Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by Senator Clinton, Supports Barack Obama

Crossposted at DKOS

The singlemost recognized icon of American Feminism has acknowledged the irreversible precendent set by Senator Clinton, and announced her endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President.

More below the fold.

Gloria Steinem Supporting Obama

Ms. Steinem believes that the candidacy of Senator Clinton has done a great deal to advance the issue of Women's Rights, and has permanently changed the landscape of American politics.

"I think she changed forever our understanding of the possibilities of leadership," Gloria Steinem said of Hillary in a Herald interview after a morning appearance here. "She showed such courage in the face of a media that was trying constantly to get her out of the race and all the misogyny . . . She put up with that with grace. She enlarged my vision."

I agree with her.

It seems obvious that whatever notion had existed that a woman could not be a viable Presidential candidate is gone.  If Senator Clinton had lost the race to a male candidate who was widely accepted as being inferior - one who had not run a strong campaign, was supported by large established Powers who had labored to maintain the status quo - then it would be easier to believe that this barrier to entry still existed.  But instead, by most measures the candidate chosen is a come-from-behind runner with his own demonstrable merits - one who has won despite having prejudicial barriers of his own to overcome.

On accusations of sexism by the Obama campaign, Ms. Steinem disagrees with many of the Senator from New York's more outspoken supporters:

Yet Steinem blamed us in the media, not Obama, for the sexist cracks ("Hillary reminds me of everybody's first wife," etc.) She also said the two candidates' positions are practically the same. In other words, issues matter to Steinem, though clearly not to everybody.

Ms. Steinem goes on to say that not only does she now endorse Senator Obama for President, that she will now volunteer with his campaign.  

It can be hoped that the words of Ms. Steinem can not only help to heal the rift within the Democratic party, but can go some way to heal the wounds on both sides of the divided feminist movement.  Many women, both younger and older, who have supported Senator Clinton feel deeply betrayed by their sisters pulling for Senator Obama.  Many women supporting Senator Obama have felt alienated from those women supporting Senator Clinton.  Ms. Steinem can play a key role in mending that tear in the fabric of Progressive Feminism.

So as we move into the phase of the presidential election cycle where the two parties compete head-on, the most well-known leader of gender parity in history recognizes the campaign of Senator Clinton as a win for women's rights, not a loss.  It seems possible that as more people have time to reflect on what was achieved by Senator Clinton that there may be more recognition of the precendent that she has accomplished, and which can now never be undone.

Ms. Steinem has set her sights now on furthering the goals of women's rights that she has so effectively fought for all of her life.  She has picked her battleground to wage that war on, and it is against the GOP candidacy of Senator John McCain.

I am with her all the way.

Tags: clinton, Feminist, gloria steinem, obama (all tags)



Re: Gloria Steinem Says

Well said.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-05 03:03PM | 0 recs
But David Broder ripped Obama today

And this in the Barack-loving Post:

But for all his achievements and advantages, Obama limped into the nomination as a vulnerable and somewhat diminished politician. After winning 11 primaries and caucuses in a row in February, his magic touch seemed to depart him. He lost the knack for winning the heart of the Democratic coalition, working families that look for help in meeting the economic challenges of their everyday lives. White, Hispanic, middle-aged or older, many of these voters had strong associations with Clinton and many questions about the commitments that lay behind Obama's sweeping, reformist generalizations.

What Democrats are just beginning to figure out is that John McCain is positioned to compete with Obama for the votes of the many Americans who are eager to put the hyper-partisanship of the past eight years behind them and witness a Washington that finally begins to address the nation's challenges.

But anyone who is realistic must recognize that forging fresh agreements in Congress and the interest-group-dominated capital will take an exceptionally strong president. Since early March, Obama has not looked like that president. Once his streak stopped, his only significant win came in North Carolina. His losses included Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and, on Tuesday, South Dakota -- states where he didn't get that working-class vote. tent/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403050. html?hpid=opinionsbox1

by katmandu1 2008-06-05 03:09PM | 0 recs

Irrelevant trolling.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-05 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

Gee..David Broder vs Gloria Steinhem...

Wow, that's a tough call for me to make?

I'm sticking with Gloria on this one.

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-05 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

Well, Broder is kind of an idiot.

by EvilAsh 2008-06-05 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

He is sooo fucking wrong.....

