Conversation | 05/21/2008 8:35 am

Percentage of Voters Say They Would Never Vote for a Woman, Regardless of Qualifications

With Candice Bergen, Lesley Stahl and Liz Smith

Editor’s Note: Featuring Kathleen Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a professor of communications and the former dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

LESLEY: Well, what about sexism? Yeah, let’s talk about the second “ism.”

LIZ: Can I say something?

LESLEY: Please.

Click here to read Part One: At a Table in So-Called Liberal NYC, Woman Announces: I’ll Never Vote for a Black Man for President.

Click here to read Part Three: Who Says Older Ages Equal Serious Health Problems?

LIZ: I want to preface my remarks now by saying I’ve always been a really lousy feminist and Gloria Steinem once said that I was the worst because, she said, “Liz, you want to be the only Jew in the club.” And so I got the message then. I tried to repent. But now sexism is coming late to this discussion. I think it’s probably too late. And I think the sexists mostly all say they just don’t like Hillary. But they don’t have anything against women in office. I think if you look at the statistics, 13 percent of voters say they would never vote for a woman no matter how qualified she was. And our friend Cynthia McFadden spoke this weekend at Bryn Mawr and she said the world economic forum in Davos assessed gender equality in 93 percent of the world population, and the United States dropped from 23rd on the list in 2006 to 31st in 2007. So only 13 percent of Congress is female. Women make 77 cents for every dollar men make. I just think sexism is really alive in this world. And The New York Times had a wonderful piece in the magazine Sunday, by Peggy Orenstein, discussing this.

LESLEY: You know what’s really interesting to me? That this bubbles up at a time when Hillary Clinton won virtually half the primary votes, from lots and lots of white men, who essentially were saying they could see her as a commander-in-chief. She raised a whole lot of money; people said women would never be able to raise a whole lot of money. I mean, there is some kind of disconnect here.

LIZ: Yeah. Well, I think these discussions are too late to be of any use to her. But it all leads back to us being reminded that black men were given the right to vote in America 50 years before women received it. So nothing much has changed.

KATHLEEN: But it’s got to be possible in this kind of discussion to say that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was not the campaign that could have been waged on her behalf — there are failures in the campaign. There were failures in its assumptions about how to deal with the caucuses. One can’t say that Clinton’s candidacy faltered because of sexism; one can say that — gender and race out of the equation — tactically the Obama campaign ran a much better campaign. It figured out how to get the advantage of higher numbers of delegates in caucus states. It figured out how to go to those districts that had essentially more votes; more capacity to produce delegate strength. And it concentrated there, while the Clinton campaign was off in those areas — that had less capacity to generate the delegates — with the same amount of effort. And the Obama campaign figured out how to raise money. So, I think that sex and race are at play this year and I think that they are playing in ways that are both obvious and subtle. But, there are also all the other dynamics that come into play when campaigns do well and do poorly, regardless of race and gender.

To another point on this subject, the amount of sexism on the Internet is just appalling. And that young people will put their own names and their own identities up on space on the Internet, such as Facebook, attached to demeaning comments about women in general and Hillary Clinton in particular. And then when someone comes onto the site to object, that person will be subject to what we would call ad staminem rather than ad hominem. We should find attacks that are vulgar in the extreme disturbing, regardless of whether or not we are Hillary Clinton supporters.

LESLEY: So the idea that racism is a taboo, but sexism is fine, is alive and well on the Internet?

KATHLEEN: I believe that sexism is alive and well on the Internet. And the productive piece is that recently, after Tina Fey’s segment on "Saturday Night Live," a couple of groups have emerged to try to fight what they see as misogyny on the Internet and misogyny in mainstream broadcast.

LESLEY: And when you say on "Saturday Night Live," what misogynist —

KATHLEEN: Tina Fey. When Tina Fey went on with the segment that concludes that “bitch” is the new black, a site emerges on the web that basically plays out of that segment and produces commentary about it. And a second site emerges as well which basically takes on the concept that these sorts of attacks in broadcast and on the web, against Hillary Clinton but on misogynistic grounds, are inappropriate.

269 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Correction: Last paragraph: Hillary Clinton, not Harold. Also, New Yorkers are many things — we are not, however — VICTIMS. 9/11 proved that to the world. Even when we are — we are NOT. HRC is no longer worthy of New York as our Senator by how she now defines herself. We accept bad things happen to good people as a cultural norm. How one rises above it is what matters — in New York. We are NO VICTIMS.

