committee meetings trying to strike a deal or proposal to count two states. It is a fact that in a Karl Rove like move, Obama has directed his people that he does not support any recount or revote. It will be the shame and dirt that will follow him. And, again, this is old Karl Rove like politics.

I have to agree with Thevail and Dausuul here...

Sallygo, how can you agrue for Michigan's votes to count when Obama wasn't even on the ticket? To me, that seems far more un-democratic.

You seem to have the same problem as your leader Hillary. You both blindly throw yourselves into arguments and situations where you will inevitably have to eat your own words. Imagine if Hillary won the nomination and had to face McCain. McCain's camp would simply have to turn every one of Hillary's Obama attacks against her: 3am phone calls, military/foreign-policy experience, patriotism, etc...

"Instead of focusing on Clinton - focus on what Obama could do."

Um... no. I will focus on both candidates, because my goal is to choose between them, not to evaluate just one candidate in comparison to some abstract ideal.

And while I agree that I have not seen the leadership from Obama that I would like to see, I also have not seen any leadership from Clinton. She wanted the delegations seated according to the original vote, because that would favor her despite being utterly undemocratic. When she couldn't get that, she started agitating for a compromise deal, since that would probably still give her *some* advantage. That's not democratic ideals, that's a politician trying to game the system, no more and no less than Obama's delaying tactics are.

No, I'm not happy about it. If either candidate had shown a serious commitment--from the start, not merely when it was politically convenient--to a fair and democratic vote in Florida and Michigan, I'd consider switching to that candidate. Since neither one has, I will continue to judge on other criteria, in which Obama comes out ahead.

This sentence in the article struck me: Only women seem to need to separate and destroy in order to start all over again with each generation.

That's patently wrong. Boys rebel against their parents/fathers/ the preceding generation every bit as much, only they aren't saddled with the "feminism" thing.

The reason some (not just younger) women are doing what the author labels as "separating and destroying" is this: a group of women, some very committed and some more like lemmings, adopted "feminism" and allowed it to define them and to redefine for them what it should mean to be a woman---and they insist that every woman of that initial generation, plus the ones that followed, adopt their view and values and that they stay "true" to it. Like whiny grannies who cannot believe that their taste in furnishings isn't considered fashionable any longer, those first-generation feminists are upset that women of today aren't impressed. Meanwhile, the unimpressed have looked around, seen that women can work like men, and they don't really like or want what has been "gifted" to them by the old feministas.

In fact, a new feminism is gaining ground. No one is "starting over." Women are just going back to what makes more sense. They aren't impressed that Hillary has ovaries any more than they're impressed that Obama (supposedly) has balls. My daughter wants more freedom than the feministas want her to have. She wants to have the ability to work when she wants to work and to choose to raise her own children and be the (very important) keeper of the home for a man she values abd their children. She recognizes that the old feminist ideal, of shrilly declaring motherhood and wifehood a horrible existence to be demeaning, is simply stupid. Men and women are not the same, and God love the differences.

As Isabella Binny said: "The world has changed, but my "sisters" insist on their nostalgia, their old paradigms, old language, old grievances. They, of course, pursue their agenda in the same all-or-nothing tone that turned off so many young women, not to mention many other forward thinking people, in the first place. The world has changed and these boomer feminists continue to throw down the gauntlet for HRC, this uninspiring, Rovian, throw-back politician of the first magnitude."

The "Rovian" part made me laugh, because, geez, that's politics, but "forward thinking" is exactly right. The newer feminists, because that's exactly what they are, know that they don't have to be men to be happy. Whenever I hear this bemoaning of the "ignorance" of the new generation of women, I think of my son's hilarious attempts to get me to back off: "don't tell me my business, Devil Woman." Please, please, back off, ye over-the-hill feministas.

sallygo:

Actually, to elect Hillary would be to begin anew.

