At 62 I have been a feminist all my life. Having five brothers and enduring the misogynist Catholic Church for 16 years does that to a highly intellectual girl. girl. At 7, I was told that boys are closer to God because they could be priests. I have struggled for 35 years to raise my four brilliant daughters free of sexist stereotypes. Their strength, courage, achievement, dedication,and confidence is awesome to behold. My third daughter, 29-year-old Katherine, blogging at Obsidian Wings, has pioneered discussion of the issues so dear to your heart. Just do a search for Katherine and "Obsidian Wings." She broke the story about extraordinary rendition when she was 25 years old.She decided to blog under her first name so she could be employable as a lawyer. She is writing a book with Jane Mayer on the New Yorker. She contributed substantially to "Guantanomo and the Abuse of Presidential Power." "My oldest turns 35 next year; When I was their age, I was naively certain a woman would be president before the oldest became eligible for the job.

I was absolutely appalled by this post:It would take a book to explain why. I had made assumptions about you that obviously are not valid. I suggest you expand your blog reading this morning to some of the best woman bloggers: Echidne, Hullabaloo, and Shakesville should be added to your google reader this morning. Read Kathe Pollitt and Katerina vanden Heuval at the Nation. Read some of the classics of feminism. I had mistakenly assumed that of woman of my generation would be a feminist.

Obama and Edwards might talk about change, but electing a woman to the presidency would be dramatic change. Clinton deserves the gratitude and admiration of her sisters for never giving up, for breaking the path for future candidates. That a woman is perceived as strong enough to be commander in chief is astonishing progress.

Two year ago a poll of 14 year old girls revealed that 40 percent did not believe there would be a woman president in their lifetime. It is one thing to assure a little girl she can be president, even though America has never elected a woman president. It is quite another thing to show her a picture of Madame President.

As a woman, how can you tolerate Chris Matthew's statement that Hillary only became a senator and a presidential candidate because her husband cheated on her? For 15 years Hillary has been attacked as a frigid robot. The minute she allows herself to be human, she is unfit and dangerous. The hatred and fear of women that is expressed everyday is terrifying.

Clinton did not cry; her voice reflected her trying not to cry. Male candidates are allowed to show emotion and tear up without its being seen as a meltdown that disqualifies them for the presidency. i wish our president, the worst one in American history, could cry about all the soldiers that his policies have killed or maimed for life.I wish he could cry about his dismantling of the constitution. The brouhaha over Hillary's so-called tears indicates that an incredible double standard still exists for Americans. Hillary's getting justifiably pissed off in the debates was seen as equally terrifying.

On TV when male sexists pontificate, women usually try to get a word in, but are ignored. Hillary has never stood that and made sure she make an appropriate response to Obama's and Edward's portraying her as an agent of the status quo. No matter what they do to her, this bitch perseveres. The ageism motivating some attacks on Hillary should disturb you as well, What aren't you appalled?

It is perfectly valid to decide that feminist and family issues are your make-or-break ones and choose your candidate on that basis. Clinton is a brilliant woman who has dedicated her life to public service. She is scary brilliant and has worked incredibly hard. She has probably been savaged more than any woman in American History. You must acknowledge that could never have happened to a male candidate. What she has endured reveals that the patriarchy of the human race has been chipped away but endures.

How dare you attack older women who support Hillary because they want to see the patriarchy further eroded in their lifetime and because Hillary is the best qualified candidate I am ashamed of you and hope you get many outraged comments.I considered unsubscribing from your blog, but decided the better path would be to dialog with you. You owe your readers an apology for this post.

I'm with you, Ronni. To vote based on gender or race is exactly what it purports not to be: discrimination, loudly proclaiming that this person is what he is rather than what he does.

To assume that all woman of a certain generational era are feminists is again, stereotyping a vast population.

When we stop seeing people first as black and white, male and female, is when we can claim to be unbiased. Prejudice 'for' is exactly the same as prejudice against.

