All About Eve

As a disclaimer... many people will disagree with this diary. I know that. I also know that it explores one tiny facet of a much larger, more complex issue.

Second disclaimer... I am an ardent Clinton supporter... but I am also an ardent, lifelong Democrat. I will absolutely vote for Barack Obama. I am a mother... I held my infant twin sons as I watched GWB win a 2nd term as POTUS. Never have I felt more angry, hopeless, helpless. I do not want that feeling again. This country cannot afford another day of a Republican President.

I take Hillary Clinton's words very much to heart:
"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort."  

McCain must lose. Obama must win.

That said, I thought that this article / OpEd was an excellent summation of how I (and I assume MANY other Clinton supporters) are feeling at the moment.

I thought perhaps it might help Obama's most ardent supporters to understand the vibe out there... the "why" of the anger, the disappointment, the feeling that history has been snatched from our clutches at the moment when we had it within our grasps.

This is not intended as an Obama smear at all. It is intended as an honest look... and, in an odd way, a step towards unity. I can absolutely understand the anger which is out there... at the media, at the DNC, at Democratic leadership and yes, at Obama.

Read with an open mind and try to understand?


http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/a rticle/439575

Beaten By The Protégé  
Obama vs Clinton race as eerily similar to the movie "All About Eve". Once, she was his mentor.
June 09, 2008
Judy Gerstel

She was highly regarded and well-connected, an illustrious, mature woman recognized and admired for her commitment, her talent, her tenacity. Granted, she was somewhat mercurial, a woman who played different roles. But she was generous with her colleagues and a tireless, consummate performer at the peak of her powers.

Along came a young admirer, fresh-faced and ambitious, new to the scene but with enormous appeal, beguiling and winning over the older woman's supporters. Ostensibly eager, at first, to learn the ropes from her and to emulate her, the neophyte quickly found the cracks in her armour and exploited them, undermining her, weakening her position and, sensing that she could be toppled, strategizing successfully to surpass her, to bring her down, to take on her role.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

No. Margo Channing and Eve Harrington.

What happened to Clinton on the way to the Democratic nomination may ring a bell with anyone who's seen the 1950 film, All About Eve.

All that was missing, as the results came in at the close of the Iowa caucus in January, when the young, inexperienced but engaging rival outstripped the knowing, hard-edged professional, was someone delivering that memorable line in the movie: "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"

It's a classic plot - and one that resonates profoundly with older women, in both their professional and personal lives.

Granted, men also have to contend with smart, ambitious, competitive, charming young whippersnappers determined to overtake them in corporate life, in athletics and, sometimes, in the bedroom.

For women over 50, however, it's an ongoing, daily struggle to defend against being sidelined because of age, to avoid giving way to somebody younger, fresher, more attractive - and often, it's the strength, power and confidence of the older woman and her insistence on standing her ground that makes her seem even less attractive.

But is it really fair to cast Obama in the role of Eve Harrington to Clinton's Margo Channing, a character played by Bette Davis in one of her most remarkable performances?

Consider this observation printed in the Hamilton Spectator on May 28, 2005, about the newbie senator:

"Obama is keeping a determinedly low profile. His model is Hillary Clinton ..."

The article refers to his "protests of humility" and quotes him: "I don't want to be fabricated into some great hope for the Democratic party just because I am flavour of the month now ... after the people have seen my work, hopefully they will feel I can make a contribution."

It would seem Hillary Clinton had nothing to worry about in the next couple of years as Obama was starting to make his "contribution." Clearly, he regarded her as a mentor, not a rival. No wonder Clinton was lulled into the confidence many critics deemed a sense of entitlement - just as Margo Channing was at first lulled into regarding Eve Harrington as a harmless sycophant instead of a threat.

And when, on Aug. 3, 2007, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny wrote about the increasing tension between Clinton and Obama, he noted, "It wasn't always this way."

It had to have been inconceivable to the Clintons a mere two years ago that by the spring of 2008 Obama would be branding them racists and usurping their devoted constituency of African-American voters.

Zeleny writes, "When Mr. Obama was running for the Senate, Mrs. Clinton waited out a lightning storm on a tarmac to fly to Chicago for a fundraiser on his behalf. After he arrived in Washington in 2005, he studied her first year in office and worked to keep a similarly studious - yet low - profile.

