Sun
Feb 10 2008
11:21 am
A pro-Hillary essay that helps me understand why some women feel strongly about her...
By: Carole Borges

A friend sent this to me. I understand Morgan's feminist viewpoint. I dson't agree with everything she says, but she has some keen insight to offer, and she can be a terrific writer. it won't make me change my support of Obama, but it does raise issues we all (especially women and minorities) should not forget.

GOODBYE TO ALL THAT by Robin Morgan

"Goodbye To All That" was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women."

"During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women's movements, I've avoided writing another specific "Goodbye . . .". But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities--the joint conscience-keepers of this country--been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .
--Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who's emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

--She's "ambitious" but he shows "fire in the belly." (Ever had labor pains? )

--When a sexist idiot screamed "Iron my shirt!" at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted "Shine my shoes!" at BO, it would've inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

--Young political Kennedys--Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.--all endorsed Hillary. Sen. Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort "See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him." (Personally, I'm unimpressed with Caroline's longing for the Return of the Fathers.

Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe's suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Read the full article here...
bizgrrl's picture

Thank you, Carole, for

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 12:06pm.

Thank you, Carole, for bringing this to our attention. Thanks to Robin Morgan for the words and support of Hillary Clinton.

Robin Morgan (b. January 29, 1941) is a former child actor turned American radical feminist activist, writer, poet, and editor of Sisterhood is Powerful and Ms. Magazine.

During the 1960s, she participated in the civil rights and anti-war movements; in the late 1960s she was a founding member of radical feminist organizations such as New York Radical Women and W.I.T.C.H.. She also founded the Women's Media Center

Rachel's picture

Yes, Carole, thanks for

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 2:06pm.

Yes, Carole, thanks for posting this.

Bbeanster's picture

I'll be the turd in the

Submitted by Bbeanster on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 4:05pm.

I'll be the turd in the punchbowl here and point out that Morgan is pretty selective in her arguments.

A few examples:
She's attacking the efficacy of Teddy Kennedy endorsing Obama with the deaths of Mary Jo Kopechne and Marilyn Monroe -- the first reference I certainly get, the second, well, not so much, since she's simultaneously touting RFK Jr's endorsement of Hillary as being somehow superior -- so it's equally fair to think about Bill Clinton's treatment of women over the years. And maybe remember the Clinton surrogates' scathing "run through a trailer park waving a hundred dollar bill" kind of remarks about the women who complained about him. That was Carville, btw.
And Monica Lewinski was 22.
And as someone who grew up in the segregated South and who did whatever I could to make it stop, I hate this "sexism is worse than racism" conundrum. It makes my stomach hurt.

bizgrrl's picture

she's simultaneously touting

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 5:28pm.

she's simultaneously touting RFK Jr's endorsement of Hillary as being somehow superior

Obama touts going after youth, versus the older group, whereas he basks in the older Kennedy's endorsement and did not get it from the younger RFK Jr.

She could have left out the Monroe and Kopechne references. I thought it was more a reference to people who cannot seem to forgive President Clinton for his affair(s), when his wife can, but they can forgive JFK and Ted Kennedy for theirs. Why do some hold President Clinton to a higher standard than their "idols"?

Bbeanster's picture

We could argue this all day

Submitted by Bbeanster on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 5:51pm.

We could argue this all day and not get anywhere -- Obama got his share of the younger Kennedys, too. Frankly, the treatment of women by ALL the Kennedy men (and their cousins) always bothered me a lot. So does Bill's behavior toward women.

Cherrypicking -- and demonizing -- individuals to build a case makes that case an easy thing to reject out of hand. ("The worst offense that can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatize those who hold a contrary opinion as bad and immoral men." [John Stuart Mill, 1806-73])

I don't look at any of this as Midnight in the garden of Good and Evil. I decided to support Obama after Edwards bowed out because I want to beat the Republican nominee, and I believe Obama is the Democrats' best chance -- even though I fear it could be a slim one.

