Well, maybe they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Or, maybe, they sense the conservatism of Clinton, and are reacting to it. The definition of feminism does not include "I always vote for women candidates."

As a 34 year old liberal I do appreciate the contributions that '60s and '70s feminism has made to America and I think young women do too. Some of my best bosses and coworkers have been women and I fully acknowledge how much of a shame it would have been if their talents had gone unrecognized.

The problem is that the old guard brings far too many assumptions to the table, like the idea that your daughters are naive or voting to somehow spite you or the feminist movement rather than exercising their own best judgment on who the better candidate is.

Has it occurred to you that maybe your daughters are receiving the benefit of more exposure to intelligent critical thought and discussion as a result of the cultural moorings you helped break us out of and maybe, just maybe are making better decisions than you could?

It's clear to me just from reading arguments and comments online that there is an inordinate number of baby boomers supporting Hillary by the identity politics that are so characteristic of that particular generation.

As an example, it doesn't seem to matter to a lot of the boomers what the actual arguments for each candidates actual levels of experience are, just that Hillary strokes their egos and makes them feel like they're making the sensible choice and that all this "hope" and "changing politics" hogwash are naive pipedreams.

Could it be that your daughters, like many of your sons recognize that like Ferraro and Steinem, many of you are irresponsibly confusing the ugliest kind of cynicism for good sense?

As youth, our ears are closer to the cultural floor than yours are. After the debacle of '04 we have correctly identified many of the root problems as being tied to the irresponsible politics of identity and allowing the media and politicians to declare what the issues are for us.

If you can't see how that would lead us to conclude that Hillary's kitchen sink strategy makes her a bad choice for the nomination, then I guess we're just going to have to be proud of your daughter's for you.

I thought it was supposed to be a good thing when your children exceed your own limitations but I guess a lot of the boomers have been told what a swell generation they are for so long that they've started to believe that they can't be wrong.

Amy Tiemann here. (My name is misspelled in the blog post above). I invite you to read and critique my entire commentary at Women's eNews (link on my Mojo Mom blog) but I take exception at being judged on the basis of Linda Hirshman's chosen quote from my piece and on your stereotypes of younger women. This Mother Jones blog post exemplifies the problem I am trying to identify.

I revere my father and mother because of the way they lived their life and the sacrifices they made for me, not because they told me to. Just because I revere them doesn't mean I always agree with them or see the world the same way.(Nor am I specifically expected to.) It's simple arrogance to expect that your children will see the world the same way as you and to become angry and belligerent when they don't yield to your line of thinking. Get over yourself.

Unfortunately, a lot of this has to with women being our own soft targets, it's not just wanting the freedom to be critical of another woman - it's how it's being done! Compare the language used when being critical of a male figure! A truly e-man-cipated female (or man) doesn't need to rebell against 'mommy', or compete either!

Deal.

Deborah Siegel here - a young(ish) Hillary supporter who feels pained at the way some young female Obama supporters are getting flamed. I don't care how it started, or who said what about whom. Time to start focusing on beating McCain. I hope this is the last post of this tone that we'll be seeing for a while. Goodbye to all THAT, I say.

Quick sidenote: Feminist history is full of intergenerational division, as I write about in my book. Important to remember that young Alice Paul and older Carrie Chapman Catt shared a goal (suffrage) but disagreed on tactics. "Libbers" and the older Betty Friedan disagreed on whether politics meant what you do in the bedroom or what happens at city hall. Together albeit in different ways they made the momentous change that became the 1st and 2nd+ waves.

Difference today is that we have blogs and online media, where it's easier, it seems, to write snarkily and quote each other out of context. If I've been guilty of it too, mea culpa. Let's move on. A Democrat in 2008. Deal?

WHY IS THE MEDIA HIDING THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY'S SECRET RELIGION (CULT ?)

