Read the Women Blog!
Read the Women Blog
February 29, 2008
You can also read the Women blog on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° website. 
The men behind the woman
It’s ironic that at this historical point in women’s political advancement, the governing powers of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign --Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Howard Wolfson and her husband-- have managed to do the impossible. They’ve turned the first credible and well-funded run for the presidency by a woman into something that looks and feels exactly like everything Americans have come to detest. The strategy has resulted in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign becoming just another partisan attack dog.
In focus group research, by the Center for the Advancement of Women, some women said they wouldn’t support Mrs. Clinton because they viewed her as calculating and manipulative for her personal political ambitions. Other women told us that they wouldn’t vote for a woman for president because she is a woman. If she didn’t put forth an agenda that would make life better for women, her candidacy would be judged as any other.
It’s hard to understand why Mrs. Clinton has allowed her campaign generals to squander the opportunity to mobilize women by focusing on everyday issues that we care about, instead of resorting to complaining, ridiculing and attacking her primary opponent. They’ve given women, who should have been a solid supporting constituency but never were, good reasons to close the gender gap by finding inspiration on Sen. Barack Obama’s vague promises of unity and change.
Women would expect Mrs. Clinton, the first woman to make it this far in the presidential race, to know better. From her personal journey, she could and should address women in a way that reflects a visceral understanding of the continuing struggle for equality and fair treatment and how her presidency will truly make a difference for women. She still can turn her campaign toward addressing inequality and oppression. Lilly Ledbetter could become her campaign’s symbolic poster girl for the need for change to achieve true equality for women. Connecting to women is connecting with America. At this point, she has nothing to lose.
If the men behind the woman understood this reality for their candidate she certainly hasn’t reflected it. I simply can’t believe that she doesn’t know better. It’s not too late: the delegate spread between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama is slim, two delegate-rich primaries lay ahead, and the undecided super delegates could still give her their vote. Even if her dream is denied, the power of her delegate base can force Mr. Obama to make concrete commitments to improve the lives of American women during his presidency.
Katharine Reed says
Although I do not for the path her campaign has taken I do not think her decisions are the main problem. As much as she tried to look, act, and think like a man; Hillary Clinton is not male and therefore never had a chance in this country. In the USA powerful women are admired for appearing to look and act like men. Note the powerful men’s suit women must wear and the firm handshakes and stiff upper bodies. It is no accident that a black man is coincidentally running against Hillary Clinton. Women’s rights have always taken a backseat to civil rights in this country. Are not women still waiting for the people we helped during the civil rights movement to help us with the equal rights amendment? We have always been told our issues are not as important and our sex must wait. Women know they will be scorned for supporting anyone because they share the same sex with another person. As if this is not as meaningful as sharing the same language or skin color. Men have always supported their own sex, women only very privately. In order to be protected, loved, and accepted a woman must join with other men in hating their sex. After all women live with their persecutor. I hear the anger in their voices as if Sen Clinton did them a personal wrong by running for office. My confusion is over your surprise. Were you expecting men to work to get a strong woman elected? Maybe they would elect a puppet woman who does not believe in equal rights, reproductive rights, or that a woman is ever right. One of those women like Phyllis Schaffley who thought selling out would buy her power. But men will never willingly give power to the persecuted. When have they ever done that? Power must be taken, forced away. Women have power, they just do not use it. We are the strongest economic base in this country. If we just did not spend any money for one day maybe even one hour I bet we could get anything we wanted. We just must not want it bad enough yet. Maybe when a few more of us are homeless, more of our children go to pointless wars, or ineffective schools, or will we wait until we are starving to exercise our power. Sen Clinton’s campaign went the same way any woman’s attempt to rise to power in a male dominated system would go. Not well. All of the powerful men around her sabotaged her campaign, the media was obliviously sexist, and people like yourself blamed her instead of noticing what this means about the glass ceiling. Any woman in an office place will tell you when a female employee does not get the next promotion or raise the female employees are always blamed by the men. This is no different and often the women join right in to blame her. After all they want to be accepted by the men. They want to be on the winning team.
And please do not tell me how much better things are. That just is not true. Reproductive rights for women have never been more threatened and women have never been less respected. We work two jobs now. The sex role stereotyped job and the one outside the home. Things are different but not better. Who is Obama planning to unify. Well that must be men. I have noticed men have no problem getting together on the issues that affect them most anyway. Tax breaks for the wealthy, war, trade agreements. They are not talking about getting along with women and our issues. They do not bring them up. It is not even a debate topic. They do not want us to unify. We could still give Sen. Clinton the nomination if we rose up now and said support our rights, make a commitment to us, and we will vote for you and only you in November. The democrats would nominate her no matter what the primary votes were. We have that kind of power. So why are you using this blog to discourage women instead of encourage them? To criticize the victim instead of point out the problem. You are a better writer than I am. Your voice is more important and speaks to a greater audience. Lets organize.
