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
Advertisement
  • 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.

Gloria Steinem Debates Racism and Sexism in the '08 Election

By Sally Kohn and Gloria Steinem, AlterNet. Posted January 11, 2008.


An exchange between Gloria Steinem and progressive leader Sally Kohn about a recent NY Times op-ed on identity politics in the '08 campaign.

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

More stories by Sally Kohn Gloria Steinem

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The following is an exchange between Gloria Steinem and Sally Kohn on Steinem's recent New York Times op-ed on race and gender in the 2008 election.

Sally Kohn offers a critique of a recent New York Times op-ed Gloria Steinem

Recently in The New York Times, Gloria Steinem argued that if Barack Obama was a woman, he wouldn't be elected. That's probably true. Ms. Steinem then concludes that "gender is probably the most restricting force in American life." That's definitely false. Or, rather, a false choice. The reality is that racism and sexism are both profound and pervasive throughout our society. Ranking different forms of oppression is a ridiculous waste of time. We should be working to eradicate all forms of oppression, not deciding which one takes precedence.

In other words, just because Senator Obama was (at the time of Ms. Steinem's op-ed) surging above Hillary Clinton doesn't mean that racism has taken a back seat to sexism in the American body politic. Voter preferences may actually have to do with perceived differences on the candidate's positions. Or they may have to do with how each candidate USES their identity: Senator Clinton highlighting her uniqueness as a woman in appealing to women voters, Senator Obama emphasizing how his experiences as an African American give him a more universal insight on unity and solidarity that applies across race. It's not to say one approach is right or wrong but merely different TAKES on their marginalized identities not merely different identities between these two candidates.

Nonetheless, it's probably true that if Barack Obama were bi-racial and a woman, he might not be where he is today. But Ms. Steinem neglected to note that if Hillary Clinton were an African-American woman, she probably wouldn't be either. It goes to show not that one form of oppression is more persistent than the other but that both run deep and strong in our country, as witnessed most powerfully where they intersect.

Strict gender roles and norms still pervade our society. Glass ceilings and double standards are all still too common. And racial profiling and lack of meaningful access to equal opportunity in education, jobs, lending and more still plagues African-American communities. These are real problems, and I hope that whomever we elect -- white or black, male or female -- they can use their own experience of privilege in life -- or lack thereof -- to breakdown the barriers of discrimination and create an America that truly values all of us. That deeply American ideal of community values -- that all people are inherently equal and interconnected -- is what we need to be reminded of, regardless of the messenger.

The roots of racism and sexism are the same -- the desire to maintain power and privilege for some at the expense of everyone else. Our only hope of addressing EITHER racism or sexism is to address them BOTH together. Rooting racism AND sexism from every facet of our social, economic and political institutions and practices to create a better America is far more worthwhile than debating which form of oppression is faring worse.

Gloria Steinem's New York Times article

Women Are Never Front-Runners

The woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father -- in this race-conscious country, she is considered black -- she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sex, race, obama, clinton, election, sexism, racism, steinem

Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Lab, where grassroots leaders share and debate new ideas for the future. Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.

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:
Almost any woman except Clinton
Posted by: Ginga on Jan 11, 2008 7:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have proudly called myself a feminist since the early 60s! I respected Gloria for her journalism and for Ms. Magazine. But I take great exception to her endorsement of Clinton and her reasons for doing so. Bill Clinton, through NAFTA & through his reform of welfare did great harm to our society. Hillary will do no better. I have resigned from NOW because of their early endorsement of her and now may have to discard Ms. Magazine. This 70+ school teacher agrees with those young vibrant women who are working for Obama - he is proudly liberal when it comes to women’s rights and social programs, and proudly practical & centrist when it comes to uniting and energizing this country. He will serve as a shining symbol to the world of the nation we want to be!

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

» Amen ... elder sista'-friend! Posted by: realmuzik
» RE: Are waves tsunamies? Posted by: anothername
Well, if nothing else, you've proven, once again, that
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 11, 2008 7:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gloria Steinem is an idiot.

And I offer the following mind-bending passage from the article as evidence:

"So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects 'only' the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more 'masculine' for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no 'right' way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what."

No question, Steinem's an idiot.

Any new stunning revelations for us?

