If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I believe America is ready for a woman president.

[Skinner]

(Reminder: The DU Administrators are officially neutral in the Democratic primary, and we will continue to be neutral throughout this process. This is a narrow response to a particular issue, not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton.)

After I posted my thread yesterday about whether America is ready for a black president, a number of people have asked me -- both publicly and privately -- whether I thought America is ready for a woman president. In my opinion, this is actually a more difficult question. And, to be frank, I don't think many people here on DU are going to like my answer. In short:

America is ready for a woman president. But I believe many progressives do not fully appreciate the complex challenges a woman faces in order to be a viable general election candidate.

The map seems to support a female presidential candidate.

If you look at history, it looks like a woman's chance of winning the presidency is pretty good. Clearly, a woman has a chance of winning high-level statewide office almost anywhere:

Throughout history, a total of 29 women have served as governors in 22 different states, while 35 women have served as US senators from 22 different states. Women have been elected from all parts of the country, including many culturally conservative southern and mountain states. Some of the most conservative states in America, like Utah, Texas, and Alabama, have all elected women to high-level statewide positions. Taken together, there are more than enough electoral votes to put a woman in the White House. This is good news for Hillary Clinton.

Compare that with African-Americans, who have held three governorships (two since Reconstruction) in three states, and five senate seats (three since Reconstruction) in four states.

So the map favors a woman candidate.

But there's a catch.

Obviously, we are talking about enormously complex issues, here. Reducing the vast challenges faced by Clinton and Obama to one or two issues does not do them justice. Nonetheless, I want to try to get to the heart of the matter.

For an African-American man trying to be a viable general election candidate, I think the basic approach is something like this: Look at what all the white male presidential candidates have been doing for years, and then do the same thing. Only do it better.

For a woman trying to be a viable general election candidate, I don't think it is quite so simple. She can follow the do-what-white-males-do approach, and to a certain degree she should. I think a woman running in a general election for president probably has to show herself to be as "tough" as all the male candidates, to compensate for lingering sexist stereotypes. I suspect that this toughness factor is more of an issue for a presidential candidate than a governor or senator, because the president is the commander in chief of the military, directs foreign policy, and is responsible for the security of our nation. No governor or senator can send the US military around the globe to drop bombs on our "enemies."

But I think we all know that doing-what-white-males-do is fraught with peril for a woman. If she is not careful, then she runs into more lingering sexist stereotypes: She's not likable. She's cold. She's shrill. She's a b----. She wears pantsuits. Or (God forbid!), she's a lesbian.

Senator Clinton knows this, probably as well as anyone. She does not have a blueprint or template to follow as she runs for president. Instead, she has to figure it out entirely on her own, balancing toughness with femininity. She has to try to find that middle ground that makes her an acceptable president to general election voters, while not alienating Democratic primary voters who want someone with reliable progressive credentials. While I do not consider the vitriol that progressives heap on Senator Clinton to be overtly sexist, I do wonder if it suggests a lack of appreciation for the complex situation she faces.

I believe that Hillary Clinton has done a tremendous job pushing boundaries and redefining the role of women in public life. I believe she has all the necessary skills and qualities, and has successfully positioned herself to win the presidency if she makes it to the general election. I believe that the map shows that America is ready for a woman president. But, unfortunately for her, I think many progressives are not willing to let her do what may be necessary for a woman to win the general election.

[bullimiami]

1. america suffered through bush yet some rejoiced. were ready for anyone.

regardless what the media says.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Agree completely

[youngharry]

12. A woman President

Perhaps in general, America is ready for a woman President, but not at this point in our history. Because we are are fighting two wars in the middle east and soon to add another in Iran. Any woman President would not only have to show that she is tough, but that she is tougher than any man in order not to be thought of as soft OR WEAK. She would therefore find it much more difficult to stop the wars and bring the troops home. Hillary's whole stance for her votes is to show America she is as tough as any War Hawk. She is definitely a Hawk which doesn't bode well for this country. The only candidate that can bring America back to its' Constitutional roots AND REIGN IN THE CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE MADE BILLIONS OUT OF THESE ILLEGAL AND UNPROVOKED WARS IS JOHN EDWARDS.

[Fresh_Start]

15. Good point about the wartime psychology

Woman will always have to appear more hardliner than a man to overcome the 'woman are emotional:woman are soft' stereotype.
But with 29% of the country afraid that AQ is ready to invade America, the woman would have to outdo any male include GOP male rhetoric.

[rodeodance]

49. yes, women and war dynamic is hard to overcome.

