Gender Betrayal

By
Friday, March 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

It is more than a little painful—some would say ugly—watching Hillary Rodham Clinton fight to the last to hold on to her dream. This was not the way it was supposed to be. The presumptive heiress apparent to her party’s nomination, she was supposed to, if not exactly coast to that nomination, at least have it sewn up before now. But it all got away.

Part of it, of course, is the charismatic upstart who slipped into the lead with his graceful oratory and charismatic calls for change — making Clinton look retro-partisan and old hat, a trench-warfare policy wonk who couldn’t rouse the heart.

But part of it is even crueler: Hillary Clinton did not hold on to the women’s vote the way she needed to. It was their hearts—or many of them, anyway—that she left untouched and that, in a nutshell, is what has cost her the lead, and perhaps even the nomination itself, barring any miracles or major missteps on the other side.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Oh, she did get a good deal of the women’s vote. She held on to lower-income, non-college-educated women. White women, that is. Black women, of all incomes, voted for Sen. Barack Obama. But she didn’t hold the allegiance of her own cohort: the higher-earning, college-educated white women who you would have thought—she must have thought—would be hers for the asking; especially those of us who, like me, are her generational sisters.

I have been privy to heated battles among women, joined a few myself, as we’ve wrestled with the Hillary factor. With what we owe her, what she owes us, what we want from her — gyrating, some of us, between gender loyalty and attraction to the new kid on the block, a less blemished, less obviously manipulative candidate.

Though one could argue that Obama’s alliance with Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., a man whose extreme views he seemed genuinely not to share, was in effect a strategic—if also emotional—alliance, an attempt to be part of the black inner-city Chicago political world where he got his start. He is an operator, too. He didn’t want to play the race card, but played it with oratorical flourish when forced to.

Not Clinton. She never played the gender card, never figured out how to make it work for her, for the rest of us — how to summon up the old historical goose bumps by conjuring the days we stormed the barricades. The first woman president of the United States: it should or could have had resonance. Meaningful even for younger women who get bored by feminist memories of yore, but who might have been reminded at how few female leaders there still are—only a handful in high elective office.

But she never played it, never reached and grabbed for the sentiment, never let us register any of the precedent-setting excitement her victory might bring. In fairness, she didn’t want to be patronized as the “girl” candidate — notice, for example, how often she is referred to as “Hillary” while Obama is called by his last name — or accused of reverse sexism. Indeed, she was accused of precisely that when she dared to talk about the historic nature of her run.

No doubt she is mindful, as well, that women still get judged more harshly — not just by men but often, and especially, by other women. In all the Wright brouhaha, Obama was not accused of being a Machiavellian panderer. But there is pander involved — he spun it pretty, but it’s there.

Had Clinton had such a rhetorically incendiary spiritual leader, she would have been vilified to the max for making an unholy alliance — what some, again often women, have accused her of making with her own husband. Best not shed a tear, even in exhaustion, if you don’t want to be dissected by the bully boy cable quipsters—from O’Reilly to Matthews and back again–as one of those emotionally volatile, manipulative females.

So no, can’t go there. Better leave the gender card on the table.

There was the other issue, of course, the fact that, to be viable as a woman candidate—certainly in the general election, for which she was positioning herself — she had to be tough, show she could reach for that phone at 3 a.m., send young men to die in battle. As if that’s what we need more of.

The irony, or ironies, is that she was running like a man to be the first woman president, leaving Obama to out-soft her and garner the vote of those white, liberal, educated and more anti-war women voters. Her people, her sisters.

Sorry. Not this time.

The truth is much of her reluctance to use the gender card goes below posturing and polls. It goes right to the edgy, toughened heart of who she is. Unlike Obama, who is a post-racial, bi-racial candidate, Clinton came of age in the thick of her particular fight. She has had to battle so hard so long, right from her childhood home.

