In August of this year, American women will have had the right to vote for exactly 88 years. It was during August of 1920 that the 19th Amendment was finally ratified, after a 72 year battle waged by suffragettes. It is with this in mind that I write today about the events of the Democratic Presidential Primary campaign and their impact on women's rights.
The campaign for the Democratic Presidential nominee began last year with a large field including an African American man and a female candidate, something that we haven't had in this country since 1872, when Victoria Woodhull, a suffragette, ran as the nominee of the Equal Rights Party. Hillary Clinton was the clear frontrunner. A lot of people, myself included, thought she would cruise to the nomination, considering her qualifications. By April of this year, though, something was very wrong.
Throughout the campaign, some members of the media managed to dredge up a brand of sexism that women my age thought had finally become politically incorrect. We watched in horror as Hillary was reviled in the press. When it seemed they couldn't question her experience, they questioned what she wore. When it seemed they couldn't question her proposed policies, they brought up that her husband had an affair. When it seemed they couldn't figure out why she was ahead, they tore her down with some of the most vile hate speech that this country has been exposed to in years, including comments such as taking her behind the barn, stereotypical "bitch" and more that I cannot even put into print. They repeatedly called for her to drop out. No one asked any of her male opponents to drop out.
By April, the contest was down to two candidates, Clinton and Obama, and Pennsylvania was about to vote in this historic race. Barack Obama had stumbled in the beginning, as he had only spent one year in Congress prior to running, without producing any earth shaking legislation. His time in the Illinois State Senate wasn't incredibly groundbreaking, either. Still, though, here he was, and it seemed that the press loved him. If he goofed, he gave a little speech, and the press all but crowned him as the next Martin Luther King, never mind that actions speak louder than words. It was almost as if they were afraid to say anything bad about him. Was it for fear of being branded a racist? Look what happened to Geraldine Ferraro for simply speaking the truth. Whatever it was, he got a huge pass. Meanwhile, his opponent was being attacked almost daily in the press. Apparently, its ok to revile a woman, but not a black man, and seemingly worse, it was ok for women to pile on as well. The Maureen Dowds and the Arianna Huffingtons of the media world were having a ball, and not one of them seemed to care what they were doing to members of their own sex.
Now, let's step back to the year 1913. Its March 3rd, and suffragette Alice Paul is leading over 8,000 women down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, on the eve of the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson, in an effort to call national attention to the fight for women's suffrage. The scene turns ugly when scores of male onlookers attack the women, first with insults and obscenities, and then with physical violence. All the while, the police stand by and watch, but do nothing to protect the women from the assaults. (Are you seeing any similarities here?) The very next day, Alice Paul and her suffragists made headlines across the nation and women's suffrage is finally a popular topic of discussion.
Now we're back in 2008, and Hillary Clinton has won PA. The very next day, the press began dabbling in a tactic called race baiting. The gist of it was this: Hillary only won PA because the white voters would not vote for a black man and were therefore racists. The facts were clear, though, for anyone who chose to avail themselves of the truth. Women and Catholics voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in PA. Yet, some members of the media, and the DNC began to throw out a subtle threat. The threat was this: If Hillary wins the nomination, the African American base in the Democratic Party will revolt. Although they are not the largest voting bloc in the Democratic Party, they wanted us to believe that if they were not happy, they would hand John McCain a win in the general election by staying home. Others took the threat a step further, hinting at riots like we saw in the 1960s.
Next came Indiana & North Carolina. In NC, Obama won by 14 points. Hillary overcame a deficit to take IN. Calls for Hillary Clinton to drop out started again, never mind that her opponent also lacked the required number of delegates to get the nod. She (the woman) should just step aside and let him have it, even though she is heavily favored in the upcoming states of West Virginia and Kentucky, and even though she has a huge base of women voters across the country. In fact, most media outlets have declared that it is over for her. But, again, no one mentions us women voters.
In all the press that has surrounded this campaign, one very large and important voting bloc in the Democratic Party has been ignored. Women. Women have come out in huge numbers to support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Many of us who have voted for her will choose to either vote for McCain in the general election or just stay home if she is not the nominee. Why is this not being discussed? Why are women being pushed to the back of the bus? Along with the women, they have reserved seats on the back of the bus for Latinos. Their votes are no longer important, either. To the Catholics, Jews, white men and the rest of the Democratic Party: the bus will leave without you. It appears the African American vote is the only one that carries any weight with the Democratic Party.