[fightindonkey]

77. Too Bad America Doesn't Know About Queens and Kings For Centuries

[unapatriciated]

81. have to give you that one

:hi:

[oasis]

3. Excellent post. k&r

[cali]

sharp analysis. And it makes me so sad.

I have concluded that America will not support a female president. I almost want to boil it down to something really simplistic: The pitch of a woman's voice causes cognitive dissonance for many Americans, including progressives. The mental picture of a woman review the troops does the same thing.

There were many days here where I wished the admin would step in and say something about how a progressive community was treating her, but how pointless would that have been. And it's been even worse on some progressive blogs.

I don't support Clinton but if she's the nominee, I'd have no trouble voting for her. And I think if she doesn't make it, it'll be at least a couple of decades before there's another serious run by a womnan.

[Gman]

23. Re: the pitch of a woman's voice

Any sound bites of Hillary that are played on Rush and/or Hannity are speeded up slightly to maker her sound whiny and shrill. Hillary's laugh at Chris Wallace was modified to sound like a cackle too.

Also notice that any pictures of Hillary on RW sites are always modified to exaggerate any age that shows in her face.

So this is an issue as subliminal as it may be.

[mojowork_n]

66. Quite a few "conclusions", in replies to this post

(are the majority of Americans ready for a Woman to be President?)

...aren't addressing both of the points made by Principal Skinner:

America undoubtedly is "ready" for a woman to be President. We may be trailing behind most of the rest of the civilized world when it comes to health care policy, our commitment to the environment, and in our ability to clean up our own eNvirOnmentaL disAsters (just to pick a few issues off the top of my head), but this campaign has shown that Hillary Clinton, running on the basis of her record, has gotten a deservedly respectful hearing.

Heck, she was all set to be the run-away shoo-in, for a while. And it would be very problematic to say that the opposition to her, and the storm of controversy she's generated, were based principally on gender, or gender perception issues.

The problem is, the majority of Americans also recognized that Al Gore was ready to be President in 2000. Not only did he win the popular vote, a proper recount (one not blocked by in-the-street-brownshirt-RNC thugs in Florida, and Scalia's SCOTUS afterward) would also have shown him to be the clear winner in the Electoral College as well. RFK, jr, Brad over at Bradblog, the folks at Freepress.net would also tell you that the majority of Americans also clearly favored John Kerry, in 2004.

The point I'm making is, it's not enough, anymore, to find a candidate whom the majority of Americans think would be a good President.

If given the choice in 2004 between voting for John Kerry and any other primate -- a gibbon, an orangutang, a baboon, if I'd have known that it would have brought a certain end to the Bushevik Dynasty, I'd have pulled the lever for the more sober, forthright, and honest choice.

That's the other circumstance that's as responsible as anything for some of the hostility to Hillary. Americans have understandably grown wary of political 'dynasties'. That's not her fault, and it's not a gender issue.

[Imagevision]

4. Skinner -> *wink...

[maddiejoan]

5. a very fair analysis

I'm an HRC supporter as well as consider myself progressive, and I see all your points as quite valid.

Many would argue I couldn't possibly be a progressive and support HRC, but I don't see the incongruity as I am aware of her dilemma.

I see a woman, in Hillary, who IS a true progressive, and find myself truly puzzled at why she is seen differently.
( I realize I will catch hell for this "blasphemy" of calling Hillary a progressive --so be it)

[LostinVA]

8. GREAT post

And, she IS a Progressive -- all you have to do is look at the total of what's she done the last three decades, and at her entire Senate voting record. She's ranked higher than Obama.

[TwilightZone]

11. You're not the only one.

In a poll another DUer posted a few weeks back, Hillary's favorability rating among "liberal Democrats" was 81% and among "liberals" was 80%.

The impression of her on DU would seem to be the exception, not the rule.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3572005

[Fresh_Start]

6. Skinner....I read the same thing about women in business

20 years ago....women were poised to take over CEO-ships.
But the numbers didn't tell the story. They were okay, 1 level down...but the last step was a killer. Okay so women have broken through....but not the way the numbers suggested.

I think that a woman has an incredible hurdle starting with what you mentioned but even including the BS about 'who wants to see an aging woman every day' BS coming from the right blowhards.

Plus the GOP is able to tarnish the dem candidates with their spouses because dem spouses are complete people and not Stepford people. Its not just HRC and Bill it was also Kerry and his wife and to some degree Edwards and his wife.

[Fresh_Start]

16. 2006 Forbes article -women are happy with the glass ceiling

they're happy to make tradeoffs between career and family life.
they're happy with the income desparity.