I would hardly call it a 'mini-meltdown' or even a 'choke-up'. What I saw was a human being experiencing a strong emotion and allowing it to show (rather than repressing it) while at the same time managing to keep it under control and to continue expressing thoughts and feelings without missing a beat. A very good illustration of what Daniel Goleman calls 'emotional intelligence' - a highly desirable quality. A US president with a decent IQ would bring sighs of relief; one with a high EQ as well would be a bonus!

However, I'm just disappointed that what stirred Hillary almost to tears was her passion for her country. Oh, big bloody deal. GWB and his cronies are patriots too. As far as I am concerned, patriotism is a dirty word. It's a narrow-minded, outdated and dangerous concept. What's needed is a candidate moved close to tears by her or his passion not for one country but for our beautiful planet.
I don't care whether the next president is a man, a woman or a big brown dog. I just want to see the White House turn a decent shade of green before the oil and water run out, the climate goes into irreversible meltdown and it is too late to do anything about it. The only candidate who has ever come anywhere near that ideal is Kucinich and he seems to have faded away, like last time. So it probably won't happen. Another million years and Earth will be just dry rocks and sand. And by then it will be too late for tears.

I'm with you on this, Ronni. It's not about electing the first woman or the first African-American; it's about electing the person to lead us out of this train wreck in which we find ourselves. To my mind, Hillary represents the status quo, and Barack represents inexperience. Status quo is not acceptable to me.

say what?? i'm with redstocking all the way about this post.

Is feminism only about forwarding women's issues or about equality? about seeing people as people? If all voters care about is finally getting 'theirs' then I am more concerned about this country than I have already been. Hillary should not be voted for because she's a woman but if she is the best person for the job. Likewise Obama should be seen as a person, not as a male or a multi-racial person. If their gender or race enters into how they do the job, then it is relevant but not as a blanket let's vote for someone based purely on that.

I think some want payback for the Bush years and they feel Hillary will deliver it. Well payback doesn't ever work well for the one seeking it. If Hillary is seen as best for the job, then that's each person's individual call; but to vote for her based on the fact that her husband was president and people felt sorry for her in regards how he treated her, that doesn't cut it with me.

I am not a Hillary supporter and probably that colors how I see this but it has been most upsetting to me over the last 8 years as I have questioned who are we as a people? Is this the best we can be? Hillary doesn't bring out the best in people on either side if she is seen as worthy simply because of her gender-- or for that matter not worthy.

I think your post on this topic was spot on. It's a valid concern and democrats are not automatically the good guys which you have mentioned many times. Actions determine someone's character.

We need to be voting in November on someone's character and the issues for which they stand. Being a woman isn't enough even if some women have waited a long time for it. The president we have has amassed a lot of powers for a president. Character is going to be a big determiner of whether that gets turned around or the next president milks them for more. It's a big time for making a decision that should be based on our own character and the concern that for whoever we vote that it's the one that is best for the nation and the world-- not just one party or another or one cause.

The above comment was from me, Ronni. I didn't sign in properly so my name was omitted.

I didn't want you to think I had sent it anonymously.

Nancy

The first I heard about Mrs. Clinton's "breakdown" was on the radio, and throughout the day the talk radio discussions had me thinking she must have had a 10-megaton breakdown, something like that weirdo hysterically defending Britney Spears on TV a while back ("Leave her alone, you bastards!"). Then when I saw the video that evening, it turned out to be nothing like. That's crying? Moist eyes are not exactly bawling. There was a catch in the throat, sure, but if there were tears on the cheeks my HDTV didn't pick them up. It was a very personal moment, and she seemed genuinely sincere about it, expressing her concern for the country. (If she was acting she missed her true calling: she'd make a lot more money--and take a lot less abuse--in Hollywood or on Broadway.)

I haven't committed to a candidate yet, but I fervently, almost desperately want a progressive back in the White House, and in the present era that pretty much limits the field to Democrats for me. Any of the possibilities (including the ones that barely register in the polls) are people I can get excited about, and will give that person my vote and financial support.