It was obvious as one would watch the 'coverage' of the war that all of the cable news networks were working for the Bush Regime. The ONLY place we as Americans could attempt to gather some truth was through C-Span, Huff, Democracy Now and a few other sites which would show all of the networks to be actually misleading America. Now, with as simple a tool as Google, Americans can find out information that the networks won't give. Hillary's secret religion (cult) known as 'The Family' is a D.C. based group of the richest folks in America who 'pray to Jesus for the elite to rule the world' . The fact that there has been absolutely no mention of her cult leads one to believe that the higher-ups at the networks (and other big corporations) are a part of 'The Family'.....and the plan to rule the world. I know.... it sounds far fetched. You can find a great list of links regarding 'The Family' at www.Blacks4Barack.org. Truthtellers like Huffington, The Nation, Mother Jones and others have all done recent stories about 'The Family'....but where's CNN, MSNBC, Fox or the gang. They all know that there's an internet rumbling going on right now about this cult. But....no mention. Do the research yourselves....Google 'Hillary The Family' or 'The Fellowship' or 'The Christian Mafia'....once you do....you'll see that it is not only scary....BUT IT MUST BE STOPPED !!!!!!!!!!!!!! LEARN/SHARE !!!!!

Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Organization Dedicated to Truth)

I would be grateful if someone would give me "permission" to vote for a candidate based on the issues. Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is a hawkish nightmare. She tells AIPAC that nuclear weapons are "on the table" vis-a-vis Iran? Could I please be "allowed" to vote against nuclear armageddon without being told my feminism isn't seasoned enough?

And the idea that I have to support the tactics of James Carville, Sandy Berger, and Terry McCauliffe in order to show gratitude to my mother? She would spit.

Do we as women want to be taken seriously as strong, intelligent, capable voters? Then we can't make special pleas based on gender with no regard to the issues at hand.

My mother has been annoying, shrill, and scolding. I have rebelled against her. However, I would never, ever insult her by comparing her to that power-lusting. position-shifting, stone-cold-lying harridan.

Oh, and everything BlueGal said.

While I generally like Hirshman, I was put off by her simplification of Courtney Martin's position. Courtney has a good response and article that I hope second-wavers will read without prejudice - http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=more_than_a_motherdaughter_debate

There are so many things wrong with the pro corporate pro war DLC crowd it amazing to me how much support they and the Clintons get, but they are all but finished because of simple math. What we really need is reconciliation at a larger level not just between different generations of feminists but between those who see the DLC wing of the party for what it is and those who turn a blind eye. Issues of race and gender are still important but there are a lot of things done by those in office that also need to be taken into account. Speaking as a white male I'm more than happy that candidates like Al Wynn and HRC have been losing to people like Donna Edwards and Barack Obama (though I liked John Edwards better because of his platform), the point being that what a lot of us anti Hillary types want is someone who will take a stand on issues important to us and not back pedal on things like NAFTA and the war when its convenient.

camille paglia says it best:

Camille Paglia is a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts (Philadelphia).

Why women shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton

By Camille Paglia
Last Updated: 9:04am BST 21/04/2008

Is Hillary Clinton the saviour of feminism? Or its albatross, dragging feminism backwards under a weary weight of old-guard victimology and male-bashing?
# Hillary Clinton's family home reflects Democrat divide
# Toby Harnden: Democratic activists lashed by Clinton
# Janet Daley: Can Barack Obama survive his remarks?

The scrum is on! Feminist grand panjandrums like Gloria Steinem have leapt back into the arena, while younger women have seized the feminist banner to proclaim Hillary the messianic Wonder Woman, destined to smash the glass ceiling of the presidency.

All women, on pain of excommunication from the feminist claque, must now support Hillary. Never mind her spotty record or her naked political expediency. Any woman with the temerity to endorse Barack Obama (as I do) is condemned as a "traitor" to her sex. "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life," trumpeted Steinem earlier this year in an article promoting Hillary in the New York Times. Barriers of race, class or economics are waved away as mere frippery.
Hillary Clinton among the women of Scranton: Why women shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton
Back to her roots: Hillary Clinton among the women of Scranton

As a resident of Philadelphia, I am currently under siege by the firestorm of political adverts heading toward Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, which Hillary has long been expected to win. She has roots in this state: her grandfather was a Welshman who settled in the coal-mining city of Scranton, which remains conservative and working-class. Women there are tough and blunt, with few illusions about life.

