Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

What Women See When They See Hillary

By Lakshmi Chaudhry, The Nation. Posted June 27, 2007.


Putting Hillary Clinton in the White House would shatter an enormous glass ceiling, yet many feminists aren't cheering at that prospect. Here's a look at how some of Clinton's most ardent supporters became her biggest resisters.
06272007story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Lakshmi Chaudhry

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!" exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, "Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you." Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described "Hillary resisters" -- those who believe that "she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn't really take a position unless it's completely safe," as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, "who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can't stand her position on the war, who don't trust her as far as you can spit."

This rather dramatic change of heart encapsulates one of the great ironies of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency. Many of the very same feminists who were her most ardent supporters as First Lady are now fiercely opposed to her historic bid to become the first female President of the United States. The woman once described by Susan Faludi as a symbol of "the joy of female independence" now evokes ambivalence, disdain and, sometimes, outright vitriol. The right wing's favorite "femi-nazi" now has to contend with Jane Fonda comparing her to "a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina."

So what's up with the Hillary-bashing? "Women don't trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her," wrote Susan Douglas in a May In These Times article titled "Why Women Hate Hillary." A month later, in her Newsweek column, Anna Quindlen declared, "The truth is that Senator Clinton has a woman problem."

Not exactly true, as it turns out. Hillary Clinton was the number-one choice of 42 percent of likely Democratic primary women voters in a recent Zogby survey, compared with 19 percent for Barack Obama and 15 percent for John Edwards. And her favorable rating among independent women is a whopping twenty-one points higher than among independent men.

Let's be clear: Hillary has a "feminist problem," and more so with those who lean left.

At first glance, the fault line dividing feminists in their view of Hillary Clinton is merely a matter of ideology. On one side are the mainstream moderate women's organizations such as NOW and EMILY's List, facing off against more radical progressive feminists, especially those opposed to the Iraq War. Some of her supporters claim that much of the anger is inspired by her now-infamous 2002 Congressional vote. "It's about this one vote, which was not to invade Iraq but to authorize the President to wage war. I can't understand how this can be held up against a lifetime of important political work," says NOW president Kim Gandy.

Antiwar sentiments run high indeed, but when it comes to feminism and feminists, the "Hillary divide" also mirrors a deeper debate over the relationship between gender and political power. The ambivalence over Hillary's candidacy has just as much to do with increasing skepticism about the value of making it to the top.

"Having a woman in the White House won't necessarily do a damn thing for progressive feminism," writes Bitch magazine founder Lisa Jervis in LiP magazine. "Though the dearth of women in electoral politics is so dire as to make supporting a woman -- any woman -- an attractive proposition, even if it's just so she can serve as a role model for others who'll do the job better eventually, it's ultimately a trap. Women who do nothing to enact feminist policies will be elected and backlash will flourish. I can hear the refrain now: 'They've finally gotten a woman in the White House, so why are feminists still whining about equal pay?'"

Jervis's views were echoed by her peers on the blog Feministing, where Jen Moseley wrote, "As women sign up to work with anyone but Senator Clinton, of course, they're being asked why. That's the bad news. The good news is they're all giving the same answer. Being a woman does not get you the automatic support of women. There's no vagina litmus test, people."

Simply breaking the glass ceiling, once a cherished goal of all feminists, has lost much of its appeal, especially after seven years of the Bush Administration. Over the course of his presidency, George W. Bush has appointed women to some of the most prominent positions in his Administration -- all the while working to undermine women's rights across the board. So it is that we witnessed a fierce assault on women's reproductive rights even as Condoleezza Rice became the first African-American woman to make Secretary of State.