Skinner, we are all so blind.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. As an Obama supporter, who has been supportive of all our candidates, a hearty THANK YOU!

K&R

[Missy M]

9. Excellent post, only one thing to add...

when showing the amount of women governors and senators it should also be noted we have had 43 presidents and they have all been men.

[FREEWILL56]

36. I have to say you are wrong there.

There were 42 men as this idiot in the WH now isn't a man in my book.

[Bonobo]

10. You nailed it when you said: "think a woman running in a general election..."

"I think a woman running in a general election for president probably has to show herself to be as "tough" as all the male candidates, to compensate for lingering sexist stereotypes."

You're absolutely right. And she would continue to try to show how "tough" she is throughout her entire presidency. Not a good recipe. That is why I fear her. It is the "perfect storm"-like quality of her fierce ambition ("she wants it too much") and her willingness to put her finger to the wind and take the most politically expedient path.

She will do what it takes to make a good legacy as a president. She will be too careful, too calculating, not bold enough. She lost all her bold in the early 90's when her Health Care attempt was blitzed.

[juajen]

18. That is utter bullshit. Skinner is so right.

Hillary is walking a tightrope. Her ability to do this should show everyone how skilled she is and how ready she is to be President. Think, people! Could you be wrong? Can she just be trying to save this country for Chelsea and the other people who live and depend on the USA? Why in Hell do people have to give her diabolic ulterior motives in everything she does? Can it be, Peace on Earth, and we are letting it slip through our hands through sheer idiocy? She very well could be the best leader in the world for the 21st Century. I believe she is.

[Mojorabbit]

13. For me it is not that she is a woman.

I am a woman. She starts off with a good part of the population already viscerally not liking her which is a negative when it comes to pulling the country together to move in a new direction. She is also missing that certain something that I cannot identify. Barbara Boxer has it and manages to be tough, liberal, empathetic, and likable with a sense of humor. This is my own personal opinion. At the end of the day though I will vote for whoever is the nominee.

[mtnsnake]

14. Awesome, all-enlightening, & the last 4 paragraphs really are the heart of the matter, AFAIC

I agree the country is ready, I sure do. I think one of the biggest reasons the country is ready for a woman president (or a black president) is because George Bush has made everyone so sick of his overwhelming failures that people are ready to give ANYONE a chance. The more different they look than him, the better! For the first time ever, I've literally come across people who are saying they want Hillary or Obama to get a chance only because they're sick and tired of white men making such a mess of things. I think this is why Hillary and Obama are going to fight until the bitter end. Each of them knows that the timing may never be better for a woman or person of color to get elected, thanks to so many failures of white men before them, topped off by the monumental failures of the Bush administration.

I think a woman running in a general election for president probably has to show herself to be as "tough" as all the male candidates, to compensate for lingering sexist stereotypes.

No doubt about it. I also think she has to portray herself as more centrist than she really is, for fear of coming off as too nurturing...or too soft, and this doesn't jive too well with many progressives either, understandably. However, I think once in office, her true liberal colors will surface a little more, and that is the biggest nightmare of Republicans.

[Cameron27]

17. Thank you Skinner,

I can't say it much better.

[mtnsnake]

28. There's only one small thing that I wish he would have included in his post

That's if Skinner would have referred to Hillary as the Goddess of Peace just once :evilgrin:

[hfojvt]

19. et tu, Skinner?

When in doubt blame the progressives, the grassroots. We just do not understand. Hillary is really more progressive than Kucinich. She just has to pretend to be a corporate war mongering triangulator in order to be elected. She can't be true to her true progressive ideals, or she would never be electable.

Is that a fair paraphrase? Because it sounds like a DLC talking point, which says that only DLC-sounding candidates can win Presidential elections. Whereas I think if you give people MORE of a choice on economic issues, then they will be less likely to vote based on social issues. The matter with Kansas is that the DLC has blurred the economic distinction between parties, and Bill Clinton epitomizes that blurring. Bill Clinton. If Hillary had been President from 1992-2000 and Bill was running now, I would be just as turned off by his candidacy. I already voted against him twice, voting 5th party in 1992 and 1996 because he sounded too much like a Republican.

[Adelante]

20. America is ready for a woman president, yes nt

[Gman]

21. Damn, Skinner.

You're making entirely too much sense for the mood around here these days.

[OzarkDem]

22. Absolutely

were it not for her neo-con leanings, she would be my first choice. She still comes in second, though.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

24. Being a woman who both in and out of the military has dealt with ingrained sexism, I

have tremendous admiration for her. Politics is still very much a man's world, as is supported by the minimal numbers of women, who make up more than half the population of the country, in high governmental or business positions.