Hillary's voter base consists of middle-aged to elderly white women who identify with her caustic, stubborn, bulldog resilience. Humiliated and upstaged by her philandering husband, Hillary is the champion of an army of women who were stymied, betrayed or outmanoeuvred by men. Over the past year, whenever her cowed male opponents mildly rebutted Hillary in debate, her campaign jumped into über-feminist mode: male bullies, they screeched, "ganging up" on a helpless damsel.

Losing ground with other core groups - notably her own cohort of upper-middle-class, baby-boom career woman - Hillary played the gender card to the max. When polling showed she had seemed too harsh to the caucus-goers of Iowa, she rolled out teary eyes for New Hampshire, which handed her a primary victory. Hillary will scratch, claw, and morph through every gender trick if it rakes in votes.

This symbol of raw female ambition has never comfortably fitted into a conventional sex role. As the first child of a hard-working and authoritarian father, Hillary absorbed his willfulness, competitive drive and suspicion. Excelling academically, Hillary felt ill at ease with the feminine persona so deftly deployed by pretty, popular girls in that era. Frumpy, stumpy and myopic, she identified with the new idolatry of shiny careerism promulgated by the second-wave feminism of the late 1960s, when she emerged from posh Wellesley College.

US presidential election 2008

Though she would specialise in women's and children's issues, Hillary's public statements have often betrayed an ambivalence about women who chose a non-feminist path. "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies," she sneered during Bill's 1992 presidential campaign. Then, defending her husband against the claims of a 12-year affair by Gennifer Flowers, Hillary snapped: "I'm not sittin' here like some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette" - a sally that boomeranged when Hillary had to make an abject apology. The irony is that Hillary had offended the very group of stoical, put-upon, working-class women who are now proving to be her staunchest supporters.
advertisement

Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark.

In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform.

Hillary has always been a policy wonk, a functionary attuned to bureaucratic process, but she has never shown executive ability, which makes her quest for the presidency problematic. Hillary's disastrous botching of national healthcare reform in 1993 (a project to which her husband rashly appointed her) will live in infamy. Obama may also have limited executive experience, but he has no comparable stain on his record.

The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights.

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton is aiming to become the first female president of the United States

What feminist supporters have recently denounced as troglodytic misogyny in media portrayals of Hillary has in fact been a function of her own strange sexual accommodations and ambiguities. Yes, she may surround herself with luscious, multicultural babes (such as her minder, Huma Abedin, or her now sacked aide, Patty Solis Doyle), but Hillary, despite the rumours, is no lesbian. She's a crucifix-wearing, Methodist do-gooder who confidently thinks she's God's agent. There's no room for random eroticism in her calendar.

Genuinely disturbing are the caricatures of Hillary (called "Hitlery" or "the Hildebeast" on the web) that rarely accrue to male candidates: she's portrayed as a hectoring nag, a witch on a broomstick, or a castrating bitch. But if such images were truly generated by simple fear of female power, we would expect to find them around other women politicians too, such as the current female Speaker of the House.

No, Hillary was demonised by the American electorate long before she sought elective office. It is Bill Clinton who is responsible for the tainted sexual aura around his wife.

Furthermore, Hillary's mythomania and her chameleon-like daily alterations of persona and voice are unsettling. (Even Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses.) No male candidate enjoys Hillary's options as a woman to tailor her costume to the audience.

Hillary's recent remarks about politics as a "boys' club" resistant to uppity women was sheer demagoguery. By progressing farther than any woman presidential candidate, she has become a role model for future aspirants. But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US.

If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon.

The posts to this thread do seem to indicate that these women who are opposing Clinton have definitely taken the "next step" in their intellectual and political journey as feminists. My hat is off to the ladies here-if that's still okay.

The posts to this thread do seem to indicate that these women who are opposing Clinton have definitely taken the "next step" in their intellectual and political journey as feminists. My hat is off to the ladies here.

Hmm - Feminism or not, it seems like the real issue is falling for flashy rhetoric in supporting Obama. Seems to me that Obama has backpedalled and changed positions on many issues. He used to support a ban on handguns before coming to Washington, but DOES NOT ANYMORE. He spoke out against the war while running for the Senate from a very liberal Chicago area district - how much courage did that require? SINCE COMING TO THE U.S. Senate, Obama and Hillary's votes on the war HAVE BEEN THE SAME.. HE SUPPORTED CHENEY'S ENERGY POLICY. He didn't vote on bills about 1/3 of the time - was this a way to avoid taking a stand? He takes money from LOBBYISTS' LAW FIRMS while claiming not to take money from LOBBYISTS! He says he doesn't take oil money, but its against the law for ANYONE to do so - isn't he misleading the public?

Obama says he stands for a new kind of politics but in the same sentence criticizes Hillary, asking why she chose to get "exercised" about a particular issue - does that not seem condescending and perhaps sexist? Would he ask why a male, like McCain, got "exercised" about an issue?

Obama has the bad judgment to have close connections and buy a house in connection with Reszko, now on trial. The list goes on and on - does he offer a new kind of politics or just the same old rhetoric about "change" and bringing a fresh perspective to Washington that others of us have heard from George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, etc? But some of you are from a new generation so may not be aware of the "change" and "outsider to Washington" political argument that is old as the hills.

During his two years in the U.S. Senate before running for the president, Obama was characterized as a typical, not very impressive Junior Senator (check the news coverage). On the other hand, as a Junior Senator, Hillary was characterized as someone who crossed the aisle, reached out to Republicans, got a lot done, and she was seen as one of the two hardest working U.S. Senators. Shabby performance??

Hillary is very competent in relation to the issues and has well developed policy statements while Obama makes economic statements that cause economists to write articles in which they say he doesn't have an understanding of the economy and will throw us into a worse recession. He is WAY inexperienced. Would you vote for a woman or an overweight, balding white man if he had the same rhetoric as Obama, offered the same lack of experience, and the same lack of understanding of the issues? I supported him until I watched the first debate in which Hillary's knowledge, intelligence, and ability to speak clearly impressed me highly while Obama sounded unimpressive and lacking in the depth and knowledge of the issues it takes to be president. Don't you care about that??

Hillary dances circles around Obama while moving backward in high heels!

I think it is good for feminists to be having this dialogue, but I am tired of seeing it oversimplified. Dickerson seems to be implying that young women can't recognize that sexism exists and still prefer a different candidate over Clinton. I abhor the way Clinton is treated in the media and the sexism that is flung in her direction, and I am constantly reading and learning about feminism and gender issues. However, I feel of the 2 candidates left (and neither is as progressive as I would like), Obama is the more feminist candidate. I have been turned off by Clinton's triangulation and hawkishness for years, and I don't buy the kind of essentialist feminism that says I should support Clinton solely because she's a woman. I would love to see a female president someday, but this year I think there is a better candidate who will make this country better for women and for everyone.

All I can say is that all these young women better face the facts that one day they will be middle-aged women and marginalized. Will they then regret supporting the pop-cultural candidate?

Funny, I was just saying to my mom yesterday that I was pretty sure the first woman president would be of my generation, not hers, because of various levels of sexism in our society, including the one that prefers a third-wave feminist -- that is, one who doesn't have a chip on her shoulder and something major to prove -- over someone like Hillary, who appears to become more hawkish than I would vote for, hopefully only to prove she can.

My mother agreed with me. But then, she was supporting Obama before I was. (I was an Edwards fan as long as it mattered.)

She pointed out that in a sense, Barack is to the Civil Rights movement as a young feminist is the the 60s feminist movement. That is, he is where he is because of it, but he's not of it in ways that make the rest of America uncomfortable. Not saying all this is okay, just that it's real.

Which is to say, I'm well aware that sexism is out there, but I've also grown up assuming I can do anything and truly believing it, thanks to (and unlike) feminists of my mother's generation.

So yes, I'll stop pretending I know everything if you stop acting like I'm pretending that.

Every move she makes, every breath she takes, every word she speaks, we're watching (and listening to) her. Apologies to Sting.

Has this micro-analysis, micro-observation applied to male candidates now and in the past? Is Hillary's lust for power, chameleon-like change in direction etc etc, any different than that of other male candidates past and present?

I'm really nervous about any of the current candidates, Democrat or Republican, in the White House, and I'm not even American and I'm thousands of kilometres away from Washington. But whoever you vote in affects my world too, so I'm keen to read your comments.

Yes, I think women are deserting Hillary for Obama, we can see that from over here. Her hectoring makes me cringe. If she was a man, would her/his hectoring make me cringe or would I see it as forceful and assertive? I'm owning up to being blinded by stereotypes here.

On the other hand, I saw Obama spread his arms wide and exalt that he was going to save the world (like some TV evangelical preacher) which made my blood run cold.

This was just straight-up insulting. "Missy"? "Chick"? "Honey"? Why don't you patronize me some more?

I'm 24, I'm a feminist, and I DO NOT APPRECIATE this, Debra Dickerson.

I voted for Clinton* in my state's primary. I believe the media coverage of her campaign has been blatantly, roaringly sexist. But THIS? This sucks just as much. You can disagree with someone's vote without using it as an excuse to totally dismiss young women.

*And I will enthusiastically campaign for whichever candidate becomes the nominee.

And here I thought the "girls gone wild" stereotype was a problem that young feminists are fighting against. I am 22, a feminist, and I do not appreciate being patronized, belittled, and added to the mainstream stereotypes by another feminist.

I will vote based on issues and policy stances of the candidates and NOT on gender.

And if you are so concerned with this younger generation of feminists, you may want to try reaching out to us. What good is a movement if it dies with you? This only alienates us.

I don't know many young feminists who don't appreciate the "mothers" and what has gone before us. I am about to start medical school and I know what was sacrificed to get me there. We, however, face new and unique situations. We want to see a more inclusive and inter-sectional movement. We feel that it is important to vote based on educated and comprehensive research of the candidates. We want all generations of feminists to work together and aknowlege that differences aren't necessarily bad. We don't want patronized,mocked, and stereotyped.

A) I don't appreciate my Asian immigrant mom who was resourceful enough to get a great job but complains about her black employees in stereotypical fashion. She won't vote for Obama because he's black. That's a role model eh? Even though she's successful, I'm suppose to appreciate that? Call it the son-mom dilemma.

B) Also in my gender law class eons ago at a top 10 law school (before the Lewinsky scandal), I thought it was considered anti-feminism to blame the other women for your husband's infidelities.

Not quite sure how that plays in the current debate, but somehow ironic.....

Hey People,

I thought this was an interesting subject so i went straight to the source, my daughters. One is 19 and the other is 15. When i asked them about femenism and gender battles, the LAUGHED at me.
I was informed that kids now do not really think of things like that, and that girls can do ANYTHING boys can do.
They reminded me that young woman of today, think that femanists are either "Grandmas", or girls who can't deal with boys very well, and are trying to use some goverment mandated rules to compensate for what they lack as young women.
I guess what i am trying to say is that the current generation has moved SOOOOO far beyond what the 70's style femanists are thinking, that the old femanists are irrelevent...? Sorry to tell you woman that, but that is the general feeling of the younger generation.

Bill

Ben wrote:
============================================================
A) I don't appreciate my Asian immigrant mom who was resourceful enough to get a great job but complains about her black employees in stereotypical fashion. She won't vote for Obama because he's black. That's a role model eh? Even though she's successful, I'm suppose to appreciate that? Call it the son-mom dilemma.
============================================================

If she's of the generation as my Asian mom: being told by those very Blacks, "To go back to XYZ on the boat you came on"; and "ordered" to take the hardest jobs (that cause more injuries and extremely tiring) will color your world v-e-r-y differently. When she calls Obama OBABA (Japanese for "granny"), and these same Blacks now whine that it's "racist", even more so.

If she's of my generation (growing up in the 70s intergration era): Blacks hunting down Asians to beat up because they're simply Asian, and yelling racial slurs worse than KKK types, your ideas are tempered by such a fate.

This is what this article is highlighting: generations before have an experience of "how bad" it was, and efforts to "educate" the new generation to not repeat history -- and be wise about age old problems -- all go unheeded because this new generation never faced the discrimination that made REAL change a necessary for SURVIVAL (when a gang of 14 kids come after you for no reason but your color, Ben, you don't stand there "rationalizing" about race relations -- you do what you must to LIVE! If Obama subscribes to the Black Panther movement that caused that grief for me, don't expect me to vote for him!!).

Same can be said of the established women rights leaders. They knew of the hardships and experienced them personally. Now all hope a new generation will be REMINDED to not bury the torch in ignorance of no shared experience, so they can fit in with the "kewl" guys (the same ones telling our immigrant mothers to go back home; to the "hip" gangs who single out "colored" groups different from them to show "whitey" a lesson [for Christ's sake, they even called me "cracker"!]).

What you are failing to see, Ben (and others with the same quick assessment of life), is life experience is the best teacher -- not books; not peers; and certainly not the media. Never short change experience for a quick solution, as quick solutions always fail (because they're not means tested over time to work).

What is the deal with bashing the younger generation? Those of you of the 2nd wave, do you think this is a good tactic to get "us" to listen to what you have to say?

I would happily support whichever democratic candidate gets the nomination. I do not support the argument that white women "deserve" a seat at the (presidential) table before black men because of (fill in the blank coded-racist statement here). Nor do I support the suggestion that young feminists who support Obama are only doing so because (fill in the blank with blatant ageism here).

No candidate is "the" one true, last best feminist hope. The spirit of feminism does not condone your attempts to enforce a weird 2nd-wave groupthink.

I think the reactionary chip on the shoulder here by the obama supporters illustrate the writer's point.

People who use communities have been largely younger people who grew up with the web posting. They are SHOCKED that Clinton wins. After all, everyone in their chat group agrees and ditto everyone else.

If you want to read the truth, see:

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/

Ms. Dickerson,
I am posting this response blog on behalf of my writing class at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva New York. We have spent the semester studying the memoir and have finished your memoir An American Story. After finishing the memoir we have a few questions for you:

1. On your biography webpage, you mention your essay Who Shot Johnny’s influence on your career. If you had chosen a different topic, or had not written it at all, where do you think you would be standing as a literary/political figure?

2. You speak a lot about your frustrations with your relatives and your friends alternative lifestyles, have any of them broken out of the St. Louis normative lifestyle and joined you in your mission to live a successful and happy life?

3. In your memoir it seems that from a young age, you were certain of your ability to succeed and rise above the working class. Do you think that all young people are as optimistic as you were? Do you think it is realistic for them to feel optimistic about their futures?

4. Did you family read your memoir? If so, how did they react to being exposed and written about?

5. On page 90 you quote a fellow African-American saying, “ Say something telligent, college gal. Come on, teach us poor ignent folk something, purty pleez!” When people said these things to you, you resented them. Having the awareness you express concerning the current situation, shouldn’t you have understood his need to get a rise out of you? Also, you speak of education and how it can place someone in a higher position, yet, you were given the opportunity to explain to him the benefits of a good education and instead ignored the situation. Why?

We have really gotten a lot from your memoir and would highly appreciate it if you would take the time to answer our questions.

As a woman born in the working class, I've always viewed the arguments of feminists as 'nice if you have the time and money to pursue them'. I was busy trying to make a living, and have done pretty well. While I appreciate the opportunites that feminism has provided me, my political issues have always been more populist than gender- or race-based. I'm not hearing a lot of rhetoric from Clinton that speaks to my issues, no matter how many boilermakers she pounds in PA.

My candidate was John Edwards. I'm now supporting Obama because he wasn't raised with a silver spoon in his mouth. He actually seems to understand the problems of the working class. I'm sorry, but when I look at Hillary, I see a privileged daughter of the middle class, who has spent her life in circles I can only dream about. She reminds me of other privileged women who have looked at me condescendingly because I couldn't afford the right clothes or didn't know how to use grammar correctly. For me, it's not about race OR gender, it's about class.

@ Greg Jones. Greg, your comments about the media not doing a full analysis of Hillary's spiritual advisers (or McCain's for that matter) is well taken, but I noticed at the end of your post you listed the website: www.Blacks4Barack.org, but then mention it is a mult-racial organization. I find that interesting. It's not a criticism (because you are free to name your website whatever you want) just an observation.

I'm very, very tired of the disparity between how bad racism is compared to
sexism. It isn't only that there is a glass ceiling! Certainly, civil rights
and the '60s happened and racism still exists. But tell me, please, has anyone
ever considered, during this election period, the number of women battered and
murdered by their significant others throughout history. This goes back further
than slavery - since cave men dragged their women around by their hair.
Women, being weaker physically, are battered more often. Glass ceiling,
yes! But that is not all women have to confront on a daily basis. So let's compare
racism and sexism a little more equally.