She had, like so many of us in her generation, one of those larger-than-life, autocratic Greatest Generation fathers. These were the stiff-upper-lipped, old-school dads, who believed a woman’s place was in the kitchen…or bedroom, but not in the boardroom. Certainly not in the White House. These are the men who made their daughters feminists, made them fighters. I know; I had one.

Then, of course, in Hillary’s case, she married a man who was her intellectual partner — but also a philanderer. That roughened her up and toughened her up even more. Combat is in her nature.

I don’t think her Iraq vote was pandering or positioning. I think she believed it to be right at the time—which is why she has never apologized. Just as she has never allowed herself to be judged for standing by her man, always deflecting any pity that might come her way because of his predilections.

Less well-off women, women who’ve had it tougher, give her a bye—more than—because they do identify with her and her stubborn, even admirable, endurance in politics and marriage. But her natural generational and gender allies have abandoned her for the more graceful, less battle-scarred male candidate.

As are most things having to do with the Clintons, this has been absolutely Shakespearean to watch.

Anne Taylor Fleming is a novelist, commentator and essayist for “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.” She is the author of a memoir, “Motherhood Deferred: A Woman’s Journey.”

Categories & Tags: Commentary| Politics|

Comments

47 Comments

sarcastic
Comment posted June 15, 2008 @ 12:59 am

Male, Female. White, Black, or other. Educated or uneducated. Our country needs to get it together. The next time you are walking to your car late at night look out….an uneducated, desperate American may be watching. Perhaps not Al-Qaeda but….. Oh yeah, at least Barack and Hillary proved that the progressives have some energy and fight. Go team Go!


workingsinglemom
Comment posted May 17, 2008 @ 12:04 am

I think it is a really sad state of affairs in this country right now. Especially when people can’t spell America properly even in the comment section posted herein. I would have really liked to have seen a woman president in office. I don’t believe she played the gender card well as she was too male in her approach she didn’t let her female side "softness" if you will, show through until the last leg of the campaign, by then as many of you have said, she had already lost the support of the white educated women. Sad news is when Obama gets the nod, most Hillary fans will turn and vote for McCain, as this country really isn’t ready, sadly enough for a black president, watch and see.


mclaren
Comment posted April 18, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

Kittycat, since when does the president, whether male or female, provide for you or anybody else? Hillary "offers" you health insurance. Yeah, she bravely wants to hit up your neighbor to pay for your health insurance. Or worse, she wants to hit you up to pay for your neighbor’s. The war costs pennies compared to what we spend on follies which the government has no right. Maggie Thatcher she ain’t. If she was, she’d already have won.


kittycat
Comment posted April 3, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

The most astounding aspect of beating Hilary out of the race even though she has not lost it, is how many excuses people, but mostly women, will find not to vote for a woman who, as the only candidate, offers them health insurance and who, as the only candidate, helped them to get maternal leave.

As a professional woman, I am surprised and disappointed in women who clearly fell for the gender trap and expect a man to look and provide for them.

As Obama is soundly beaten by McCain the war drains all our resources, people die in thousands and at home we keep dying of treatable diseases that no one will insure us against and we cannot afford to pay for the medication, remember you are victims of your own folly.


lvdragonlady
Comment posted April 2, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

First off, she should have NEVER made comments like this ->At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines last November, she cited the quote,


sm999
Comment posted April 2, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

Not a great analysis. We’ll see how much Obama is a post-racial, biracial figure when the GOP unleashes the big guns. BHO has a great many challenges to overcome.


eyesonthestreet
Comment posted March 30, 2008 @ 6:21 pm

I have read many articles and a book by you and listened to you on the radio, but by far, this is the most absurd piece that bears your name, Ms. Fleming. Her peers, woman over 60, mostly white and educated are her ground troops. These are woman showing up to do the work for Hillary. It is absurd to say "But she didn


veritas78
Comment posted March 30, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

"…always deflecting any pity…"

Are we talking about the same candidate? Her campaign (and career) has seemed to me like one long game of playing the victim card. When a villain isn’t handy, find one, like Bob Shuster. It’s why she’d make a lousy president — the public doesn’t want a victim as a leader.