Sen. Clinton is extremely smart and articulate, her voting record is solidly liberal, she was an integral part of the most successful presidency, on many levels, of the last quarter century, she is a tireless worker, she has a great sense of humor and has proven to be someone who can be self deprecating and she is not intimidated by the men around her who are threatened by her strong persona.

I personally believe that she knows perfectly well what she wants to accomplish were she to become POTUS and I also believe it is much closer to what we progressives would like to see than she is given credit for.

However, she is in the almost untenable position of being the first woman who potentially could assume the presidency of this country and any indication to the braying RW'ers and corporomedia that she might lean left in her governance will be pounced on in ways that one won't see with a man who might espouse those same principles.

In my years as an American woman, I have seen great strides made for women, and have experienced it for myself, although personally I have also been at receiving end of domestic violence, sexual assault by an NCO in my company, passed over for a promotion and told it was specifically because the director wanted an all male workforce in his department, I've been told by male patients for whom I've cared that they could hit me and I would have no recourse, I've been at the receiving end of a date rape drug in my drink, I've been told by a landlord that he didn't rent to "single women", implying I was a prostitute and what's remarkable is that my stories are completely unremarkable, especially for the times in which I came of age.

Ask any woman my age if they've experienced one or more of these situations and they'll probably respond to at least one in the affirmative. I'm also proud that in each instance I stood my ground and when necessary, fought back, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

These experiences have certainly shaped my views. I look at all of them as moments to learn, to grow and move on. I have told my daughter, as have my friends with daughters of their own, being a female in this world today isn't easy. One is expected to look good, (but not too "slutty"), speak well (but don't have "attitude"), be assertive but feminine, tough but ladylike.

The balancing act, Skinner, of which you speak.

And, sadly, quite a few men and not a few women, will discount whatever our girls may say or do, merely because of their gender.

So, thank you for your recognition of the complexity of the issue and I hope if Sen. Clinton is our nominee she receives the consideration and respect that the other two front runners would receive, as well.

P.S. I still like Edwards of the three, so far.

:kick:

MKJ

2nd edit, nevermind...:kick:

[indimuse]

34. bhp..

:headbang: :cry:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

52. Hi indimuse

We're all in this together, :-) :pals: MKJ

[Radio_Lady]

46. BleedingHeartPatriot, thank you for a very admirable analysis.

From another woman who experienced so many similar experiences during my work years (1957 to 2001) and now retired.

My daughter is much more conservative and religious than I was, and seems happy to be married to a young doctor. She does a good job raising two young children. Her Master's Degree is in Jewish Communal Service from Brandeis University. Right now, she is working as an independent contractor for a health/beauty/nutrition company.

My granddaughter is almost 10 years old. I hope she inherits a world better than the one in which I found myself during my teenage. My own father denied me the advantages of seeking a career as a lawyer or doctor. However, my route into communications was sprinkled with men who either used me or abused me to gain their own purposes. Maybe I did the same; I don't know.

Right now, I am trying to be positive about the chances for our youngest female generation. But sometimes I wonder whether these scenarios involving sexism will ever improve.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

51. Radio_Lady, I commend you for leading the way. I am still in my work years, continuing to struggle

with the "good old boys" network, in the healthcare setting, especially now when MBA's, primarily male, are doing the so called bean counting.

Most of the experiences I listed occurred during my years as a young single woman in my twenties and early thirties. Now, I am much more assertive with a smart, very astute daughter who is attending college 2000 miles away from home, forging a life for herself admirably.

Although she embodies a lot of inherent feminist philosophies, she would never apply that term to herself, which is frustrating for me, remembering the not so good old days. The days when I was admonished about my tendency to speak my mind as being unseemly and unladylike, the days when the Breck girl was the image that was floated as the attainment of all things wonderful for us gals.

In fact, I was actually sent to some kind of beauty/charm school, seriously, when I was 12 or 13, by my frustrated parents, LOL.

I was a couple of steps behind the hippie/anti war/anti Establishment counter culture, but was fully immersed in the feminist movement.

I thank you for being of the generation that raised awareness of the cultural, political and familial restraints that were imposed on women during the years following WW II.

Hopefully, our daughters and grand daughters will not experience the level of sexism and attempts at oppression/repression that you and I lived, but, like you, I worry they may have to fight the same battles.

:toast: to you, RL, one my favorite voices on DU! MKJ

[spooky3]

58. great post, thank you.

