Hillary Clinton's Speech at the DNC

That was probably the best speech I've seen Hillary Clinton deliver. I think now, after calling for unity in the party, she sees her role as putting health care reform at the top of the agenda. In the speech, she hinted that she would be pressuring Barack Obama to include a mandate on health care reform if he's elected.

Also, her shoutout to Michelle Obama was amazing, and made me want Clinton to depart endless amounts of wisdom to Michelle should she become First Lady.

Clinton Against the HHS Rule

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to fight the Bush administration's attempt to pass really really bad policy that would redefine contraception as abortion and give protection to doctors and other health professionals that refuse to treat women because of their religious beliefs. It's unclear if this proposed regulation will actually make it to policy before Bush's clock runs out, but it's clear that the very proposal is an affront to the whole idea of a woman's right to decide what do do with her body.

Over at RH Reality Check today, Clinton has an op-ed in which she says this is nothing new, and she's going to fight the regulation. " The Bush Administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health," Clinton said. "We've seen this kind of ideologically driven move from the Bush Administration before. Senator Patty Murray and I went toe to toe with the Bush Administration to demand a decision on Plan B by the FDA."

Learning from Hillary Clinton

Dana has a great piece up about Clinton's campaign at TAP. She notes that while all the pundits are trying to determine the impact of Clinton's run for the presidential nomination, there has already been a pretty significant impact:

Over the course of this historic, thrilling, aggressive primary election, we've seen more female pundits than ever before writing and speaking about presidential politics. We've experienced unprecedented interest from male politicos in women's participation in the electoral process. And demands for women's leadership have been given their fairest hearing to date in the United States, with Democrats nationwide expecting Obama to give close consideration to female vice-presidential prospects -- not only because there are a few wildly successful and talented women who would be great at the job, but also as a gesture of good will toward the feminist energy that animated so many Clinton supporters.

Helen Thomas Misses the Mark

Helen Thomas (introduced by Ann!) gave the keynote speech here at the Women, Action & Media! conference. Thomas has been a dogged criticizer of the Bush administration, but tonight I perhaps will have to offer up a critique of her as well. She noted that the treatment of Hillary Clinton has been unfair in the press and that Barack Obama is "walking on water." I think we'll debate who is getting more favorable coverage in this primary season for years to come, but Thomas claimed "being racist is more verboten than being anti-woman." It's not surprising that Thomas is identifying the same argument that older feminists like Gloria Steinhem and Geraldine Ferraro advance.

It's certain that sexism is frustrating, especially to second wave feminists that thought true equality was in their grasp -- the "upward trajectory" I've heard so much about -- but could never quite break through. I'll defend women who want to vote for Clinton because they view her candidacy as too historic to ignore. What seems like bad policy is to attack female Obama supporters and call them anti-feminist (although I've definitely met female anti-feminist Obama supporters).

Thomas' inclination to to start comparing marginalization is incomprehensible to me. Not only is it a controversial exercise, but a useless one. I don't mind if older feminists are voting for Clinton because they view Clinton's candidacy as the utmost of historic importance, but what makes me upset is when they somehow suggest that Obama "has it easy" or that he's getting a "pass" as a black man while Clinton is deflecting bullets of criticism. Running for president is never easy, so let's not pretend that Obama has it any "easier" than Clinton.

Update: I uploaded the photo.

Political Alamony

This morning I saw this story about Argentina's first lady becoming Argentina's first female president. It reminded me of Rik Hertzberg's column last week (that I read on the train but couldn't blog about and therefore forgot about until now) that talked about political dynasties, but what interested me was what he said about women taking over in the wake of their husbands:

In most cases, the tie has been broken by death. In South Asia, which seems to lead the world in female national leaders, violent death is invariably a factor. In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, a total of four female heads of state have come to power in the wake of male relatives’ assassination; in India, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter, was herself assassinated, as was her son and successor, Rajiv. (Her daughter-in-law, Sonia, now heads the ruling Congress Party.) Burma’s imprisoned opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, is the daughter of the assassinated independence leader Aung San. And the father of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s two-time and perhaps future Prime Minister, was a Prime Minister whose life ended at the gallows; her return to Karachi last week was marked by a suicide-bomber attack that claimed more than a hundred lives.

In the United States, the widow-of and daughter-of pattern has been gentler. Of the two hundred and forty-four women who have served in the House and the Senate, forty-six succeeded their husbands and twelve their fathers. The wife-of, as distinct from widow-of, method of conferring power has been a relatively minor theme, found mostly in the nether parts of the country—one thinks of Governors Ma Ferguson, of Texas, and, especially, Lurleen Wallace, of Alabama, through whom George ruled when term limits forced him out of the state house.

He notes that Hillary Clinton is different because she was pretty successful all on her own. The thing is, though, that women who are successful all on their own don't seem to make it as far as the women who are successful, but then take over for their dead or retired husbands. Would Clinton be running for office if she weren't a Clinton, but just Hillary Rodam? It's hard to say, but my guess is probably not. Unfortunately, we still live in a world where women can be hugely successful on their own, but to really make it in political office, they have to tailgate on the roles of their men.

It's true that this makes sense on one level. Marriages are partnerships, and it makes sense that when one of the partners can no longer carry on a political agenda, then the other might take up the cause. But I'm waiting for the day when men ride in on the coattails of their wives. As of yet, I haven't really seen it.

Musings on Clinton

I hate to rehash this old argument, but I couldn't help but roll my eyes when I saw this story in the Globe today. I wish that we lived in a world where, if a woman were running for president, the only thing relevant about that is that you have to refer to her as "madam" or "madam" instead of "sir." But we don't live in that world. Instead, we live in a world where there are endless articles about how Clinton is a woman, Clinton is a feminist, and the oh-so-popular CNN tagline "Is Clinton feminine enough?"

As a feminist, I recognize Clinton's accomplishments, but I also recognize her failings and hawkishness when it comes to foreign policy. But with endless stories about her gender, and her appeals to women based on her gender, it's really hard for gender to not be a factor in the election. The Globe story pointed out things I've found to all be anecdotally true. For example, "But analysts also see a political calculation: She is less popular among older, married women who are more likely to prefer a more traditional role for women. Clinton's focus on women this week was a bid to consolidate her support among female voters, who account for much of her lead in many polls." I heard a friend recently refer to a Midwestern relative that fits this description exactly. Come to think of it, my mom might, too. It's frustrating, though, to see women be so judgmental of other women. Men's personal lives (see Rudy Giuliani) have little to do with their professional electability.

Calculated by the Clinton campaign or not, I wished I lived in a world where I didn't have to read such stories and could judge candidates on their policy proposals and experience, rather than on their gender or personas. It seems, though, that I will have to endure this for as long as Clinton is running for president, and perhaps if another woman runs for president, too.

Women Are Sexist, Too

The Boston Globe reports that about a third of women surveyed judge candidates on their marriages. This is always baffling to me. Why the marriage judgment? How does that have anything to do with their, um, job? As always, Stephanie Coontz swoops in with insight:

Stephanie Coontz, a marriage historian and Ladies' Home Journal contributing editor, said ratings for the twice-divorced Giuliani appeared to be a sign "people are willing to give male politicians, at least, a second, or even third, chance at happiness."

Clinton's relatively low score is a sign that women are more harshly judged than men for not having a happy marriage, Coontz said.

She said Hillary Clinton is blamed for "not packing up and leaving her husband" after he had an extramarital affair with a White House intern.

There You Are, Chelsea Clinton!

I was just thinking to myself last week about the fact that very little has been heard from or about Chelsea Clinton since Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for the White House began. Well, the New York Times seems to have found her. They managed to tell me about her clothing:

At a benefit last month for the School of American Ballet, on whose board she serves, Ms. Clinton seemed as hardworking as the other attendees did festive. Most of the women her age wore bright gowns and bare skin, but Ms. Clinton wore a dark pantsuit, her hair smoothed and fastened into a strawberry-blond sheet.

her makeup:

Ms. Clinton seems acutely aware that others are always observing her; classmates at Stanford noticed that she was always in full makeup, as if she expected to be photographed at any moment.

her fitness:

(More recently, she exercised with a personal trainer who specializes in pageant contestants.)

and what she's doing now:

But after Oxford, Chelsea Clinton signed up with McKinsey, a consulting company known as an elite business training corps. She was the youngest in her class, hired at the same rank as those with M.B.A. degrees.

This doesn't really tell me very much about her, but what I gathered from the article is that she prefers to be somewhat of a reclusive figure. I'm sure she's tired of growing up in the spotlight. I'm sure she knows that her mother's campaign has once again will cause things like, for instance, the NYT to write articles about her.

In a lot of ways I'm extremely jealous of Chelsea Clinton. She has the potential to do pretty much anything she wants. What she wants, however, may be just to be a regular person.

Anti-Clinton Sentiment

There has been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere lately about Hillary Rodham Clinton and feminists. For the first time in a long time, identity politics (specifically race, class, and gender) are playing a large role in a presidential election. This, it appears, is a problem. A few months ago, the big question was if a woman could be a feminist and not support Clinton. Today, the question seems to be if she can.

Democratic women favor Clinton over Obama, and by a considerable margin. This hardly seems surprising, since she consistently uses her position as a senator to introduce legislation that is good for feminist causes. The threatening part of this to your average male liberal blogger who supports Edwards (Edwards has the lead among white males with 45 percent, according to an April poll) is that women tend to take the civic responsibility of voting more seriously, even if they don't engage in public discourse as much. Since your typical Edwards supporter (white, male, affluent) has decided that Clinton is the wrong choice, they feel no qualms about telling women their choice to support a particular candidate is "unfortunate."

At a minimum, this kind of language -- especially coming from the male liberals, some of whom have controlled the Democratic party for decades -- feels condescending. At worst, it is patriarchal and sexist. Women, believe it or not, have just as much agency and decision making power in choosing a candidate as men do. What's really unfair about this argument is that the same logic isn't applied to black people that support Obama. It's perfectly okay that they identify with Obama on the basis of his race, but somehow, not okay for women to identify with Clinton on the basis of her gender.

Some of of this has to do with the perceived electability of a candidate in the general election. Some say Clinton running in the general election as the Democratic nominee because they think she would lose in the general election. Although that's a valid fear, there's only marginal evidence to support that Obama would be more competitive than Clinton in a general election against Giuliani. Besides, it's hard to predict this early what would happen in a general.

I guess what it all boils down to is I'm tired of liberal (sometimes very well-meaning dudes) to tell feminists (and I've met several who said they support Clinton privately but not publicly) that they are making the wrong or "unfortunate" choice. I've also heard liberals blaming feminists for giving an election to Rudy Giuliani that hasn't even happened yet. So lay off, okay? Women can make decisions, too.