Watch what happens this fall.

by nwgates 2008-06-05 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

Please David Broder please.  Continue to be an asshat and falsely assume that this "disillusionment" is going to last against Barack Obama.  It would be awesome to see you wrong again.

by zadura 2008-06-05 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

slight correction, the technical term is "assclown" all the filth and twice the fun! :)

by zerosumgame 2008-06-05 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

xerox why dont you!

I called you that a couple days ago.

Anyways, glad to hear you are supporting Obama for President!

Welcome aboard......

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-05 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

well seeing as I normally do not read anything a McLame troll like you writes since it is always stupid and childish, you go right ahead and feel all pretty and powerful in that since it is obvious you are the opposite in real life.

And it is also painfully obvious you are not just slow you are terribly self-inflicedly un-informed. if you had really any clue about who I am and what i say (as opposed to your normal knee-jerking while typing) you would already know that I have said here several times that I voted for him on Super Tiesday, and it is just the divisive and stupid McLamers like you who I oppose.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-06 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

as usual crickets from the troll when it's ass is handed to it.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-06 06:19PM | 0 recs

The most sincere form of praise is emulation (or however that saying goes).


God, I love that.  Whatever happens, I want to have more laughs like that...



by chrisblask 2008-06-06 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Stolen!

so that crush the dnc 2008 is your McLame sockpuppet, and add to that you seem to think you invented the word. how pathetic, as pathetic as trying to patent "let's roll", oh wait were you the repthug who tried that? LOL I bet you wish you were :)

by trytobereal 2008-06-06 06:23PM | 0 recs
I have a haddock in my stroller

Hi! My name is Chris Blask. I`m sorry, I missed yours?

by chrisblask 2008-06-06 06:49PM | 0 recs
Maybe Obama is going to suffer from

that massive "Bush Bounce" that Broder is predicting any day now.  

by Dumbo 2008-06-05 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: But David Broder ripped Obama today

Who gives a shit what David Broder says? Really.

This column is as vapid as his others. So Clinton fought hard to the end and held on to her demographic strongholds. That doesn't mean those demographics will choose McCain over Obama, despite the efforts of McCain.

by elrod 2008-06-05 08:08PM | 0 recs
Broder is pretty omniscient

He did predict Bush's resurgence in popularity...

by magster 2008-06-06 07:41AM | 0 recs
Tips for Roxanne and Christine

Let's not allow my daughters to grow up under John McCain.

by chrisblask 2008-06-05 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for Roxanne and Christine

would tip you if I could, chris.

by JoeW 2008-06-05 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for Roxanne and Christine

Better McCain than race-card Obama.

by trixta 2008-06-05 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for Roxanne and Christine

Race car Obama, faster than McCain's remote con-troll.

by catilinus 2008-06-06 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for Roxanne and Christine


Thank you catilinus!

You stopped the knot in my stomach before it got started.  I can take a hit as well as anyone, but seeing my daughter`s names in the Troll comment was a bit nauseating. Breath, breath...

then laugh.

Those who espouse hatred cannot fight for freedom, but they do make for fun charicatures...



by chrisblask 2008-06-06 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for Roxanne and Christine

Thanks Chris. I know the knot you're talking about.

by catilinus 2008-06-06 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for Roxanne and Christine

Hear, hear!  I cried on Election Night 2000 as my one-year-old daughter slept peacefully.  I watched her dance obliviously as the TV behind her showed the Twin Towers burning.  Now I have three children, and they deserve Obama.

by deminva 2008-06-06 07:05AM | 0 recs
Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by...

Yes She Can! Thank you Gloria Steinem. She is right that Senator Clinton broke through all barriers and should be commended. I am also glad she has thrown her support behind Senator Obama. We must recognize what problems that McCain will continue for our country.

Go Democrats!

by heyhellowhatsnew 2008-06-05 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by.

Agreed.  Both broke through major barriers and will hopefully make it easier for a minority or for a woman to run for President, Senate, or Other State and Federal Offices in the future

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-05 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by

That's an important endorsement. Gloria Steinem is a feminist icon especially among first generation feminists.  It's important that she's separating sexism in the media from the Obama campaign, emphasizing that you can't attribute media sexism to the Obama campaign.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-05 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by

Real feminists know there is no hope for women or America in electing John McCain.

by mydoubled 2008-06-05 03:08PM | 0 recs
Glo is right.