vivt
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 8:42 pm

well, drifting off task here, but what the heck:

taylortoone: I don’t think we are in disagreement about fundamental weaknesses in HRC’s putative candidacy — experience (peripheral), independence (missing: take look at The Body of War [Spiro&Donahue], especially at the montage of senators at the podium repeating, word for word, every GWB fabrication concerning WMD’s, Al-Queda-Iraqi connivance, etc ad nauseam), authenticity (watch, in the NH video, how ferociously she works the room with her eyes, gauging the response of every person in the room), flexibility (?), adaptability (??). What people, me, too, at moments, admire is the fighter — but so what, ultimately: this isn’t a Golden Gloves tournament, right? And 4,000 US lives, 30,000 US casualties later, 750,000+ Iraqi lives and several million Iraqis displaced, HRC still does not get it, as ariehl points out above.

the worst of it is: if these three are the best the country can up with, what does that say about the corruption & depravity of the political system?

(by the way, don’t underestimate the RNC oomph that was thrown behind Lazio in 2000 — he could easily have stepped into D’Amato’s shoes, dogshit and all, against a less-feisty opponent.)


taylortoone
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

Hillary, or Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Hillary Clinton HAD to support the war. Why? Because had she voted against it, she would ‘appear’ as ‘weak’. So she voted for it and now we have 4,000 American dead. Heckuva job, Hillary.

Vivt: Hillary ran against one of the weakest candidates the GOP ever had…Hillary was lucky: she had her husband and Rudy dropped out. Face it, Hillary never earned anything on her own….she owes her entire career to Bill and the follish women that support her merely because she’s a woman.

If I said: "I’m voting for McCain because he’s a man" that would be sexist, but if I say "I’m voting for Hillary because she’s a woman", all the so called ‘feminists’ would cheer. Again, a TRUE feminist does not vote on gender, age, or race. Just foolish ones do.


ariehl
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

Before the Iraq vote, I wrote to my Senator, Hillary Clinton, and urged her to vote against the measure. I got back an email which said, in essence, "You don’t understand; there are weapons of mass destruction there."
I believe that Clinton believed that, but that does not absolve her of the vote. There are weapons of mass destruction in many other countries. There was no reason to believe that any of them in Iraq were aimed at America. It was all a scam. Many Democrats saw through the chicanery; Hillary did not. That disqualifies her from the presidency in my mind, no matter what her gender.
I am an educated woman of the same generation as Hillary, and I have to say most of my compatriots in the same demographic are strong Hillary supporters.


vivt
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 2:02 pm

‘…notice, for example, how often she is referred to as


taylortoone
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 9:51 am

Hillary didn’t use the gender card? Oh come now. She used it in NH…she used in the debates….and, no doubt, she will use it again. And when you think of her ‘experience’, what significant experience has Hillary garnered by herself? All her major ‘experience’ has been a direct resulf of who she married. Would she really have been picked Healthcare Tsar if her last name was Connors? We must face the fact that Hillary Clinton, most of her adult life, has had a free pass to her success….She didn’t ‘win’ it. It was handed to her by her husband. She never would’ve won New York had she not been married to a President. And when she doesn’t have the "experience’ to boost herself, she lies. It’s time we move on from such reasons to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone based on gender, race, or age. That’s what a TRUE feminist is.


sunset
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 8:38 am

Considering a recent study which concluded that nearly 40 %of workplace bullying of women is done by women, I’m not surprised that Hillary’s playing of the gender card (and I do believe she did through her surrogates at least) hasn’t worked for her. You see, the gender card doesn’t necessarily work.

