Not to make this Hillary Day on Feministing or anything, but here's something we've been remiss in not covering: Conservative bloggers have had a field day with this comment Elizabeth Edwards made about Hillary Clinton in an interview with Salon's Joan Walsh:
Look, I'm sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman."
As Walsh pointed out, Edwards was definitely NOT calling Clinton a man, as people like Matt Drudge suggested. But I think Edwards was implying that Hillary is saying "Vote for me because I'm a woman" while simultaneously downplaying issues like reproductive rights or pay equity. That just doesn't seem true to me.
This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation for Hillary. If she builds a campaign primarily on reproductive rights, work/family balance, and other "women's issues," she's criticized as not knowing or caring enough about other important issue areas. Someone is bound to say she's playing identity politics. But if she builds a campaign on say, national security or health care, then she's pegged as trying to be "mannish" or ignoring women. Elizabeth Edwards, who's working hard to secure progressive women's votes for her husband, is of course going to say the latter. But she's wrong.
I am by no means endorsing Hillary Clinton, but I think she IS talking about women's issues a fair bit. She had good things to say when addressing Planned Parenthood earlier this week. (John Edwards didn't even attend the event.) She has been a strong advocate of feminist legislation such as the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act, and the Prevention First Act. She seems to be held to a higher standard, though, than the male candidates. I swear, even if she only sponsored "women's issues" legislation and held every press conference in front of a NOW banner with "I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar" piped in the background, there would still be people saying she's not paying enough attention to women's issues. The threshold is just so much lower for John Edwards and Barack Obama. (Who, to be fair, also have strong records of support for issues like reproductive rights and pay equity.)
Courtney, Rebecca Traister, Dana, and Kay have more thoughts on feminists supporting Hillary. But I believe our own Jen Moseley said it best: "There's no vagina litmus test, people."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Female candidates and "women's issues".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5659
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
You know, I keep going back and forth on Hillary as a candidate. But I really think you hit the nail on the head with this post.
Yeah am I the only one who noticed that although Elizabeth Edwards IS a woman, Elizabeth Edwards ISN'T running for president. She's rounding up votes for her husband John and John Edwards ISN'T a woman.
I know, I know, send me my free PhD in the post...
Not that I'm advocating anyone - jeez, I'm in the UK, where we had a woman in charge and she stamped all over women's rights throughout her time in office. I'm just saying if you want to vote for a woman, you have to vote for Hillary because she's the only one running.
Just saw a story on Washington Post. Can't quite find words to comment on it. I'll just copy this line verbatim from the Washington Post:
"[Senator Clinton's] neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape."
My concern about Hillary is that if she ends up with the Dem nomination, she won't win simply BECAUSE she's Hillary. I think there are too many people (*cough*Republicans*cough*) out there who hate her just for being her. Not because she's a woman, not because of her platform, but just because she is who she is. As much as I hate that, it concerns me that if she is the Democratic candidate, people will vote Republican just to vote against her and we'll be fucked for yet ANOTHER four long years.
Well said, Ann. I was holding my breath for the inevitable "catfight!" declarations to begin...
And liz, Republicans will likely not be voting for the Democratic candidate whether it is Hillary or not.
Like Cruella, I kind of think that while E. Edwards may say "she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is.", Hillary is THERE; John, who E. describes as a wonderful women's advocate, sent his wife. What was he doing that day that was more important, and why didn't Hillary put that first, too, and send Bill to talk to Planned Parenthood on HER behalf? I kind of like John Edwards, but not because of what his wife says.
I have the same concern, Liza. I'll be devastated if Hillary's the nominee.
Blogjunkie: the percentage of people who say that they would not vote for Hillary (50 in mid-March) is much higher than the percentage of registered Republicans (25 or 30%). I don't believe it's ACTUALLY that high, but no other candidate has anywhere near the built-in support or built-in opposition she does.
