Is any other DU feminist upset that they won't vote for a woman for president in 08?

[CTyankee]

It is such an historic event in this country. Years ago I could only dream of being able to vote for a Democratic woman for president. The closest I got was with Gerry Ferraro for VP on the the Mondale ticket in 86.

But on super Tuesday I'll be casting my primary vote for John Edwards. I find this difficult, when all is said and done, and I think about my granddaughters a lot. Frankly, this does upset me. Don't get me wrong: I am not wavering in my support of John Edwards. Sometimes, though, I think about the "opportunity cost" of this election and it makes me downright sad.

[ronnykmarshall]

1. Mondale / Ferraro ran in 1984, not 86

[CTyankee]

18. Oops! Thanks for the correction!

[saracat]

2. I have felt that way myself and so have many of my friends. But I can't vote

just gender, or race. I am voting for a "person" and on the issues. That is what i believe is true "feminism". It is about "personhood" not gender or race.I ,too< am voting for Edwards.I consider him a true "feminist".

[Muttocracy]

3. definition of feminist...

Don't know if I qualify as a "feminist". Don't know how much HRC does either.

I do know that I don't want the first woman president to be one whose #1 qualification is the cheating husband she married. And who moved to my state just to use our senate seat as a stepping stone.

There are plenty of experienced female leaders in this country. I'll wait for one of them to run, rather than send the message to my nieces and nephews that girls can only grow up to be president if they marry one first.

[Peace Patriot]

33. Whoa there, JoeIsOneOfUs! I'd say you are not a feminist if you are evaluating Hillary

on who she married, and what he did. Hillary is my generation of women--right on the cusp between the vastly different worlds of the 1950s and the 1960s. We matured during that amazing--and incredibly fast, almost overnight--social revolution. We have a foot in both worlds--in our grandmother's and mother's worlds, where women were expected to live through their husbands--and the future that was so quickly unfolding and opening up before us, by the mid-1960s, of unlimited possibilities in our lives. Because I myself was formed as an adult during that transition period, I never, never, NEVER judge a woman by who she married or what HE did, good, bad or indifferent. And I have never judged Hillary that way. I have always considered her an independent person--tied by circumstances, by the times, by love, by their daughter, to Bill. I think she would have had a very big and successful political career with or without him. She's a very smart, talented women. And her being married to Bill, and her role as First Lady, have simply never been a factor in my evaluation of her as candidate. I think her pro-corporate policies are similar to Bill's, but they would be without him. She thinks for herself.

But I think she's a Republican, even a Bushite, in many ways. That's my problem with her, not her marriage. She went and got herself a seat in the Senate. Good for her, I say. She proved she could do it--and NY doesn't have rigged voting machines--one of the few states that doesn't! (She voted against the riggable Bushite machines, did you know? One of only two Senate votes against it--her and Schumer.) Bobby Kennedy did the same thing--carpetbagged a Senate seat in New York. And if New York voters want to let politicians do that--and perhaps see status in it, as a kingmaker position--that's their business. But she is of this DLC-Corporate "centrism" (fascist) political school that has robbed the working class, the middle class and the poor--the majority in this country--of political representation. IF she were somebody else--a Maxine Waters, a Sheila Jackson-Lee, a a Paul Wellstone, a real advocate of the people--I would not hesitate to enthusiastically back her, regardless of her marriage to Bill and background as First Lady. In fact, MORE POWER TO HER--for rising out of the role of helpmate to an independent career. It's not so easy for women in their 50's to 70's to make that transition, and it requires courage, determination and (as to husbands, kids) diplomacy and organizational skill. It requires the ability to grow and change. I just wish that Hillary had put her intelligence and skill to better use, politically. I wish she was our champion. But she is not. And that has nothing to do with her marital status--or her NY Senate seat--in my opinion.

[Muttocracy]

36. she brought Bill in big-time

(you said "And her being married to Bill, and her role as First Lady, have simply never been a factor in my evaluation of her as candidate.")

I had more respect for her as a candidate before she started this whole co-presidency nonsense, claiming Bill Clinton's administration as her record, etc. So *she* put her marital credentials front and center. And called herself the most experienced candidate, which was a slap to Richardson, Dodd, and Biden.

She had token opposition in NY for her senate seat. My impression is, national Democratic party made sure it was given to her rather than a New Yorker. Why couldn't she have won office from IL or Arkansas?

[frazzled]

4. I am paradoxically sad and disappointed

Paradoxically, because I never intended to vote for Hillary Clinton (I will vote for Barack Obama): but in an odd way, I was hoping she might win.

Because I thought it would be remarkable to have our first woman president, and because I believed (despite the encrustment of problems surrounding her from her husband's administration and the hangers-on from that era who surround her), she would work hard at it and do an excellent job.