Gretchen Parrish says
Ms. Wattleton,
I read your brilliant blog on the 360 site and immediately wanted to know what you thought about other things! Have you written a book? If you have, I will put my husband on tracking it down--he’s the shopper in our family.
I would particularly like to hear what you have to say about the new “seperate but equal” school systems where they are segregating young girls. You can tell what I think just from how I asked the question, but I want to hear your unvarnished opinion.
Thank you for your insightful reflections. I plan to become your newest fan.
pat b. says
Hello, I do not need to come to this site to hear Hillary unfairly criticized. I can turn on MSNBC, CNN, and tonite even PBS, on McNeil/Lehrer I had to sit and listen to the three regulars predict how it"s pretty much over for Hillary. I am so angry every day I realize more and more how much the D.C. media is telling people in this country how they should vote. It is disgusting enough to hear this from the males but it really makes me sick to my stomach when I see all these pitiful women reporters/journalists jump on the bandwagon as if to please all their male bosses. Maureen Dowd, Katrina Van den Heuvel etc. are so embarrassing. If they don’t like Hillary, fine but at least be fair and quit acting like Obama is this male god who is the perfect candidate. What really is apparent to me and my husband is that their is a hidden agenda by people like Karl Rove to make sure Hillary is not the candidate. They have infiltrated the democratic party and are pouring money into Obama’s campaign and are voting as democrats in states like Wisconsin where there is an open primary so that Obama is the nominee rather than Hillary. If I sound paranoid or too conspiracy theory just follow the latest news reports about how Karl Rove and gang not only managed to defeat a very popular governor in Alabama but went so far as to get him sent to prison for 7 years. Right now 52 former and current attorney generals are calling for an investigation. The bashing of Hillary and the anointing of Obama is not just happening on its own. This has Karl Rove’s fingerprints all over it. Watch the documentary “Bush’s Brain” if you doubt me. I do not at all think Obama is in on this. He just believes he is so great why wouldn’t people love him. Karl Rove’s mother committed suicide the week after her husband left her. At the same time Karl Rove found out his father wasn’t really his father. So his mother not only lied to him but left him alone on his own at a very young age. Very sad but very scarey to think of the power this man has. He did a job on Ann Richards just like he is doing on Hillary. The thing we find really amazing is how easy it is for someone like him to get people to follow like sheep just like they did for the Iraq war again with the help of the press. Well this race has really made me more aware of how horribly woman are treated in this country. I’m moving to Sweden where the government has to reflect the genders. Here we have 54% woman but our federal gov. is approx. 90% male!!! Can you say apartheid? Thanks for listening. Go Hillary
Katharine Reed says
I agree completely pat b. however why should we have to leave for Sweden lets take this country back!
Stephanie Bailey says
I believe one point of Ms. Wattleton’s blog is that Ms. Clinton has so far failed to mobillize women. One of the other commentators in this thread called that a criticism. It is just a fact. Whether or not Mark Penn, Karl Rove, the DC media or the Boogeyman can be blamed for steering her campaign off track, she is ultimately in charge.
There are plenty of examples of women in high political positions and there are more women in board rooms and executive offices than men of color in those same positions. The discussion about whether Obama is winning because he is male and somehow that being black is less of a penalty than being a woman is an unconstructive, or shall I say destructive conversation. Women (or people of color or whatever) will fail to gain real power as long as we act like victims. One reason for Obama’s appeal is that he usually resists allowing himself to be a victim. Hillary may indeed benefit from the Obama middle name controversy, not because of the controversy, but because Obama is also acting victim-ish in the whole debate.
I resent Katherine Reed’s comment that “In the USA powerful women are admired for appearing to look and act like men.” Not true. Powerful women are admired for appearing to look and act powerful. Yes there is plenty of bigotry, but we will not overcome that by allowing ourselves to victims, or trying to capitalize on sympathy. I resent Hillary for the this, trying to capitalize on being a victim. Thanks a lot Hillary.
Hillary is running a 1990’s campaign in an era where more young women are graduating college, rising corporate ladders, fighting wars, and sharing equally in raising children with their life partners. Have we achieved all of the goals that we need for women? Clearly not, but the message is much different now. Hillary’s message of “fight” makes no sense to many young women. Like it or not, young people are responding to inspiration rather than perspiration. They have been text messaging, blogging and emailing all of their lives; communication is second nature, so a campaign that includes “reaching across the aisle” and “talking to enemies” makes a lot more sense to them than than “the fight”. A political campaign, whether we like it or not, is about marketing. The Clinton’s were genius in their marketing back in the day. It is a different market today.