I can tell you that if I saw a national poll on the day of my primary that had Hillary tied with Rudy and had Barack 12 points up on Rudy, I know which way I'd go. As it stands right now, they're polling about evenly in hypothetical matchups against GOP candidates.
And liza, Republicans will likely not be voting for the Democratic candidate whether it is Hillary or not.
I know that, but there are a lot of swing voters that can make or break a close election.
It saddens me to say this because I used to think I'd be thrilled to see any woman in a position to be president, but at this point in the primary schedule I'm thinking "anyone but Hillary".
There's the fact of her negatives: the wingnuts on hate radio have been softening her up for more than a decade, and they've built up quite a hatership for her. And may those people live on and eat from steaming garbage heaps in the afterlife, but just because they bullied her doesn't mean Democrats have to make her our candidate. Beyond that, she's just too conservative for me. I don't think she's done a good enough job of explaining her record on Iraq, and I think she's too friendly with the financial industry.
Fundamentally, I think the problem is that I don't feel like Hillary is one of my people. She may have the same reproductive equipment as I do, but she strikes me as a pushy, strident uber-mom type (which for me can include high-powered professional women), the type who would sneer at my floundering career or nearly run me over with her SUV on her way to an Important Meeting. It's not that I expect my female candidates to be soft and warm-fuzzy, because I can think of plenty of powerful women I'd rather see as candidates: Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and hell, the brilliant Katha Pollitt come to mind. The bizarre thing is that I feel like either Richardson or Obama are more my people: it's either ethnicity trumping gender, or else their genial personalities or more liberal positions or something. Or maybe it's that with male candidates the class divide isn't so painfully apparent. For me, Hillary just ain't it.
So yeah, if there were a vagina litmus test (ow, that sounds painful), I'd be flunking it.
"There's no vagina litmus test, people."
If only there were. Because that would be funny.
What the hell is wrong with endorsing her?
Nothing at all. The right-wing press have been endorsing her as their preferred Democrat lately.
Wow that's a great analysis, Ann. I hadn't thought of it that way. I knew Hillary had to appear to be more hawkish than the other dem candidates in order to not appear to be weak on security (you know, like women are USUALLY portrayed). But I hadn't thought about her not making a big deal out of women's issues like we'd expect too. And you're absolutely right - she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't on both of these issues. I know you don't endorse candidates, but I don't have such scruples. I'm voting for Hillary and I think other people should too. I am on Hillary's campaign. I know Hillary will fight hard for women.
I know a lot of people on here (and elsewhere) say that the republicans will stomp all over hillary... she can't be elected... too many people dislike her. etc. etc. Well I used to think the same thing. And then, I heard her speak in the beginning of her campaign - the day she announced. And I was so moved by what she said that I said to myself, "You know, I want to vote for Hillary. And I'm going to vote for Hillary, because I think she's the best candidate. And I'm not going to let potential nay-sayers talk me out of it. Wingnuts are not going to determine my vote."
They told us Dean couldn't be elected and the press skewered him. So they talked us out of voting for the person that we thought would be the best candidate because we "didn't think he was electable." In truth, the wingnuts were scared to death of Dean. I'm not going to let that happen again. I'm voting for Hillary becuase I think she's the best candidate. I'm not going to allow a wingnut to determine MY vote.
You know the wingnuts have had decades to bring down Hillary and they haven't been able to touch her. What possible new scandal could they come up with now? They sunk how many millions of dollars into trying to dig up something? And they got nothing? And the other side to this, is that people in the center are going to see their smearing of Hillary for what it is - they've been seeing it for decades.
Finally, no matter who the dem candidate is, they are going to get "the treatment" from the wingnuts. They haven't even STARTED opening up on the other dem candidates yet.
Yes, I am on the Hillary campaign. I encourage everyone to vote for the candidate who they think will do the best job for our country. I think it's Hillary, but that is only my opinion!
I am an avid feminist and quite liberal, actually bordering radical, but I am not a fan of Hillary for several reasons. I am not sure whether or not I will vote for her. It pains me that she might actually get the nomination but I really don't want her to.
However, I cannot believe Elizabeth Edwards said this comment. Her husband cannot possibly be more knowledgable and a stronger advocate of women's issues because - HE IS NOT A WOMAN! Many may disagree with me, and I have been railed for this, but I do not think that men can be feminists. While Elizabeth Edwards does not call her husband a feminist, I am saying no man is a stronger advocate of woman's issues than a woman. No man can even begin to understand what it is like to be oppressed as a woman and deal with our society when he is an oppressor. Men do not know what it is like to be leered at in the workplace, the harm of pornography, dealing with the lower wages women receive, and many other problems. Just because a man supports typical women's issues such as abortion, that does not make him a "stronger advocate." Many candidates are pro choice (shit, even some republican candidates are pro choice).
Hillary is a woman; without a doubt she is a greater advocate than he is. However, she is preoccupied with covering her ass and trying to come up with a plan to get out of Iraq. Her main opponent, Obama, did not vote for the war, while she originally did, and she is trying to reconcile her old views without pulling a John Kerry.
Even more, I used to love Elizabeth Edwards, because when her husband was running for V.P, she was not afraid to take on controversial issues and speak her mind, on things such as women's issues (um, by the way, was that part of the Kerry/Edwards platform in 2004?) I really liked that because most first ladies just support their husbands (ahem, laura bush) and stand quietly in the background and support things that nobody is going to disagree with that are not controversial. Obviously there's nothing wrong with that, but I like women who are more vocal. Hate to say it, but Elizabeth Edwards really lost a lot of my respect.
Just want to point out the factual error here - since I think a lot of people make it. First, Obama didn't vote for the war, because he didn't have the opportunity to vote at all. He wasn't even in the senate back then.
I like Obama - in fact, I would be happy if he were president, but I think that his claim of being against the war "in the beginning" is somewhat disingenuous. He wasn't in the senate to even cast a vote back then. So he does not have the liberty to say what he would have done. God only knows why some of these people voted for the war. I too was against it from the beginning. But I was not in the senate. I don't know what kinds of pressures they are under - I didn't see the intelligence they saw.
I can forgive them for an incorrect vote. I don't think that any of the candidates are "flip-flopping" on the war or pulling a "John Kerry" (and.. as a side note, Kerry never actually flip-flopped on the war either with his votes - that was wingnut propaganda). I think that we are seeing points in time. A war might look like a good idea in the beginning, and then turn out to be a really crappy idea. Do we actually expect Hillary, Biden, Edwards... and the rest of the candidates who voted for the war to "stand by their vote" in order to avoid "flip-flopping?" Again, they are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Guess FDR didn't do more for the poor in American than any other president, even though he was born rich.
Hilary's not progressive. She's a centrist Dem. She's ok on women's issues, I suppose, if you don't consider, say, health care, a woman's issue.
Clinton wants to expand the army by about 90K. Edwards doesn't. Clinton talks tough on foreign affairs, Edwards says he doesn't believe in the War on Terror (Hilary had a chance to say that, they were both asked, she didn't).
Hilary'd be a damn site better president than the chimp, and if she's the nominee I'll support her, but she's simply not particularly progressive, and she surrounds herself with advisors who aren't progressives.
As for the commenter who thought that Edwards couldn't be more feminist than Clinton, simply because Clinton is a woman, o rrrrly? So, are you say that the most unfeminist woman you can think of (believes in biblical servitude to men, believes in no birth control, no abortions, no work outside the house) is more feminist than any man?
Riiiighhhht.
If people want to argue this really, go through on the points - what're the records and what are the proposals.
What matters is what they'll do in power, not what gender they are. And asking if Clinton is as behind women's issues as Edwards is an entirely fair question. You may decide he isn't, but it has nothing to do with gender.
Say, how's that female governor in Louisiana doing?
I'm sure she's more of a feminist than Edwards though. After all, she has two X chromosones.
Jeez.