Great statement by her.

by TomP 2008-06-05 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by

Good for Steinem

by notedgeways 2008-06-05 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by

I didn't see any sexism from the Obama campaign either .

by lori 2008-06-05 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by

It is good to hear you saying this Lori. I know that you are a fervent Hillary supporter. I also know that you have been incredibly reasoned and civil in the discussion here.

I truly hope that the true Clinton supporters here at MYDD will follow your lead. I also believe they will, and that we have begun to see it already.

by JDF 2008-06-05 03:28PM | 0 recs
I too will join his campaign and work my butt off-  IF he offers her the VP slot.  She can reject it- and I will be on Obama's team.  He must at least offer.  That's my decision - based on many, many things.  I don't care really how anyone feels about it.  My vote, my decision. If she doesn't get the offer- not sure how I will react- but I will not donate nor promote Obama.  
If she had won she would've been FORCED to choose him.  It's a two-way street.
by easyE 2008-06-05 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: IF


Even if he offers it, I think there are really sticking points?

Obama will want to vett Bill, look at the library donor list, ask about his business deals post the presidency?

I can't see the Big Dog accepting that?

Nope, I think the deal is sour both ways, so you can't really blame Obama.

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-05 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: IF

Yeah this is totally what it will come down too IMO.  He will ask to get to vet her, Bill, and Chelsea...she will ask for an exemption and he will say no.  And that is that.

by kasjogren 2008-06-05 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: IF

I've read that elsewhere.  In particular, the vetting seems to focus on contributions to the Clinton Library and foundation.  Quite possibly a non-starter.

by deminva 2008-06-06 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: IF

I don't think EITHER could've been FORCED to accept the other. The nominee gets to choose, that's it. (Not that there wouldn't have been calls to put him in the VP position had the outcome been different. We can all agree on that, I think.) But it's not something that can be strong-armed.

I think the deal-breaker on this would be the vetting process. Bill would have to open up all of the contributors to the Clinton library and his foundation and that's not something he's keen to do.

Clinton's in a tough spot right now. She can't say she DOESN'T want the VP slot (though I believe she doesn't) because she'd get hammered for not believing in Obama's chances in November. But, she can't say she WANTS the VP slot because it will look like she was holding her voters over Obama's head and trying to muscle her way onto the ticket whether he wanted her or not. (So, he's stuck turning her down so he doesn't look weak, and her supporters have a fit.) So, she's taken the MOST non-committal position, that she would take it if offered.

Eventually, I believe Obama and Clinton will work this out so that 1) she isn't on the ticket, which is what they both want but can't admit, and 2) people don't freak out over it.

It's bizarre, sometimes, when two politicians actually agree on something and can't admit it for fear of public reprisals.

by EvilAsh 2008-06-05 03:34PM | 0 recs
I think there are better jobs for her

The VP job has traditionally been the Back of the Bus.

After Cheney, I almost think that it should be...

I`d bet there are more rewarding, more powerful and more appropriate things that Sen. Clinton can do than to simply backup the president.

by chrisblask 2008-06-05 03:58PM | 0 recs
This was not the tenor of Ms Steinem's remarks

She did not qualify her endorsement with a proviso.  

by NeciVelez 2008-06-06 03:08AM | 0 recs

This is HUGE. And I agree. There was a lot of stupid misogyny in the press (Chris Matthews and everybody at Fox News spring to mind), but it didn't slow Clinton down. That's something we can all be proud of.  

Hopefully, this will inspire people like Geraldine Ferraro to take a good hard look at what they want for our country, and will allow many of the other second-wave feminists to begin the hard process of letting go.  

Regardless, Clinton's opened the path and the next time a woman runs for president, she won't automatically be an "also'ran".

by EvilAsh 2008-06-05 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says


I read this diary just as CNN revists the 'lets all laugh at Hillary' Hillary moments. Ahh yes from the nutcracker to evryone making fun of pantsuits.

I realize that Americans are superficially driven. Apperances matter, I just wish the ISSUES would matter more.

--thansks for your diary chris. Steinem is showing that she cares about the issues at hand. good to know.