But I have a problem where Hillary is concerned (some celebrities in our society are just fated to be identified for life by their first names or nicknames: Tiger, Elvis, The Donald, Emeril ... Hillary; you don't need the last name). It's not her gender, her personality, any of the trivia people usually argue about. I may be alone in this, but for me her biggest problem is ... Bill. Every time I see him campaigning for her on TV, I am reminded of just how much I dislike the guy. I voted for him, sure, and he was a good President, but I never found him at all likable, in fact I thought him a slick, manipulative scumbag who frequently talked out of both sides of his mouth--he defined the expression "flip-flop." If she was just Senator Hillary Rodham, an attractive and extremely bright woman from suburban Chicago, who went to Yale Law then was voted one of America's top 100 lawyers before being elected and then reelected to the Senate ... hey, what's not to like? Yeah, she has a family: I understand her husband's a lawyer too (his name's something different), and they have an adult daughter. But forget all that, let's talk about the important stuff, like her views on the issues.

Unfortunately, for me he keeps getting in the way, and while I'll definitely support her if she gets the nomination, the prospect of Bill being back in the White House, only this time as consigliere rather than capo, definitely curbs my enthusiasm.

Ronni's start-off of this conversation was good but annoyed me in its limited scope. So, yes, Redstocking and also Deejay I am with you more because of your depth of thought.
Time Online has just put up an interview with HRC from last evening in which she reflects on what happened in New Hampshire and her view of the "weeping breakdown" (for heaven's sake!) http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1701982,00.html

The way she was headed I am surprised Ronni did not jump right into the other famous anti-woman leadership fear: PMS and the Bomb. Display of emotion is not a prevention to excellent leadership.

I wasn't, and still may not, want to vote for HRC in a primary, although the raising of the Feminist Flag brought me back to feminine attention as Redstocking says. But I am with Deejay that the biggest handicap HRC carries is that social time bomb, her husband, Bill. I believe he is incapable of allowing her to surpass him and that she is still unable to put him in his place and hold him there.
Another four years of that melodrama will be too much. So, the quiet, unknown Obama with the mouthy wife might be the better choice.

And finally, this election could be a real eye and heart opener for this country if those three big prejudices Gender-Race-Age get raked through the fires.
Hope we all grow up some more.

I watched the video with interest because I hadn't seen it and I think "teary choke-up" is a bit over-stated.

People either seem to love or hate Hilary Clinton; I guess I'm smack-dab in the middle. I'm not hugely invested in the Clinton/Obama drama because my state does not hold a primary election; I have no vote as to who makes on the Democratic ticket.

I haven't ironed anything in like 20 years. My clothes don't seem to care much.

Psst, while we're worrying about a few tears, the economy is melting down, as are the ice caps, there's still a war in Iraq and there's no plan to get us off the oil we are all addicted to.

How about the candidates and the media discuss those things, instead of worrying about a few tears and who did or didn't shed them?

C'mon, let's demand they ALL grow up already.

I told Ronni she should be ashamed because she said she was ashamed of all the women who voted for Hillary because she was a women. I felt she was insulting thousands of women and calling into question their intelligence when she had no idea what research, study, experience shaped their vote. I never never tell people they should be ashamed. It was early in the morning; I hadn't slept well; and I was shocked by this post. I do think older women need to read younger women's blogs; they are doing splendid work. Best of all, they are often laugh-at-loud funny.

One thing for voters to consider is that whoever yelled iron my shirt to Hillary could easily have been a supporter who wanted to build the exact emotional response that happened among so many women. I don't know that the man was but voters need to be careful they pay attention to issues, to the candidate's character, and not allow moments like a candidate tearing up or giving a really good speech, to be deciding events. A lot of what you think is real doesn't turn out that way under closer examination-- for instance Hillary's question and answer sessions primed by people given the questions to ask. This is truly a time of voter beware.

i certainly self-identify as a post-feminist. i have five daughters who laugh at signs that say "men working". un-prompted. when she was 7, one of my daughters cried angry tears for days when she discovered a woman couldn't be pope, although we have no formal religious affiliations.

i would Never vote for someone based on their gender. THAT IS SEXISM. i don't like her because she's proven herself to be a liar, greedy and a hypocrite. she couldn't give a shit about us.