I’ve been bullied more by women than I ever was by men. I’ve had the gender card played by female coworkers throughout my entire career as a means of manipulating and marginalizing me. I’ve been treated with more straightforwardness and respect from men than I ever have have experienced with women. I suggest that Hillary’s failure to play the gender card successfully is because too many women recognize it for what it is – playing the "best friend" card whilst stabbing a "competitor" in the back. Playing the gender card is essentially a ploy to get power through manipulation and sex discrimination. A lot of women – even older white women like me – know it.


nellre
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 2:23 am

Hokay byby washington "independent" from my favorites list


pathfinder
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 1:31 am

Great piece, Ann Fleming, balanced and on the mark, with your perfectly metered voice audible. And, although I’m part of the demographic sector that has not gone her way, I continue to support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy because, quite simply, her policy proposals continue to be the most progressive of the remaining candidates. But also because I know where she’s coming from as they say, and as you say. I see her pain, and feel that it’s time to let a woman be all that she can be!


mikemidcity
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

BTW is that a picture of Senator Clinton or Wal-Mart Executive Board Member Clinton?

Just wondering.


mikemidcity
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 3:50 pm

Gee Ms. Fleming, I agree with most of your article.

Except … I feel that her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq couldn’t have been any more considered, calculated, callused then coldly cast only to shore up her National Security credentials. At the time of the vote, Americans favored the action so was a safe vote for her.

It was also wrong and contributory to American’s largest foreign policy blunder of all time.

The fact that there was a 96 page NIE that dissuaded the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from voting for the authorization, that Senator Clinton failed to read, was a dereliction of duty she owed to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. It was a dereliction of the duty she owed all of us.

That is shameful, unforgivable and fails the Presidential threshold test.

The really funny thing is that if she had shown due diligence and come to the same conclusion that Senator Graham did, she would have had this nomination sewed up by now.

Then she could have run as the woman who could sweep out the capital of all that typical men’s politics stuff, you know like unjustified and immoral wars of preemption.

But she couldn’t use it because she was on the wrong side from the beginning.

Like Barack Obama said about her, "She’s not so bad.", but just wrong.

I could have voted for a woman. I couldn’t care less about the sex or sex life of the next President, I am however real mad about the Iraq war.


chase
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

Although I have absolute respect for the views expressed here, I take issue with the claim that Sen. Clinton has not played the gender card during this election. Here in Iowa, I watched Clinton make allusions of all kinds to gendered concepts.

At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines last November, she cited the quote, "If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" before unleashing a laugh line that she used repeatedly after that: "Well, I’m quite comfortable in the kitchen."

Even before that at a union-sponsored candidates’ forum at Soldier Field in Chicago, she told the labor audience, "I’m your girl."

You note that Clinton is often referred to as "Hillary," while Obama is generally referred to by his last name. But your implication — that this occurs because commentators choose to call Clinton by her first name because she is a woman — misses an important point: she has embraced the moniker "Hillary" from the beginning. Her official campaign logo on HillaryClinton.com says merely "Hillary for President," with no last name anywhere. Her yard signs and bumper stickers used the same logo.

I think it’s incorrect to claim that Clinton has not played the gender card, but the broader point that she has misused it or failed to use it effectively may be true. She relied on subconscious queues — the dogwhistle approach — by making quick jokes about being comfortable in the kitchen, or by framing her candidacy using her first name instead of her last name, but she failed to make the full argument in favor of a female candidate in explicit terms.

Perhaps she should have done so, but her campaign is not known for taking chances like that.


skulzfontaine
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

It all boils down to the definition of "is" and the Clintons. There are ANY number of qualified women in Amerika that could and should be Amerika’s president. Sadly, Hillary Clinton is NOT one of them. Ms. Fleming? You would certainly be qualified. Are you willing to saddle up and take the horrid ride into political infamy? I’m willing to bet not. The ‘Hill’ carries entirely too much political baggage and that would be of the "scandalous" type. If Clinton cared about Amerika as she professes she does, she would end her campaign and do that with the little remaining dignity she could muster. However being the power mad spooky that Clinton is, that will never happen and the Democraps will lose in November and the Democraps will lose BIG!