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-05 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says
Yeah, the CNN crap really wasn't necessary. But, you know, there's no low that the pundits won't stoop to.
I had much the same feeling during the day and a half coverage of Obama's bowling score. They basically called him 'girly' because he sucks at bowling. It was grotesque.
by EvilAsh 2008-06-05 03:36PM | 0 recs
The cons of a Free Press

may be legion, but the Pros outweigh them hands-down.

In China you can pickup the english language newspapers and get what passes for a Progressive media there. It has been a few years since I have been there myself, but from all reports nothing has changed.  Apparently, all of the Five Year Plans are Ahead of Schedule, and Workers are Happy...

A Fillipino cab driver who had been shot for saying the wrong things about the Marcos' told me they had a saying then in Manila:

`The only things true in the newspaper are the sports scores and the weather.`

Give me the ugly American press any day...

by chrisblask 2008-06-05 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The cons of a Free Press

Agreed in full.

I just kinda wish they would take their responsibilities more seriously. They're not just there for ratings (though that's how they act.) They are as much a part of our system of government as the Legislature. Never forget that the airwaves they use on belong to US, not them.

They have a duty. If they'd been doing that duty in 2002 instead of obsessing over Brittney Spears and American Idol, we might not be at war right now.

Oh, look at that, you set me off on a 'press needs to step up' rant. I haven't had one of those in a while. Amazing what happens when we're not at each other's throats over the nominee all the time.  

by EvilAsh 2008-06-05 03:48PM | 0 recs
That is OK, we are taking their responsibilities

from them... ;-)

Welcome to the New Media.

Welcome to the Public Media.

by chrisblask 2008-06-05 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: That is OK, we are taking their responsibiliti

Amen to that.

by EvilAsh 2008-06-05 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says

I tell you though, if issues where paramount we wouldn't exclusively elect Extroverts (in the technical sense) to high office. We elect different people, and they hold different policies and opinions, but we exclude a hell of a lot of qualified people because they don't fit our image of a leader. Appearances matter, witness the Kennedy and Nixon debates, admitadly I am glad Kennedy won, but a lot of people voted on how Nixon looked, not what he said. Clinton had a much better chance of being elected then say the person who runs the non-profit I work at, even though I think he may do a better job... same goes for Obama. We ALWAYS elect the same kind of people, even though I firmly believe there are much better qualified, less gregarious, people out thee.

Personally I wish we had workman type leaders, that we where not so top heavy with a president which wields so much power concentrated at a point. A government that, if the top elected official died in some manner it would not throw everything into paralysis and chaos. (the Swiss have something like this), It just seems so... flash.

by notedgeways 2008-06-05 03:47PM | 0 recs
You are welcome

and Thank You.

Do not worry, There is Something Happening in America.  And a huge part of it is happening right here.

The so-called Mainstream Media simply is not, anymore.  This Medium may be new, but it is spreading like wildfire and the Television Media is having an awkward midlife crisis.

Honestly, it is a circus on TV these days.  The substance can be found here, and millions of people are finding it.

Next, hundreds of millions, then billions.

I do not know what it will look like in the end, but it will not look like CNN/FOX/MSNBC does today...


by chrisblask 2008-06-05 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by

I'm probably going to spend the next week throwing shoes at the TV.

by Jess81 2008-06-05 03:45PM | 0 recs

Literally, still chuckling...

I have a visual in my head, please do not disillusion me....



by chrisblask 2008-06-05 04:10PM | 0 recs
I'm with Gloria.

The media sucks!

by psychodrew 2008-06-05 03:46PM | 0 recs
I need to ask this

because of some of the comments here and mainly at Dkos about the sexism not coming from Obama ...

let me ask this to all Obama supporters...

can you all "now" agree that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are NOT racist? The racism was not coming from them?

by kevin22262 2008-06-05 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I need to ask this

Uh..... I never said they were racist.  I thought their campaign was playing with fire and pushing racial divisions.

It's just the way I see it.  I can't help it.  Wouldn't have stopped me from voting for her had she won, but I can't lie about my own opinions.  And even if I could, I'm white and would still have to defer to EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON I KNOW - and that's the majority of people I know outside of my immediate family - who thinks that the Clintons were targeting them.

by Jess81 2008-06-05 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I need to ask this

And maybe I shouldn't say anything in the spirit of letting bygones be bygones, which I'll admit is easier for me because my (second choice) candidate won.