"After Hurricane Katrina, he joined Mrs. Clinton and former president Bill Clinton as they visited storm evacuees in Houston, with Mr. Obama walking a few paces behind out of deference to the leading names of the Democratic party."

The relationship began to change, reports Zeleny, when Obama began musing aloud on a presidential bid.

And yet, in 2005, newly arrived in Washington from the Illinois state senate, he revealed an unintended "glimpse into his own competitiveness, " writes Zeleny, "when a Chicago television reporter who had come to Washington to interview Mr. Obama informed him that he had snagged a hallway interview with Mrs. Clinton.

"`I outpoll her in Illinois,' Mr. Obama said. After realizing his remark had been overheard, he said: `That was a joke.'"

Eve Harrington couldn't have handled it better.

And Clinton may not be the first woman in the role of Margo Channing to Obama's Eve.

His mentor in the Illinois state senate was Alice Palmer, a respected black activist who'd picked Obama as her successor in the mid-'90s. "When she tried to reclaim her spot," according to a Los Angeles Times political blog posting by a reporter in the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau, "Obama got her booted from the ballot."

The narrative of the Democratic nomination is not just that of neophyte scheming to replace the mentor, of youth shoving maturity out of the way, a story as old as time. It's more complicated because, in this case, it involves misogyny and sexism both blatant and subtle.

For many women bereft by Clinton's loss, "it was not just a matter of politics but of identity," Leslie Wayne observed on the New York Times politics blog. "Many said her struggle to gain the nomination - and the insults they believe Mrs. Clinton has endured along the way - mirrors their own struggles in life and in the corporate world."

One woman who sees it that way is Sheila Copps, the former deputy prime minister who endured her own insults and struggle along the way and admits to being, "totally depressed" about Clinton being overtaken by Obama.

"She was supplanted," Copps says, speaking by phone from Mexico. "We were sideswiped on the way to the White House."

Now, citing the "blatant" sexism in the media coverage of Clinton, she says, "What's even sadder is that people can't even see it."

Then there is this video from fall of 2004... when Obama was a newly elected US Senator. Even he admits that he is under-qualified to run for President in 2008. Clearly, he changed his mind... or colleagues in the Senate and in IL urged him on to go-for-it. The rest is history.

I have to admit... as a woman (and a small-business-owning working mother) who fiercely supported Hillary Clinton, worked hard for her campaign and will always believe her to be the superior, most qualified, most experienced candidate whom the Democrats had this year... this stings a LOT... and it goes far beyond just her loss. There are so many examples I can think of in my own life and career... where women work twice as hard to earn half as much credit. I've seen this scenario play itself out over-and-over again in my own life and the lives of my friends and family... where a highly qualified older woman loses-out to a handsome, younger, charismatic man. That is where the anger stems from.

Many people ask... what can Obama do? Personally I don't think he can do anything. I think that he's simply got to win big and then be a great POTUS. The protégé must now prove himself.



Display:


Nothing was snatched. He won. (2.00 / 1)

He didn't brand them racists. He out organized them. That was his job in Chicago and he hasn't forgotten.  Alice Palmer decided to step down and after Obama started his campaign decided to step back in. Without enough signatures to get on the ballot.

The article is so wrong that the only thing it might do is piss Obama supporters off not show them how Clinton supporters are feeling. Unless your intent is to show Obama supporters that Clinton supporters are basing their feelings on falsehoods.


The plural of anecdote is not data.
by LiberalDebunker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM EST

Re: Nothing was snatched. He won. (none / 0)

"He didn't brand them racists."

Oh yes, he did.   Have you forgotten, already, the memo circulated in SC in which their racist crimes were outlined?   Have you forgotten the firestorm of MSM bullshit about Bill Clinton that was spread in obedience to David Axelrod's talking points?   How quickly you forget.


by miker2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing was snatched. He won. (2.00 / 1)

No I haven't forgotten the memo which lists various (but not nearly all) racially questionable statements. I haven't forgotten the racially questionable statements made by any people in the Clinton camp.

Pointing out racially questionable and insensitive comments isn't the same as calling someone a racist and no one in the media or the Obama camp called either Clinton a racist.  


The plural of anecdote is not data.
by LiberalDebunker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing was snatched. He won. (2.00 / 1)

they weren't just "pointing them out"

they were using them as talking points - I wonder what that talking point was supposed to be?  That the Clintons are great people?

nope


by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing was snatched. He won. (none / 0)

Talking points? So they were brought up over and over again by the campaign and its surrogates? Nah. That's not true at all.  