I said many many months ago that it would be harder for a woman than a black man to be elected in this country. I believe I was right.

[sandnsea]

5. Disappointed in the crappy campaign

the woman has run. Continuously trying to play on women's emotions. That's what I'm upset about.

[Muttocracy]

8. yep, changing messages

I was much less opposed to her before she starting pulling Bill in, talking about co-presidency, her experience as first lady, etc., rather than standing on her own record. And her continuously changing messages and tours.

[saracat]

9. I agree.

[stray cat]

6. I'm a woman and if I vote for a candidate it isn't a simple decision

based on male or female. I may vote for Obama but I didn't vote for Al Sharpton.

[Cleita]

7. I'm upset that there weren't more female candidates to

pick from. I really need a candidate that is far more left than Hillary. So since I don't think this should be a gender issue anyway, I have to go with the candidate that best speaks for me and that isn't Hillary Clinton.

[sandnsea]

26. That is an excellent point

There should be many more women running. Hillary might could have made some in-roads taking that approach. Instead she said Obama is too liberal. :crazy:

[NoodleBoy]

10. is feminism limited by gender?

can't men think women are equal to men in every way, too?

[saracat]

17. Absolutely.That is why I support Edwrds.he is my definiton of a " feminist"

Elizabeth and Cate wouldn't tolerate anything less.That is why Kate Michelman supports him too!

[NoodleBoy]

21. I don't think Michelle Obama would be married to Barack if he didn't respect her, either.

And there's still a damn good chance of a woman getting VP if Obama or Edwards wins.

[saracat]

28. And that is true as well! Dunno about the HillaryVP slot but Michelle sure wouldn't

tolerate any chauvinist crap, thats for sure!But , I still think Edwards is the "More" supportive of the two.

[CTyankee]

25. Of course a man can be a feminist. My husband, son and two sons in law are

all feminists.

[rucky]

11. If Boxer were in this race...

there'd be no hesitation.

[peace13]

12. My vote criteria does not include gender.

I value many other important things. Peace, Kim

[quiet.american]

13. I look at this perhaps from a different perspective.

Even with my being a black woman, I've never cast a vote for a candidate for the reason that they were black or a woman, or a black woman, but of course for the reason that their platform inspired/resonated with me.

I'm actually tickled to have as viable candidates for president during the primaries a woman and an African-American man.

I would prefer to see the right woman elected president, than a woman -- is Hillary the right woman? I'm not sure -- but I also don't think she would be as bad as might be thought.

[jgraz]

14. You may yet get a chance

I heard a talking head this morning saying how Hillary just might accept the VP slot. I'll believe that when I see it.

[Niche]

15. CTyankee -- my thoughts are with you...

Not sure if it's about Hillary's gender. My mother is working very hard for her in NV. But given that my mother is a strong union member I keep asking her "why not Edwards?" She on the other hand does not understand why I'm against a woman... Not against anyone male or female. It's a matter of looking at the issues.

Anyway, that's my take.

[Jai4WKC08]

16. I'll be voting for a woman on Super/Tsunami Tuesday

I may even be voting for one next November.

[Big Blue Marble]

19. As a strong feminist, I will proudly cast my vote for Obama.

I have been a strong feminist, since the 70's. I have always dreamed of a woman as president, as our leader.
But this is not the time, and Hillary is not the one. When I vote for a woman as president, I want to be a woman
who achieved that right on her own, not on the shoulders of her husband. You know that it is extremely unlikely
that Hillary would even be running, if she were not the wife of Bill Clinton. Many even support her, because they
want Bill to return to the Whitehouse! How does that advance the cause of feminism.

As a true feminist of long standing, I will always vote for the person I think is best for our country regardless of her/his sex or race.
To do otherwise would be sexist or racist.

This is Obama's time. He is the one who will return our country to a viable democracy. He is the one who will show
the world that we are a people who do deserve respect and admiration. Yes, I as a feminist of long standing will be voting
for Obama.

[readmoreoften]

20. I'm upset that I won't be able to vote for the first viable female or African American nominee.

But I vote my interests. Not symbolically.

[nashville_brook]

22. we're smarter (older?) than we were in 84 -- and our choices are different.

yes, i'm a feminist who will vote for edwards. and yes i feel the same tension between an historic first woman president, and a president who might actually make lives of women better.

i think i'm smarter now because i'm not just going to vote for the woman b/c of the historic potential. i want the best president for the country -- for the particular place in history we finds ourselves now. Edwards is the best answer to the Corpocracy.

Our choices are different now mostly because we're a woman is running for president in the primary, and not vice president in the general election. 84 was a heart-breaker, and the years that followed laid the foundation for the aforementioned Corpocracy.

different choices, different decisions.

if Hillary got the nomination, i'd vote for her and i'd take solace in the fact that we'd be electing the first woman president. but, John Edwards is by far the better candidate for the issues that matter to me.

