On Clinton Couric paving the way for women despite bs

alafairnadia

this nytimes op ed piece has some interesting points. of course, as a poker player, I like the "almost no fucking chance of winning" aspect - how many times have I come back from two blinds in front of me to coming in first or second at a tournament? (often enough to know it can happen - odds are as good as luck or, in politics, the political wind)

but these paragraphs, toward the end of the piece, resonate with me in that they come from someone who obviously disagrees with me on many points but is a-ok with recognizing the things that have made me ill this whole campaign:

One of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton is resolved to keep fighting is, I think, a resentment that she and many of her followers feel over sexism in the campaign. On that issue, she has a point. One of the political lessons of this year — backed by psychological research and polling data — is that the bar is probably higher for a woman candidate for president than for a black candidate.

It’s interesting that two strong women — Katie Couric as well as Mrs. Clinton — have foundered this year in roles that are stereotypically male. Granted, the presidency is very different from the job of an evening news anchor, but some psychology experiments suggests that one factor in each case may be public resistance to a woman in a position in which we are accustomed to seeing a man. One of Mrs. Clinton’s legacies will be that she will make it easier for the next woman candidate.

now. his entire contention that mccain gains through all of this I find disingenuous - that guy has his own problems - but whatever. I'm willing to agree in part with people.

boygabriel

Subject: Re: On Clinton & Couric paving the way for women despite

One of Mrs. Clinton’s legacies will be that she will make it easier for the next woman candidate.

I thought that was really, really poignant.

idlewild

Subject: Re: On Clinton & Couric paving the way for women despite

Boygabriel wrote:

One of Mrs. Clinton’s legacies will be that she will make it easier for the next woman candidate.

I thought that was really, really poignant.

Actually, I believe the credit should go to Geraldine Ferraro. It's interesting how the media and some Clinton supporters tell us the voters, one of the possible reasons we're voting for Obama over Clinton is because we (which includes a hefty percentage of White America) prefer a black man over a woman. Not because of her war vote or her attitude to her voters who opposed her war vote. And certainly not because Obama appeals to voters by maing common sense. When she was First Lady I thought she was the finest example of what a First Lady should be. Gutsy, resilient and strong. I thought her stances on health care and gays in the military were nothing short of patriotic. However, after a few months as a NYS senator and especially her Iraq war vote, it showed me she was strictly band wagon. Seeing kids barely out of high school going into a war of personalities, Clinton wanting to make amends by killing the summer gas tax, quite frankly it makes me sick.

As far as Katie Couric goes. I watch BBC news. I find more factual info with them than any of the American news channels. She's as mch about the glamour as Mary Hart and her coke head co-host who likes to talk dirty on answering machines. Not there's anything wrong with that.

sweet tea

why to geraldine ferraro more than to victoris woodhull or belva lockwood or our own shirley chisholm? lots of women have run for president, not that you learn anything about that in school. (i didn't, anyway.)

here's a piece from today's times that i found interesting, though i'm not always a huge faludi fan. on why white men are (unexpectedly) voting for clinton:

For virtually all of American political history, the strong female contestant has been cast not as the player but the rules keeper, the purse-lipped killjoy who passes strait-laced judgment on feral boy fun. The animosity toward the rules keeper is fueled by the suspicion that she (and in American life, the regulator is inevitably coded feminine, whatever his or her sex) is the agent of people so privileged that they don’t need to fight, people who can dominate more decisively when the rules are decorous. American political misogyny is inflamed by anger at this clucking overclass: who are they to do battle by imposing rectitude instead of by actually doing battle?

The specter of the prissy hall monitor is, in part, the legacy of the great female reformers of Victorian America. In fact, these women were the opposite of fainting flowers. Susan B. Anthony barely flinched in the face of epithets, hurled eggs and death threats. Carry A. Nation swung an ax. Yet they were regarded by men as the regulators outside the game.

...

Certainly through the many early primaries, Hillary Clinton was often defined by these old standards, and judged harshly. She was forever the entitled chaperone. But that was then. As Thelma, the housewife turned renegade, says to her friend in “Thelma & Louise” as the two women flee the law through the American West, “Something’s crossed over in me.”

Senator Clinton might well say the same. In the final stretch of the primary season, she seems to have stepped across an unstated gender divide, transforming herself from referee to contender.

the whole piece is worth your time.

alafairnadia

sweet tea, interesting piece. thanks for sharing it.

idlewild, I think that while a lot of people's conscious opinions re: who they are voting for in the primaries are influenced by this part of the article I posted:

One of the political lessons of this year — backed by psychological research and polling data — is that the bar is probably higher for a woman candidate for president than for a black candidate.

it indicates that, frankly, people are unconsciously holding the two candidates (and earlier in the race however many there were) to different standards. and it doesn't mean that everyone is influenced the same way or is entirely wrong for being influenced unconsciously. if you don't agree, fine.

idlewild

alafairnadia wrote: sweet tea, interesting piece. thanks for sharing it.

idlewild, I think that while a lot of people's conscious opinions re: who they are voting for in the primaries are influenced by this part of the article I posted:

One of the political lessons of this year — backed by psychological research and polling data — is that the bar is probably higher for a woman candidate for president than for a black candidate.

it indicates that, frankly, people are unconsciously holding the two candidates (and earlier in the race however many there were) to different standards. and it doesn't mean that everyone is influenced the same way or is entirely wrong for being influenced unconsciously. if you don't agree, fine.

With rgeards to Sweet Tea. I forgot about Chisolm. I never heard of the other two. As far as Couric goes I don't think of her being any more special than Mary Hart or her coke head, sidekick who likes leaving dirty messages on people's answering machines. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I pretty much watch BBC or NY1 for news. I like the newscasters on both shows.

In reply to Alafair's post. Of course I don't agree. Clinton is doing just as well as Obama in votes. Much as I don't want her being president I am not blind to the fact that she is being taken seriously by the DNC, RNC, Obama and McCain and voters in general. And she should be taken seriously. Clinton is certainly intelligent, has tons of experience, carries influence, etc. There is a very good chance she will get the nomination, and if she does she will win the presidency. McCain is to entrenched in Bush's shadow to win. Unless he can change opinion by hounding her on the war vote which I doubt will happen. Quite honestly I think most of this whole gender/race issue is being pushed by the media and I'm very surprised people are falling for it. It behooves me why some Americans can't believe everyone is voting with their hearts rather than their skin color or genitalia. Even age.

alafairnadia

sweet tea, just finished the article. loved it. omg loved it. my favorite parts were right below the ones you quoted:

What’s more, she seems to have taken to her new role with a Thelma-like relish. We are witnessing a female competitor delighting in the undomesticated fray. Her new no-holds-barred pugnacity and gleeful perseverance have revamped her image in the eyes of begrudging white male voters, who previously saw her as the sanctioning “sivilizer,” a political Aunt Polly whose goody-goody directives made them want to head for the hills.

It’s the unforeseen precedent of an unprecedented candidacy: our first major female presidential candidate isn’t doing what men always accuse women of doing. She’s not summoning the rules committee over every infraction. (Her attempt to rewrite the rules for Michigan and Florida are less a timeout than rough play.) Not once has she demanded that the umpire stop the fight. Indeed, she’s asking for more unregulated action, proposing a debate with no press-corps intermediaries.

If anyone has been guarding the rules this election, it’s been the press, which has been primly thumbing the pages of Queensberry and scolding her for being “ruthless” and “nasty,” a “brawler” who fights “dirty.”

idlewild, I think the quotes above kinda help your view, too. while I really do believe most folks are using their brains for a lot of their decisions, there is a lot of race/gender crap going on and a LOT of it is media fueled (why is she wearing that horribal jacket? wtf is she crying about? how does she get ready in the morning?) - that's shit obama doesn't have to deal with. granted, he has rev. wright.

in any case, I think we all "agree" more than is made obvious in these boards.

alafairnadia

Idlewild wrote: There is a very good chance she will get the nomination, and if she does she will win the presidency.

do you really think she's going to get the nomination? why? just wondering - not an attack. almost everyone in both camps has kinda accepted that she can duke it out til the end but is going to lose so I guess I wonder your view. (I'd, obviously, be so happy if that happened, but that's beside the point)

livetotravel

On-topic from my favorite feminist site for young women...
http://feministing.com/archives/008592.html

Susan Faludi's take...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09faludi.html?ref=opinion

Idlewild - read this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html

idlewild

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=Idlewild] There is a very good chance she will get the nomination, and if she does she will win the presidency.

do you really think she's going to get the nomination? why? just wondering - not an attack. almost everyone in both camps has kinda accepted that she can duke it out til the end but is going to lose so I guess I wonder your view. (I'd, obviously, be so happy if that happened, but that's beside the point)

I say there's a chance, not a sure thing. I give it 50/50. A three underlined 50/50 because I believe it comes down to super delegates and a few more states. And while the media has reported on the few that have jumped ship there are still a number out there who are undecided and have to think about who is better set to beat McCain, who should not be underestimated. While Obama is polarizing even I know Clinton can hold her own against the toughest critics. She's also has the ability to get democratic conservatives and Republicans on her side who are sick of Bush (not including Ann Coulter). She has a record of being very anti-crime (pro death penalty I believe), has stressed unequivocally her support of Israel and her distaste of Venezuela and Iran...ie she has a lot going for her to win. At the same time from what I understand she and Bill have burned a lot of political bridges as seen by today's NJ delegate switching to Obama. The delgate said he tried contacting her way beforehand before he made up his mind but only got assistants and voice mail. John Kerry and Bill Richardson are other examples. Even though critics say that Clinton doesn't have the numbers, supporters say she can still win. Myself, I'm confused about how the numbers work so in short I say "Who knows?". And in all fairness if Ron Paul had the numbers I'd be voting for him. But reality sets in.

UPDATE: No sooner than I finish this response I find out three minutes later that nine super delegates have pledged towards his side and even John Edwards is sounding like he's (including his delegates?) going to endorse Obama as well.

idlewild

Livetotravel wrote: On-topic from my favorite feminist site for young women...
http://feministing.com/archives/008592.html

Susan Faludi's take...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09faludi.html?ref=opinion

Idlewild - read this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html

This is why I cant stand the NY Times. They're always outdated and they always get it wrong. As much as I don't want Clinton to win, history will show her as a competent, ground breaking politico. If she bows out she'll be gracious, if she stays, well she'll be the lady who went down swinging. She's in no danger of making herself look bad. As far as the DNC looking bad goes. They have looked bad since the Chi-town convention of '68. It's not Clinton staying or leaving the primaries which will unite the party but who wins the next Presidency in '08, '12 and '16. Why 2012 and 2016? Because (and this is where race and gender do come in) Obama and Clinton will have the unfortunate pressure of having to prove themselves to be re-elected in 2012 and break a possible repeat of 1980 when Iran and Ted Kennedy helped Carter lose, and the 2016 DNC nominee will have to prove that the Democrats can't be taken down like pussies as per Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Hillary's staying in the race is the least of the DNC's problems.

witch-king

katie inherited a loser program that was already in 3rd place. hillary was on top -- it was snow white and the seven dwarfs in january 2008 -- and blew it.

idlewild

Thinking about this, I wonder what would happen if Clinton decided to go the Independent route a la Lieberman if she doesn't get the DNC nod.