Just watched Olbermann on MSNBC, and the coverage is STILL all about how wonderfully Obama exceeds expectations, and what deep trouble Hillary is in. Then the analysis of the voter demographics mentions youth for Obama and age for Hillary, but NOT women for Hillary except in the context of dismissing the significance of women as a voting group because "they are all Democrats anyway."

I AM JUST TIRED OF BEING TAKEN FOR GRANTED--of my concerns being denigrated as "women's issues." The snarky and acid comments about Hillary are disgusting.

So you support her simply because she is being mistreated in the media?

It is women who like to frame these issues as "women's issues". Not men.

No, what I think she meant was that all women are mistreated by the media, and she can identify with Hillary on that issue. To be sidelined, disregarded, demeaned, and minimized is oppressive. Has a single male candidate been called "shrill"? Think about it.

Nora01.

What you wrote has no basis in reality. Can you document some proof that "all women are mistreated by the media"? What a ridiculous claim. No, men are not typically called "shrill", and women are not called "gruff" or "assholes". So what? We have had viable male candidates barred from debates during this election period. Have any viable female candidates been barred? No? Well, that must by misandry then.

Duh.

Where has Robin Morgan been the past twenty-five years, what has she done for the average American woman, and why in the world should any of us care what she has to say?

Were you equally disgusted after Hillary won New Hampshire and started playing the race issue? Because back then one couldn't find a quote from Obama that hadn't been either completely misrepresented by the Clinton campaign or fabricated altogether.

One of the MANY things I like about Obama is that he doesn't ask me to believe that he is a victim in ANY way. Even when the Clintons are sliming him.

Can you say the same about your candidate? Answer quick before she cries again while wiping away a tear and working in her "ready on day one" line.

Just take a look at Slate's front page over the past week.

Larded with links to Hillary mockery.

She brings the mockery on herself. Everyone keeps acting like it comes from nowhere.

When you have such transparency of character people pick up on it.

I must be totally strange as, I select a candidate bases upon issues.

Isn't that just terribly sexist of me?

BTW-If I was in a relationship and my SO kept at me about something which was NOT an issue with me, it sure as hell would drive me away.

I'm a man and proud of it.

Woman's rights are Human rights. The wonderful thing about president Clinton back in the day was that he noticed that women were treated unequally in the work place solely for excercising their reproductive potentials, added similar provisions for men and equal treatment for men under the law and....voila The Family Leave and Medical Care Act. Certain things that we take for granted now are only possible because of the Clintons. I am a Obama supporter, but it upsets me that people seem to ignore the wonderful things that the couple did for regular working american families. HRC is a wonderful, smart and well-informed qualified candidate. Her influence on her husband and the respect her husband had for her abilities changed our country for the better. Is it possible to question the wisdom of some of her or her surrogates political tactics without completely trashing their character? Whenever I question some of their behavior it saddens me that I am just adding to the chorus of sexist political rhetoric. At the same time, certain activities and statements have shown an error in judgement, is she pervasively evil and corrupt? No. Will Barack Obama have errors in wisdom and judgement as well....of course, but I think the american people/media will not give him as hard of a time. Hillary bashing and the existence of Hillary bashing is a distraction from running an effective government let alone an effective campaign. Our country needs an effective government, and the Democratic party and working women men and families every where need an effective campaign this summer and fall. That is why I support obama, because I agree with Robin Morgan et al. Our country is more sexist than it is racist.

ellamenta:

Just watched Olbermann on MSNBC, and the coverage is STILL all about how wonderfully Obama exceeds expectations, and what deep trouble Hillary is in. Then the analysis of the voter demographics mentions youth for Obama and age for Hillary, but NOT women for Hillary except in the context of dismissing the significance of women as a voting group because "they are all Democrats anyway."

I AM JUST TIRED OF BEING TAKEN FOR GRANTED--of my concerns being denigrated as "women's issues." The snarky and acid comments about Hillary are disgusting.

With respect, Hillary's the one who brought this on herself. When she talks about her "35 years of experience," what can she possibly mean other than experience on her back as Bill's wife? I hate to "go there" but that's the reality of her "experience." Subtract her eight years as the First Lady of the US, and her twelve years as First Lady of Arkansas, and at best you've got 15 years of experience as an attorney left. Not exactly setting the world on fire vis-a-vis other candidates. As Maureen Dowd aptly noted, while having a woman president would certainly be a break with tradition, having the first woman president dragged across the finish line by her husband isn't exactly advancing the feminist cause.

kenrockthefirst:

having the first woman president dragged across the finish line by her husband isn't exactly advancing the feminist cause.

The devil's advocate argument is that historically (in modern and not-so-modern history), most women around the world--Elizabeth Tudor to Indira Ghandi to many current U.S. Senators/former senatorial first ladies--who have been in power have gotten there via some family or marital connection first. And once they have gotten there (if they are recognized as capable), this opens the door to later women who are elected without benefit of family ties.

The argument is that it is the sad but true fact of our human race (in which all societies have reproductive capability divided along biological-sex lines) that to be palatable to the general public, the first women leaders often need to have a connection--biological or marital-- to a powerful male.

It will be the second and third women leaders who represent the pay-off for all society of such an investment.

So, the argument goes, if we sit about waiting 'till the "perfect" woman candidate comes along--the woman who unites, not divides; is the all-important "likeable;" and is not tethered by or to a powerful male, then it is unlikely there will be any woman President for the next twenty years. And so on and so forth...

kenrockthefirst:

what can she possibly mean other than experience on her back as Bill's wife?

Respectfully: Can you explain this reference? Could it be sexual in nature? If so, why the need to highlight it? Most marriages involve sex.

But

marzipan:

The argument is that it is the sad but true fact of our human race (in which all societies have reproductive capability divided along biological-sex lines) that to be palatable to the general public, the first women leaders often need to have a connection--biological or marital-- to a powerful male.

But Hillary's the one touting her "experience," and deriding Obama as not "ready." Given the history of race relations in this country, why is it the Obama has a realistic shot at the presidency while Hillary has to have her hand held?