You act like someone forced the Clintons and their surrogates to say the BS that they said.


The plural of anecdote is not data.
by LiberalDebunker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't really like that article (2.00 / 2)

While I don't disbelieve you for a second, twinmom, and believe that you are an honest Democrat with an interest in beating McCain, that article set off warning flags for me.

Neither Obama nor his campaign branded the Clintons as racist.  The worst that Obama has ever said about things spoken by the Clintons that were viewed as being potentially racist is that they're "unfortunate" and that they "know better."

Anyone representing the campaign that expressed sentiments that they were racist were off-message and were dealt with accordingly.

The Alice Palmer stuff is veering into dangerous territory.  Obama didn't throw her off the ballot, he brought up legitimate concerns with her pre-candidacy work and signatures (and, in fact, with all of his rivals).  There's a good chance that many of the signatures were illegitimate.  Further, she basically told Obama that she wouldn't run... then changed her mind.  If she'd just been clear on her intentions from the beginning, I doubt that it would've been an issue.

What Obama did was fight corruption in the complacent Chicago system, and win.  If anything, the Palmer situation should give you more hope for him, rather than raise concerns.

I understand the comparisons to All About Eve, but I just want you to be aware that the article makes some unfortunate claims that raise its intentions into doubt.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:43:44 AM EST

As I said (none / 0)

I know many people will disagree with this diary.

You're refuting the points made in the linked article with facts... that is fine, I can understand that impulse. But many of the "facts" of this primary season (on both sides) are open to interpretation and debate... they will never be truly resolved and the time has come to move on. This is so NOT about Alice Palmer... at least not the point I am trying to make.

Sometimes it is impossible to refute FEELINGS and IMPRESSIONS with facts. The point I am trying to make here is to try to explain the FEELINGS, the vibe.

It is clearly a vibe which is out there in a very large and powerful way. I can absolutely 100% relate to it. It has soured me on Obama, even though I will vote for him.

I simply think that it is useful to look at it. Obama needs women to get behind him to win this. Perhaps more importantly, he needs women to get behind him to have a mandate for change.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, you can't argue with feelings (2.00 / 1)

Blogs are useful for arguing over facts, but they don't have a lot of impact on feelings; at least not the kind of impact we'd like to have.

I've been trying to give Clinton supporters their space; I thought that Hillary Clinton's concession speech struck exactly the right tone of pride and unity to slowly talk her people down from the ledge.

Not sure what else we can really do;  I don't want to let sketchy facts contribute to the problem, so that's what I'm going to refute.

What I will say is that the presidency really isn't much like the work situations in All About Eve or Working Girl or the like.  The magnitude and dynamics don't support someone just sweeping in without qualifications.  In this case, winning the primary is the qualification.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is really problematic. (2.00 / 4)

"She was supplanted," Copps says, speaking by phone from Mexico. "We were sideswiped on the way to the White House."

This attitude exists throughout this op-ed - the presumption that the nomination and the office rightfully belonged to Hillary Clinton and were taken from her by Barack Obama.  I find that extraordinarily problematic.  

In fact, I think this very idea of the more qualified older woman being passed up by a younger person for the job is a bad metaphor in general; it presumes that the qualifications for the workplace are the same as those for elected office, and ignores the reality that, even still, no candidate in the race has completed one of the qualifications for the job of president: winning a presidential election.  This isn't a case where the boss likes the younger, hotter person, or where there's an old boys club picking a winner; Obama won more or less the same number of votes as Clinton (depending on which count you use), and won more pledged delegates.

The extraordinary presumptuousness of this article leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:44:19 AM EST

Re: This is really problematic. (none / 0)

A perfect response.

A presidential election is not a job interview; the Democratic electorate is not corporate America. It's an analogy that ignores Hillary's campaign mistakes and (IMHO) demeans the struggles of women in the workplace. The woman passed over for a promotion never had even remotely as much control over her own fate as Hillary did to start this race.

But if people really want to run with the "promotion" analogy, then let's at least make it fit properly. Jobs and promotions aren't necessarily handed out. You have to interview, or at least have a resume. When your "interviewer" is the anti-war Democratic electorate, then voting to authorize the war is a huge detriment. It opens the door for them to look toward someone else instead. And you also can't flub your "interview"--in this case, the campaign, complete with its mismanaged finances, bad personnel decisions, not contesting caucus states, not planning past Feb. 5, etc.

