As a TRUE feminist, am I required to support, say Hillary Clinton in 2008?

[Heddi]

I only ask this because lately there's been serious talk of not only her running in 08 for Prez, but winning the nomination.

Don't get me wrong---I thought she was an excellent first lady (as far as first ladies go). I don't live in New York, so she's not my Senator. I can say that I've been less than....exuberant about her performance in the Senate.

BUt I've also been told (not on DU) that anyone--nay, any WOMAN, who considers herself a feminist should fully support ANY woman who's running for office, ESPECIALLY President.

Not saying that I would vote Green if she ran, or that I wouldn't vote at all, but I don't know that she would necessarily be my "first choice" of those running (not knowing WHO is running in 08, I have no idea who I would or wouldn't support at this time).

Do women need more prominent numbers in government? ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY. Would I vote for candidate A if candidate B mirrored her views exactly and my choice was between a man and a woman with equal credentials? ABSOLUTLEY. If that's sexist, so be it. I also vote for minorities that are running if they are compeltely equal (or equally equal) with a white person running for that spot. I know there are people out there who would vote AGAINST THEM solely because THEY ARE NOT WHITE---at least I'm countering their vote if nothing else.

But I don't know if I can force myself to "back" someone that I don't agree with 100%, even if that person is a minority or a woman or a homosexual or whatever. I feel that if I do that, then *I* am perpetuating the 'token' mentality---well, she's a woman--she's lackluster and doesn't appeal to me, but what the hay, I'll vote for someone who doesn't stand for me or my beliefs just to further a more equal agenda...I don't know if I could do that. I wouldn't do it for a male, and I don't think I should be required to do it for a female.

Equally, i've been told by friends that I'm a bad person because I don't worship to the altar of Oprah or Martha. I really don't like either one of them. Yes, yes, I know Oprah is a philanthropist among the best of them. I understand that. I just don't like her. Don't like her show, her magazine, or her TV channel. SHe annoys the fuck out of me. I don't dislike her because she's a woman---I dislike her because she's annoying. Same for Martha Stewart. Yes, she's playing Men at their game at their level--good for her. She's not my cup of tea.

I guess my question could be more broadly rephrased to ask:

In order to be a "True" feminist, must we always support all women, regardless of our personal feelings about them, our likes or dislikes about them? Or is there room to be a fighter for women's rights and issues and still have the ability to back a male candidate or whatever if we feel they will more effectively do the job?

[jmm]

1. It ought to be about how can do the job more effectively

Hypothetical situation, if John Kerry and Condi Rice were each their party's candidates in 2008 who would you vote for? Without any hesitation I'd vote for Kerry. As much as I'd love to see a black woman in the white house he would do a far more effective job. The most recent Republican woman I can think of to run for president was Liddy Dole in 2000. Anyone of the Democrats of the male Democrats in that primary would've done far more for women than her.

[noamnety]

2. Vote for whomever you want.

Feminist means you support equality. Anyone who believes you HAVE to vote for a woman whenever possible to be a feminist doesn't understand what the concept means.

All other things being equal, I'd go for the (woman, black, gay, atheist, etc - anyone under represented currently).

[Solly Mack]

3. You're not required to support anyone

that's the beauty of choice - it covers everything in life :)

Right wing women are proof positive that supporting a woman just because they are a woman is bad for women.

If you don't agree with the views of a candidate, it's not really the business of anyone else. Nor are you required to conform to anyone elses thinking.



*Disclaimer to ward off knee-jerking: I in no way said or implied that HRC is a right winger.

[lukasahero]

4. As a "true" feminist, I would hope you would vote for the person

who will best represent women's issues. In some cases, that may not be a woman.

First, I hate the idea that there is a "true" feminist beyond someone who believes women should be equal partners and have equal opportunities in the world. But that's for another discussion.

Next, I do see some more complex areas for discussion in your question. For instance, there is constant talk about how the dems are being trampled because we use the "circular firing squad". We eat our own because we welcome so much diversity of opinion and disagree on things. That, I believe, happens to women as well. (Hey, the "mommy" party expression didn't arise from a vacuum.)

Women, I think, don't like to fall in line based on someone's gender, race or political affliliation. We fall in line behind the issues that are important to us. And those issues can vary. We accept that both as dems and as women because we don't want to be bound by anyone else's vision of who we are so we are reluctant to bind anyone else to our own visions.

As someone up-thread noted, Condi Rice would do far less to advance women's concerns than John Kerry and I think many women understand that. And that gets used against us by the "other" side simply because it can.

I suggest that as a "true" feminist, you should stand up for what you believe and vote for the person best qualified to represent your ideals.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. The "a true feminist must..." line is one often used by Republicanites

When Elizabeth Dole was running, I heard lines from Republicans like, "Why don't you support her? I thought Democrats were FOR women in politics. But I guess you only like Democrat (sic) women" as if that were some perverted preference.

They trot that line out all the time. "You're against Gonzales for Attorney General? But I thought Democrats liked Hispanics. I guess you're all a bunch of hypocrites for not supporting him." No, I don't like ANYONE of any classification who tries to justify torture.

They're also prone to saying that if you don't like Condoleezza Rice, then you're a hypocrite for disliking a black woman. No, I reserve the right to dislike ANYONE of any classification who enables the Bush administration.

My suspicion is that many of the people who tell you that you MUST support Hillary for president are Republican moles.

They accuse the Democrats of playing "identity politics" and think they're being so clever when they can find sellouts to play the Republican game, so that they can then accuse the Democrats of being not as open-minded on race and gender as they claim.

[Heddi]

6. Super responses everyone. Thanks for your replies

I've got some wierd off-line acquaintances, honestly. I mean, they're all wonderful women and men, but sometimes I think they can't see the forrest for the trees.

THEY are the ones who criticize someone for not being a 'true' feminist. In my eyes, there is no TRUE feminist, only varrying degrees. I feel someone can be a feminist and not necessarily embrace every single 'feminist' philosophy, especially since there's so many of them (philosophies, that is) eminating from both the right and the left of the political spectrum.

As I said in my original post, if all things were equal, and it was a woman and a man with exact qualities running against each other, I would most definitely vote for the woman. Or the black, or the homosexual, or the disabled.

But I differ with some of my friends in that I won't AUTOMATICALLY vote for a woman/minority/etc if they dont' represent my views, or if I feel that someone else, even if that other person is a white straight male can do the job better.

When I lived in South Carolina, there was this guy, Kwajdo Campbell that was running for City Council. I refused to vote for him because he was a fucking kook to the nth degree.

Many people saw him as the Great Black HOpe for the south, as someone who would fight for the rights of the poor black in Charleston who were being moved off the peninsula because of gentrification projects.

However---in a 2 year period, he had been caught doing a number of things, one of which was hiding a few baggies of marijuana in his mouth when questioned by police. He hung out with thugs and wasn't a very astute role model for the poverty-stricken youth of that area. Yes, drugs and gangs and such are commonplace in the most desperate parts of town, but there were other people, other black men who were from that part of town too that I felt did a better job of not only highlighting the problems of these areas, but were much better at vocalizing solutions as well.

As it was, I didn't vote for Mr. Campbell and I was called a traitor to liberalism by some of my friends because of it. However, I felt that MORE damage would have been done by having him on City Council because he's SUCH a polarizing person and is not liked very well by many of the black or white citizens of the city. I voted for another black man who wasn't as "in your face" as Mr. Campbell and who I felt could do the job better.

It's interesting, though, that to my friends at the time, I was a bad liberal because I didn't vote for a sociopath, but not a "good" liberal because I voted for a more qualified BLACK candidate---I didn't not vote for Kwajdo then vote for some stuffy white guy instead.

I suppose that everyone has their ideals and what is MOST important in any race. I suppose taht the best I can do is weigh all the issues, see which are more important to me, and vote accordingly. I would NEVER vote for an anti-choicer, regardless if that person was a man or woman or black or homosexual. That is an issue very close to my heart.

Thanks so much, everyone. I was starting to get paranoid for a minute because of the suggestion by some off-line friends that I was just as bad as GW if I didn't vote for a woman every single time one was presented, regardless of whether or not I agreed with them

:)

[Eloriel]

7. I sure as hell hope not, 'cause I can't STAND her -- and will not support

her, period.

I spent 9 years trying very, very hard to like that woman, to find ANYthing about her I could identify with, find admirable (other than her position as First Lady, her intelligence, and the fact that she stood up and took all that continuous trashing), etc. And I never did. I really did try.

What I was looking for and never found were some authenticity plus a touch of warmth, compassion or sympatico -- some human female quality(ies). I never, ever saw it. I finally gave up.

Since then, the most charitable thing I can say about her is that she worked hard to get elected and she is getting nice reviews from her political adversaries -- which also makes me very nervous.

I will never forgive her for her speech on the Floor of the Senate listing all the reasons NOT to vote for the Iraq War, ending with, "So that's why I'm going to vote yes." There are some other Senators in that same boat, tho: Biden, Kerry, Edwards, and others.

AFAIC, she's been a disappointment as a Senator and as a Democrat. I begin to think she is, like so many others of them, primarily an opportunist, serving self first and foremost too much of the time.

[mogster]

8. What do you think about Barbara Boxer, Eloriel?

I'm not too familiar with her voting record, mind, but she just emanates decency and valor in my opinion. And strength.

She stood up for democracy too, when challenging the Ohio result.

[Eloriel]

9. IMO Boxer's 100% better than Clinton

She hasn't been perfect (I really do grade hard), but she's been very good most of the time, unlike her fellow CA Senator, Feinstein, who is basically a DINO.

I like your assessment of the aura she projects; I'd have to agree.