Opting for Edwards or Obama -- who are often perceived as more liberal -- becomes an attractive proposition for feminists who believe "gender is not the only thing, not even the most important thing in feminism," as Center For New Words program director Jaclyn Friedman puts it. "Hillary's not my friend. She's not actually progressive. The fact that she's a woman is an unfortunate red herring." Feminist principles may be better served, she claims, by electing a truly liberal candidate who will move us further toward a more progressive and therefore more equitable future -- an imperative that feels all the more urgent after eight years of Bush. "Things are so bad in this country, and the person we elect is going to be so important," she says. "The whole put-a-woman-in-the-White House seems too abstract and theoretical, a middle-class luxury."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton, election08

Lakshmi Chaudhry is a senior editor at In These Times and a former senior editor of AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
So Hillary is unelectable?
Posted by: ateo on Jun 27, 2007 12:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep.

Bring on the typical "boring white guy" candidate and stick Obama on the ticket as his VP and carry the '08 election.

Running Hillary is tantamount to throwing the election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And the new blood is... Posted by: willymack
» RE: seeing ANGER.... Posted by: Bozly
» RE: seeing ANGER.... Posted by: Lauren
Have you done the math?
Posted by: skoog5600 on Jun 27, 2007 2:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone done the math - Bush Sr. 4 years, Bill Clinton 8 years, George Jr., 8 years and now possibly another Clinton, you have got to be kidding me.

No more of this BS. I don't care if she's a woman, well actually I am not sure of that. Either way it's time for new blood!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Have you forgotten... Posted by: bob t
» RE: Have you forgotten... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Have you forgotten... Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Have you forgotten... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» solrev Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RON PAUL sexist and racist Posted by: goatini
» it is time for you Posted by: goatini
» look it up yourself Posted by: goatini
» Ron Paul Is Toast.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: BTW i've actually met Ron Paul Posted by: kelly.nickell
» you talking to me? Posted by: goatini
» RE: Have you done the math? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Have you done the math? Posted by: chiquita1
» RE: Have you done the math? Posted by: CatDad
» Ron Paul is a nut. Posted by: justaguy
» No he doesn't. Posted by: justaguy
4
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 27, 2007 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of this article is kind of blurry, but it seems to be saying what we knew all along: It doesn't matter whether the President is male or female if they're corporate bots like Hillary.

I mean, are we even sure she's a woman? She's cold, calculating, power-hungry, insensitive...If you want a real woman in the White House, find one who is warm, nurturing, sweet, caring...but can get very emotional and cranky at times.

I wouldn't mind seeing some real female qualities in the White House: Someone to scream, holler and nag until all those lazy goons get off the couch and fix some of the things that need fixing around here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Equal Opportunity class mercenaries is not fundamental change
Posted by: Perfectclue on Jun 27, 2007 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it is true the historical mechanism and principle of generic class corruption is and has been male biased, the birth of patriarchy, was itself the birth of class rule, where women and children, like captured slaves, were the property of men. Of course, the Egyptians, as taught in our history books, described this class process, as a pyramid analogy, where layers of class elites, artisans were sandwiched on top of the lower classes, the slaves who built the pyramids, but were themselves subordinated by a hereditary oligarchy, not necessarily patriarchical, because Egypt had not yet made its clean break from matrilinear relations, where women and male clans were still based on primitive communal egalitarian conditions.

The point here is that class rule, whether partly matrilinear or completely patriarchical, as a historical class mechanism in place for thousands of years, has reproduced this generic class corruption and betrayal of all social and democratic movements. So long as this class lever still functions, is in play, in position, where middle layers are corrupted yet absolutely needed as class elites, with their hierarchies, and class ideologies, as willing servile agents of corruption, for the oligarchy, it will continue to reproduce this class mechanism, because so far all democratic movements, socialist movements have only been national, and have failed to dismantle, displace this class lever which operates on a global, international level. Unless we recognize this fundamental relation, we will not have understood why the bourgeois, democratic movements of the Enligthenment and the socialist movements in the Post Enlightenment collapsed into class rule and decay, and the cycles of class degeneration from class republics to tyrants and Empires, which the ancient Greeks already observed.