What's happened since Edwards got out confirms my belief. Obama is surging, and the coronation HRC
expected ain't happening. Every single poll I've seen this weekend shows BO (unfortunate set of initials) is the candidate who can win. And every single GOP pundit I've seen or read is hoping the Repubs get the chance to run against Hillary. I do believe there is a Clinton fatigue setting in.

What's really worrying me is what's going to happen with the superdelegates and with the Florida and Michigan delegates (or non-delegates). If there's the appearance of hanky-panky, a lot of people are going to stay home in November. Donna Brazile, a superdelegate who has been super loyal to the Clintons for decades, said this week on CNN that if this nomination is chosen by the superdelegates, she will leave the Democratic Party.

If that doesn't scare people who don't want McCain elected, I don't know what will.

Rachel's picture

I agree arguing about Obama

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 6:05pm.

I agree arguing about Obama & Clinton is pretty useless, especially if we're talking endorsements.

And I too am worried about the super delegate thing. But there's kind of the issue of "ya knew what the rules were when you started playing this game." That would apply to acceptance of super delegates who are allowed to vote their consciences AND to the way the Florida & Michigan delegates are treated.

I asked this question the other day and I don't think anybody answered - if, after all the record turnout in the primaries and caucuses, we end up in a virtual tie, what would be a good way to choose the candidate?

I got no answers, just wondering what people think.

bizgrrl's picture

Read in the KNS Saturday, in

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 6:26pm.

Read in the KNS Saturday, in 1825 the House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams president after no candidate received a majority of electoral votes.

Guess we could let all the Democratic Representatives pick. Hah!

Actually, you would think there is a procedure.

mjw's picture

A procedure?

Submitted by mjw on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 9:54pm.

Actually, you would think there is a procedure.

If you mean for when the number of delegates is tied at the convention. Of course, there is a procedure: you release the delegates from their pledges and have a second vote, and, if necessary, a third, and a fourth...

Delegates won in primaries and caucuses are only pledged to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. That would be your classic brokered convention.

SammySkull's picture

flip a coin

Submitted by SammySkull on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 8:10pm.

what would be a good way to choose the candidate?

I say we force HRC and BO to flip a coin to pick the pres. and VP and run together. That will stop them both dividing the party and give us a woman and a black person in the top two seats. How could the two of them, running together, not beat anyone?

Bbeanster's picture

(No subject)

Submitted by Bbeanster on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 5:53pm.
Eleanor A's picture

Is anybody seriously arguing

Submitted by Eleanor A on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 7:36pm.

Is anybody seriously arguing that? Other than Robin Morgan? (Actually, although I agree with the spirit in which she's written this, I think it's possible to go too far on this topic. It's not like we have zero women elected to office in the U.S., or as though there's a law against it...although it certainly does seem like it sometimes here in Tennessee, with our whopping 14%-female state Legislature, one woman elected to Congress, and the woman in Senate leadership trying to get more candidate diversity being roundly castigated by the iron-my-shirt brigade.)

Eyes on the prize, people: Democrats can actually afford to have these arguments, because we're the Party that's working to do something about them. Again, I notice the Republicans are running neither a person of color nor a woman for President this year.

I think there's been a tamping down of this talk lately, and frankly I'm glad of it. It's equally as groundbreaking if a black man or a white woman is elected President. And I'm proud to be a member of the only Party which is offering this kind of selection this year.

Pam Strickland's picture

I read somewhere yesterday

Submitted by Pam Strickland on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 6:21pm.

I read somewhere yesterday that Chelsea Clinton has been forwarding this to anyone who will read.

pgs

Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

Bbeanster's picture

I don't understand WHY

Submitted by Bbeanster on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 6:14pm.

I don't understand WHY there are superdelegates in the first place. But then, I'm not a party person, so all this seems arcane, and elitist to me. Evidently they can vote for whomever they want, for some reason. From what I have gathered, it wasn't expected to be a problem, because Hillary was going to be so far ahead in the delegate count. Whatever happens, it needs to be open and aboveboard.