skulzfontaine
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 9:25 am

It all boils down to the definition of "is" and the Clintons. There are ANY number of qualified women in Amerika that could and should be Amerika's president. Sadly, Hillary Clinton is NOT one of them. Ms. Fleming? You would certainly be qualified. Are you willing to saddle up and take the horrid ride into political infamy? I'm willing to bet not. The 'Hill' carries entirely too much political baggage and that would be of the "scandalous" type. If Clinton cared about Amerika as she professes she does, she would end her campaign and do that with the little remaining dignity she could muster. However being the power mad spooky that Clinton is, that will never happen and the Democraps will lose in November and the Democraps will lose BIG!


chase
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 10:46 am

Although I have absolute respect for the views expressed here, I take issue with the claim that Sen. Clinton has not played the gender card during this election. Here in Iowa, I watched Clinton make allusions of all kinds to gendered concepts.

At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines last November, she cited the quote, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" before unleashing a laugh line that she used repeatedly after that: "Well, I'm quite comfortable in the kitchen."

Even before that at a union-sponsored candidates' forum at Soldier Field in Chicago, she told the labor audience, "I'm your girl."

You note that Clinton is often referred to as "Hillary," while Obama is generally referred to by his last name. But your implication — that this occurs because commentators choose to call Clinton by her first name because she is a woman — misses an important point: she has embraced the moniker "Hillary" from the beginning. Her official campaign logo on HillaryClinton.com says merely "Hillary for President," with no last name anywhere. Her yard signs and bumper stickers used the same logo.

I think it's incorrect to claim that Clinton has not played the gender card, but the broader point that she has misused it or failed to use it effectively may be true. She relied on subconscious queues — the dogwhistle approach — by making quick jokes about being comfortable in the kitchen, or by framing her candidacy using her first name instead of her last name, but she failed to make the full argument in favor of a female candidate in explicit terms.

Perhaps she should have done so, but her campaign is not known for taking chances like that.


mikemidcity
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 10:50 am

Gee Ms. Fleming, I agree with most of your article.

Except … I feel that her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq couldn't have been any more considered, calculated, callused then coldly cast only to shore up her National Security credentials. At the time of the vote, Americans favored the action so was a safe vote for her.

It was also wrong and contributory to American's largest foreign policy blunder of all time.

The fact that there was a 96 page NIE that dissuaded the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from voting for the authorization, that Senator Clinton failed to read, was a dereliction of duty she owed to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. It was a dereliction of the duty she owed all of us.

That is shameful, unforgivable and fails the Presidential threshold test.

The really funny thing is that if she had shown due diligence and come to the same conclusion that Senator Graham did, she would have had this nomination sewed up by now.

Then she could have run as the woman who could sweep out the capital of all that typical men's politics stuff, you know like unjustified and immoral wars of preemption.

But she couldn't use it because she was on the wrong side from the beginning.

Like Barack Obama said about her, "She's not so bad.", but just wrong.

I could have voted for a woman. I couldn't care less about the sex or sex life of the next President, I am however real mad about the Iraq war.


mikemidcity
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 10:56 am

BTW is that a picture of Senator Clinton or Wal-Mart Executive Board Member Clinton?

Just wondering.


pathfinder
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

Great piece, Ann Fleming, balanced and on the mark, with your perfectly metered voice audible. And, although I'm part of the demographic sector that has not gone her way, I continue to support Hillary Clinton's candidacy because, quite simply, her policy proposals continue to be the most progressive of the remaining candidates. But also because I know where she's coming from as they say, and as you say. I see her pain, and feel that it's time to let a woman be all that she can be!


nellre
Comment posted March 28, 2008 @ 9:23 pm

Hokay byby washington "independent" from my favorites list


sunset
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 3:38 am

Considering a recent study which concluded that nearly 40 %of workplace bullying of women is done by women, I'm not surprised that Hillary's playing of the gender card (and I do believe she did through her surrogates at least) hasn't worked for her. You see, the gender card doesn't necessarily work.