i was listening to steve gillmor's podcast "the gang" the other morning and i listened to that closeted idiot hugh macleod say (paraphrasing): "a woman can certainly become president. look at what a great leader thatcher was."

to think that a woman can't be a power hungry greedy hypocrite who is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical lobby and will stop at nothing to win is SEXIST. she is no different than the rest of them.

i want someone who is kind. someone who means it. someone who is going to try and stop the insanity. someone who has presence and can fill me with hope. i don't care if it is a man or a woman or what fucking race they are. i want someone that i think will at least try to walk their talk. i know i'm asking too much. i know a politician is a politician. but i am going to vote anyway.

and if anyone doesn't think the "iron my shirt" guy was a plant is seriously deluded IMO.

My daughter was about four when she asked, "Mommy can girls be a fire person?" I sort of chuckled to myself that she used that term and told her that girls could be anything they wanted to be except a daddy, a brother or an uncle. She ran with that train of thought adding grandpa, nephew, etc., but I think it stuck because she's never let her being a woman stand in her way and I applaud her for that.

As to a woman for president, I am in favor of it but I question whether Hillary is the answer. I haven't decided who I'm supporting yet. I think we need someone who will follow the Constitution and restore sanity here and abroad. I know . . . I'm dreaming. Sigh.

So, people(women), how many times have you "cried" (that was crying?)while speaking about what is vitally important to you? And you are annoyed with yourself, perhaps, for showing the "weakness," but knowing full well that the display has nothing to do with your ability to make a clear headed decision. And I'm not even for Hillary!!

When I read this editorial in this morning's Atlanta Journal Constitution I had to agree 100%
Here is the pertinent excerpt. I especially agree with paragraph 3:

Clinton a far cry from weak

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/11/08

"Did Hillary Clinton cry, tear up or just get something in her eye during a meet-and-greet with voters in a New Hampshire cafe?

There's been more discussion this week about whether Clinton cried than about her health care plan or her strategy for Iraq. According to the post-mortems of her unexpected New Hampshire victory, Clinton's misty eyes humanized her and caused hundreds of women in New Hampshire to cast their vote for her rather than Barack Obama.

Debate still rages over whether a teardrop actually fell. But if a tear had fallen, does that mean Clinton is unfit for the White House? Given the looming recession, the collapse of the real estate market and the war in Iraq, it's a wonder more Americans aren't weeping."

In writing off Clinton and then crediting her resurgence to tears, pundits underestimated the candidate as well as the voters. It's ridiculous to proclaim that legions of female voters could be swayed by that hint of a tear. After all, Mitt Romney has choked up during the campaign — to no avail.

Perhaps the New Hampshire women who were forecast as Obama voters switched to Clinton after watching her debate the other candidates or answer questions at campaign events. Pundits drubbed most of Clinton's public appearances in New Hampshire, saying she was wonkish and bogged down in detail, while Obama was inspirational."

Maureen Downey, for the editorial board

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/11/08

Interesting -- I saw that video a couple of days ago and thought "wow, Clinton's finest moment." I liked her better than I ever had (not much).

Clinton is not my choice; I didn't like her husband's policies much and I see her as stuck in the same paradigm at a moment when we need to move on. I'm represented by two women senators and don't find them much different from previous men senators; they go to DC and become very different from the majority of us.

Ronni, you never fail to delight me with your posts. You present contrary opinions with decidedly well-presented fact along side your honest opinion.

So here's mine.

Hillary Clinton has proven she is whoever she needs to be at any given moment. I wasn't aware that being the President's wife counted as "experience" in matters of policy, and senate experience is something both clinton and obama both share, so that argument falls short by a longshot. The only reason Hillary doesn't get off the experience horse is because she can't get on the integrity horse.

She sold us down the river once on healthcare, and she would do it again in a heartbeat.

When it comes to healing this nation, I believe Obama stands the best chance of uniting a country that is so vehemently divided it is nearly unrecognizable to me.

OH AND....PS....since when do ANY of us "owe an apology" to our readers for what we CHOOSE to verbalize about on our own blogs?
The last I checked, that Thought Bill had not been passed.