As I write this, West Virginia will vote today. Hints of the spin we can expect in this upcoming loss for Obama have already started to emerge. Again, it will be race. Personally, I'm done being disgusted by what this campaign has done to race relations in this country. I've moved on because what I find more upsetting is that NO ONE has brought up what I just did, that women have been shoved to the back of the bus and told that our votes are not important. Ignoring the power of the women's vote in this country is a form of voter suppression. I write this as just another woman voter. I write it because if Hillary said it, they would trash her into next week. I write it for Alice Paul and all the other suffragettes who paved the way for women like me. I write it because all the women in the upcoming primaries in WV, KY, OR, PR, SD and MT need to come out in force and exercise their right to vote in a way that stands up for all women and our right to vote and be heard in this country, because WE ARE A VOTING BLOC THAT CAN TURN AN ELECTION, and as such we deserve to be treated with respect. If we don't, 2008 will go down in history as "The Year American Women Lost the Right to Vote" in this country, and we will only have ourselves to blame.
Signed,
"Just a Woman Voter"
Sandra Moore is a free lance writer and small business owner living in PA.
This is a really important piece. I couldn't agree more. I am an Australian woman in my fifties following the campaign intensely over the internet and other media. I stumbled on your article when looking for current news of the West Virginia primary.
I have been shocked at the sexist cruel portrayal of Hillary Clinton by the media and by so many members of the public online, during this campaign. My theory is that this is part of the backlash against feminists - all strong potentially powerful women are taken down, one way or another. I have worked hard all my life for women to be considered equal and have two daughters (adult age). Both my daughters are so disappointed in how Hillary has been lambasted in the press.
You have a really great article here and I hope many others will read it.
Sharon
by
Sharon Light (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9:38:12 AM
I am a white woman that is only a few years younger than Hillary. I have a professional career that was a maled dominated field. I always went out of my way to not expect special/different treatment because I was a woman.
I find asking people to vote for Hillary because she is a woman to be very insulting to all women.
Obama has always gone out of his way to not be the "black" candidate.
Hillary has shown no self-pride by the many deceptive things she has done to win at any cost. She has definitely not done what is in the best interest of anyone but Hillary.
The Clintons demonstrated years of unethical behavior during Bill's Presidency. Hillary has repeatedly lied to the Americian people. The Bosnia sniper fire lies were disgusting beyond believe. Even worse was telling the voters of Indiana and North Carolina about a worthless gas tax holdiay that she knew Congress would never pass.
When Bill was President, I told my sons that Bill did terrible things and I did not want them to be like Bill.
I now tell my granddaughters that Hillary's lies are despicable and she should not be role-model for anyone.
If Hillary cared about her supporters she would not be attacking Obama to help McCain win the election.
The Saturday Night Live comedy skit on March 10th about Hillary was not the least bit funny because it was the tragic truth.
I encourage all women to vote for Obama to stop the devisiveness, pull our country together, and improve our image and standing in the world.
The statements about Hillary being more experienced than Obama are not accurate. Do some research about the accuracy of the statements and check Obama's website for his position on issues.
by
Laura Kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM
The article infers white people will not vote for Obama. However, there are many other considerations besides Obama's race.
In Pennsylvania, Gov Rendell is very popular. He had a strong "polictical machine" in place. On Hannity and Colmes they measured body responses to ads. The ads with Rendell got very favorable results. Rendell claimed that PA would not vote for a black person. He did promise to campaign for Obama if he won.
Next, Rush Limbaugh urged Republicans to vote for Hillary, which has been shown to have had an impact on the elections in Ohio, Texas and Indiana. Ohio also had a very popular Gov supporting Hillary.
Look at the statistics before Limbaugh: Iowa has a population that is about 97 percent white. Obama won 35 percent for both men and women. Hillary won 23 percent men and 30 percent women. John Edwards won 24 percent men and 23 percent women.