In all the self-righteousness of Obama supporters, bear in mind, he's against counting the votes of two states in the primary. His campaign has blocked democracy - because it suits him.

To block democracy is a deal breaker. And considering Gore's election experience and how close this election is, shows Obama to be a hypocrite when he asks to be leader of this country. Truly, the first order of business is to count the will of all states, not play politics, which is the Karl Rove evil of the past. If he can't do that, he doesn't deserve your vote. He does not truly represent the new, but the old corrupt.

First of all, the presidential race isn't just between Hillary and Obama.

Second of all, Rove didn't invent presidential politics and neither Obama nor Clinton is simply a bystander in the game of doing whatever it takes. As for "counting the will of the states," it's amusing when people sulk that their guy won the popular vote and lost because it's "no fair!" Them's the rules and they apply to both sides. As for the "counting the will" of those who voted in the primary, your Little Hillary is busy trying to figure out how to get the nomination even if she doesn't have enough primary votes (can you say "super delegates"? I knew you could).

As a conservative, I am happy with either Obama or Hillary winning the NOMINATION, because they are both as poor a candidate as we could hope for the Democrat party to run.

I have two points to add - the first is a theory I have as to why some boomers are unwilling to support Obama, and the other speaks to why I feel Obama's approach to the Michigan-Florida question is entirely appropriate...

Regarding the boomers:
My experience with women of the boomer generation - particularly the older boomers ("feminist[s] of yore" as Isabella terms them), which I consider to be the stereotypical HRC supporters - is that they're still not entirely comfortable with questions of race. Recall that the civil rights and equal rights movements happened within their lifetimes... I believe that many of them have embraced equality of the sexes while still seeing the world in terms of skin color. This inability to truly look past color has deterred some of them from critically evaluating Hillary and her actions in this primary.

I am not, of course, implying that ALL women of this generation share this viewpoint, but I think the number is not insignificant, and could explain why some refuse to consider that Obama might be the better candidate. I also speak from personal experience, having spoken to family members of that generation about whom they support and why. I think my family is fairly typical of middle-class, white, suburban American Democrats.

Regarding Michigan & Florida:
These states were aware of the consequences of moving their primary dates well in advance of moving them. The consequences, as mentioned in an earlier reply, were agreed upon by the DNC at large, INCLUDING HILLARY. The reason for preventing these states from voting early was to allow other, smaller states to cast primary votes that wouldn't immediately be eclipsed by the larger states. The timing established for state primaries is a way to normalize for both the number of popular votes and number of delegates available in various states, in an attempt to make the primary MORE democratic, not less so. By *not* attempting to work out a compromise for these states, Obama has given Hillary enough rope to hang herself, which she has done quite ably. She has tied herself in knots trying to wrangle a victory from this primary. Does anyone really think that frantically seeking a loophole in DNC policy to seat Michigan & Florida would benefit the democratic process? The only thing it would prove to me is that our political system is available for the highest bidder and/or the loudest whiner.

I agree with Isabella that we need to be quit of "uninspiring, Rovian, throw-back politician[s]" and avoid dynastic politics. There's a bucket full of reasons why I don't support Hillary, and each day longer this primary carries on another is added. I've said it before here in The Fray, but it begs repeating: voters aren't stupid, and I'm tired of politicians treating us like we are. Hillary has been talking down to us and pandering to us since "Day One" (to crib from her playbook) of this race and I'm sick of it. It's gross and self-serving, and we deserve so much better - as women AND as citizens.

Funny how Obama supporters want to talk about ANYTHING other than the fact that two states aren't being counted. And Obama has decided to not do anything about or throw any of his leadership or influence behind it.

It doesn't matter who Obama is running against here. It's a deal breaker to not have a candidate who does his upmost to ensure democracy.

If Obama doesn't want to run the risk of being labeled illegitimate, he'll do it. Consider Gore in Florida, consider how close the election is. Karl Rove like politics because it suits him shows his character.