[Tom Joad]

25. The world is not ready for the wars she is likely to support. The world is not able to sustain

Her support for Kyl-Lieberman is a real threat to the planet. Her gender is beside the point.
NO to war with Iran.
No to Hillary Clinton.

[LiberalFighter]

26. What about female rulers other countries in the past and present?

Female World Presidents Quite a few
Female Prime Ministers
Current Female World Rulers

I suppose American women are not as qualified as the women in other countries to be a President.

For those suggesting that America is a bigger country. Then none of the women that have held cabinet positions should ever had held those positions. Rice is the only female that never should had held a cabinet position.

[rpannier]

54. If anyone mentions to you about America being bigger I have 10 words for those people

Catherine 'The Great' of Russia and
Queen Victoria of England

Queen Victoria ruled over England during its biggest expansion -- The Sun Never Set on the British Empire

and if anyone says, "Well, that was a constitutional monarchy."

Catherine The Great of Russia ruled as an absolute monarch and Russia is bigger than the United States

[Evoman]

27. I find it ridiculous that women have been voted in as leaders in fundie muslim nations, and it's

still such a big fucking deal in the States. Argentina and Chile, both countries full of machismo bullshit (I am from one, and have visited both), voted for women leaders.

What the hell is wrong with the United States? For a western country, is sure is fucking backwards.

[Native]

29. What you've written is sexist - although I doubt you've noticed...

I'm not saying this to accuse you of being sexist, simply to point out how insidious this whole thing is. You wrote, "She can follow the do-what-white-males-do approach, and to a certain degree she should. I think a woman running in a general election for president probably has to show herself to be as "tough" as all the male candidates, to compensate for lingering sexist stereotypes." When you say, "show herself to be as tough," you insinuate that she isn't by nature as tough and that being male automatically endows one with the ability to be tough. Is this strictly a male characteristic? We all make prejudicial comments every day without realizing it; however, when you are writing on the subject, a little more care should be taken. Hope you don't take offense to this. I admire your views & remember when you would actually post them - many years back.

[electron_blue]

33. Good point - I argued this point with a friend awhile back.

It is usually assumed that if women are "tough" it's bcs they're acting that way, but you're right - many women are just plain tough, period. It's part of their personality, not an act. I don't think Hillary is acting tough. I think she is. She strikes me as tougher/stronger/more focused than either Edwards or Obama. To be fair, it isn't clear that Skinner implied that she was acting, but rather just letting a certain side show.

It is interesting, however, that Edwards doesn't have to look particularly tough and yet look at how far he's gone. It's not everything, but it is important.

[Native]

42. You're right - but think about this too...

you say, "it's not everything, but it is important." Notice that it only appears to be important in Hillary's case - as you said, "Edwards doesn't have to look particularly tough." That's part of the whole problem too: even though it is not everything, is it portrayed as everything. This is an aspect of prejudice that people rarely notice: something trivial or insignificant (relatively speaking) is elevated to a level of importance that it doesn't truly merit. It doesn't appear to matter whether Richardson or Edwards or Obama exude toughness, but it becomes all important for Hillary. I find it interesting that this is the only advice Skinner gives Hillary - the need to find a winning ratio in the balance of toughness and femininity. Which also leads to another question - what the heck does femininity have to do with anything? Are we talking about compassion? understanding? kindness? The ability to minister to the sick? To bat one's eyelashes in a come hither way? Or are we talking about showing more cleavage or wearing more lace? Why can't people just stick to words that have more relevancy, like strength, leadership, knowledge, perseverance, morality, compassion, understanding, etc.. It's not that hard to do. In comparing the candidates' qualifications, experience, platforms, and personalities, I have to say that Hillary's womanliness or lack thereof would have never entered my mind had Skinner not brought it up.

[electron_blue]

47. Yes, I know it only appears important in Hillary's case. That's part of the point

I was trying to make. If Hillary is President, then the next woman candidate for President will probably not have to appear as tough (regardless of whether it's her true nature or an act).

It's great that Hillary's womanliness never entered your mind, but I would say you're in the minority. And as a woman in a heavily male-dominated field, I know first hand what kind of balancing act is required to get a job, keep it and get ahead. I've been saturated in analyzing this over the last 20 years - because I had to.

Once a critical mass has been achieved (33%?) of female/males in a field, the balancing act is not so critical and being oneself becomes easier to do for women (and men).