The point? Fundamental change, real democracy can only be established through a social principle and mechanism, like this class mechanism, a fully developed middle class, without class masters, that actually does what all class societies, including corporate fascism falsely claim, the creation of a social principle, and mechanism which reproduces social wealth and real democracy. Thus we cannot have class parties, class ideologies, class elites, serving oligarchy. We must dismantle them completely and on a global international level. That means Hillary Clintion and Barack Obama, and the whole failed political class, could not, should not be the equal opportutnity class mercenaries, new faces, new forms for Corporate, class despotism. We do not need class thugs like Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice and Gonazales, nor the class whores like Hillary and Barack Obama, who service class Empire and class nationalism of both Amerika and Israel, and call their nuclear threats against Iran, an anti war position. Servility to either AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, or to corporate lobbies is not fundamental change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One more question Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Learn to spell! Posted by: Conservasaurus
Honestly?
Posted by: Urstrly on Jun 27, 2007 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ask yourself: did Margaret Thatcher advance the cause of women? Certainly not if they were struggling economically. And remember that cute little war in the Falklands to prove how tough she was? The first women to break barriers are more like their male counterparts than we'd like. But as an anti-war New Yorker, who was treated rudely (by mail) when I first expressed my opinion that this war was a mistake and later in person when she turned away a delegation of sixty New Yorkers, I have no assurance that she in any way respects me as a constituent. She's wimped out on health care, taken tons of money from dispicable corporations, and she endorsed the Patriot Act. I'm not going to be brainwashed that any of this is going to help women as a group, especially the least powerful. This nation needs radical re-direction, and I'm looking for a candidate who can take us there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Honestly? Posted by: lydia cypher
About the Glass Ceiling
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Jun 27, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a bit more like a semi-permeable membrane, and if it happens to open up wide enough to let in a straight, white, upper-class woman-- and one who rose to national prominence because of her husband at that-- we're talking about expanding the possibilities for only a very small percentage of women. Now, I suppose there is an argument for gradual expansion, for taking it one step at a time, but what I see when I look at Hillary Clinton's candidacy is an attempt to buy off feminists who have opposed the war or have demanded equal rights for homosexuals (when it comes to marriage, for instance).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't win
Posted by: Christian Southern Liberal on Jun 27, 2007 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The repub base will come out in droves to vote against Hillary. It all has to do with the media smear job during the Clinton administration. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will work to get her elected, but we will be beating our heads against a wall. I live in NC and this state is turning blue, it will go red if Hillary wins the primary.

The number one issue is focusing on the environment. We, as a planet, are in peril. No matter how much people want our huge corporations to continue to feed their investments in the stock market IT WILL NOT WORK. We all must breathe and the answer is to immediately put solar panels on every roof in the nation, subsidize farmers in windy areas to dedicate acreage to windmills, subsidize Plug-In Hybrid cars, start turning algae into biofuel, create a national grid, phase out all coal burning power plants (no new ones), and create an eco-friendly national mass transportation system. The candidate who can get on TV and repeat these solutions a million times will win this election. Our energy system must change, people do know this, and this is what it will take to win the 08 election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Repub base Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: The Repub base Posted by: hms2004
» No Underestimating Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: The Repub base Posted by: Ratskii
» RE: Can't win Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Can't win Posted by: solrev
» RE: Can't win Posted by: chiquita1
poppop - you may be right
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Jun 27, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You haven't commented here yet but I suspect you will.

I have been digging for a few days and I suspect that from a GOP perspective Ron Paul could be the right choice (no pun intended). If he were to run as an independent, which I suspect may happen, depending upon how committed he is to his free market principles, his record speaks volumes to me about how he would use what has become an extreme expansion of the presidential powers.

I think Ron Paul will have to abandon the GOP to make a solid run. Your Dem, Kucinich, I have on good authority, is bound to a strong set of personal principles as well.

I have been a Hillary fan for a while, but she is losing her luster as I see more of willingness from her to embrace the higher end idealism (read "corporate" interests) in an apparent capitulation to return favors for the flow of money.

