Moms On Issues
with Sara and Veronica
We're two moms with different backgrounds, jobs and points of view, writing about our opinions on the political and social issues affecting working moms. We'll also keep our eye on the media and the celebrity mom world to highlight issues that are relevant to your life.
Check out our personal blogs: Veronica's Blog and Sara's Blog
|
Yes, I know we have a few more primaries to run through, but even if Hillary pulls out some miracle, I’m still wondering how did this all happen? One year ago she was the nominee. The one with the money, the connections, and the momentum. She had the super early endorsements of NOW, EMILY’s List and the National Women’s Political Caucus. Why are we in mid-May still trying to pick a nominee? Why didn’t women in every state overwhelmingly vote for Hillary? A woman who has spent her entire adulthood working for women and children’s rights?
At Lifetime (television for women), their political coverage is framed as “Every Woman Counts.” Women are posting their responses to “If I were President…” Just looking at the things posted on the front page, they are things that Hillary talks about.
Earlier this month Paige Wiser of the Chicago Sun-Times asked the question “What if women ran Chicago?” What did she find? That family issues would be at the forefront - No more worrying about that 2-3 hour gap between when teachers clock out and we clock out. Despite women’s own egos there would be less sore losers. Other things mentioned, both serious and not-so:
* Better pay for teachers
* No more ugly condos (there are a lot of them in Chicago!)
* Low-income housing
* Make Chicago Transit Authority administrators to HAVE to take the CTA every single day, until they get it right
* Teach kids about finance
* Make men were skirts & heels in the winter
* Women would be able to talk about sex without stigma
* Body hair would be beautiful, but men would have to get Brazillians
* Comprehensive sex ed for all
* Put gyms in office buildings
In her follow-up column, Wiser brings us a woman who worked with Chicago’s only woman mayor:
Karen Petitte, consumer affairs commissioner for 1979-83 Chicago Mayor Jane Byrne, says:
I feel we have NOT “come a long way, baby” when it comes to women in power. It’s pretty hard to maintain a female sensibility in the political arena because it thrives on power, competition and “macho” demonstrations of strength. Unfortunately, when women try to play the game with the big boys they get a lot of criticism for being harsh, aggressive, hostile.
Seriously, what happened? How did Hillary lose the support of Democratic women? Did she fall prey to what Petitte points out? That Hillary tried so hard to look tough enough for the guys that us gals were turned off? And what does that mean, if anything, for us working women? If the ultimate working mom can’t count on the legions of working moms in this country and in her party to support her, who would women vote for? Who would women support?
For the record, I voted for Hillary even though Barack is my Senator, but I am not so wedded to Hillary that I will throw a tantrum and sit out the November election. And I firmly believe that both candidates are pretty much the same on policy issues.
Subscribe to blog via RSS
I think your last comment - about not sitting out the November election if your candidate isn’t the nominee - is key. I’ve heard that “taking my toys and going home” comment way too much lately, and I think it completely misses the point.
I understand that the primary campaign has been surprisingly dragged out and at times ugly in tone, and I wish that weren’t the case. I also agree with you that on major policy issues, the Democratic candidates aren’t dramatically different from each other; the differences are largely in how they’d implement things, as I understand it.
In any case, not voting in the general election would be a bad move, and a protest vote for the other side would be an even worse one.
Thanks for the chance to vent on this!
Florinda | May 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I like the ideal of Hillary. What has been difficult for me and I think others is that the reality of her is that she doesn’t connect well personally with people.
I read her biography last summer. It really added a dimension to her that impressed me. She is smart, ambitious, capable. But, she is also abrasive, head strong, and feels victimized.
After all the campaigning, I don’t think she stands for people like me. But, I don’t think any of the candidates do. I’m a moderate. I am a white collar worker in an upper middle middle class family. I’m not looking for big box social programs that typically only help the bottom 10% and increase my taxes. I’m also not sure where she really stands on the war and how she will change things.
In the end, I think her novelty of a strong, smart, capable women is not able to overcome her fundamental stance on issues. But, will I vote for her. Yes. She is still the closest to my beliefs.
Michele | May 20th, 2008 at 4:54 am
I think that for the first time in a long time we have to canidates that are very close in their views. It all boils down to who you feel more drawn too. The person that in your gut you know would be able to run this country and run it well.
I like your comment about “but I am not so wedded to Hillary that I will throw a tantrum and sit out the November election”. There are people who have stated they will not vote if so and so does not get the nod. That seems counter productive to me.
Jess | May 20th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I am really tired of people assuming that Hillary isn’t the candidate because people are offended that a woman “acts like a man”.
I agree that both democratic candidates have similar platforms. I would be more than happy to see either platform succeed. So, yes, my Obama preference has less to do with the issues than with a personal reaction to Mrs. Clinton.
It boils down to trust. She has not, in my opinion, presented herself as a trustworthy person. My impression has been that she speaks out only on issues she knows are politically safe. She has been deliberately dishonest with the electorate. The net result of her actions over the past several years has been that I, as a voter (and a woman), do not trust that she will do as she claims.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no doubt that she believes in many of the same things I do. But what I also believe is that if it came down to a question of political expediency or getting done some of the important work that I think needs to be done, that she’d choose the politics every time.
That has nothing to do with her being a women and everything to do with her being a human being for whom I have less respect than I do for her opponent.
Jan | May 20th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
There has been a lot written about Hillary and why she has not been the candidate for women…
and this is my humble two cents.
I loved the idea of Hillary. I loved the way she raised a wonderful daughter. I love Bill. I love that she is tough and that she is a fighter. I love that she is smart. I love that she is policy wonk.
But the machinations of her and Bill these past months have left SUCH a bad taste in my mouth - so crass, so divisive, such ugly tactics. It’s embarrassing for the entire Democratic party.
If she only stood on higher ground these past few months…
MeMyselfandI | May 20th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I feel very similar to Jan. I’m an Obama supporter, but in the end, I would be satisfied with either Clinton OR Obama as President. But you do have to choose one, and some of Clinton’s behaviors have pushed me over the edge to the Obama camp, EVEN THOUGH I’m a feminist who would love to see a woman President. Like Jan, to me Obama feels more trustworthy, genuine, open to change, and true to his word. I have a huge problem with the fact, for instance, that Clinton claimed/claims to be against the war, but yet she voted in support of it way back when. Obama didn’t, and he’s the only one who can say that, which is very important to me. I don’t feel like he has an “agenda” as much as Clinton; or maybe I just believe him when he presents his only agenda as sweeping change for a country in very dire straits.
My two cents!
Shannon | May 20th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Hillary was my dream candidate. I have admired her for a very long time and for a lot of reasons that she was disliked by others. Certainly, I will vote for Obama in the general, but with disappointment.
There’s no douibt that Clinton has an agenda. There’s no doubt that she is flawed. I have a good sense of what she wants to do and that she will reach out to other countries to try to repair our reputation.
I think that Obama will be a fine President, but I’ve been really alarmed by all these people who want to canonize the guy. I believe that people who think that he is somehow different than any other politician will be unpleasantly surprised.
What we know and generally dislike about Hillary is greatly influenced by the Republican mean machine, which Obama has not seen much of yet. Once he wins the general and has to balance the job with the personal attacks, it will be interesting to see how much he can accomplish.
Also, keep your eyes on Michelle and how she is treated. My guess is that she and her career and her outspokenness will be in exactly the same position that Hillary was in 16 years ago.
Lisse | May 20th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I voted for Hillary too and am sad that she isn’t going to get the nomination. I think it comes down to perception vs. reality. People believe what the nasty pundits say about her, even if it’s not true.
Sara | May 21st, 2008 at 2:30 pm