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

» Okay, I'll expain why GS is an idiot Posted by: CharliePatton
» You said it, not me. Posted by: Longdream
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, Gloria
Posted by: Urstrly on Jan 11, 2008 7:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter how many times someone tells me—a 65 year old white feminist—that this is the only chance I'll have to see a woman president in my lifetime, I cannot vote for Senator Clinton in the primary.

When I look at her, I remember all the times I emailed, wrote, phoned and begged her to reconsider her hawkish stance against, first, Iraq and then Iran. I remember how she voted for the Patriot Act. I remember how she wouldn't recant. These are not acts of leadership, these are acts of accommodation, and no matter how she paints herself as an agent of change, I can't ignore the facts.

I worry that Obama faces the same temptations, but I'm hoping that his short history in the public arena will work to our favor, that his lack of experience is balanced by his lack of baggage and commitment to special interests.

I'm not naive about gender and race. Having worked in the last cycle for an African-American woman who ran successfully for the state senate, I know firsthand that there is a huge reservoir of racism and misogyny in the Democratic party that is probably exceeded in the Republican party.

We desperately need to turn this country around 180 degrees and it's going to be a difficult job. I thought for a while that Edwards might be the best hope, but now I'm leaning towards Obama. I will vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless, but for now, I can't support Hillary.

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

» Plenty of women ready Posted by: anothername
» RE: Sorry, Gloria Posted by: homega
Steinem is Correct About Gender Barriers
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 11, 2008 7:48 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I support either Obama or Hillary as our next president, since both really stand for many common ideals and programs, I for one am convinced of the greater importance of gender barriers as Steinem posits.

I'll really go out on a limb here and dare I say race can and has been be diluted or modified with intermarriage. But try diluting gender.

I feel the consciousness of our very young and immature nation and the way the world perceives us will more dramatically change if we elect our first female to the presidency verses our first afro-american or hispanic male to the presidency.

But that certainly is not the sole criteria on which I base my choice(s)

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

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

» Be vewwwwy quiet.... Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Be vewwwwy quiet.... Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Be vewwwwy quiet.... Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Be vewwwwy quiet.... Posted by: drricklippin
take the bypass, eliminate the traffic
Posted by: shikejian on Jan 11, 2008 8:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By focusing on gender and race, the media and the populace are totally bypassing any traffic with importance...and everyone seems to be buying into it. No one's really paying attention to the topic, the program, the history. You're all missing the point! Gender and race are totally unimportant in a president. So, tell me, what are they preaching?

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

» nurture vs nature Posted by: anothername
» RE: nurture vs nature Posted by: aonghus36
Steinem is right...
Posted by: Urmutt on Jan 11, 2008 10:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a discussion program I saw the night of the New Hampshire Primary. Pat Buchannan was on it as well as a Black man whose name I was not familiar with who was trying to play the old Racism card in support of Obama. It was sad because in truth I have not observed any evidence of Racism so far in this Election process while I have indeed observed the most intense SEXISM hurled Hillary Clinton's way and that to include the disgusting attacks on her for "tearing up" as if the expression of such emotion was just a 'ploy' don't you know. The Media showed itself incapable of determining Real from False but the WOMEN of America did indeed and they saw Hillary's sincerity, how much she CARES and that was ALL they needed to mobilize their power to put a Sister in the White House. Gloria Steinem is right that Blacks were given the Vote BEFORE Women and in addition, Black Men tried to make the case that Racism was more important than Sexism and that Women's Problems were TRIVIAL in comparison and they should get out of the way. Even Obama saw fit to relate to Hillary in the most condescending sexist way, trying to play the Sexual Card to his own benefit. I KNOW who I'm Voting for and it's Hillary Clinton and for all the BEST reasons that Gloria Steinem relates. She got the Experience and she IS a Woman which is the most COMPASSIONATE sex for SURE! Want to talk about the need for CHANGE, let's get off the Macho Testosterone trip and give a WOMAN a Chance!

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

» RE: Steinem is right... Posted by: Julian
» RE: Steinem is right... Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Steinem is right... Posted by: daniel1982
kvass
Posted by: kvass on Jan 11, 2008 11:44 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This extraordinarily debate should be published, emailed, faxed and whatever else it takes to bury these issues once and for all. It is a well thought out blog -- if one can call it that. In fact quite brilliant on both sides.
But really the problem seems to be with the press, media, the so called experts, whom ever -- everything from the fore mentioned group is always brought down to the lowest common dominator in thinking.
If only everyone would stick to considering the enormous problems that the elected person must confront when we are rid of this dreadful bushism piece of history then you might get beyond the old hang ups that really are not germane and elect the right person - or the right ticket that will see us through the first stage because I am damn sure it is going to take a number of years to clean up the mess we are in.