I've been bullied more by women than I ever was by men. I've had the gender card played by female coworkers throughout my entire career as a means of manipulating and marginalizing me. I've been treated with more straightforwardness and respect from men than I ever have have experienced with women. I suggest that Hillary's failure to play the gender card successfully is because too many women recognize it for what it is – playing the "best friend" card whilst stabbing a "competitor" in the back. Playing the gender card is essentially a ploy to get power through manipulation and sex discrimination. A lot of women – even older white women like me – know it.


taylortoone
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 4:51 am

Hillary didn't use the gender card? Oh come now. She used it in NH…she used in the debates….and, no doubt, she will use it again. And when you think of her 'experience', what significant experience has Hillary garnered by herself? All her major 'experience' has been a direct resulf of who she married. Would she really have been picked Healthcare Tsar if her last name was Connors? We must face the fact that Hillary Clinton, most of her adult life, has had a free pass to her success….She didn't 'win' it. It was handed to her by her husband. She never would've won New York had she not been married to a President. And when she doesn't have the "experience' to boost herself, she lies. It's time we move on from such reasons to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone based on gender, race, or age. That's what a TRUE feminist is.


vivt
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 9:02 am

'…notice, for example, how often she is referred to as


ariehl
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

Before the Iraq vote, I wrote to my Senator, Hillary Clinton, and urged her to vote against the measure. I got back an email which said, in essence, "You don't understand; there are weapons of mass destruction there."
I believe that Clinton believed that, but that does not absolve her of the vote. There are weapons of mass destruction in many other countries. There was no reason to believe that any of them in Iraq were aimed at America. It was all a scam. Many Democrats saw through the chicanery; Hillary did not. That disqualifies her from the presidency in my mind, no matter what her gender.
I am an educated woman of the same generation as Hillary, and I have to say most of my compatriots in the same demographic are strong Hillary supporters.


taylortoone
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

Hillary, or Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Hillary Clinton HAD to support the war. Why? Because had she voted against it, she would 'appear' as 'weak'. So she voted for it and now we have 4,000 American dead. Heckuva job, Hillary.

Vivt: Hillary ran against one of the weakest candidates the GOP ever had…Hillary was lucky: she had her husband and Rudy dropped out. Face it, Hillary never earned anything on her own….she owes her entire career to Bill and the follish women that support her merely because she's a woman.

If I said: "I'm voting for McCain because he's a man" that would be sexist, but if I say "I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman", all the so called 'feminists' would cheer. Again, a TRUE feminist does not vote on gender, age, or race. Just foolish ones do.


vivt
Comment posted March 29, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

well, drifting off task here, but what the heck:

taylortoone: I don't think we are in disagreement about fundamental weaknesses in HRC's putative candidacy — experience (peripheral), independence (missing: take look at The Body of War [Spiro&Donahue], especially at the montage of senators at the podium repeating, word for word, every GWB fabrication concerning WMD's, Al-Queda-Iraqi connivance, etc ad nauseam), authenticity (watch, in the NH video, how ferociously she works the room with her eyes, gauging the response of every person in the room), flexibility (?), adaptability (??). What people, me, too, at moments, admire is the fighter — but so what, ultimately: this isn't a Golden Gloves tournament, right? And 4,000 US lives, 30,000 US casualties later, 750,000+ Iraqi lives and several million Iraqis displaced, HRC still does not get it, as ariehl points out above.

the worst of it is: if these three are the best the country can up with, what does that say about the corruption & depravity of the political system?