Jane Wells says
So Ms. Wattleton is now copying the MSM’s use of “Mrs. Clinton” vs. Sen. Obama vs. Sen. Rodham-Clinton. Very nice for a feminist indeed.
I agree completely with Katherine Reed. Rock on sister. I’m really sick of race trumping sex in all discussions on the left of war, violence and the general decline of our country. I’m sorry but it’s true. Can we just have a conversation about gender/sex WITH the assumption that we are clearly including all women of all ethnicities and classes? Aren’t we there yet? And can’t we integrate that into progressive discussions of current events? Why doesn’t the term civil rights also include women’s rights as a practical matter?
Bigger picture analysis i have noticed watching all the Hillbama spectacle:
The feminist voice is largely missing from the mainstream voice of the political left-- ie, your commondreams, truth dig, raw story, luckily the Nation is run by a woman, but Katha Pollitt is certainly no radical-- her recent book on stalking a man and being a bad driver did not help.
Gender-consciousness needs to assert itself in anti-war, anti-imperialist popular argument. Moreover, the radical core of feminism is currently not large enough or suppressed so much—i don’t know, i’m speculating here—that it has not had an impact on the mainstream of the political left such that it actually enters talking about the politics of America, the world, and of conflict.
Recently, Naomi Klein made a wonderful and (still) provocative statment (paraphrasing): ‘ If you as Americans sit by and let your country bomb the Middle East, force its imperialist economic will on, then you are betting on the racism of your government.’ I would love if gender were even mentioned in the equation of war. (I don’t know if Naomi’s book does this, but as a woman writer, she neglects her responsibility to her gender in leaving it out in talks.) Iraqi and Afghan women esp have borne a major brunt of these wars. Their oppression is some sort of perverse measure of power for the anti-imperialist insurgents. The equation, therefore is more complex, and it’s certainly easier for the left (feminists and anti-war/empire) to bifucate here.
Another woman, a well respected independent journalist called American slavery the biggest tragedy of all time and her biggest political motivator—while millions of women suffer femicide, and are systematically denied any modicum of human rights across the globe? I’m sorry but slavery is slavery is slavery. Let’s not compare oppressions, we are told if the subject is broached. No let’s not, except that the political left does every single day it fails to include women in discussions of war and politics.
The left cannot see sex, cannot see gender in its discussions of politics and war, when it is at heart, at its very core. Male apartheid rules women GLOBALLY. Militarism is itself male-derived. Yes, Katherine, let’s keep using this language and maybe one day the Wattletons will start using it too—on AC 360 to boot maybe.
Jane Wells says
I also agree with the Obama- Rove speculation. It’s clear McCain will be far stronger running against Obama than Clinton. The permanent majority is what they’re after.
Karen Rudiger says
Have you noticed how Obama’s name is either before or on top of Clinton’s name. It’s caustic to the law of order that Hillary’s name has never been listed first with the respect to her winning a state. What ever happened to the alphabetical order? Woman need to point out ever single solitary detail that places a woman under or after a man! We need to use this election as a platform to fight for our equality. Has anyone else noticed how CNN has favored Obama throughout this whole campaign? Even during the debates time was wasted questioning Hillary on past issues rather then the now and future. Why wasn’t Obama slammed with something from his past to balance the debate contest? These sort of scenario’s would never happen if two men were in battle with a neck to neck horse race. The subliminal messages are stifling to woman everywhere on the globe. Woman need to become more observant and single out every detail that isn’t lined up with our motive to achieve equality. We need to make corrections it with a positive messages so a future generation of children don’t grow up with the same mentality. This is all the more reason woman need to take charge and always remember for ever 102 men on the globe there are 100 woman. We do have power to do anything we choose if we join our numbers together.
Kate says
Karen, you are so right. It is imperative that we catch all the “little” things that help maintain the devalueing status of women. The words we use, the order in which we use them, the ways we evaluate some people as opposed the ways we evaluate others...all of it matters a great deal. (Language is both a reflection of our cultural values as well as a way to maintain that value system.)
Stephanie, in response to your comment, “I resent Katherine Reed’s comment that “In the USA powerful women are admired for appearing to look and act like men.” Not true. Powerful women are admired for appearing to look and act powerful.”
Do you realize that you are actually saying the
same thing Reed says...because the truth is, looking and acting powerful is based solely on how MEN have looked in their powerful positions and roles! Power is still defined by the way men “do it”, and both men and women have been programmed to define it that way. That doesn’t mean its not possible to create and operate with a different “style” of power, but we don’t see it often enough. Women definitely have the skills and the wisdom to do power differently, but people in general need help recognizing and valuing such variations.
Stephanie Bailey says
Kate: I agree with you wholeheartedly. We do have a different style of power--a wonderful style I might add--and we need to claim it, highlight it and celebrate it. Thank you for your comment.