Why was Limbaugh pushing Hillary? I suggest it was because she has so much baggage, including some things that have happened after Bill's time, which Obama did not use against Hillary because he did not want to run a negative campaign. Obama only became negative against Hillary after she started the negative attacks.
by
Laura Kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 11:13:30 AM
And so true. The sexist beasties have certainly come surrrying out of the woodwork during this campaign.
From the idiots at MSNBO to commenters on various supposedly progressives sites all over the internet, sexism is the ugly little not-so-secret tactic.
Why ask HRC to bow out now? -- Teddy "I didn't know it was a bridge" Kennnedy and Jese Jackson BOTH took their respective primary fights all the way to the conventions -- even though they had absolutely no hope of winning. But no one asked them to quit. Nope. But then again, they're guys and belong to the guys club and so other guys won't ask them to do something like that. Because, y'know, it's a guy thing to take the fight all the way.
by
fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 5:02:21 PM
I was very interested in Hillory Clinton, and thought finally a women has a chance to be the next President. What changed my mind was the fact that she supported the Invasion, and occupation of Iraq. This is a criminal act in the eyes of most of the world, and in my opinion disqualified her. No matter what she has done, this showed a total lack of good judgement.
by
Rolland Miller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 5:37:32 PM
Roland - I think you need to do a little research. Based on the intellligence reports that were supplied to Congress and appropriately doctored by Bush & Cheney, Congress believed that Saddam had WMDs. If you were a member of Congress, you would have done what most of them did, which was believe those reports and act on that intelligence to protect the country. Frontline did a very interesting piece on this called Bush's War that you should watch, but perhaps that show does not air in your country of Canada. If it doesn't, you can watch it here:
After reading some of the comments posted to my article, I have to tell you, that my point is proved. Instead of reading the article and "getting it", there are posts about Obama & the Iraq War.
You proved my point! People are ignoring the power of the women's vote in this country. THAT is what this article is about, not Obama and not the Iraq War.
by
Sandra Marcella-Moore (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 5:59:34 PM
The DNC sore losers' society simple cannot fathom the fact that a woman, wife of the only 2-term Democratic president we've had in the White House since Roosevelt, is (gasp!) doing the unthinkable - proving that's she can get what they've always drooled over - the presidency. To counteract, they pull out a completely inept unknown, make him their puppet while they pull the strings. Hell has no fury like the egos of old farts, apparently. They conveniently forget that the Clinton years we ones of peace, prosperity, and a balnced budget.
Ohhh...but no....Bill did bad things.......
It makes me laugh to hear all these women ramble on and on about Clintongate and how "appalled" they were. In the end, how the Clintons or the average Joe choose to conduct their personal life is none of anyone's beeswax. These same "shocked" women are on the same side of Ted Kennedy, someone who literally got away with murder, and Jesse Jackson, who fathered a child out of wedlock.
This, I guess, is their take on hope and change. You're right, Sandra, to the back of the bus with them.
by
Conchita Vecchio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 6:00:17 PM
Hillary Has Lost It 'Cause She Was Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
Hillary lost her historic bid because she has been WRONG. Wrong on Iraq, on the bankruptcy bill, on the Patriot Act, on Kyl-Lieberman, etc., etc.
I was excited when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker--even dreamed about Air Force I and Air Force II colliding (Oops!), leaving us with President Pelosi!!
(That was before Nancy sold out and became a passive war supporter.)
So I'll never vote for Hillary or Nancy because they have been WRONG so often.
However, I will be writing in Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) in November because she will be better than Barack, than Hillary, than everyone else except Dennis Kucinich.
by
R. Queisser (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 58 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:16:41 PM
You have published your first article on opednews. Congratulations!
Please understand that you have chosen a topic likely to engender debate. It is neither necessary nor productive to flag every comment that doesn't support your view. Accept that there are readers at this site who hold opposing opinions. That is legitimate discourse.
The purpose of "comments" is to advance conversation on all sides of the debate - those that support you, and those that do not.