(by the way, don't underestimate the RNC oomph that was thrown behind Lazio in 2000 — he could easily have stepped into D'Amato's shoes, dogshit and all, against a less-feisty opponent.)


veritas78
Comment posted March 30, 2008 @ 7:48 am

"…always deflecting any pity…"

Are we talking about the same candidate? Her campaign (and career) has seemed to me like one long game of playing the victim card. When a villain isn't handy, find one, like Bob Shuster. It's why she'd make a lousy president — the public doesn't want a victim as a leader.


eyesonthestreet
Comment posted March 30, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

I have read many articles and a book by you and listened to you on the radio, but by far, this is the most absurd piece that bears your name, Ms. Fleming. Her peers, woman over 60, mostly white and educated are her ground troops. These are woman showing up to do the work for Hillary. It is absurd to say "But she didn


sm999
Comment posted April 2, 2008 @ 8:00 am

Not a great analysis. We'll see how much Obama is a post-racial, biracial figure when the GOP unleashes the big guns. BHO has a great many challenges to overcome.


lvdragonlady
Comment posted April 2, 2008 @ 11:08 am

First off, she should have NEVER made comments like this ->At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines last November, she cited the quote,


kittycat
Comment posted April 3, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

The most astounding aspect of beating Hilary out of the race even though she has not lost it, is how many excuses people, but mostly women, will find not to vote for a woman who, as the only candidate, offers them health insurance and who, as the only candidate, helped them to get maternal leave.

As a professional woman, I am surprised and disappointed in women who clearly fell for the gender trap and expect a man to look and provide for them.

As Obama is soundly beaten by McCain the war drains all our resources, people die in thousands and at home we keep dying of treatable diseases that no one will insure us against and we cannot afford to pay for the medication, remember you are victims of your own folly.


mclaren
Comment posted April 18, 2008 @ 10:46 am

Kittycat, since when does the president, whether male or female, provide for you or anybody else? Hillary "offers" you health insurance. Yeah, she bravely wants to hit up your neighbor to pay for your health insurance. Or worse, she wants to hit you up to pay for your neighbor's. The war costs pennies compared to what we spend on follies which the government has no right. Maggie Thatcher she ain't. If she was, she'd already have won.


workingsinglemom
Comment posted May 16, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

I think it is a really sad state of affairs in this country right now. Especially when people can't spell America properly even in the comment section posted herein. I would have really liked to have seen a woman president in office. I don't believe she played the gender card well as she was too male in her approach she didn't let her female side "softness" if you will, show through until the last leg of the campaign, by then as many of you have said, she had already lost the support of the white educated women. Sad news is when Obama gets the nod, most Hillary fans will turn and vote for McCain, as this country really isn't ready, sadly enough for a black president, watch and see.


sarcastic
Comment posted June 14, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

Male, Female. White, Black, or other. Educated or uneducated. Our country needs to get it together. The next time you are walking to your car late at night look out….an uneducated, desperate American may be watching. Perhaps not Al-Qaeda but….. Oh yeah, at least Barack and Hillary proved that the progressives have some energy and fight. Go team Go!


2000
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 7:59 am

??????
?????
???????
????? ????


nike air max
Comment posted May 29, 2010 @ 6:26 am

thanks for your share!!


discount Louis vuitton
Comment posted September 3, 2010 @ 4:52 am

Part of it, of course, is the charismatic upstart who slipped into the lead with his graceful oratory and charismatic calls for change — making Clinton look retro-partisan and old hat, a trench-warfare policy wonk who couldn’t rouse the heart.


louis vuitton outlet
Comment posted November 29, 2010 @ 3:22 am

Oh, she did get a good deal of the women’s vote. She held on to lower-income, non-college-educated women. ,great woman


louis vuitton outlet
Comment posted November 29, 2010 @ 3:22 am

Oh, she did get a good deal of the women’s vote. She held on to lower-income, non-college-educated women. ,great woman


rolex replica
Comment posted February 17, 2011 @ 6:11 pm

making Clinton look retro-partisan and old hat, a trench-warfare policy wonk who couldn’t rouse the heart.


רצפת עץ
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

שמעתם על אתר עם היצע גדול של טפטים לקיר, התקנת פרקט וטפטים לקיר . באתר מגוון רחב של וילון רומאי,פרקטים, פרקט עץ ועוד.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.