As I dig deeper, I see that all roads lead to Cheney, so I'll quit calling Arbusto the president. I have suspected since 2001 that Bush had a hand up his backside as he appeared to be a sock puppet. I think we all know now, either directly or indirectly whose hand that is.

I think Hillary will become beholden to another hand in the sock puppet wars, as money trumps high ideals for the citizens of this country.

I think the trump card goes all the way back to becoming a butt buddy of Newt Gingrinch when they discovered that they stood on the same side of the healthcare issue. I wouldn't take a leak on Newt were he on fire beside me to put him out. When they fell all over each other it made me say "WTF?" and thus began my chalking Hil off my lists.

We need an executive that will voluntarily forego what Cheney has created in the demolition of sound government and expansion of executive powers. That person should see clearly what is at stake - constitutionally, institutionally, and governmentally - to keep the Cheney house of cards standing long enough to salvage our democracy, and return balance and importance to all three branches in an orderly manor.

The only problem is the SCOTUS; history has shown that some of our more conservative judges when placed in the court, became somewhat more centrist to left, as important decisions came up that could impact the populace as a whole.

I saw in John Roberts a possibility that this could still hold true. Alito seems to be a shill, Scalia -cranky, Thomas -unfit, and the rest practicing decent judgment, hopefully.

I think that very soon a great deal of our future will reside in these folks hands; lets hope that a few of the packed court will see it constitutionally, rather than through the shit stained glasses of Dick Cheney, as whatever new puppet we place in the Whitehouse discovers all the neato power that Cheney leaves behind when his little tin heart quits ticking, and the junk droids drop by to take him back to the deathstar for a refurb.

What a tangled web.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

article doesn't mention BIGGEST reason Hilary bothers women
Posted by: deborama on Jun 27, 2007 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found it strange that this three-page article did not mention what I feel is the biggest problem women have with Hillary--she set a really rotten example for women by allowing Bill to make a fool out of her, cheating on her with a woman young enough to be his daughter, and then just sucking it up and taking him back. Their marriage is so obviously a marriage of convenience it makes me ill. Hillary's message to women seems to be: let your man do whatever he wants, humiliate you in front of the entire world, and still take him back because you need the money, the status, of being married to a powerful man. It's absolutely disgusting to me and the main reason I won't vote for Hillary. She's a throwback to the days when women would put up with any degradations just to remain married. She's not a modern independent woman at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You have it all wrong! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» That's B.S. Posted by: gistre
» kelly: She's sexy, smart and ... Posted by: poppop_schell
There's something about Hillary
Posted by: Democritus on Jun 27, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary is smart. Hillary is tough. Hillary can be funny. Hillary can hold her own in a debate with anyone. Hillary can raise lots of money. So what does she lack? Perhaps we can start with principles. She has a hard time admitting she makes mistakes--witness the contortions she goes through in defending, yet backing away from, her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Yet her husband lacked principles, as well--witness his co-opting Republican strategy in courting big business and giving a knock to the poor in his "workfare" programs; and we need not mention how he oozed sincerity in his denial of any "sex with that woman." But people still continue to love Bill, even as he cozies up to the Bush family and makes millions off his appearances. No matter what his transgressions, Bill can pull off being "slick Willy." That's something Hillary can't do. There is no "slick Hilly." That's what Bill has and she doesn't. When Bill cons us, we know it's a con, but we shake our heads and say, "That's just Bill." When Hillary tries to con us, we know it's a con and we hold it against her. That's why I don't think she'll win the presidency, even if she wins the Democratic nomination. She's just too sincere at being insincere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women are jealous of and threatened by Hillary.
Posted by: gistre on Jun 27, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women can't stand a powerful, smart, successful woman, and they always degenerate into catty, factionalized mean cliques against such a woman.