And the squabble over seating Michigan and Florida? I thought the deal was they weren't going to be seated because they broke the rules. So maybe they should follow Barney Fife's Rule 1:

Obey all rules.

I know I'm missing something here...???

Rachel's picture

Obey all rules. Kind of

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 6:26pm.

Obey all rules.

Kind of what I'm thinking. Especially since everybody knows what they were in the first place. That may hurt Obama with super delegates and it may hurt Hillary with the Florida/Michigan thing. But them's the rules they started the game with, and the fairest thing to me seems to finish the game with the same rules.

Bbeanster's picture

Yeah, I just did some

Submitted by Bbeanster on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 6:29pm.

Yeah, I just did some reading.

(link...)

Doesn't make me feel any better. Can't have anybody not endorsed by fat Ned and Bill Owen. Bleh.

Only thing I hate more than Democrats is Republicans.

Eleanor A's picture

It was a mistake, IMO, for

Submitted by Eleanor A on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 8:16pm.

It was a mistake, IMO, for Dean to try to strip those delegates to begin with. He should have known this was bound to happen, whichever candidate won them - these states are two major players in American electoral politics. Although I'm a Dean booster generally, this was not smart. To give the devil his due, the Republicans' plan of seating half the delegates seems a fair compromise, when the alternative is spending millions in taxpayer funds to hold another election (or a caucus, an idea not-coincidentally put forward by the BO people.)

As far as the bombast out of the likes of Brazil, the superdelegates would not be selecting the candidate - they'd be breaking a tie. There's a difference. I can somewhat understand where folks are coming from on this, but these superdelegates are in most cases elected officials - we trust them with national defense and managing the treasury, but somehow it's monkey business to allow them to cast the deciding vote on who gets this nomination?

bizgrrl's picture

I know I'm missing something

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 6:29pm.

I know I'm missing something here...???

Howard Dean's scream after he realizes he f&#$ed up again.

Andy Axel's picture

I don't understand WHY there

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 6:16pm.

I don't understand WHY there are superdelegates in the first place.

There weren't until George McGovern won the '72 nomination.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Eleanor A's picture

Actually it was after Ted

Submitted by Eleanor A on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 7:32pm.

Actually it was after Ted Kennedy split the party in half running against Carter in 1980.

Link: (link...)

The commentary sort of writes itself on this, doesn't it?

bizgrrl's picture

Actually it was after Ted

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 7:44pm.

Actually it was after Ted Kennedy split the party in half running against Carter in 1980.

Wonder what I was doing in '76. I can't remember any of that fiasco. Will anyone who knew me back then give me a reminder, if they can?

Wow, I don't know if that election is a good reminder of previous elections. Running against the incumbent? Reportedly, not prepared.

bizgrrl's picture

but these superdelegates are

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2008/02/10 - 7:46pm.

but these superdelegates are in most cases elected officials - we trust them with national defense and managing the treasury, but somehow it's monkey business to allow them to cast the deciding vote on who gets this nomination?

Good point. I think people don't want them casting the decision only if they think it won't go their way.

RayCapps's picture

Unlikely they'll be breaking a true tie...

Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/04/16 - 4:05pm.

They'll be voting to either confirm the candidate slightly ahead in pledged delegates or to reject the candidate slightly ahead in pledged delegates. Barring complete self-destruction, that candidate slightly ahead in pledged delegates will be Barak Obama. For Barak Obama to squeak out a victory in pledged delegates only to be denied the nomination at the convention could prove disastrous for the Democratic Party in this election cycle and maybe even going forward. Both sides are now openly building up identity politics to incredible heights, and that's playing with some real dangerous fire. Racism, Sexism, Patriotism, Capitalism, Environmentalism... messing with somebody's cherished ism is like messing with someone's religion. It's not easily forgiven and never forgotten.

Anonymous's picture

A president for ALL Americans ...

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2008/04/16 - 2:06pm.

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Here is Pastor Wright's 'Black Value System'
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
(link...)

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
(link...)

AMERICANS JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES ...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives