Agreed, Ann. I really do not want her to win the Democratic nomination, but I also feel 100% compelled, if not obligated, to say something whenever I see sexist coverage. People who don't get that sexism (or racism, homophobia . . .) is still wrong no matter who it is against really need to get their heads on straight.

The following image is what the right-wing magazine National Review is using for their little fundraising drive. It may cause people to rethink their opposition to Hillary. :)

http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/728x90_2007_webathon.jpg

Yes, god forbid anyone think we women would support the candidacy of war monger, strong minded political women.

We don't just automatically support them for being women, despite the fact that no one other woman in the country stands in a remotely realistic position of achieving the presidency now or for many years apart from her.

Must make sure everybody knows we don't actually support her.

So why shouldn't I support her? She's seems ok to me but there's obviously some kind of opposition towards her that I'd like to be aware of so that I don't end up voting for someone that wouldn't really do us any good.

I'm sure someone has noticed this before, but it suddenly struck me how, when she was the First Lady, the media portrayed her as the "real power" behind the Presidency, but when we turn around and run her as an actual candidate for President, suddenly she's an incompetent housewife riding her husband's coattails into power. I mean, can we at least pick one sexist stereotype and stick with it?

i would like to second lindsaypw's question. not being catty, but i do like to be fully informed. i do a lot of research on the choices this race, and know that she has made some mistakes (who hasn't?!?), but i would really like to know.

If I can be so bold as to answer - we can talk about sexism and how it affects people without it being an endorsement of their politics. It's still sexual harassment and discrimination if it's Hillary Clinton, Anne Coulter, Belinda Stronich, Margaret Thatcher, or any other women. Talking about these things as being sexism and sexual harassment is not saying "I agree with these women." If we only defend the sexism presented to women we agree with, then we're saying that being free of discrimination is only something that should happen to people we agree with, and everyone else should go hang.

The point isn't whether or not Ann or anyone else is supporting Hillary. It's that it's sexism and disgusting, regardless of what one thinks of her.

I mean, really - no one in the whole world cares what I think of Clinton's chances in the election, because I'm Canadian and living in Australia. But it's *still* sexual harassment, and it still should be pointed out.

[I get the same thing all the time - in protesting how the media treated Belinda Stronach, I was somehow arguing that she had a good representative. I have no idea how that came about, but it made it a lot easier for the person I was discussing it with to ignore everything I had to say.]

I'm not sure if my comment has been caught in the spam-trap or not, so I will attempt to post it a second time.

If I can be so bold as to answer - we can talk about sexism and how it affects people without it being an endorsement of their politics. It's still sexual harassment and discrimination if it's Hillary Clinton, Anne Coulter, Belinda Stronich, Margaret Thatcher, or any other women. Talking about these things as being sexism and sexual harassment is not saying "I agree with these women." If we only defend the sexism presented to women we agree with, then we're saying that being free of discrimination is only something that should happen to people we agree with, and everyone else should go hang.

The point isn't whether or not Ann or anyone else is supporting Hillary. It's that it's sexism and disgusting, regardless of what one thinks of her.

I mean, really - no one in the whole world cares what I think of Clinton's chances in the election, because I'm Canadian and living in Australia. But it's *still* sexual harassment, and it still should be pointed out.

[I get the same thing all the time - in protesting how the media treated Belinda Stronach, I was somehow arguing that she had a good representative. I have no idea how that came about, but it made it a lot easier for the person I was discussing it with to ignore everything I had to say.]

I had just finished reading the article on Hufpo. I came here to see if fem had picked up on it and of course you had. I wonder if Hillary will address this at all or not leverage the sexism to expose it. I think she should. I am not sure if I am supporting her as of yet, I get conflicting information on her support for Iraq and Iran and need to find out the real info. Additionally, as we know, if you are not present to vote, someone who is closer to your station can vote for you so not sure if the reported tally of votes for particular bills are her vote or not. I need more info first.

Ok here is some clarification on Hillary's position on Iran.. THis is encouraging.. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/02/hillary-clinton-to-co-sponsor-webb-legislation-on-iran/

I've got to second Cola here, and ask why Feministing is so strongly, vocally opposed to Hillary Clinton. It seems like as President, she would promote a lot of the social justice goals of feminism. What's the deal, Feministing?

The war is probably a big part of it, DrkEyedCajn. There are, after all, other issues in play.

Besides that, it's not as if Hillary Clinton is the only pro-women's rights canidate. The choice isn't exactly HC vs Sam Brownback, after all.

DrkEyedCajn, I'm not strongly, vocally opposed to Hillary Clinton. "Not endorsing" a candidate is not the same thing as opposing him/her.

I realize there are other issues, but I'm confused by the posts that alternately come to her defense, then drop her like a hot potato.

Hillary Clinton may not be the only pro-women's rights candidate, but she IS the only candidate who can't exactly sweep her pro-woman opinions under the rug when those opinions become politically inconvenient (see: Rudy Giuliani)- since, you know, she is one.

Don't know if you've checked out the lastest issue of New York magazine-cover story "Bill Clinton, First Lady" next to a photo of his face superimposed on Jackie O's body. Inside: "The mob of high-powered women trying to help their husbands win the presidency- by taking down the original high-powered First Wife". This is more or less a side article about the personal lives of these women. Ugh

"I realize there are other issues, but I'm confused by the posts that alternately come to her defense, then drop her like a hot potato."

i think that confusion may have to do less with "dropping her like a hot potato" and more with separating out critique of the misogynistic way in which the only female candidate in this race is being portrayed and a partisan endorsement of that candidate.

i think it's that the writers on this blog want to address certain issues directly, without getting into messy debates about specific campaigns and politicians.

as ann so aptly pointed out, there is a big gap between "not endorsing" a particular candidate and "opposing" said candidate.