Most of all, I think this weird "apprenticeship" angle is just some writer trying to shoehorn a very different situation to fit the archetype from his/her favorite movie. Clinton never took Obama under her wing; there was no real relationship there. He followed her "example" only in the most general sense, as both were extremely high-profile newcomers cautious about upstaging their colleagues.

What makes me uncomfortable about this article is that it seems to encourage the "backstabbing" narrative that has been angrily raised at various points in this campaign (cough, cough Richardson). And throwing in Alice Palmer seems totally gratuitous (if not irrelevant), designed only to further the Obama-betrays-people narrative the story pushes.

Twinmom, thankfully, I'm not in a position to deal with a loss this time around. I know a lot of people are looking for comfort from articles like this, but this one is so intentionally glib with the facts that it serves only to deepen divisions.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is really problematic. (none / 0)

oh, and for what it's worth, as long as we're torturing a narrative, one could also overdramatically state that Clinton pushed all her mentors out of the way--I'm sure people like Biden or Dodd helped show her the ropes, and there she goes running for President just when they  were doing the same.

It'd be just as ridiculous an argument in that context, as well.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All About Eve (2.00 / 1)

I agree very much that this perspective helps explain the frustration and anger many Clinton supporters, especially women feel. While not all of the assertions in the article are fact (i.e. Obama never called the Clintons racist), the perspective rings true.

I think one of the main differences in the narrative for Obama supporters would be the "sideswiped on the way to the White House" comment. I've heard many Obama supporters express feeling miffed toward some of Hillary's supporters, and even Hillary herself after hearing suggestions that the nomination was hers until someone tried to take it away. They may be having an emotional reaction against claims of entitlement much the same way that Clinton supporters feel an emotional reaction from perceiving that an upstart challenger overshadows a mature female.

Thanks for posting the article.


by glopster on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM EST

Personally (none / 0)

I never once felt that Hillary was a shoe-in to be President... I knew that getting her into the White House was going to be a grueling battle. I knew that she would face a lot of resistance.

The media has largely portrayed this as a David-and-Goliath story where Obama slayed the "Clinton Machine"... but the fact remains that Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate for POTUS. This was never going to be a walk in the park. Not even close.

There article I linked to has a side-bar with the following info:

Media bias

Researcher Erika Falk documented what she sees as sexist bias against Hillary Clinton. "She wasn't treated like the typical male candidate," says the communications expert at Johns Hopkins University. Falk analyzed the first month of campaign coverage in the top six circulating American newspapers, including USA Today, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times.

She found that Clinton:

* Was more likely than Obama to have her legislative title dropped and be referred to by her first name or by her gender.

* Was mentioned in just 65 per cent of the number of articles as Obama. Only nine stories mentioned Clinton without mentioning Obama; 38 stories mentioned Obama without Clinton.

* Had fewer paragraphs written about her than Obama did - 631 about her and 934 about him.

* Was less likely to see her name in a headline than Obama: 59 stories had headlines with "Obama" to just 36 with "Clinton."


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Personally (2.00 / 1)

But really- do you think her loss had anything to do with the fact that 31 more stories, 303 more paragraphs, and 23 more headlines mentioned Obama than Clinton?  What about the hundreds of thousands from 1992-2000?

I know it's easy to want to find a reason, but twinmom, sometimes good candidates just simply don't win the election.  Hillary would've been a fine president, no dispute- but she lost.  And it wasn't stolen, it wasn't snatched by a better looking younger man (Hillary is doing just fine in the looks department, as is Obama, if one must go down that street and I hope one wouldn't), it wasn't taken away by a sexist media that was all Obama all the time.

She just, simply, lost.  She didn't run as good of a campaign as he did, and I don't think you'll catch any Clinton staffer disputing it.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In a race this close (none / 0)

I think that ANY advantage a candidate had mattered. That's just my opinion.

The facts stand that these two candidates finished neck-in-neck. Either of them would have mopped the floor with a lesser rival. Obama did not sweep into an over-the-top, soaring victory. I'd argue that no one BUT Obama could have beaten her for the nomination this year. It was a very specific confluence of circumstances which allowed him to win (despite, or perhaps because of, his inexperience).

