Considering Women’s Leadership

Brian Beutler has a good response to my defense of Hillary. He makes the point that supporting a candidate because of her record on gender issues is different from supporting a candidate simply because of her gender. To that I’d reply that changing the face of leadership is, given a progressive candidate, very important to me. I believe strongly that a female president would be a boon to every girl and woman in America — especially if that president has a lifetime commitment to fighting for gender equity. Plenty of feminists I respect have qustioned that assumption. But as Kay Steiger eloquently writes, being told by men that it’s wrong to defend HRC because you believe in women’s leadership for its own sake "feels condescending." She continues, "I’ve also heard liberals blaming feminists for giving an election to Rudy Giuliani that hasn’t even happened yet. So lay off, okay? Women can make decisions, too." You should read the rest of Kay’s post for some good information on why fears that Hillary would lose the general might be overstated.

On policy analysis: Brian mentions global warming as an issue where Clinton hasn’t shown enough progressive leadership. I agree — she hasn’t been willing to talk about carbon emissions taxing, for example.

6 thoughts on “Considering Women’s Leadership

  1. belltower

    So did you support Carol Mosely-Braun, who is clearly more progressive than Hillary, in 2003-2004? Her commitment to gender equity certainly spans a lifetime.

  2. Dana

    I really liked a lot of what Carol Mosely-Braun said in 2002-2004, especially when she pointed at a portrait of the founding fathers and talked about how different her leadership would be. But by the time my primary day in Rhode Island took place on Super Tuesday, she’d dropped out and thrown her support to Dean, who I also supported. He had dropped out by that time as well, but was still on the ballot. She was not.

  3. Tirtzah

    Dana -
    I just found your blog and I love it! Feel free to check mine out too – I just started it after being inspired by Feministing. And I am a Hillary supporter and Jewish too! I look forward to reading more from you. :-)

  4. klein's tiny left nut

    That “how convenient” is not my comment. That’s very strange. I started to write a longer comment on this thread and it didn’t go through. I apologize for the unintended snark.

  5. Kevin

    Dana Goldstein is a poorly informed propagandist. I just read an article that she wrote called “When Obama Voted ‘No’,” and since it would not let me post a comment there on it I will post one here.

    The article dealt with the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and how Obama voted no on it. Goldstein attempts to paint the picture that Obama is a pro-choice hero for not voting yes on it, but it is clear that Goldstein did not bother to even read the actual bill or Obama’s comments on it. If she had, she would have realized that this bill had NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION. Even NARAL, whose sole purpose is to protect abortion rights, supported the bill saying:

    “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

    Also, if this was about abortion don’t you think more than 15 people out of the 435 house members would have voted no on it??????

    This was about whether or not it was OK to let an ALIVE baby that has ACTUALLY BEEN BORN be thrown in the trash can and die of neglect. The baby, in this situation, is breathing, has a beating heart and is AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Only a monster would think that it is OK to just throw the baby away. Even Obama has claimed that the national bill did not restrict abortion rights. He said he would have supported the IL version of the bill, which he is said to have single handedly defeated by refusing to let it out of his committee, if it was written the same way. The problem with his argument,however, is that they were written essentially identically.

    Dana Goldsteiin really needs to do more research. I highly discourage anyone from getting any information from her. I don’t care if you are pro-choice, read from a pro-choice blogger who actually researches the issue he or she is writing on.

    Oh, and one more thing Dana…The term is PRO-LIFE, not Anti-Choice. I don’t call pro-choice people Anti-life. Doing so is a cheap propagandist tactic and a person who believes what he or she is saying does not need to sink to that level.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>