[Native]

70. Why do you think we're so different though - the U.S., I mean...

as a previous poster mentioned, many countries don't seem to have a problem electing women to lead them - even Muslim nations. And, look at Ireland - their first female president is now in her 2nd term and has basically turned that country around. So, we don't just have examples of female leaders around the globe, we have stellar examples. When Ferraro was running I don't remember this much crap being bandied about in the press over her womanliness (except the crying incident) - Mondale’s numbers actually improved dramatically once he added her to the ticket. Maybe it’s just the press: they don't like Hillary and they've decided to do something about it. Check this out: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14148.html#more-14148
Here's an excerpt (one reporter's perspective, after the debate, on the herd mentality of reporters): "Ezra reported on what it’s like to watch this dynamic unfold in real-time...I must have heard the term “meltdown” in reference to Hillary 65 times. And I talked to reporters who would literally say, “I thought she did okay, but I just misjudged it” — the aggregate conclusion of the corps became some sort of objective, or at least agreed-upon, truth that the outliers measured themselves against. Very, very odd. Particularly because the part that much of the press liked least — her heated recitation of the programs she’s fought for — came off, to me, as one of her best moments.

Meanwhile, there is, on some level, an acknowledgment of the weirdness of all this. I was at a bar talking to some leftier members of the press last night when a reporter wandered up and asked if “we were discussing Hillary’s meltdown, or talking about real things?” Most of the folks I talked to happily admitted how unbelievably awful and surreal the spin room is, but everyone was in there. At one point, I asked an older reporter why everyone was assembled together for this debate, and he turned to me and said, “there’s no good reason. Reporters are creatures of habit, and all this is now habit.”

So Clinton’s flash of anger was a “meltdown” because the group of reporters collectively decided that it was. And they all reported on it the same way, because they knew to do otherwise would put them outside the group."

Jeez...

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. I'd say that "they (corporations) won't get a place at the table" is tough.

Certainly in comparison.

[Skittles]

61. she's gotta have "balls" - yup, that is the insinuation

it is sexist to suggest a woman must behave like a man in order to succed - absolutely

[Seabiscuit]

30. Any "vitriol" heaped on Hillary by progressives has to do with her Senate voting

record, her years of loud vocal support for this criminal war and criminal administration, her public lies about her positions, her refusal to give straight answers to simple questions in the debates, her ubilical relationship to the DLC, her corporatist policy positions, and her acceptance of large donations from (and consequent political indebtedness to) the very corporations who have been destroying our health care, our environment, our manufacturing jobs, our economy, and our foreign policy. Not to mention her kissing up to Rupert Murdoch.

That has absolutely nothing to do with any "lack of appreciation for the complex situation she faces." Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with sexism.

She enables the enemy. That's why.

To us progressives, all of the above is simply the truth, like it or not. If the truth appears vitriolic to some, then there's something wrong with those people's perceptions.

All that aside, I'd love to see a woman President. I backed Geraldine Ferraro when she ran for Vice President. It's just that Hillary is the wrong woman, just as, say, Ghouliani is the wrong man.

[LibDemAlways]

35. I agree completely. It isn't that Hillary is a woman. It's that

she's not what the country needs right now. I'm looking for someone who will seriously and forcefully kick repuke ass. Edwards is the only candidate who sounds like he's willing to do it.

[LostinVA]

38. HRC has a very liberal Senate voting rating -- it's 97% -- higher than

Other candidates.

[Seabiscuit]

39. Reminds me of the saying: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'll pay attention to real her words and deeds, thank you very much.

[LostinVA]

72. They are her words and deeds

As is her marching in Pride parades. The ONLY Dem candiadte to do it.

[Chovexani]

83. I met her at my last NYC Pride Parade

And I'll never forget how warm and amazingly awesome she was. She totally didn't come across as a politician schmoozing for votes at all. I was a member of the Marching Xenas and she complimented us on our costumes. It wasn't fake or phony at all.

I have really mixed feelings about her, as I do Obama. I want them both to succeed but they are just too corporate for me.

I'll say this though, if either one of them gets the nomination, I'll work my ass off for them. That goes for Edwards, too.

[electron_blue]

31. well said. It is complicated and I applaud her whether she wins, or whether I

even vote for her in the primary. The first woman, period, is going to have significantly more obstacles and hurdles to get over (due to her sex) than any other women after her.

One thing stuck with me over the years - it was a report on a study of senior black women who were very successful in tradtionally male-dominated fields - the military, politics, medicine and surgery, scientists, business, etc. And they said of the two - it was their opinion that it was the latter (being female) that they experienced the most discrimination for.

