I think the problem that I, and presumbably other women have, is that although the Obama/Clinton campaigns ran virtually neck and neck, Slate ran about 95% Obama backers.

So, kudos to you, and you privileged family, but your choices, while wonderful for your personal career, are not necessarily representative of women and do not necessarily advance women.

Hillary Clinton has been mercilessly mocked and treated with enormous disrespect, but that doesn't seem to bother you -- you feel no need to bond with the bitter old chicks who see sexism everywhere. You are so beyond that.

The Blacks seem comfortable aligning behind Obama (who interestingly, seems to have done far less to work for the advancement of blacks than Hillary Clinton, but hey, it is fun to slide). A look at the campaign workers of the various campaigns (in 2007) showed Obama had only 20% women, and no Asians (yes, that is correct, NO Asians, and damn few Hispanics). Hillary Clinton had the most diverse group of people working for her.

But, hey, that is so yesterday, actually looking at who people hire.

The Democratic party, that bastion of women's rights, has Reid, an anti-choice politician as its main negotiator. When men negotiate, women's rights seem to be one of the first things that get negotiated away.

But, hey, happy to hear how liberated, and unconstrained by sex you are when you vote. Sadly, everyone else is voting their tribe -and the tribe that fought for your rights is getting royally screwed. Thanks for saying, "No thank you, it wouldn't really look good on my resume," when the torch was passed to you.

BTW, for all the anti-war people who proclaim, loudly, that it was Hillary Clinton's pro-war stance that turned the tide for them, I woul like to remind you all that Obama strongly supported Lieberman, the most adamant of war-mongers, and when Lamont knocked him out of the Democratic Party, on essentially the war vote, Obama gave a tepid e-mail in support of the Democratic, anti-war candidate Lamont, but refused to campaign for him.

Know your candidate much?

Everything before your last paragraph is identity politics, extremely petty and entirely irrelevant to our future as human beings.

However, your last paragraph which pretends to actually make an argument in specific, is disgustingly misleading. Everyone in the Democratic party favored Lieberman before his infamous turn into a hawk, and in the years before this change he was explicitly Obama's mentor. To say that they scratched each others' backs mutually is an understatement, but it's silly to think it was done because Obama failed to be anti-war. He simply owed a blatant debt to Lieberman.

In the time since then, as Lieberman has done the unthinkable and become a Democrat who supports McCain, Obama has disowned him just like everyone else. Sure, Obama should've worked harder for Lamont, and probably regrets that now. But EVERYONE in the Democratic party regrets Lieberman at this point - it's ridiculous to pin that on Obama.

nywoman:

The Blacks seem comfortable aligning behind Obama (who interestingly, seems to have done far less to work for the advancement of blacks than Hillary Clinton, but hey, it is fun to slide).

"The Blacks." That just about sums up your post. Way to be.

<quote> I'm surprised and disappointed that the voters and groups who had aligned themselves with Clinton's candidacy aren't using this moment of maximum attention to thrust into the spotlight the rest of what could become a larger agenda. </quote>

In response to your gripe, Emily Brazelon asks a good question. What is your larger agenda? Now that Hillary is not the Democratic candidate, what is it you hope the guy who is elected will be able to do for you?

I'm disappointed too, because at first I thought that women for Hillary were going to push hard for a more progressive women's agenda (you go, girls!), but all this whining about sexism makes it look like Hillary's most ardent supporters were mainly on a self-indulgent feminist ego-trip.

You nailed it right on the head. Hillary took a beating from

the ultraliberal media while Obama got a free ride. Excuses

were made for every gaffe he made while the pundits made

fun of Hillary's laugh, her pant suits and even some of her

proposals which, incidentally, were later adopted by Obama.

90+% of the black vote for Obama showed that racism does

exist, but apparently moreso by the black community. Those

black politicians that were initially backing Hillary were warned

and threatened until they switched. Also never mentioned by

media were the $10,000 contributions made by the Obama

campaign to super delegates, including Robert Byrd of WVA!!!

As far as I can see Clinton started this race with a 2 mile head start. Long before there was an Obama many people already had a strong dislike of the woman. Her ineptly run campaign....her pandering..her exaggerations and truth stretching consolidated that feeling of dislike. I can not feel sorry for some woman who has held and tasted and lived the Power. Clintons worst enemy in the debacle was indeed herself. Long before Obama the media portrayed her on cover after cover of magazines..books and newspapers with that American eagle visage..stern..smug...confiden­t..omnipotent... for she was Hillary Rodham Clinton..the anointed one. Well, surprise surprise.

Obama will be the next President. The man ran a class act campaign. Refused to get down in the gutter and indeed is Presidential...something we have not seen in generations. He is a thinking man and if the way he ran is campaign is any indication of the way he will run his administration....our country may just find a way out of the mess we're in.

npoulin, if you could provide links to campaign finance reports proving that these $10,000.00 contributions made by the Obama presidential campaign exist, I for one would appreciate it. It would help to show that you're not simply making things up.

Incidentally I saw it reported last night on the news that Hillary ended up spending ~$100,000 per delegate that she won. (disclosure: I say approximately because the number they provided was higher, though I do not recall the exact figure)

"But, hey, happy to hear how liberated, and unconstrained by sex you are when you vote. Sadly, everyone else is voting their tribe -and the tribe that fought for your rights is getting royally screwed. Thanks for saying, "No thank you, it wouldn't really look good on my resume," when the torch was passed to you.

I really always thought the goal of the civil rights movements was to minimize "tribal" tendencies and create equal respect and valuation. I understand its still a goal, but do you really believe its all about "just voting your tribe?" Do you think that is good for our country as a whole?

As a side note, the negative, mean, and derisive tone (e.g. "it wouldn't really look good on my resume") isn't necessary. It is possible intelligent, strong, and amazing women just disagree with you, and it is possible their reasons are legitimate. I wish the conversation could stay more respectful; lest we mirror the talking heads we profess to hate.

I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you so much, you lifted my spirits. All the anti Hillary messages here (95% O backers) have been really discouraging. I can't see why Obama was a BETTER choice than HRC, but I have to respect that it was, their choice. I was hoping for the party leaders to support her. That they had made their choices very early on, via phone conversations with Obama really made me angry. Why keep me hoping for the "undecided" super-delegates, if they had actually DECIDED. It is sad that women split-up. I can't see why women do not support women. But I admit if I did not agree with HRC about the issues, I wouldn't have supported her. I have been doing some soul searching and I honestly think I chose HRC first and John Edwards second strictly on the issues. I did not see Civil/Womens rights as 2008 issues. Boy, I see now, that they still are BIG issues. Now that HRC is out of the way everyone is talking about the issues that matter, again, like the economy, healthcare...

Can someone tell me why Obama does not have a specific "Women's Issues" section on his web site? I suggest he import the one John Edwards was forthrightly displaying.

to the Obama website. Hopefully they'll have it up soon.

I got the general impression that Obama stayed off of "women's issues" as a specific topic because it was sort of Clinton's "turf".

Nicholas Kristof, an Obama supporter, calls for as much from BHO in an oped piece in today's NYT. He wants Obama to deliver a speech on gender to match his Philadelphia address on race. A great idea. Worth watching to see if BHO responds in any way. In an interesting aside in this piece, Kristoff notes why HRC couldn't put women's issues front and center--she would have been trussed up on the critical horns of identity politics!

And so it goes. What is right and necessary is submerged because of candidates' fear and trembling before supposed "political realities." What is right, necessary and good is forced to enter through the back doors of political discourse. Those that are unhappy with this state of things are dismissed as naive or, in Bazelton's latest, (potentially) spiteful.

Give it up, please. Just do what's right and stop patronizing a clique of neos on the right and condescending to those of us who are ready for deep, meaningful change in our society and economy.

How would Clinton having made a speech on "gender" have screwed her over any more than Obama's having made a speech on "race" did?

And I'm still in two minds about Obama making that speech. I'm afraid it would seem really condescending to a lot of women.

“I'm afraid it would seem really condescending to a lot of women.” And isn’t this exactly the problem? Our leaders tip toe around the sensitive stuff for fear of offending this sliver or that crumb of the electorate. Leaders are supposed to be teachers. Parties and candidates need to educate the public when education is needed.

Here’s Kristof’s set up:

“She [HRC] didn’t want to be reduced to the “woman candidate.” But such a speech might have triggered a useful national conversation about women in leadership, and so, Mr. Obama, now it’s up to you: Why don’t you give that speech? I’m helpfully offering some talking points:

“Racism is deeper, but sexism may be wider in America today. In polls, more Americans say they would be willing to vote for a black candidate for president than for a female candidate, and sexist put-downs are heard more publicly than racial ones.

“Presumably in part because of sexism (and also because of self-selection), women today are still hugely underrepresented in the political arena. Women constitute about 23 percent of legislators in the 50 states, a proportion that has risen only slightly in the last decade. In addition, the political commentariat is overwhelmingly male, which is one reason that Mrs. Clinton’s supporters felt unfairly battered.”

Clearly there is work to be done.

is silly. He can give, and should give a speech in support of women and in support of breaking through identity politics.

But the REASON his race speech worked is because he is black. I know he is bi-racial, but it is his membership in the black community that gives the weight, gravitas and foundational BRIDGE to the speech. It is not a hand, reached out to to others it is a bridge made of his own experience.

That is NOT identity politics.

The gender speech should have come from Hillary. Or any other woman. It is up to women to speak for women - as bridges, as foundations, as empowered and thoughtful participants in the bridge being built to a POST-sexist world.

The problem is that Hillary, and other feminists with a platform (Steinem, etc) continue to speak from a battleworn, battleweary and battle-oriented platform. THey are not talking about experience building bridges and moving past behaviors. They are still focused on individual and personal battles, on pointing out sexism in the media and practiced by individuals. THey are fighting a battle framed in early 20th century terms. Necessary at THAT time, but no longer as relevant in terms of where we, as women, are going.

I am not saying that the women themselves - Hillary, Steinem, et al - are not relevant. Of course they are. As are each and every woman on this planet.

Each with her own voice, her own ideas, her own experience and her own desires. We have GOT to find the common woman's voice and I do not believe it is the one that is focused on battling men.

I wish there was a woman out there talking like this. I know there are women on the ground, in communities, in churches, in schools, in jobs, in hospitals, in law offices, in courthouses, in police stations, on construction sites, in artist galleries and in HOMES who are talking like this.