It never moves beyond gradeschool for most women. Women are far more threatened by Hillary than any man is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I beg to differ. Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» RE: I beg to differ. Posted by: lisaisalefty
That's BS.
Posted by: gistre on Jun 27, 2007 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most women in America are in marriages of convenience and stay in loveless, even abusive, marriages for years. Hillary just did with Bill what they're doing in their own lives, and that's why they hate her so much for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» *That's* BS. Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
Gender is a Red Herring
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 27, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that the gender card is overplayed in Hilary's case. She exicted many people originally because we didn't know her and we had high hopes. Then she showed us more of her real self. She is a ruthless politician who will do whatever it takes to get elected. Besides supporting the war there was the bankruptcy bill. Can't place her name but an academic talks about how Hillary completely got how devastating it could be to the consumer. At first she was against it, then she flipflopped for it; ultimately she was not there for the vote either way. And if you are from the Hillary campaign scoping out public opinion, please let me tell you what my ultimate deal breaker is. I am a sociologist working against the stigma of fat people and the massive distraction weight obsession is to the American people. Hillary blamed obesity for the rise in health care costs without even mentioning the rise in profits of the health care industry. (They were huge!!!!) And her figures were OPINIONS not facts. What that tells me is she is willing to scapegoat the public to serve the interests of the corporate leadership. The war on obesity is extremely profitable and she has lots of BigPharma funding. She is just another cookie cutter politician who calculates how the American people can be use to benefit the power instead of served for the general good. Well I am tired of being scapegoated and manipulated. I will not vote for her now period. Even if she wins the general election, I will vote green, or another alternate party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gender is a Red Herring Posted by: hms2004
» As a female who cares about issues Posted by: feduphoosier
» I took a look, but... Posted by: Sojourner
» Not my democracy Posted by: feduphoosier
Hillary and most dems...
Posted by: bob t on Jun 27, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...are little more than Rethug-lite, aka more of the same as the real rethugs.
If 'we the people' want someone different, someone who speaks the truth, no matter how unpopular, then there is but one choice.
Dennis Kucinich is that choice. And no I don't work for his campaign, I am an independant. Being an independant voter means to me that to get my vote both parties must work for it. I am no longer going to hold my nose and vote. Yes, anyone is better than a christo-corpo-fascist all of whom are willing to sell America down the drain.
I'm voting for Mr. Kucinich.
If that scares some of you then tell the dems to stand up for America and just do what is RIGHT. The Rethugs never will...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary and most dems... Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Big Problem Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Hillary and most dems... Posted by: jmp3954
Another Clinton in the White House?
Posted by: willymack on Jun 27, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe. How bad would it be? Not possibly as bad as what we've got now. Think about it. We have a woman who's nobody's fool with a husband with two presidential terms behind him to give her good advice. Remember Slick Willie? He's the one under whose tenure we enjoyed a robust economy, record job growth, and eight years of peace and prosperity. Maybe this isn't perfect, but it's not bad, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

economic growth
Posted by: richholland on Jun 27, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our disapointment was that the GREEN politicians
in Europe simply became member of the system.

the other disapointment is now Europe has economical growth but there are in Amsterdam more homeless then the years before.

so big profits donot mean better life for the majority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Several problems with Hillary
Posted by: kmart35 on Jun 27, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What was with her big war hawk phase? Did she really think the war in Iraq was a good idea which is a problem or was she just pretending which is another problem? She was one of the last Democrats in office to admit that the war in Iraq was maybe not a good idea. And why didn't the Senators read some of the Intelligence Report before voting to give the President authority to go to war (she admits she didn't read it)? A few pages or a quick skim maybe? The first page or two? She won't admit to that vote being a mistake now, which is another problem for me.

I also think she probably has a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination, but about 1% chance of winning the overall election. I think the Republicans hate her more than just about any other candidate running and will be wheeling their grannies with oxygen attached to the voting polls to help ensure that she doesn't win! I think if she wins the nomination, we will probably be guaranteeing another Republican President, which would drive me crazy because after the last 6 years the Democrats should be able to elect almost anyone in the party at this point!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Several problems with Hillary Posted by: kelly.nickell