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

Gender and white feminism
Posted by: speaktruthnow on Jan 12, 2008 12:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to say that I find self serving this comment made by Steinem

That's why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

The reality which a great many white feminists ignore is that white women have more money, power, and access to the institutions of society than any color of man.

The hierarchy of power in this country looks like this..

white men, white women...men of all colors...women of all colors

White men..the true holders of all reigns of power have always been more allied to white women that ANY color of man.

Within each group and for the society at large the patriarchy prevails but the reality is that white women have had greater access to power and rescources both as a group and through their association with white men.

The primary beneficiaries of post 60s redistributive programs have not been black men but white women.

There are currently 16 female Senators..all white. There is 1 Black senator. Guess who that is?

Of the fortune 500 there are 13 women...again all white. There are 4 black CEOS.

Even when you control for the population bias the facts dont bear out her assertions. Particularly interesting is the result when you combine race and gener..and there are zero non white women in either category.


In terms of the vote lets not forget that during the suffrage movement white women gained the vote before black women by promising to white men..their staunchest and most reliable allies..that white women would help them maintain the color barrier in the south.

Steinem like many white feminists wishes to live in a paradign of oppression which largely ignores the reality that while women are oppressed by the patriarchy...WHITE women maintain more privilege than any other group in the nation except white men.

Creating a self serving in- between category where they can be oppressed as a woman while demanding that people not look too closely at the details of their privilege. Details which illuminate a picture where the ONLY people in the nation that are more priviliged are white men.

I suspect that Ms Stienem looked at what happened in Iowa and saw her candidate lose and saw gender as the reason. One wonders what she is saying after Mrs Clintons victory in New Hampshire.

Given the history of this nation should black people be writing op eds claiming that Barak didnt win because white folk arent ready?

(we suspect this...but we have the good sense not to say it)

As a black man in an interracial marriage I can assure Ms. Stienem....comparing oppressions would likely lead to a truth thats not so nearly self- serving as the men vs women paradigm that she now rules.

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

» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: John Wilbur
» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: speaktruthnow
» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: speaktruthnow
» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: sal sazonada
» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: speaktruthnow
» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: John Wilbur
» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: speaktruthnow
» RE: Gender and white feminism Posted by: speaktruthnow
What?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 12, 2008 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both admit they would vote for someone based on race or gender? They're both tainted by the very biases they pretend to be against. Like a lot of "progressives", they seem to think their racism/sexism is somehow superior or enlightened because they choose the PC gender or color.

And who's to say that an articulate, charismatic black woman with lots of money and influence would do worse? Is Oprah in this race?...Well, she is, sort of...plugging for Obama. And she doesn't seem to be holding him back.

It's probably fair to say that there are institutional factors that reduce the chances of blacks, women, and all combinations from even getting into the race in the first place. After that point, the rest is highly speculative. It would seem very difficult to isolate race and gender as variables when there are so many other factors like personality, presentation, image, charisma, etc., once they get in front of the cameras, make the speeches, and so on. Still, it's kind of interesting and fun to argue about.

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

interesting debate, but...
Posted by: dmaciewski on Jan 12, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would consider voting for a black woman with only eight years experience in the legislator. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive when it comes to power politics on the national level, but at this point I'm not sure if I'd vote for Hillary or Barack. Definitely not Hillary, as she gives every indication that she's part of the old boys club of the Democratic Party with her track record on the war in Iraq and health care policy. I don't know as much about Obama, but had heard from a recent poster that he voted for the Bankruptcy Bill. Perhaps the ever-looming larger question, how to get the Democratic Party unentrenched from the corporatocracy?

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

» RE: interesting debate, but... Posted by: nochicagoboys
We must come together as one to eliminate ism
Posted by: Blink on Jan 12, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my experience, Blacks and other People of Color are more oppressed than Whites, whether Male or Female. I work in an office that is 50% Male and 50% Female, but with no POC (unless you count one Chinese Woman, one Vietnamese Man, and one East Indian Man as being POC). It is time for all those who oppose racism and its younger siblings sexism, age-ism, looks-ism, and all of the other discriminatory practices and beliefs that, together, make up what I call simply "ism," to support Obama. And if you don't want to support Obama because you think another candidate is more qualified, remember this: The appearance of being an ismist is as bad as actually being an ismist.

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

» Nope. Posted by: redfrog
Three Words…ERA
Posted by: whyoung on Jan 12, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Ms. Kohn saying it is "definitely false" that "gender is probably the most restricting force in American life" she completely disregards that constitutionally women still do not have the same guaranteed legal status as men, regardless of color.

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

» RE: Three Words…ERA Posted by: speaktruthnow
Demagoguery
Posted by: madmac10 on Jan 12, 2008 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The surest sign of demagoguery is the substitution of logic with hypothetical reasoning. Using the term "would" in any debate is a sign of weakness that can be ripped open with critical thinking. The fact is that Obama was never a woman, and Hillary was never black. Only in some far-fetched parallel universe could either Ms. Steinem's or Ms. Shorr's hypothesis be tested as true--therefore, both must be abandoned as base speculation. Perhaps sometime soon, in this very universe, logic and rigorous thinking will predominate...

Thankfully, many readers who have posted replies to this debate see the flaws. Hopefully, that means our voting populace does contain a few critical thinkers.

"Don't follow leaders & watch your parking meters." — Bob Dylan

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

Gloria Steinam > has been.
Posted by: symcokid on Jan 12, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gloria Steinam is being aberrant in not sticking with her Womens Lib agenda where she has more expertise in stirring things up. Who's going to listen to her in this arena, her old cronies?

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

» RE: Gloria Steinam > has been. Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Gloria Steinam > has been. Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Something more, perhaps. Posted by: redfrog
» RE: Something more, perhaps. Posted by: nochicagoboys
Thank you for this article. Many of the postings prove its significance.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 12, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is one of the best discussions of the impact and consequences of race and gender that I have ever read in a long lifetime of searching.

It's good to hear Steinem other than as an advocate in court. I didn't know Kohn, but I am now a fan.

Of course there's no single answer to the issues and no single column, debate, book, or even lifetime will see an answer. We will have to live out any answers.

But with exchanges such as this article, the living sure gets more interesting while it gets more promising and exciting--the gross cynicism of posted comments to the contrary notwithstanding.

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

race versus gender
Posted by: jmb on Jan 12, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an African-American woman, I was offended by Steinem's comments which showed, yet again, that white feminists do not understand women of color. She feels that she is pointing out that gender oppression is worse than racial oppression in this country. However, what she really shows is that women of color are oppressed on multiple levels based on their race and gender, not to mention class and sexuality. The fact that in 2008 we still have to pick gender or race, while denying the intersections between the two, and establish a hierarchy of oppression shows how far we still have to go in our society.

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

» RE: race versus gender Posted by: anothername
» RE: race versus gender Posted by: speaktruthnow
» RE: race versus gender Posted by: anothername
» RE: race versus gender Posted by: speaktruthnow
» RE: race versus gender Posted by: sal sazonada
Just the principles
Posted by: Kuressaare on Jan 12, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please forget who said what, in fact a patient young man with everything loaded against him is trying this, I think he should be respected for it. If Clinton wishes to spat with Steinhem, good, who cares. When the division of humanity into two worthy or hateful halves is the more important, then someone is indeed an idiot. Mr. Obama is not JUST an Afro-American, he is a born African by half, and his perceptions are nothing like those so imprisoning to most of what used to be (and more accurately) called "black Americans." What he sees enables him to view society like a sociologist, unlike the two women who are too stunned by their body parts and how female humans grow up in roles set only to their sex. (You say 'gender", to me that is grammar). Oh no, we are really talking about brains and ability as opposed to very small portions of those exhibited on the part of the two women, this time at least, and using this very peripheral matter to try to grab more headway and headlines.

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

in regards to racsim vs. sexism in the US:
Posted by: axjxhx on Jan 12, 2008 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
black men got the right to vote before women (of any race) did.

15th amendment: " March 1870: Fifteenth Amendment Ratified" (aka: black voting rights)
http://15thamendment.harpweek.com/default.asp

19th amendment: "American women were granted the right to vote with the passage of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920."
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/History_of_women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States
(to access link, delete space after ".org")

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

Stop Global Whining
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jan 12, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kohn is on the mark.

I'm no Obama fan, but Hill-Billy is a two-headed corporate organism whose character is just...scary.

Let's see if she whines and gnaws her way in.

It's like watching a car wreck.

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

PS
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jan 12, 2008 12:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Voting for anyone because of gender or race is like voting for a book because it has a certain cover -- and that's about as in-depth as this debate appears to me.

Steinem's comment that a female candidate has no "masculinity to prove" is about as stupid, sexist and rancid a comment as I have ever read.

Get over yourself, Ms. Steinem. Wake up and smell the 21st Century.

Grade: F

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

» Correction. Grade: F- Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Correction. Grade: F- Posted by: axjxhx
OK. Will we ever get over arguing who is the most oppressed?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 12, 2008 3:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Until the color of a (person's) skin is of no more significance than the color of (their) eyes--everywhere there is war." Haile Selasie (Yes, the substitutions are for male referrents, not unexpected in 1940s East Africa.)

In war no one wins and everyone loses. Let's keep looking for some other way to settle disagreements than war.

Turning elections into a form of war has been exaggerated under Reagan/Cheney/Gingrich/Bush GOP. Hence we are all oppressed. Cynicism is the poison gas of war.

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

» No. And the most oppressed Posted by: MobileSucks
Bottom Line
Posted by: MobileSucks on Jan 12, 2008 4:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Voter preferences may actually have to do with perceived differences on the candidate's positions.

And maybe the candidate's positions are what actually matter. Jesus Christ. And so take the war for instance: Hillary Clinton will not end the war. She makes a point to express clearly to all that she is a hawk. I'm against war, so this position means she will not get my vote, as much as I do think it would be great to have a female President.

If you support Hillary Clinton you support her positions and so you are supporting this.

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

Christ.
Posted by: pig on Jan 12, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an utterly dumbed down superficial world we live in when this stuff passes for intellectual debate.

Mind numbing.

Oink!

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

Maybe.
Posted by: Longdream on Jan 12, 2008 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been trying to analyze how much of my distaste for Hillary is because she does jump gender stereotypes.

She has balls. I remember during, or just after Lewinsky, when she went on some talk show or other (a feat of fortitude in itself at the time, considering the embarassment factor) and started talking about the "vast Right Wing conspiracy" that was trying to take Bill down. She was telling it like it was, and risking a lot on a number of levels in order to do it.

I admired her then. I started to dislike her for vague reasons only when she started her Senate campaign. Back in First Lady days she wasn't any less forward or awkward, it just turned me off more. It turns me off a zillion times over in this campaign.

I'm not saying there aren't real issues of disagreement--there are many. But I have an aversion to her far out of proportion to any reason for it. Shit, I like Huckabee's personality much more--and that's a little crazy.

Maybe this is what Gloria means.

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

» RE: Maybe. Posted by: Ellie F.
» Longdream is on point. Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Longdream is on point. Posted by: Longdream
Actually, it's neither one
Posted by: wavydavy on Jan 12, 2008 7:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "most restrictive force" in all human interactions, not just in this country, is socio-economic status, aka class.

Take any or all of the combinations of black and white, male or female. Then put either "rich" or "poor" in front of your combination. In every case, every one of you just answered "rich". To take the extreme: I can be male AND white -- presumably the most powerful combination -- but if I am poor, I sm sure as hell a lot worse off than someone who is black AND female -- presumably the least powerful combination -- AND rich.

The only candidate actually addressing this issue head-on is John Edwards.

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

» RE: Actually, it's neither one Posted by: speaktruthnow
It's the war
Posted by: noalternative on Jan 12, 2008 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I (a women)won't vote for her because she voted for the war, and because she continues to vote for policies likely to get us into new ones like Kyl Lieberman. Her advisors are mostly unrepetent war hawks. Also Bill promised that her first act as President would be to enlist both him and poppy Bush to repair the damage Jr has done. In order to get this cooperation the Clintons ahve likely made a deal with Bush that they will drop the criminal investigations on faked intelligence. That is not good for anyone, including women. This means that the people who started the war, will ahve their careers rescued by the Clintons.

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

McCain was racist during the SC debates
Posted by: Reader11722 on Jan 12, 2008 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John McCain was racist in the SC debate, read it here:
John McCain's racism during SC debate
Unfortunately it too