Yes, Obama far a strategically superior campaign, especially in the early contests.

But I personally do not think that fact tells the entire story at all. It gives him far too much credit and her far too little... and it discounts the enormous role which the media played in Obama's rise. I understand that you disagree, that's fine. But again, I am not alone in my feelings about this.

If her campaign was as bad as all the pundits claim... doesn't that make how well she managed to do that much more remarkable? Isn't that a strong testament to HER strength as a candidate?

She won over 40% of the contests, 49% of the pledged delegates and 50% of the popular vote. It doesn't get any closer than that really.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a race this close (2.00 / 2)

Well yes- but she had her advantages too.  She had 100 SDs in the bank before vote #1 was cast, and a 20 point lead in the polls.  She had pundits declaring everyone should just bow out.

And we agree here.  The results speak for themselves.  It WAS close- very close.  Not a mandate but a squeaker.  However, the results can't be argued, he won.

But you make disingenuous points.  Obama has plenty of experience, you should take another look at his bio if you disagree.  Obama's rise- do you think, was 100% the media, or do you think it was the media reporting on the phenomenon that is one of the strongest, most well-spoken, most intelligent candidates we've had since Kennedy?

The pundits are going to claim whatever they want.  She is a strong candidate, and nobody with any sense can deny it.  She damn near won it.

But- she didn't.  And I think your reverse is true- I think you give him far too little credit and the media far too much.  She did a good job, he did a better one, and now it's time to discuss how much better a job he'll do than McCain.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We simply disagree (none / 0)

You ask: "Do you think it was the media reporting on the phenomenon that is one of the strongest, most well-spoken, most intelligent candidates we've had since Kennedy?"

I don't see Obama that way at all. I disagree with every word of your question. Sorry, but that's my opinion. That gaga hype is what has always turned me OFF Obama to be frank.

Believe me, I've looked at his bio... I don't think he's got anywhere near enough experience to be President. I had hoped we'd learned our lesson from GWB. Considering the complicated tangled mess which the next POTUS stands to inherit, I think we need someone with FAR more experience than Obama has. I think he should have run for President in 2016. Again, that's my opinion. Millions disagree.

Anyway, all this is rehashing moot points... he's the nominee. He'd better win this thing.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We simply disagree (none / 0)

No one on Earth has the "experience" to be President until they actually serve. Its like asking who has the experience to be an astronaut. And no, being the wife of an astronaut and living at Cape Canaveral for eight years doesn't give one the experience of being an astronaut.

Obama's won. It's over. The nomination was not stolen from Clinton. If you want him to "win this thing", maybe you should stop trying to undermine him as our nominee. If you spread resentment from here to November (actually, pretty much from here on out), you forfeit the right to state he'd better win anything.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We simply disagree (none / 0)

Well I agree, but I also in fairness don't want to discount the experience Clinton gained in the White House.  A better analogy than living at Cape Canaveral would be if Clinton was married to the head astronaut but went on some missions herself from time to time.

But we do disagree on Obama, twinmom, and that's ok.  There's time before the election, and perhaps he'll win you over like he did me (a former Edwards guy).  Perhaps he won't.  But I hope you'll help out regardless.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Honorrifics (2.00 / 1)

Was more likely than Obama to have her legislative title dropped and be referred to by her first name or by her gender.

I'd be more worried about this if she hadn't pushed it herself.

"I'm your girl" and signs that just designate her by her first name are clear indicators that Clinton, herself, bought into a lot of the stereotypes... or at least thought that she could use them to her advantage.  It all smacked of market research Sometimes I wondered if we were on the road to referring to her as "The Politician Formerly Known as Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton."

If I were a woman, I wouldn't be caught dead letting people call me by my first name when they called my rivals by their honorary titles and last names.  Hell, if I ever have any daughters, I'm going to raise them to keep their last names even if they get married.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:59:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see "Hillary" as an (none / 0)

insult.  It's a brandname now - it's affection as much as anything.  On blogs, I call both of them Senator - but will use Hillary occasionally because she is the one I feel comfortable with and have a connection with -

Still - you are able even here in an innocuous use of "Hillary" to sternly lecture Sen. Clinton.  Good for you!  


by Xanthe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the point (none / 0)

The very fact that we're comfortable referring to it as a "brand name" is worrisome to me (and that goes for all the discussion of "brands" in politics).  It strikes me as over-market-tested and makes me think that our politics has become more about advertising than policy issues...

Of course, that's nothing new and Obama himself is a master of marketing, but quite frankly, growing up with a second-wave feminist as a mother, I grew to understand that women often fall into these sexism traps and then buy into them to get ahead.  The whole "do what you have to to get ahead in a man's world" thing.  I'm not saying that it's fair that Clinton gets painted with that brush, but it was a serious problem for me that she basically accepted and used the gender issues for her own advantage, instead of doing what Obama did, which was try to be above that particular fray and give a historic speech on the issue when it became too much to handle.

You can consider it a stern lecture if you want, but frankly I'd be a little surprised if Hillary Clinton didn't know all this already.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, the very name "Barack" (none / 0)

a name he chose - shows the importance of identity and branding.  

Brand name also means a name that has power and history - as well as workability.  

Of course, he gave a speech - that's what he does.

Hillary knows plenty - I don't disagree there.


by Xanthe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He didn't exactly choose that name (none / 0)

I mean, he was born with the name; the only change he made was to ask people not to call him "Barry."

Though, since "Barack" means "blessed," you might have a point... :)


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All About Eve (none / 0)

Twinmom,

I'm surprised that you are unable to do what you encouraged a previous poster to do. That is, instead of disputing the perspective that I suggested with some idea of FACT (which you already acknowledged are wishy-washy here), just try to recognize that there is an emotional reality for some, and that is a deep resentment of an insider claiming entitlement. I don't want to argue facts. Like you, I was trying to identify different camps of feeling.

Sheesh!


by glopster on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:02 AM EST

Re: All About Eve (none / 0)

oops, was supposed to be a response to the above thread


by glopster on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I understand that (2.00 / 1)

But really, why would Obama supporters feel any need to harbor resentments at this point?

Obama won. They get to vote for their number one choice in November. It should be quite easy to be magnanimous and forgive all grievances.

Believe me, I do see all the nuances and how much in-flux the "facts" can be. I do. I don't for a moment believe that this one diary or one article sums up this situation in its entirety.

But I was at the Clinton speech last Tuesday night... and I got a strong vibe from a lot of women there. I do think that this article (for all its flaws) does a pretty good job of capturing a lot of what I heard... especially from older career women.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:20:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i hear you twinmom (none / 0)

i don't agree with the entire article and won't bother disputing the assertions i think are wrong, because i understand you are trying to express your feelings.

frankly, if i was 10 or more years older than i am now, i would probably feel exactly as you do.  clinton's run meant so much to women of a certain age (i'm trying to be sensitive here so please don't take that the wrong way).  women who came of age during the 2nd wave of feminism directly felt the sting of sexism in their faces on a near daily basis.  they saw lesser qualified men get promoted over them, and they were basically second class citizens in many respects.

i am lucky enough to have come in behind that generation, and while i've been subjected to sexism, it certainly wasn't as overt or in my face as that felt by previous generations of women.  so i can definitely see why many mature women felt so strongly about hillary's run.  i understand what it meant to see a woman give as good as she got.  and i can also see how some might feel that hillary was usurped by a "less qualified" male (i don't agree he's less qualified).  to many women, the storyline of the primary season mirrored their own struggles in the workplace and public life.

so yea, i understand those feelings, and if i had different life experiences i probably would feel the same way.

that being said, i do believe we will see a woman president soon.  perhaps after obama, or the cycle afterwards.  clinton set the bar high, but there are so many good female elected officials out there that i know one of them will soon shatter that marble ceiling.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM EST

Just for the record (none / 0)

I'm not that old... I'm 38. I don't think that I'm really "of a certain age" at all? But maybe I am compared to the youth vote. I don't know? Maybe I'm right in-between the two?


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i think we're tweeners (none / 0)

you only have a couple of years on me, meaning IMO that you entered the workforce sooner than i did.  you probably felt the sting harder than i did.  i don't begrudge you those feelings at all.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Honestly (2.00 / 1)

It was becoming a mother which really cemented and elevated my respect and admiration for women who juggle family and career... that was when I switched from being a feminist (with a small f) to a Feminist. This primary season has made me into a FEMINIST.

I have a whole new perspective on the women of my mother's (and Clinton's) generation who fought these battles... and for the women of my own generation who are trying to juggle it all in a world which is supposedly "post-feminist". Believe me, it's not.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh i hear that (none / 0)

believe me, i do.  

and i work in a male dominated industry, so i am acutely aware.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama needs to more than succeed as POTUS (2.00 / 2)

There are two things that Obama.  First, he can address sexism in the same way that he addressed racism.  This would be a good time for a big speech.

Second, he could take Kos for the same kind of walk he took Joe Lieberman on last week.  Kos needs to hear from the man himself that the sexism and misogyny have to stop.  The endless and vulgar references to the reproductive organs of women running for office has to stop.  Derogatory terms like bi*ch and clitnon have to stop.  This is conduct that is destroying the party and everything we have stood for as progressives.


by dbrown04 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:52:31 AM EST

Seriously? (none / 0)

I always figured that "clitnon" was a typo.  I've done that myself (and hopefully always caught it before submitting).

As far as sexism goes... I'm not sure that Obama is the one to give that speech.  Wouldn't it mean more coming from Hillary Clinton?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama needs to more than succeed as POTUS (none / 0)

Huh?  When has Kos called Hillary Clinton a "b**"?  Link, please.

And not to defend "Clitnon" if it's intentional, but it is a relatively easy typo to make, particularly for people typing on little tiny laptop keyboards... I've made it more than a few times while typing really fast and only caught it because of Firefox's Little Red Underline.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

here you go (none / 0)

Here's one.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/page/2/?p=2 430

Sorry about the source but I didn't have a lot of time to look.


by dbrown04 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just reread your post (none / 0)

In my citation, Kos uses the b-word on Maureen Dowd not Hillary Clinton.  Though, from the perspective of sexism, I'm not sure it matters.


by dbrown04 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama needs to more than succeed as POTUS (none / 0)

I'm with you on the first point.

I think the second point is all of our responsibility. Sexism at DKos was debated long before this primary season, and ought to continue being debated.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All About Eve (2.00 / 2)

good diary twinmom. Obama supporters will not admit their guy ever did anything negative. On Russert's show Obama can admit yes, the campaign had compiled four pages of quotes in order to smear the clinton's as racist and that it was wrong--FACT!!--but to these folks it never happened.  


by linfar on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST

I'm not going to argue, but... (2.00 / 1)

can this please be your last anti-Obama diary? Would you be willing to promise?


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:00:25 PM EST

Re: I'm not going to argue, but... (none / 0)

Of course not. The thrill is in undermining him as our nominee, instead of attacking John McCain.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll never promise that (2.00 / 1)

I'm not a Democrat to be a compliant sheep. I'm a Democrat so that I can form and express my own opinion.

Sorry. But I plan to hold Obama's feet to the coals as much as I would ANY politician.

Is he vastly superior to McCain in terms of stated policy? Yes, of course he is. Is he perfect? No. Is he fallible? Yes. Does his campaign have to work their butts off to grow their coalition beyond the voters he's managed to reach? Yes.

Personally, I think it helps to examine why there are a lot of people who are quite resistant to Obama. All too often the response is a scolding "that is anti-Obama", rather than hearing is as constructive criticism or a clue to understand the reservations about him.

I am a Democrat who doesn't find it hard to simply get behind the D... but clearly there are other women who were for Hillary and aren't for Obama. I'm telling you that I can absolutely relate to at least part of what motivates them.

Obama's still learning and he's still finetuning his message... I plan to be a loud voice to influence that learning curve. If it means being critical of him, his strategies, his message etc. I'm going to do just that.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm gonna hold you to that. (none / 0)

We need some people to remain supportive but skeptical.  If everybody is a flag-waver, if everyone's "drunk the kool-aid," as it were, then we'll be blind to trouble down the road.

I mean, heck, I see some issues come up, and think to myself, "that's not an issue, why are we paying attention to that?"  and then the media picks it up and it becomes a big problem.  So obviously somebody needs to be more skeptical than me.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And did you hold Hillary to your high standard (none / 0)

at least while she was running against Obama.

When you are publishing negative diaries against Obama you're doing McCain's work for him. The time to hold his feet to the fire is after he's elected.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please correct this error: (none / 0)

You say his promise not to run in 2008 was made in 1994.  It was made in 2004.