But I do need to point out that it wasn't as if people thought that the Clintons were themselves racist.

by Jess81 2008-06-05 04:02PM | 0 recs

I have written a lot about this - and lost my rec/rate here for going on a killing spree on everyone who said that either the candidates or other posters were Sexists or Racists.

Those ists played a hand in the overall public consumption of the campaign - how could they not have? - but to think that any of these three (Barack, Hillary or Bill) are either is stretching the bounds of credibility.


by chrisblask 2008-06-05 04:09PM | 0 recs
I will say that

the media blew it up the issue of race in this campaign, just like the media blew up the issue of gender.  Yes I will admit some of my favorite people on TV like K. Olberman, R. Maddow (though not so much here) and E. Robinson have some guilt and I hope they work to remedy that in future coverage.

by Student Guy 2008-06-05 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I need to ask this

It wasn't about the Clinton's being racist.   It was about them indelicately discussing (and playing to) racial divisions when they should have known much better.  

Take, for example the infamous "hard-working white" people comment Hillary made. Can you imagine if Obama had taken a similar tack and said that Hillary had a problem with winning the vote of "hard-working males"?   It would have been rightly panned as an appeal to sexism.   And Hillary's comment was rightly panned as an appeal to racist sentiments.    

by gobacktotexas 2008-06-05 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I need to ask this

I believe Hillary phrased it that way because if she just said 'hard working people' (the usual Democratic euphemism for the working poor) it would not have been true.  All AA demographics by that point were overwhelmingly favoring Obama.

She fell into the trap of repeating what the media called her supporters, who whatever else they were, were overwhelmingly white.

And guess what?  As it happens, they were.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-06 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I need to ask this

I don't think they are racist at all. I think that it's possible that someone in the  Clinton campaign thought it was a good political strategy to try to make Obama "the Black Candidate" rather than just a candidate. Somebody did- not saying it was them.  All I know is that at some point I felt like I had to preface every comment or email with "FYI, I am a white female"- when exactly that happened I don't know- but the campaigns became more racially charged and gender related at some point. I think it was the Geraldine Ferraro comment that caused it to get so bad.  Prior to that I never felt like I was supporting a black male and not supporting a white female. I didn't see race or gender. Then it changed. It was really weird.

by Voxlisa999 2008-06-05 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I need to ask this

Being racist and being a smart enough politician to know what dog whistles to blow aren't the same thing.

by kasjogren 2008-06-05 04:22PM | 0 recs

There was some racism coming from Clinton suporters and sexism coming from Obama suporters. Primaries bring out the worst in some people and we shouldn't fight about that kind of stuff.

However it is pretty clear that Barack Obama who has been a champion of womens rights for a long time is no sexist and that Bill and Hillary Clinton who have been champions for civil rights for a long time are not racists.

The small bit of racism and sexism did not come from the top and they did not decide the nominee of this party. I think for the first time we had a women and a African American who won huge amounts of support on there merits not on their identity. That is a huge accomplishment and we should be proud as Democrats about that. No longer can the media naysay candidates beacuse they don't fit a certain mold.

Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are all fighters for womens rights and civil rights. None of them are racist or sexist. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. We are lucky that such talented and passionate people ran for president.

by Populista 2008-06-05 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I need to ask this

I respect this question, and it's a fair question, although I don't believe that Obama's campaign not being sexist is dependent on Clinton's surrogates not being racist.

I still believe that the Cintons are RACIAL, which is different from being racist.  Racist is believing that blacks or other minorities do not deserve the same treatment as whites or the majority race.  I don't by a long shot believe the Clintons are like this.  They have marched in civil rights movements and fought valiantly for civil rights.  However, many of their comments recently have pushed me to believe that they are racial, which basically in layman's terms means that they still have hang ups with black people.  A lot of people still have unfounded hang ups with black people.  But this type of attitude is something we should work towards getting past as a society.  (And stating this does not mean that I don't deny that many men and women, while not necessarily sexists, are genderists, which means they support traditional gender roles or have hang ups about people going outside their traditional gender roles.)

I hope this comment doesn't offend you.  I'm trying to take a stab at genuinely answering your question.

by The Distillery 2008-06-05 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I need to ask this


I have never thought the Clintons racist.  However, I do believe they tried on multiple occasions to play race in their favor and learned how toxic the topic can be.  (Far more toxic, I would argue, than sexism and misogyny, which permeate our culture.)  I'll offer three examples.