[Fresh_Start]

23. I'm not upset with people wanting to vote for others

She's not my first choice.
But I'm upset with the tone of the Clinton criticism and have been for months.

[redqueen]

24. No.

I don't feel bad for not supporting her in the primary, and I won't feel bad for voting for her should she be our nominee.

:shrug:

[murielm99]

27. I might be voting for her.

But I never thought I would live to see this day, with a viable woman candidate for President.

There will be others. Maybe next time, there will be someone you can support wholeheartedly. We can thank Senator Clinton for breaking the ground.

[kimmerspixelated]

29. If Hill had run in 2000,

Maybe she would've had a chance. I think what's happened, is that by now, with so many corporate scandals, etc., etc., we are hardened to business as usual, which is what we would prob. get with her. Back then, we weren't as calloused as we are now. But I think we should be proud that she was and is being taken seriously by quite a few. I don't think that America has a problem with a woman president anymore, unless they are bigoted rednecks or ignorant lumoxes or the like...I think they just have a problem with her. The best candidate should always be elected-no matter what sex or race!!!

[ronnykmarshall]

31. No way.

There is no way Hillary could have ran for PRESIDENT in 2000.

That's loco.

This is probably her only chance to run for president.

[CTyankee]

34. re: your last sentence. Is that always the case, though?

"no matter the race or sex." I wonder, because race and sex does change everything. Is it that we are unable to view politics from those perspectives that stop us? Or, is it that a new paradigm will bring a new way, and perhaps we are afraid of that new way? If, for instance, we look at the health care issue from the perspective of a woman, when we are used to the perspective of a man, does that unsettle us?

Just asking, here...

[monmouth]

30. If HRC were not a Clinton, I would probably consider her for my vote.

However, she is not a possibility for me as I am so against the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynamic. It isn't good or healthy for the country. HRC is also too vague on the important issues of medical care, her Iraq War decision and other flip-flops. Too many "ifs" there to be comfortable. Some major poor judgments in the last few days: Hillary's "people" should be making the statements re the media, not Bill. This is what the voters DO NOT want. I don't like it, and am also sad she is going to be so disappointed. Bill Clinton will be sad too. Welcome to my world.

I like Obama also, and congratulated his group after Iowa. Since my guy Joe left, I've been window shopping. Obama is that beautiful suit in the window that you can't try on; you have to buy it on faith...what if it doesn't fit, how will I pay for it?? I love the enthusiasm of youth, the slogans of "Hope", "Change." My student council president used those words in high school when we wanted a new cafeteria management company to come in. I'm older too, I've done and seen the "Hope"/"Change" thing. Let me tell you how that worked out on another thread. Obama is a skilled speecher. He is undoubtedly a brilliant guy. I have never been impressed with him in a debate setting. He tends to falter because of the process and becomes frustrated. Barack is that "unknown quantity" that we cannot afford at this particular time in our history. Down the road, of course. I'm glad that the Europeans love him, comparing him to JFK? Well, I remember JFK, he was my first vote...Trust me, Barack is no....well, you know the rest.

And then along came John. There is much I do not agree on with him, but his anti-corporate stand is a major plus for me. I'm sick of corporations running this country. I'm sick of them controlling my television, which I no longer turn on because the "corporate media controlled pundits." They make me ill. John Edward's style, and this is my problem to get over, is sometimes a little too slick for me. I've posted he reminded me of a car salesman. Well it's time for me to get over that, he's an attorney and obviously a damned good one. He's been schooled and trained to do just what he's doing, sell his story. His story is his platform, he comes at you with facts and points clearly pleading his case. We know John Edwards from back in the Kerry days. He was appealing then and was a good draw for Senator Kerry, he got our attention. I don't care about his large home (many of those rooms are offices and rec areas BTW), he worked for it, he earned it. I too have lost a child, you either "get up" or you sink. Thankfully his family and mine chose the former.

I hope John Edwards does well today in NH. I think the fact that the big corps dislike him so is a major reason I'm leaning toward him. I would love for him to do well and slap them all down. They will be forced to pay him the attention he deserves. As Democrats, we have a plethora of wonderful candidates, those the media have allowed us to review and those we have had to do the research on to get our needed information.

I don't think it will be a good day for the Clintons and I would hope this board shows the courtesy and kindness we at the Joe Biden Support Group received from many of you. We hurt still and know how invested emotionally and financially one can become in their guy/gal. I'll end my little spiel by wishing John Edwards a good second in NH.

[CTyankee]

35. What a wonderful, heartfelt response. Thank you so much!

I too had hopes for Joe Biden. What talent and brains! I want him to be in our hopefully Democratic administration after the 08 election!