By Renata on 06/01/2008 11:08 am

e-mail alert

Give the hens a shout out from Manhattan! :-)

By Renata on 06/01/2008 3:32 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Renata I appreciate your response to my post, as always, and thank you for your perspectives. I read the piece in Vanity Fair……very interesting! When it comes to the chess game of politics, I feel like Helen Keller having just awakened to a world I have walked in parallel with for my entire adult life and didn’t know was there. Re my concern for the women who have been victimized throughout this miserable primary, it is the therapist in me that is responding. I am doing what I can to educate and spread the word, and have met with some success to date. You have truly helped me in this regard, Renata. Often I recognize something is uncomfortably fuzzy, but just can’t bring it in to focus. You are amazingly adept in that area and I have learned much from what you have shared with all of us. So, good night from me and the ladies. (Boojo, Zenda, Dove, Tweedee, Serenity, Queenie, and Rhapsody) We are wishing you well. +~~

By ~ countrywoman ~ on 06/02/2008 3:06 am

e-mail alert

countrywoman - Here in NYC, we are at the vortex of a confluence of things. HRC is the Junior Senator who initially ran saying she would NOT run for the Presidency and “only wanted to represent the good people of New York.” We are also — for good, or ill — the fishbowl of the MEDIA, which has become a defacto propaganda multimededia machine, repleat with millionaire “stars” — joining the ranks of other CELEBRITIES — who excell at obscuring rather than the care and feeding of our Constitutionally-protected journalistic/press freedoms — exclusively focused on PROFIT thanks to Bush/Clinton deregulation across a multiplicity of industries. The results — from banking (also NYC-based) to JOURNALISM — from HEALTHCARE (insurance/financial-NYC-CT axis) to for-profit mega GOVERNMENT influenced by and funded by Wall Street/corporate lobbiests (former President & First Lady moved to NY instead of AK, etc.) — the PR SPIN cycle has taken over REALITY and the effect is both a parallel universe fuzzy. As with the run-up to the Iraq War, you are MEANT to second guess your good judgement and just go along — trusting Politicians we vote for and TRUST to do their jobs to represent OUR interests, but who are actually a quasi for-profit industry on to itself — ON STEROIDS — AS THE PIVOT DRIVER OF ALL OTHER INDUSTRY IN AMERICA — thanks to the Bush/Clinton dynasties. Fortunately, as you see w/Katie Couric, reading the “news”and transplanting from the Today Show (more mediocrity) - isn’t a “hit.” Americans are become more sophisticated MEDIA consumers and the Internet/blogs featuring REAL news vs. corporate/ad packaged propaganda that even the former Bush Communications Director for The White House MOCKS about how EASY it was to manipulate. We are going to WAR, killing hundreds of thousands of people — breaking faith with our volunteer military personnel and spending the boomers social safety net that Millennials will have to replace to the tune of a 50% tax bracket — based upon totally FLAWED journalism and information. WHO does this serve? While we are discussing crazy (carthartic) pastors — Bill Clinton’s last 7 years have NOT been discussed in the MEDIA or by the thousands of journalists — until now, though in our NYC fishbowl this is common knowledge and openly discussed. I am sure it is discussed at the cocktail parties — but, you won’t read it or see one conversation about it in the thousands of hours of television “news.” Instead, you get Rev. Wright…who also runs nursing homes. Nice. HRC and her real Campaign apparatus — the NYC-PR MACHINE that nicely complements the “news” industries — have completely changed the DNC RULES several times and refocused or kicked the can to serve HER narrative. Senator Obama never wins, is permitted to celebrate a win, can even SAY he is winning. Instead, we get a steady diet of what will HRC do — as if it matters. The entire DNC apparatus cannot raise funds properly or hire before Summer begins — while the NYC-PR and “news” industries rework the narrative to serve HRC’s undisclosed agenda(s). HRC has no monies and will ask us all to pay for this vanity play — including her constituency in New York. She is coming here tomorrow night to ask for money. Nice. Photo-ops, Harold Ickes staged performances (the man who WROTE the original rules), etc. is just too much fun and PROFITABLE for the MEDIA/journalists — to STOP COVERING THE CIRCUS. All the while, Bush/McCain get no scrutiny and Senator Obama has refused to challenge HRC for THREE MONTHS — only praising her publcly. This, of course, leaves HRC a totally wide-open field to manipulate the rules, rules of engagement, NYC-MEDIA, etc. Nice. MEDIA pundits are more angry at McClellan for outting them — and the corporations who have commoditized JOURNALISM to the degree we have none we can rely on other than citizen bloggers — than the terrible substance of what he has said. This is American Democracy circa 2008. Americans can either take back our Democracy — or continue to keep our heads in the sand. The world is waiting for our decision — with AMAZEMENT we have come to this place — while THEY have prepared for the retirement security of their boomers/seniors and not mortaging THEIR children’s futures. I don’t speak FOR New York. But, since I was born here and love this City, State and Nation — it is imperative that I post as a witness to what is unfolding. NYS was CHOSEN by the Clintons for good reason. Those reasons have nothing to do with the NY I love, but the NY I loathe — as it has morphed since the 1970s. Not only do Americans need to take our Democracy back — New Yorkers need to take our City, State and industries back. Finance and MEDIA are critical to the Democracy we love. They are its lifeblood since Peter Styvesant — and pivotal. Our dysfunction infects the American way of life. We always loved money, but — as a Democratic bastion, we always loved fairness and social equality. Gone are the days when immigrants can land here and begin to make an American life. Now we have “Sex and the City” defining us — and not for the better. Even now it rings hollow and is a stale reminder of excess — as American taxpayors bail out HUGE banks that were deregulated by Clinton in the 90s. Citibank merging w/Travelers. Bear Stearns - and unregulated hedge funds, etc. Bush/Clinton dynasties and Wall Street gave us the Savings & Loan debacles and Merriweather bailouts. Every generation requires American Middle-Class to bail out financial industries. That is the real “Sex and the City.” These are Bill Clinton’s friends. Instead of financial journalists — we have CNBC cheerleaders. It’s ALL a game — and the only safety net goes to the top 1% speculators. Workers have none. Americans have a real choice this time if we can stop focusing on the subjective of skin color, pastors, gender cheerleading w/out scrutiny of what comes with this particular WOMAN — and focus on what really matters for ourselves, our children who must carry our historically long third age and make INFORMED decisions based on GOOD JUDGEMENT about our affairs in the world. CHANGE or more of the same. PAST vs. FUTURE. This is the ONLY CHOICE.

