I am getting so tired of this argument. Trying to make feminists feel guilty for supporting Obama reeks of the old school political tactics that those of us supporting Obama have grown weary of.

The feminist movement was and is an attempt to level the playing field so that the best person could prevail.

I am a 55+card carrying feminist that finds herself truly disappointed that I am not supporting the first viable woman presidential candidate. In the early 70's I truly believed there would have been a woman president by now. But Clinton is not the best candidate at this time. To me, and my Obama supporting feminist women friends, humanism trumps feminism.

Our party and our country can be best served by a post gender, post racial, post all the lines and labels that define us-candidate. Obama best fits that description as a person, as a campaigner, and as the presaident he aspires to be.

Let's move on, people. The 60's and 70's are long gone; it's a new century. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to
support Obama-to nominate a candidate who can mobilize the young, the discouraged and independents so that we can WIN.

Please remember the lesson of the Nixon-Humphrey contest.
Clinton may win the battle, but she(and more importantly, WE) will lose the war.

I am starting to worry about how the convention will turn out. Hilary got her political education at the 1968 and 1972 Democratic conventions....will she turn into what she tried to rebel against in her early twenties? She is already insisting on counting superdelegates in her current delegate count. Does anyone have any thoughts? If what is necessary for Hilary to win is a brokered deal, could that really be worth the nomination?

Hildy -

Senator Clinton's name is Hillary - not Hilary.

I think it is unwise and unwarranted for you to start looking for another area of animus. There has been no indication from either camp that anything nefarious is going on regarding the convention. Your conjecture is not evidence nor proof and unless you are a closet Republican, you are not accomplishing anything positive for the General Election.

Quoting you “You girls need to stop...and I use the term girls on purpose….Be nice…”

And before anyone mentions Michigan and Florida, don't forget that a lot of the politcal maneuvering is being done to keep those IMPORTANT and VITAL voters (Democrats) interested in the election or we will have a President McCain.

I am getting so tired of this argument. Trying to make feminists feel guilty for supporting Obama reeks of the old school political tactics that those of us supporting Obama have grown weary of.

Linda! I'm glad you are on top of your talking points, but I think that your claim - that feminists are trying to make women feel guilty for supporting Barack Obama - is absolutely specious. The point of the Morgan essay and the (PURPORTED) Chelsea e-mail is that sexism is more acceptable in the media and our society than racism. When you (and, by extension, Sen. Obama's supporters and campaign) try to distort and occlude that important message by making baseless claims, I think that you are engaging in those old school politics of triangulation and distortion that you claim to abhor.

I think that real feminists can support either candidate.

I don't think that real feminists can or should dismiss the ugly truth that the campaign has revealed about our culture: that sexism is goes unchallenged in large segments of our media and society, and remains socially acceptable to large segments of our society, in ways that racism (thankfully) is no longer acceptable.

A very good friend of mine (male, African American, 40 yrs. old, MBA) has repeatedly stated that sexism is more socially acceptable than racism. He follows that observation with the comment that he doesn't understand why so many women are in denial.

Me either. You have the right to vote/support whom you want, but don't bury your head in the sand.

For the record I'm white, 50+, Ivy League educated PhD and in the economic demographic which supports Obama.

My friend voted for Obama. I didn't.

Whatever the ostensible "point" of the message is, how can language like this

Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter.

be taken as anything but unbelievably dismissive, patronizing rhetoric? I, for one, didn't make my choice for Obama out of a deep-seated fear of not being "likeable" enough, although apparently, as a woman -- someone who can only get things in life out of affection or sympathy, or maybe crying at a press conference -- this should be my ultimate goal! I used to feel real solidarity with the old feminist guard, especially after taking a class on 60s activism in my first year of undergraduate school. I saw their legacy as a reminder to both men and women that we must always work to bring to light the battles for gender equality that still need to be won today.

But the way that these supposedly representative feminists are explaining their support for Clinton makes me feel very alienated and confused. I don't see what this election has to do with how Clinton raised her daughter and whether or not she baked cookies. I don't like being made to feel that the only reason these aren't my greatest political concerns is that I'm just not old enough to understand how bad women had it. There is more at stake than these petty arguments that lack just as much substance as they did when they were drummed up during Bill Clinton's campaign. We are at war. We need to pull the country together. I don't trust Clinton to accomplish what we need to for our party and our country because I don't believe she is capable, not because I believe that women are incapable.

As a result, every attempt at guilt from gender-driven supporters of Clinton (remember the memo from NOW that called voting for Obama "a betrayal," as if I'm stabbing my vagina in the back) makes me not wring my hands, but raise them in the air for the candidate I feel truly respects me as an individual voice, not merely a demographic.

"I'm just not old enough to understand how bad women had it."

I'm almost 60, and not old enough either. My mother was a business woman, did ok....she considered herself "liberated" and modern. She thought things were terrible when she was young, pre Roosevelt years, but so did my father, for different reasons.

Why would one feel compelled to defend against a personal statement? I read these accounts of why someone supports Obama--how he made them cry, or feel proud, or motivated them--and I don't get defensive because he does not "do" that for me. I don't care about my emotions anymore; I vote for practical results. On the other hand, I am interested in motivating the potential voters to consider why and under what circumstances Hillary might actually motivate people as well, instead of hearing her insulted like some piece of dried up codfish. On the other hand, if a writer wants to write an essay explaining how hate speech toward a woman candidate reminds her of recent times past, you don't need to get your panties in a bunch, either. Oppression of others, whether men or women, or of whatever race or national origin, it occurs on a daily basis--it has been made legitimate by our quest for economic success, and the result is war, poverty, and serious problems. We share that concern in common.

I absolutely agree; that was my point. Feminists should be able to support either candidate. We should not be made to feel guilty for supporting Obama.

There is absolutely no question that sexism is more acceptable in our society, particularly in an overt manner, than racism is.

I don't know what "baseless claims" you are referring to, but I do look forward to the day when an independent and qualified woman candidate can run totally on her own merits and experience without the "leg up" and history her husband provides. I'm sure such a woman will be a democratic candidate we can both enthusiastically support.

linda glick wrote

"I do look forward to the day when an independent and qualified woman candidate can run totally on her own merits and experience without the "leg up" and history her husband provides. I'm sure such a woman will be a democratic candidate we can both enthusiastically support."

But why do you require that of a woman candidate, when many, many male candidates have relied on family or other personal connections of one sort or another to gain the presidency. (and several have performed quite well. i.e. both Roosevelts, JFK)