After all of the NOT JUST ANY WOMAN threads that use her gender against her, I thought it might be nice to show that most women do not see her as JUST ANY WOMAN.

I'll support her if nominated, but you can't really be much of a feminist when you're also an economic royalist. When you takeWall Street money, it's fair to ask how much you can care about working-class women(and women of color,given how white and male supremacist Wall Street and the 1% can be).

I know you are still angry at the worst of Bernie's online supporters, but backing the most conservative candidate in the Democratic race is not really going to get them to change, or to get back at them.

The more I see that the more I like her and feel defensive towards her. Not everything is about Wall Street. Women relate to her. Most of us do not see ANY man as a better feminist than a woman who has been living feminism since before I was born. She actually experiences the sexism that men are not able to fully understand. I get her. This is not about Bernie's supporters. I can do nothing to help them, I see that. I am a fixer. I like to fix things, especially things that relatate to how humans deal with other humans. Too many come at this from a fully analytical perspective and they are not intuiting why people do the things they do. It is based on feelings. If more understood the feelings that go into decision making, they would not be as confused by her status with Democrats. Or angry.

For my own part, I would feel exactly the same way about a male candidate with HRC's views as I do about her-which is why I would never have supported Joe Biden in the primaries.

I'd be glad to see a woman as president...It's just that I'd prefer one who was more like Barbara Lee(or a man who is like Barbara Lee, for that matter).

It's good to be a fixer. I respect that in anyone.

How's fall term at UAA going, btw?

I was guilty too. I expected things of her I would never expect of a man. Because she is a woman.

Fall term is going well. Signed up for five classes for next term instead of four. Hope it goes well, especially the design classes.

(which implies that everybody who critiques HRC from the left would be fine with her views if she was a dude) would you say antisemitism colors the views of Bernie's opponents?

If not, why not?

He is, after all, the first genuinely popular Jewish presidential candidate in American history.

But I think that antisemitism colors SOME people's view of him. Many in america do not hold antisemetic views, but many others certainly do. I have had one person in face to face convo go full blown anti jew in a scary way. Did not know he was like that because he is usually tolerant of most people. So, yes, I would say there is bigotry against him from some people, nothing organized, but something that I find very strange and distasteful. Often I find, among black christians, that it is a thing they connect with Jesus. Who they love. This is why I mentioned visiting black churches. Most would welcome him with open arms. Because of that connection they feel towards Judaism. Just an opinion.

It's as much a cultural, ethnic or philosophical identity as it is specifically religious. I'm pretty sure everybody knows Bernie identifies as Jewish.

And I'm also pretty sure the Nazis never said "we won't kill you so long as you stay away from that synagogue".

(I'm not posting this to argue with you...just to add some stuff to the discussion).

.


The number of female donors is key to alerting women voters to the viability and attractiveness of her candidacy. The gatekeepers have stifled women, throughout the years, and other gendered institutions—preventing their rise to more than 20% elected office. Granted, women hold slightly more seats in statehouses, but nationally factored across all offices, it’s around 20%. The Rutgers-Eagleton Center for American Women in Politics (CAWP) has extensive research on these dynamics.

Just like Bernie Sanders supporters complain about being institutionally blocked, by the National Democratic Party, the News Media, etc., women have suffered this throughout time.

Now, there was mention of feminism, and without going into an full dissertation on Women in Politics, which was a course I took last year, the use of feminism means different things to different people. Bell Hooks defines it as ‘Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploration, and oppression.” Now, the most influential feminist was actually Phyllis Schlafly. Yes, the woman who lost two congressional bouts for office, then ran a successful campaign to stop the E.R.A. by mobilizing 45% of the women voters. She was a bit hypocritical professing that women should be at home when he was out-and-about on various campaigns and efforts. In her mind, she was promoting feminist causes that evolved in her sphere of the world, and almost half of the voting women agreed. The problem is that, in order to fight the institutional and personal gender biases, Hillary Clinton needs to secure a larger female voting bloc. While this might seem like an easy task, history has shown that many men are threatened by women, so they will vote against her for that reason (even jump party lines or not vote), and there is a large section of American women who are evangelical or fundamentalists and will not vote for a woman. Justice Sotomayor wrote a nice piece about her experience growing up as a Latina in “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”

Now, Hillary Clinton seems to come across as a Sheryl Sandberg type of feminist. While this does not sound like a bad thing, based on all of the hype and publicity that Sandberg’s “Lean In” has received, she does not present as well with minorities. Yes, Clinton has a high percentage of minority support, but translating that to actual votes and attracting enough of them are key elements. There are quite a few critiques of Sandberg, such as the Bell Hooks article “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In.” And, before there are reactionary statements made, folks need to research this point. I’m being neutral and objective.

There are dangers that arise when gender is used too often. Campaigns and news reports, when mentioning looks negatively affect female voters by 5%, while men are unaffected. That’s why people talk about her clothes, hair, facial expressions, shrill voice, etc. They are doing it to damage her by her gender. Remember 2008, when the news mainly focused on Hillary Clinton's clothes and Sarah Palin’s clothes and glasses? This shows that the media is heavily gendered, whether they admit it or not. Luckily, Clinton is old enough not to have kids, but Palin got caught up in it, with comments about her being a mother first, and the like. The gender topic is a fine line between attracting the women vote and alienating paternalists. In any event, it is important for Clinton to stress that most donors are women, notice not the percentage of donations, came from women.


.

A candidate based on gender rather than the policies of that candidate. This would seem to me to be much more difficult to understand than even one issue voters?

...and it gets wild cheers. Bernie can say most of his donors are small income, which is nice. Hillary can't respond, "Most of my donors are Wall Street billionaires!"

They are both making positive points - but, both are saying, implicitly, the other two are not as supported by women - or small income voters. So, there is some "contrast" there.

which is that, while the majority of her individual donors are women, the vast majority of her money comes from the very glass-ceiling oligarchs she pretends to be an alternative to.

The issue is where does most of her money come from.

As we discovered with Obama, IIRC slightly less than half of his money came from small donors, although by far most of his donors gave small amounts.

When it came time to formulate policy, it was the large corporate lobbyists who wrote the legislation. The small donors were left out in the cold, with no seat whatsoever at the table.

With Hillary it is even worse. She is the prototypical large-donor corporate representative. She will govern in their interest.

a donation of just $1.00. This is so Hillary can say she has a large number of small donors. The bulk of Hillary's money comes from the big money donor's that Hillary has to be beholden to.

The first Jewish Senator served in Congress with Abraham Lincoln. The first woman Senator is able to be remembered by a small number of people who are still alive (she served in the 1920's). Jews make up 2.2% of the population, women 50%, there have been 36 Jewish Senators and 46 women Senators. One way to look at the Presidential numbers in this regard is to see what is the probability that simple chance resulted in the result we have had (0 Jews, 0 women). For this you use the binomial distribution with the probability of success equal to percent of the population, trials 44, and successes 0. For Jews this gives a probability of 0.375759189704994. For women it comes out to < 0.000001. That means about 37.6 times out of 100 experiments in the long run would produce no Jews while fewer than 1 out of 1,000,000 would do so for women. There is really no contest here at all.

It's not a voting block which is ultra righteous inclusive liberal. Women were 54% for Al Gore, LGBT 71% for Al Gore. African Americans 90% for Gore.
Kerry- 51% GW Bush 48% from women, Kerry 77% from LGBT and 88% from African Americans.

So women as a cohort lean Democratic but not nearly as much as do LGBT or African American voters. At times women are virtually 50/50 split between the Parties.

And she looked really bad doing it! Invoking 911 and the gender card when trying to cover up her Wall St. connections, came off really, really bad. I just loved her fake anger when she pointed that out. SO WHAT? If you have 60% female donors? It doesn't matter one whit.

Good thread though