Linda Milazzo, Editor
by
Linda Milazzo (103 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 134 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:23:08 PM
I agree with the article. But I don't think that the power of the women's vote is the only thing missing. What happened to the issues? Why isn't there any discussion on things like health care. I am voting for the candidate whose health care proposal looks the least like a forced buy program. The candidate who seems to have the most reasonable take on leaving the war. I dont care if it is a three legged purple cow, if they can pull us out of our Republican induced tail spin I shall give them my backing.
by
Mary Hodgman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:27:09 PM
Mary--its funny that you mention healthcare and that you are voting for the candidate who isn't making it a "forced buy". That is an unfortunate smear against Hillary's healthcare proposal that has been perpetrated by the Obama campaign.
The bottom line on healthcare is this. Unless every last American is included in the pool, the costs will never go down. The only way costs go down (specifically the actual cost of the doctor visit or the ER visit) is if everyone is in the mix, from the young & healthy to the older and infirm. This is the only way there will be a balance in cost which will then drive the premiums down as well as the service costs down. Your own insurance premiums include a $900-$1000 price point that covers the uninsured. This means that for every extra cost that is passed on in provider service fees by the providers who treat the uninsured to the insurance companies, there is extra built into your premiums to cover this. The providers have to charge higher fees to cover what they cannot recoup from the uninsured's unpaid bills. This means the insurance companies pay out more and they pass that on to their members. This results in the extra $900 - $1000 that insurance companies then charge their member.
Hillary's health insurance plan provides AFFORDABLE coverage to everyone. Trust me, if you were one of the 1,000s of people every year who has to file bankruptcy because of unpaid medical bills, you would understand how unbalanced our healthcare system is. If you were one of the people who has a relative die because they had no coverage and cannot afford to pay out of pocket, yet make too much to qualify for Medicaid, you would feel differently.
And, finally, all you need to do is ask yourself why pharmaceutical drugs are cheaper in countries like Canada. Its because everyone is in the pool, which balances the competition and controls the prices. They don't actually cost that much. If you believe that $70 for 30 pills in the USA that cost $5 in Canada is fair, then you are missing the point of healthcare reform.
by
Sandra Marcella-Moore (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:57:28 PM
Thank you for referencing Alice Paul. She is certainly a woman to look up to and one who is not often mentioned in our history books - at least not when I was a kid. I only learned of her when my daughter started attending the same Quaker school where Paul graduated high school. If readers have not yet seen "Iron Jawed Angels," I highly recommend it. See trailer here.
She truly sacrificed for our right to vote. But I would venture to say that Paul sacrificed for our right to vote for whomever we saw fit. I can only assume that she dreamt that there would be a day when there would be a viable female candidate. But I seriously doubt (based on her life and belief system) that she would vote for a woman simply because of her gender. She was far too principled for that. And, as a Quaker, I find it hard to imagine she would be eager to vote for someone who speaks of "obliterating" another country. So, to bring up Alice Paul, the "war issue" naturally comes into play. I have concerns regarding Obama on that issue as well, but McCain? We can be sure of his agenda in that regard.
Your comment about media suggesting there might be riots over the Pennsylvania primary outcome is a first for me. Do you have a source for that? Are you suggesting that people were concerned that African-American voters would literally take to the streets and physically riot because Obama lost the primary?
Finally, can you explain why you and other female voters might choose McCain or stay home rather than vote for Obama?
Thanks
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 15 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 299 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9:47:49 PM
Hi, Cheryl--yes, Alice Paul was a Quaker, and, in my personal opinion, one of the more interesting suffragettes who worked so hard to get us our right to vote. We will probably never know if she would have advocated voting for a candidate just because she was a woman. However, I do believe that Alice would be saddened to see women attacking othe women not on actual qualifications, but on what they wear, or what their husbands did, or other trivial matters and is such a vicious manner. Nor do I believe that she would he happy to hear the hate speech that other women have used against Hillary Clinton. Its not just men, you see, and I mentioned that above. Women have piled on as well. I also believe that Alice would probably have strong opinions on what I pointed out above, which is that the voices of millions of women in this election - over 8 million to be exact- are being discounted.
Regarding the riot suggestion made in the media, here are a few examples:
Regarding McCain, my comment was many Clinton supporters would either vote for McCain or just stay home. Personally, my choice will be based on who has the qualifications to run our country if I choose to vote in the general election. Its about experience. Nothing more, nothing less. We have had 8 years of incompetence from Bush, and we don't need another 4 years of incompetence because of inexperience, particularly given the point our country has reached. We have a troubled economy and huge foreign policy issues. Hope & Change rhetoric cannot solve this. Experience can.