By Renata on 06/02/2008 8:32 am

e-mail alert

Responding to christina haskin - 5/31/2008 9:32 AM I appreciate your perspective. As I hold my breath waiting for fairness, and the true will of the people to play out, I am hopeful and cautiously optimistic. I will breathe a big sigh of relief for maybe 5 minutes once Obama is officially declared. And then begins the serious concern for the loyal intelligent women who have internalized all the divisive propaganda. As I type those words, I can almost feel the heat of their passion and denial. I hear and read the tortured logic fall from their lips and fingertips, pre-packaged in Clinton spin……word-for-word sometimes. (take “disenfranchised” for example, and think about the actual concept of disenfranchisement prior to the self-serving spin cycle.) For some, this is a painful personal defeat because, of course, that is how their candidate framed it. “If I fail, women fail.” For some, Obama has “snatched” their candidate’s rightful throne, along with their own hopes and dreams. That assertion is threaded throughout this site. We need those bright feisty ladies to have faith that Obama will be an excellent representative for them. Their loyalty has been used and abused, and I so wish they will not be further victimized. And the indisputable reality is that we need their able assistance to help get Senator Obama elected in the Fall. We can hope for the miracle that will promote real unity and healing……that HRC will step down with some degree of grace, and throw her support behind the person who can truly deliver leadership. Re any degree of optimism in that arena, not so much. I have every hope that an Obama Presidency will further the cause for gender equality, for ALL equality, in America. We have witnessed the power of the sisterhood in this primary election, imagine, as you address in your comments, what is possible when the RIGHT woman throws her hat into the ring!

By ~ countrywoman ~ on 05/31/2008 5:02 pm

e-mail alert

HRC is smart enough to know her husband is a liability, and something she cannot control. The Comeback Id - Vanity Fair - July 2008 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807 Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton’s post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton’s medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say “no.” Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self. by Todd S. Purdum July 2008

By Renata on 06/01/2008 9:59 am

e-mail alert

Something to consider — with bullies or those who threaten or hold people hostage, it is sometimes worthwhile to call their bluff and allow them to more fully expose themselves as what they are. Yesterday’s performance by Harold Ickes was a threat. How about we take him/Clinton Inc. up on their threat to hold the Democratic Party hostage to whatever they want — raining on the victor’s parade and damaging him/the Party and the American future chances to clean up this mess, in the process. Question: When does this kind of conduct, fused w/the Republicans/Bush/McCain — against the Democratic Nominee — become a negative association across-the-board for Clinton Inc. and whatever they hope to gain by this kind of activity? When do THEY become so radioactive and toxic that NOBODY chooses an association with and their long tail become a net net NEGATIVE? Politically in NY there will already be serious consequences HRC in her bubble of privilege and hedge fund/media Hamptons “friends” haven’t yet discussed. She doesn’t discuss what she doesn’t want to hear or deal with. So, she is BEHIND the zeitgeist — still — believing she is the “Pied Piper” of women who will ALL do in a “Stepford Wives” manner whatever we are directed. HRC doesn’t have much respect for women if she believes this — and she does. We already know Bill doesn’t. So, we know Puerto Rico’s turnout is historically low today - a reversal of the trendlines of the previous results in other venues. After spending 15 straight days to diminish the presumptive Nominee — in PR — that can’t be good news for Clinton Inc.’s divisive Latino vs. African-American stragegy. How will men of all stripes perceive visuals of women “sobbing and tear their shirts” over a HRC loss — repleat with whining and complaining? Is this the kind of Commander-in-Chief men will want to salute? Is a self-professed VICTIM someone worthy of the title? When does Clinton Inc. become a NEGATIVE to ANY associations because of how they are conducting themselves after losing? We know after the 90s Bill Clinton’s triangulation strategy cost Democrats the Congress after half a Century of majority status. No long tails w/Clinton Inc. Even when they win, we lose. She will not be the “Boss Tweed” of women, Latinos, “hard working, very hard working — white people.” She will try — but, in the end, Americans in the 21st Century will REJECT this kind of divisive thinking. New Yorkers certainly will.

By Renata on 06/01/2008 2:05 pm

e-mail alert

NEVER vote for a woman no matter how qualified??? How can anybody vote like that!?! God! Makes me so angry I don’t have anything to say but: Idiots!!!

By Ine Drage on 06/07/2008 9:31 am

e-mail alert

I would never vote for Hillary, but give us the right woman candidate and she is out there and she would get my vote.

By Deb Rubenstein on 06/10/2008 7:07 am

e-mail alert

Dear WoW, I’m reading the various comments extolled on this site and becoming quite dismay by some…to be expected. We all sometimes do not agree with one another on issues…again, to be expected. So allow me to put in my two cents. The 2008 Democratic Primary race was riddled with racism and sexism. Yet, think about this. The Democratic Party presented various candidates for the Office of the Presidency. This includes Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Obama, and Clinton. For Obama and Clinton, they ran a wonderful race…intensive, sometime brutal and personal. Nevertheless, Obama and Clinton vetted one another well. One must win while the other must lose. Obama won. Clinton lost. This lost is personally felt by many and anger exists. In a nutshell, Obama out-campaigned Clinton by a long shot. Everyone here knows this. Many want to lament that sexism played a major role. Nope. I refute that notion. Please do not forget that everyone, both Dems and Repubs knew that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee. This whole process was simply a rudimentary process to that end. All the talking heads, pundits, lay persons, and many others, to include virtually the entire women population, knew that Hillary Clinton would win. Iowa changed that perception. Clinton then focused on New Hampshire and Super Tuesday. She won NH. But leading up to Super Tuesday, she failed to maintain virtually every American support of her, except her staunch supporters. HER CAMPAIGN ADVISORS FAILED HER. SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE NOMINEE IF SHE CONTROLLED HER CAMPAIGN. I thought is was amazing that nearly every Black/African American rallied behind Hillary and left Barack on his own. Barack did not take that vote for granted. Hillary did, for the most part. Then Billy Boy put his two cents into it, and that shifted the tides to Barack. Also, the dividing lines between Blacks and women began. The chasm widen over time. But one thing I noticed, minority women did not register sexism as much as they registered the racism spewing from the Right and some principal Hillary surrogates. Unfortunately, sexism came from most of the talking heads on TV. I do not believe it came from the Obama’s camp. The Hillary machine created false connections of sexism to the Obama’s camp, but without proof. Conservatives used racism against Dukakis for the Willy Horton fiasco. Conservatives used racism and sexism against John McCain in 2000. Remember that Black child he got out of wedlock? Conservatives used racism and sexism against Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford. Remember the commercial linking Ford to Playboy bunnies? What about Clinton and the 3 AM TV ad? Can you imagine a “dark” figure entering your home 3 AM? What is your initial thought? Some women decry Obama’s sweeping the comments off his shoulders and pants. It was not an indictment on Clinton. It was an indication that he would not allow negative comments stick to him. How’s that sexist? Some women wants him drawn and quartered because he called someone sweetie. These women would focus on this and not realize that McCain would appoint US Supreme Court Justices that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. Some would focus on this, rather than finding a way to bring our troops home safely and with respect and support. Some would focus on Obama calling someone a sweetie, than to focus on a US energy revolution, employment stability, tax fairness, education equality, and the reintroduction to civic pride. GET REAL! Both Obama and Clinton would champion women caused. Do you believe Michelle would think favorably to see her husband degrading women? If you want to know if Obama respect women, please look how he treats his wife and his two daughters. The answers are there. Thank you.

By Karl Clark on 06/11/2008 10:10 pm

e-mail alert

I’m ashamed of the Women of America especially those over 50. We had to fight for ourselves for equal everything. We finally get a chance to put a woman in the while house ( a good one) and what do we do…..we get mesmerized by and man who says he is about change, but what kind of change. I’m not even a member of NOW and never have been and haven’t stuck my neck out about lots of subjects. Love men, married two BUT come on women of America……what is wrong with you?

By Lindsay Sommers on 06/25/2008 9:10 pm