I, too, gave my first vote to JFK and I've been thinking a lot about him during this primary season. I remember being so young and hopeful, living in NYC, feeling like a million bucks when I voted for him!

But I also remember the many days of my activist feminism, how I lived it each and every day of my life. It was my bread and butter, too, because I became a skilled fundraiser so I could get a job with a cause I believed in and for many years I worked for feminist women's health care organizations. I called it my life's work and, having 2 daughters, I felt I owed it to them and to all women. Now I also have 3 granddaughters and I am feeling that debt to them tonight, hence my post...

Thank you for your response, Monmouth. You got me thinking...

[Peace Patriot]

32. I am not at all upset by it. I think it's been a very clever global corporate predator

strategy to put a woman--Hillary--out front on their agenda of impoverishing us all, and looting our treasury, and dragging us into corporate resource wars and making us pay for it. And I'm very glad that people are seeing through it. A pro-corporate, pro-war woman candidate may mouth support for women's issues, but will ignore, and do us in on, almost all the issues that matter. Poverty is by far the biggest oppressor of women.

It's interesting you mention Geraldine Ferraro. I was very excited by her candidacy as well, and had to make special arrangements to see her debate with VP opponent Bush I, on TV (because of my circumstances at the time). I felt it was an historic moment that I couldn't miss, and I was avid to see how the first women candidate for VP would address the issues.

All I remember now of that debate is Ferraro making cutesy jokes with Bush I about their accountants, and both of them laughing. She was a millionaire and would-be billionaire, and wanted to join the Boys Club at the Top. A Democrat, a woman--but in no way representative of me or my interests, nor those of most women in the country. It was nauseating. I was hugely disappointed.

And it immunized me against Hillary, in a way. We mustn't yield to reverse sexism, and presume that a pro-corporate, pro-war woman candidate would somehow be better for women, just because she's a woman, than a truly progressive, enlightened male candidate. Women's issues are not strictly women's issues--they affect everyone. And they are by no means limited merely to abortion rights, or the right to birth control. They are much more comprehensive than this, and include, for instance, health care, child care, education, access to good jobs, pregnancy rights (keeping your job, your seniority, your career), and much else. Women who have good jobs, secure incomes, good benefits, and who are empowered in the political/legal system, WILL PROTECT their own rights over their bodies. Women who are poor, in ill health, under constant stress, and who have been disenfranchised, along with other poverty groups, cannot protect their rights.

Right now, restoration of decent, lawful, constitutional government, restoration of progressive values in government, and a huge reform effort to throw these global corporate predators and war profiteers off our backs, and to re-set the nation's course, is far more important that specific fights over rights such as abortion. It is the corporate predators' unholy alliance with rightwing 'christian' nutballs that has put that particular right in jeopardy. We need the power of an overwhelming CHANGE in government, for instance, to deal with this rotten-to-the-core, fascist Supreme Court. We need a president who will be very bold in tackling that problem, and who is NOT beholden to corporate interests and not afraid to smack them head on, in the legal/political system (for instance, with threats of impeachment of the Justices, or FDR's strategy of "packing the Supreme Court"). Hillary, I would guess, would mount a cosmetic effort on women's rights, and "lament" that it's "out of her hands," when this fascist Supreme Court deep-sixes Roe v. Wade. She will not attack the Court, because what this Court is really about is protecting Corporate Ruler profit and lawlessness.

It will be fabulous when a truly progressive women presidential candidate arises, and I'm sure that will happen. But I think your process of recognizing that Hillary is not the one--she is too corporatist and warmongering--is absolutely the best thing for your granddaughters and for all those who will inherent the consequences of what we do now. I don't think it's sad. I think it's great. It shows mature judgement and wisdom. I think Edwards will defend women's rights far better than Hillary ever could, if he gets the chance. Obama I'm not sure of. He seems better than Hillary, but still...my word is squishy. I'm not sure who he is, or what he will fight for. Edwards, I think, has turned a corner, and--a lot like Bobby Kennedy--has matured into a true peoples' advocate. And I hope I'm right. You never really know with politicians. (I voted for "peace candidate" LBJ in 1964--my first vote for president--and got the Vietnam War, and 2 million people slaughtered before it was over--a voting lesson I'll never forget.)

And you never know what will happen with this very insecure, riggable vote counting system all over the country--even in New Hampshire (NH has optical scans--they, too, are run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations). The political system is extremely manipulated, and now, directly manipulable in the actual vote counting. A lot of good people have been fighting for restoration of transparent vote counting, but the system is still highly riggable. So we'll see what happens. Transparent vote counting should be our first priority as citizens. We need to think long term, beyond the next election--as well as short term, the immediate political situation and what is possible within it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. Yes. But the IWR is a dealbreaker. nt