As far as other women, I hear similar comments, but you can pretty much visit any political blog these days and hear more opinions from women posting their specific reason for either voting for McCain or staying home. Its a pretty popular topic right now.
Thanks.
by
Sandra Marcella-Moore (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:23:53 PM
While the President can use influence Congress and can veto bills, Congress determines the details. The final details will probably be considerably different than what Clinton and Obama have proposed.
A President that is good at bringing people together has a much better chance of getting a health care initiative passed.
by
Laura Kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9:52:18 PM
Hillary has been a senator for eight years. What has she accomplished?
Hillary has a worse senate record than Obama.Hillary has been a senator since 2001. Obama has been a senator since 2005.http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html
Neither Clinton nor Obama have sponsored a bill that became law.Hillary has been a co-sponsor on six bills that became law.Obama has been a co-sponsor on four bills that became law. Two of the passed bills were co-sponsored by both Clinton and Obama.
Clinton has been a co-sponsor on 632 bills.
Obama has been a co-sponsor on 461bills.
I am curious what Hillary has done that is "ground breaking or even mediocre?
Hillary would not be a candidate if she were not married to Bill Clinton. It has been Bill's popularity and his campaigning that has kept her in the race, not to mention the considerable help from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Bill Clinton's considerable political power was still not enough to get Hillary elected.
by
Laura Kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:53:50 PM
Wouldn't it be something if a vote like Hillary's in the senate for giving Bush the right to use military force was the deciding vote? But, it wasn't. There was no way Bush couldn't get the votes he needed. To vote against the war powers you would have to identify, as John Kerry actually did but Mrs. Clinton did not with the extreme wing of the party that opposes all military confrontation on all fronts. I know some of you are for exactly that.
I think it is sexist in itself that the first viable woman must be a former First Lady. I have seen many women I thought would make good candidates and good presidents, like Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. There are now even more women in congress than ever before and in governor's mansions but I seldom hear of their presidential aspirations.
I think the Clinton presidency was good for us. We balanced the budget and we lowered the unemployment to unprecedented levels. To be sure, we couldn't get as far as we liked on cultural issues like gay rights but we did assure gay men and women in the military that nobody had the right to probe into their lives to find out their sexual orientation. That was the point of don't ask and don't tell although I know many gay people want to tell and it is probably more psychologically beneficial to be out.
It has been many years since the Clinton administration and I think the Obama campaign is using the public's fuzzy memory to confuse the Clinton adimistration with the Bush administration. There is a big difference.
I hear a lot about lying here and I don't undestand why it applies to Hillary, Mrs. Clinton. I know that Mr. Cllinton lied and he did it under oath and has suffered the loss of his right to practice law thanks to that but he was the first president in our history that the court determined should be allowed to be sued while still in office.
I had my questions about President Clinton. I didn't like the way he ate. I'm a vegetarian and I wondered why he never ate vegetables. He is a christian and I follow a guru so I wondered that he never reached out to we who meditate and visit ashrams.
But in the late 1990's I finally got back to school. I got back to school and when I did I got a job through financial aid. I am thankful to Bill Clinton for that and I am also thankful to Hillary Clinton for not being a cow of a First Lady, for not baking cookies, for speaking out on political issues, for defending her husband even though he had been caught in a lie.
I was happy when Hillary ran for the senate in my former state of N.Y. I still love N.Y. after 38 years in Florida. I remember Robert Kennedy and Charles Goodall. I also remember James Buckley and the divisive run for the democratic nomination for senate in 1992. Geraldine Ferraro looked to be the first woman to win the democratic nomination when Elizabeth Holzman threw her hat into the race and divided the women's vote. A man won the nomination. I don't know who he was and I don't even know who won the seat but my best bets on the republican.
I wish we could run some wild rocker for president who did drugs his whole career and steadfastly refuses to send our troops anywhere but I know such a person will never win in this the richest, most powerful nation on earth. There are too many factors. This country just isn't simple enough or small enough to elect such an idealist.
And so my support is for Hillary Clinton, United States Senator from the state of New York.
by
Eddie Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 3:58:55 AM