1.  Bill Clinton seeking to diminish Obama's SC victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's two SC primary wins.  Why Jackson?  Why not Edwards in 2004?  I believe he was trying to pigeonhole Obama as having won because he was black.  Not racist in itself, but offensive to me nonetheless.

2.  Hillary Clinton and her campaign trying to claw back in the race in March by arguing that working-class white voters wouldn't support Obama.  As part of this, they played up the Rev. Wright story as much as they could.  A different tack would have been to make an honest play on the issues for the votes of African Americans.

3.  Tuesday night, when Clinton didn't mention African Americans as a constituency on whose behalf she's been fighting.  Perhaps she just gave up on that constituency, feeling bruised and bewildered--or simply pragmatic--that their votes had gone so overwhelmingly for Obama.  Nevertheless, her campaign seemed not to speak directly to or for African Americans for much of the spring.

I certainly won't lump surrogates' comments into a blanket condemnation, although I think there was much to abhor about what was said by Andrew Cuomo, whatshisname Sheehan in NH, and Geraldine Ferraro.

by deminva 2008-06-06 07:16AM | 0 recs
Gloria Steinem Supports Barack Obama

Steinem is aware that you either support Obama or you support someone who called his wife a "cunt."

by rf7777 2008-06-05 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Supports Barack Obama

Can I borrow this for my sig line:

You either support Obama or you support someone who called his wife a "cunt."


by xdem 2008-06-05 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Supports Barack Obama

Sure!  It is certainly better than your name.  Does that mean Ex-Democrat?  Nooooooo....

by rf7777 2008-06-05 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Supports Barack Obama

It's actually my initials. I come from a Hoity-Toity French Catholic family who gave me 4 names - but it is an interesting coincidence that XDEM could be taken that way.

Nothing I've posted here would lend credence to your theory.

by xdem 2008-06-05 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The "C" word

I support someone who called his wife a "cunt"--at least he said it himself, rather than use slimy surrogates to do his dirty work for him.

by trixta 2008-06-05 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Surrogate

Hmmm, or is it obviously a McSame troll tactic to drop an insinuation about something that never happened and imply that the Democratic Nominee was to blame for the thing that never happened?

That's not change we can believe in my fwends heh heh....

by xdem 2008-06-06 06:16AM | 0 recs
Welcome to the Slam McCain Hour!


Did anyone see the McCain Green Screen thing on Colbert?

This is going to be a fun few months.  Every once in a while you get to shoot fish in barrels without feeling guilty about it.

That's not change we can believe in my fwends heh heh....


by chrisblask 2008-06-06 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The "C" word

I would be more likely to use that, if it were not that the corroborating people who claim to have heard it are all anonymous, so it relies on the word of a guy selling a book.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-06 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: The "C" word

I support someone who called his wife a "cunt"--at least he said it himself, rather than use slimy surrogates to do his dirty work for him.

by trixta 2008-06-05 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps Gloria

Unity is a key here.  This is from King's last speech.

"Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we've got to stay together. We've got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity." Martin Luther King, "I've Been to the Mountaintop," April 3rd, 1968.

The above quotation is used in:
"1968-2008  Forty Years"  (A brief photo essay)

by Mitchell A 2008-06-05 06:14PM | 0 recs
I am so glad to hear this

It has completely irritated me that Obama was being accused of sexism, maybe some supporters were guilty but never Obama...I hope this clears this situation up once and for all and I would like to acknowledge Gloria Steinem for her honesty and standing up for justice and fairness.

by netgui68 2008-06-05 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I am so glad to hear this

Well--I would definitely say the sweetie / Peggy thing was definitely gender-questionable.  (whatever the equivalent of 'racial' that the poster above used)  Heck, if he had said it to me while I was calling him Senator Obama, as the reporter did, and it was in a professional situation, I would have wrapped my husband's cane over his head.

Obama is well old enough to understand how objectionable it was.

Then he phones in an apology and calls her Peggy instead of Ms. whatever her last name was.  Geez.

In the pre-1990's days, The boss is Mr SoandSo.  The secretary is Peggy.  When the boss is hitting on the secretary, she is sweetie (or something similar).  