I agree the American public is ready for a woman President, but the first one is going to be a big deal, no matter who it is. *That* is a hurdle Clinton has that of all the candidates only Obama really understands.

As a woman in a heavily male-dominated field (physics), I've had to navigate the waters from below (as a student) and above (as a superviser). In my experience and from what I've seen in watching other women more senior than me, the issue gets more complex as one ascends to positions of more power, but it never goes away.

[indimuse]

32. ok...

thank you. very enlightening.

[wiley]

37. Yet many Democrats deny their misogyny and raging hatred of women

Hillary Clinton has actually earned the right to run for President more than anyone running. But we are not going to solve the heavily entrenched misogyny that men and self-hating women have had reinforced by every aspect of society.

[rodeodance]

40. Blacks got the vote before Women did in this country. Its a long laul for women.

[Native]

44. Amen! And you're one of only a handful of people I've run into who knows this.

How scary is that? Here's another one...my MIL, who is alive today, was actually born before the 19th amendment was passed. People find that as hard to believe as black men getting the vote before women. Oh, and what was the statistic that was recently in the media - some outrageous number - that supposedly represented the percentage of Americans who were sure the ERA had passed? We've got an MLK day (and rightly so), but ya think we'll ever get a day off in honor of SBA? Never.

[rodeodance]

48. we got the coin--which people horde or try to get rid of quickly.

[Native]

71. Oh yeah, forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me....

I'll wrap a few of them up & give them as gifts to my daughters - with a card that says, "Sorry girls, but it's the best we could do."

[LulaMay]

82. Women are always asked to "wait" and put men first

Not only did black men get the vote before women, black and white, we didn't get it until over half a CENTURY later. The suffragist women were told by male activists that if they supported the 15th amendment without demanding women be included, then our turn would quickly come next. It was a lie. We didn't get the vote for more than half a century later, after women had to chain themselves to the White House fence, be jailed and endure torture with force feedings. We still have no ERA, no constitutional protection of equality. Hillary is the only candidate who has mentioned it. I am very excited that I get to vote for a woman, a brilliant woman, for President.

[niyad]

41. a thoughtful post. should, perhaps, have mentioned other women

who have run for this office, including victoria woodhull in the 1800's, and shirley chisholm and sonia johnson more recently.

[LynneSin]

43. Why must I wait for Hillary to be nominated to be ready for a female president

:shrug:

I was ready about 2 decades ago - bring it on!

[youthere]

78. But darling...you know you've ALWAYS been ahead of the curve.

:*

[EFerrari]

45. It would help reconcile progressives if she were progressive.

In any case, I'm glad she's running. It doesn't finally matter what I think. What matters is that she is breaking new ground for women in our government.

[Larry Ogg]

50. If you want a woman union steward running the country vote for Hillary

If you want a president running the country vote for Kucinich

[Tactical Progressive]

53. Know what's amazing? No, make that disgusting.

Publicans know better both what a true progessive Hillary is, and what a formidable politician she is, better than Democrats do.

And there's still more disgust than that: it's even possible that through their hatred, Publicans might actually respect Hillary more than many Democrats do.

[ruggerson]

55. Thanks Skinner

I've long held similar views to yours regarding sexism and racism in our society. I think we, unfortunately, have a long way to go on the former. Even people who consider themselves staunch progressives don't recognize the double standard when it comes out of their own mouths or is written by their own pen.

k&r

[spooky3]

56. I like much of what you say, but I don't understand your comment that

"the map favors a woman candidate." Compared to whom?

I think you are presenting your numbers in an incomplete way, leading to misinterpretations. For example:

--given that you are talking about ALL governors throughout history, 29 is an extremely small number. How many governors have there been, "throughout history"? Let's roughly estimate 5 governors per century per state (yes, I know that we haven't had all 50 states in all centuries but the conservativeness of the other estimates offsets this), and only 2 centuries -- that's 500 governors. 29 out of 500 governors is good? How exactly does that suggest that times are so favorable for women candidates? If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare the number of CURRENT INCUMBENTS who are female (9, the highest number ever at one time, per http://www.womenscolleges.org/news/governors.htm) to the number of current governors (50). Or, report the 500 along with the 29. That 29 doesn't look so impressive, once you report the appropriate denominator.
--in employment settings, affirmative action, etc., it is very important to compare current incumbents' demographics to the availability in the population (e.g., of qualified candidates) to get an accurate picture of the extent of underrepresentation, which can ultimately reflect the extent of discrimination, depending on other factors. When you "compare that (the # of governors, etc.) with (the # of governors, etc. for) African Americans", it is extremely misleading not to mention that women are 51% of the population and African Americans are fewer than 13% of the population. If you wanted to refine this further by defining only certain people (by age, education level, relevant experience, etc.) as qualified, then again, you have to do this for all groups; the proportion of available women would decline, but so would the proportion of available African Americans, etc.
--even if women were now fully represented in and did not ever experience discrimination in the mid-level positions, the presence of women in "middle management" positions is *not* an indication of the openness to their holding the TOP positions (analogous to the argument that their presence as governors or senators in some states suggests that this means the door is open at the president level). Many people are comfortable enough today with women in middle level positions as long as they aren't too powerful, just as in the 50s they were ok with women in lower level positions only. But take a look at the number of Fortune 500 companies headed by a woman today and you will see the number can't possibly support an interpretation that women have reached the *top* (check out the Catalyst website, for example).

Finally, I am afraid you have fallen victim to some of the all-or-none thinking that permeates DU at times when you say:

"While I do not consider the vitriol that progressives heap on Senator Clinton to be overtly sexist"...

In fact, people can have mixed motives for their vitriol. And some progressives in fact HAVE said overtly sexist things. Your statement doesn't address this part, but it is important: there is evidence of a tremendous amount of sexism that may not be *overtly* expressed, because some people are careful enough not to give it away.

It would be just as unfair and contrary to evidence to say:

"While I DO consider the vitriol that progressives heap on Senator Clinton to be overtly sexist..." because it treats all of the vitriol as being motivated by sexism, which it is not.

Thanks for your thoughts and the opportunity to comment on them.

[scytherius]

57. BAckwards USA

We are one backwards-assed country if we even have to examine the question of "whether we are ready for a woman president." So lets all get in our pick-em-up trucks and take us some immigrants back across the border!

What a useless country this is.

[wisteria]

59. Thank you for this post.

As a woman, I realixed perhaps too late what she has faced as she tries to become President.

[Skittles]

60. IT IS RIDICULOUS (although I understand)

THAT WE ARE EVEN HAVING SUCH A DISCUSSION - WE ARE OVER HALF THE POPULATION, NOT ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE

[Tactical Progressive]

64. Women do it to themselves

That's the saddest fact of all. Women could elect a woman any time they want. There are plenty of us men who would help that along, in fact are trying desperately to help that right now.

Unfortunately, some of the most ugly people against Hillary are women. Many right here on DU.


Btw, regarding aliens from outer space. We'd elect an alien before we'd elect a woman. Assuming of course that there were male and female aliens. An alien male would be a big 'change' from a quarter-millenium of human males.

As would an Asian male, a Hispanic male, a Jewish male, an Indian male, an American Indian male, a Russian male, a Venezuelan male, a Lithuianian male, a Muslim male, a Serbian male, a Vietnamese male, a Belgian male, a Phillipino male, a Nordic male, an Australian male, an autistic male, a deaf male, oh, my fingers are getting tired at all the big 'change' that awaits us.

[Skittles]

67. hmmmmmmmmmmm

most women I know vote based on who they think would be the best. I don't know any women who would refuse to vote for a man/woman but I cannot say that about the men I know.

[alllyingwhores]

62. I think the more pertinent question is...

Is corporate America and the corporate media ready for another corporate bought and paid for whore--regardless of the sex?

And, I think we can all agree they certainly are...and, in fact, they'll get it one way or the other--if she wins the nomination and goes on to win in the general selection, they win.

Or if she gets the nomination and loses out in the national selection because sexism (real or fabricated), they still win.

...and, the same goes for Obama--just switch out sexism for racism--they're both corporate whores.

[Tactical Progressive]

65. What defines a 'corporate whore' for you?

[MichiganVote]

63. .......because as we all know, liberals and progressives are never sexist

Or are they?

[gdaerin]

69. But just not her, this a shameless ad!

[LostinVA]

74. A "shameless ad" -- HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

I'm betting Skinner finds that funny, noob.

[Orsino]

73. Whoever the Dems run will win.

That's the most hopeful sign of the election cycle. America doesn't seem to care all that much that Clinton is carrying a concealed vagina, or that Obama's mother married an African man.

[D23MIURG23]

75. I think the US is ready for a woman president.

I don't think the US would benefit from Hillary as president.

[peacetalksforall]

76. Skinner, 'how'd' you get so smart? I think you should run. I approve your message.

[Cronus Protagonist]

79. If Edwards wins, are we ready for a POPULIST president?

Want some salt and pepper with that crow? :P

[goldcanyonaz]

80. Fired up and ready to go!!!!