Thanks.


by miker2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM EST

Thanks (none / 0)

Yes, that was a typo... that video is from November 2004. I fixed it.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All About Eve (none / 0)

AS a young person, more despite it, I completely understand what her run meant for women, for me and my mom. I, a hillary supporter, knew that aspect well and well I agree that it stings; i've never been passed up for a job cause there was a younger guy, but as someone who is constantly underestimated because of my gender and size (im short! whatd you expect Im mexican-american!) I completely understand the sentiment.


by alyssa chaos on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST

Re: All About Eve (none / 0)

My main problem with the premise of the diary and the editorial on which it is based is the sense that somehow Clinton was the one that was owed this nomination. There is a real sense among some of her supporters that Obama usurped her turn and that is just not right. It was a competition to win the nomination that was extraordinarily close and the better organized candidate came out on top. Clearly I feel for Clinton supporters who are disappointed, especially women who have poured themselves and their aspirations into the nomination battle, but to suggest that somehow she got cuckholded out of her deserved spot by a younger, "prettier" face, is to denigrate what both candidates did and to make the whole process trivial.


by wasder on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST

Thanks so much for this (none / 0)

No doubt some will be angry and insist sexism was not an issue and that we (women who support Hillary) need to get over it. They didn't get it when Matthews was giggling over his obnoxious statements...they didn't get it when the "iron my shirts" placard was happening; they didn't get it when Jesse Jackson Jr called it "Hillary's fake tears" with a sexist sneer on his face.

I am angry.  I remain angry.  I will vote for Obama and no one, not Obama himself, or not any women supporting Obama can tell me my anger is not justified and real.


by Jjc2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:12:13 PM EST

Except Eve Was a Woman (none / 0)

The analogy may have held if someone like Maria Cantwell had won the nomination. No, the analogy is more like the woman who works hard and many years at the job. Then one day, the company tells her that she is being passed over for a promotion because the new upstart guy has alot of potential.


Dizzy Zzyzzy
by Zzyzzy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:21:36 PM EST

Re: All About Eve (none / 0)

I understand the sympathetic frustration with the perception that the more qualified woman loses to a younger man. I don't agree that this describes this case, but I understand that those who think it does and identify with that have that emotional response. But I find it strange, and in some ways destructive, to have this framed as an "All About Eve" comparison.

As already noted, in All About Eve, Margo already had the job. It wasn't an open competition between the two characters, it was Margo generously allowing Eve into her space and Eve positioning herself to take over as soon as Margo was (even temporarily) unavailable. Margo was already the successful star, Eve was a nobody off the street. Obama wasn't a nobody, he wasnt' trying to be Senator from New York and although I'm sure he's grateful for HRC doing a fundraiser for him, he hardly owes his seat in the Senate to Clinton. As already noted by other posters, Obama and Clinton engaged in an open competition for the same prize. There was nothing tricky or underhanded about it. Obama didn't get to stay in the race due to the good graces of Clinton. (and modeling his first year in the Senate after Clinton's is not the same thing as being mentored by her).

Next, although it's fair to say Margo could be forgiven for not seeing Eve as an immediate threat, it's insulting to suggest Hillary Clinton was unaware that Obama was potential competition. He showed up at the convention in 04 and gave the speech and got the response that Bill Clinton tried (and famously failed) to give and get in 1998 when he was positioning himself for a future presidential run. The woman isn't stupid. How can we be asked to believe that Hillary Clinton didn't notice something that the rest of the nation did (Obama had a promising future and there's only two steps up).

Lastly, casting Obama as Eve is doing the republicans' work for them. They've been "feminizing" our male candidates for years, and they don't do it because they have respect for women. They do it so they can attack democratic males with anti-feminist arguments about weakness and frivolity.

The whole comparison is a stretch beyond "younger person capitalizes on older person's misfortune" and since it's stretching in a dangerous direction, I'd warn against adopting it.


by Mobar on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:53:25 PM EST

from my hometown paper. (none / 0)

also v. pro-BO interestingly enough.  rec'd.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:31:31 PM EST

Re: All About Eve (2.00 / 1)

Many people ask... what can Obama do? Personally I don't think he can do anything. I think that he's simply got to win big and then be a great POTUS. The protégé must now prove himself.

A thought provoking diary, and I certainly agree with the conclusion, if not necessarily all the points along the way.

My own takeaway for a while now has been: "How can I ensure that those who think there won't be a woman president in their lifetime will be proven wrong?" We need to be vigiliant of sexism in the media, and see to it that we run (and support) more women for elected office.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:15:48 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.