In your home, the wife is Mrs. B, the husband is Mr. B., the house cleaner is Hazel or Rosie or whatever.  Check out any old movies and you'll see how it is.

The equivalent is Hey boy.

This is why Obama himself admits it's a bad habit that he has to break.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-06 07:27AM | 0 recs
That may be a generational thing

I don`t call anyone Mr. or Mrs. if I am speaking to them.  The only honorarium title usage I engage in is when talking about someone (Senator Clinton, Mr. Walker...).

This is the way modern business discussion are handled.  You can be the CEO but you are still Jane or John.

At any rate, I still believe that it is not entirely logical to think that any of the folks running for this office - or their spouses - would intentionally engage in disrespecful or demeaning behavior of any sort.

Sometimes holding the door is just polite - I hold doors for everyone.  No doubt sometimes folks think I am being condescending, but I just have to stick to my own ethics and be comfortable in my own head that I do not mean to offend.



by chrisblask 2008-06-06 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: That may be a generational thing

Yes, and the way I have handled the door thing for years, is I thank the person who holds the door for me.  (i.e. I want them to know, I do not assume they must hold it because I'm an old lady)

And yes, I do think the sweetie thing is generational.  However, when dealing with a broad public, you (and Barack) should always use a relatively more formal usage, because it is never wise to annoy a constituent/voter/citizen needlessly.  Recall that Hillary got the older vote--this stuff was one reason.  

I'm sure to a younger generation than me, the Peggy wasn't annoying, particularly, but at my age (61) it was also questionable.

However, even the youngsters I know find sweetie questionable in a business setting.  

Heck, let's really get back in the day.

Have you seen how MLK is introduced is old films as The Honorable Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King?  Now that is real formality!  In the same parlance, Howard Dean would be The Honorable Chairman Governor Doctor Dean, I guess.

In the same era, you were brought up to call anyone about 5 years older than you as Mr or Mrs.  I recall with some chagrin when I embarrassed some folks in their twenties once when I was 19 or so in just that way.  They didn't feel old enough to be Mr. and Mrs.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-06 08:50AM | 0 recs
Points well taken

All in all it is true that it is best to be as polite as possible in all cases.

I learned that lesson in South Carolina in my 20s (in the 80s).  Manners, manners manners...  Prior to that I felt that calling someone Ma'am or Sir somehow denigrated myself.

Since then everyone is Ma'am or Sir.

Not defending every word by Obama (inside the volunteer groups we rolled our eyes and banged our heads against the keyboard often enough with the granularity of some things he said). But it is very hard to say anything without offending someone.  My own words are vastly imperfect in that sense, and some have been shoved back down my throat by folks who took them (sometimes understandably) precisely the opposite as they were intended.

Some of those base Christian concepts I was taught come back in these contexts.  Forgive when appropriate, chastise when needed - but look past the words and try to find intent at all times.



by chrisblask 2008-06-06 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Gloria Steinem Says Precedent Has Been Set by

Big deal.  I doubt that those outraged by HRC's mistreatment will now blindly follow suit.  In fact, there's an explosion of websites and blogs of HRC supporters who are organizing around the awesome populist coalition that Hillary has inspired.  

Check out the website for the upcoming million women march in Denver.  

In any case, Steinem can vote for whomever she wants--just as millions of HRC supporters can choose NOT to vote for the savior candidate in November.  

by trixta 2008-06-05 09:30PM | 0 recs
I teach women's studies

and as part of the "beauty image" section of the course we discuss stiletto heels as instruments of torture for women.  Part of the Barbie syndrome.

So if a group of pseudo-feminists want to conduct a 300 woman march on Denver in high heels, I hope they have good podiatrists.

by NeciVelez 2008-06-06 03:30AM | 0 recs

by JJE 2008-06-06 09:18AM | 0 recs
Underqualified white candidate?

Hmmmmm. Losing to an unqualified black candidate also reeks of sexism not to mention reverse racism. For confirmation, check out yesterday's nytimes graphic on the margin of the candidates victories in various counties.

by Ignored and Disgusted 2008-06-06 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Underqualified white candidate?

John McCain is Ignored and Disgusted, but keep trying to get him some attention....

by catilinus 2008-06-06 04:36AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads