Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

A Friend Stopped By | 06/26/2008 10:00 am

Message to All Whining Female Democrats: Hillary's Out. Get Over It, by Barbara Goldsmith

By Barbara Goldsmith
© iStock

Editor’s Note: Barbara Goldsmith is a prize-winning bestselling author and historian. She served on the Presidential Commission for the Celebration of Women in America History during President Clinton’s administration.

"Whoever is set up to be president of the United States is just set up to have his character torn off from his back in shreds and to be mauled, pummeled and covered with dirt by every filthy paper all over the country. And no woman that was not willing to be dragged through every kennel, and slopped into every dirty pail of water like an old mop, would ever consent to run as a candidate. Why, it’s an ordeal that kills a man. It killed General Harrison and it killed old Zach [Taylor]. And what sort of … a woman would it be that could stand it and come out of it without being killed?"

So commented Harriet Beecher Stowe when Victoria Woodhull announced her bid for the presidency in 1872.

The place: a distinguished publisher’s Park Avenue apartment. The date: Wednesday, June 18. The time: 8:45 AM. The occasion: a breakfast hosted by Gloria Steinem. The stated objective: to bring the Women for Barack Obama and the Hillary Clinton supporters into one cohesive group.

These emotional outbursts ... are just what male chauvinists say about woman's incapacity to coolly assess a situation.

The little blonde stood, arms akimbo, and vented her wrath: "I am a good friend of Hillary’s," she declared. "I’ve had her at my home, and I have always been there for her. I am here to tell you how angry and hurt I am and how hurt all Hillary supporters are by the sexist, disgusting way Hillary was attacked and pilloried by the media in this campaign. Until some acknowledgment of that is made, I am full of anger. I know the Democratic Party could have stopped it. I know Obama could have stopped it. But, everyone was silent and just let it happen and …"

Next up: a professor who took a full six minutes announcing her credentials and then said, "I used up my entire pension supporting Hillary. I went to 13 states and knocked on doors. I want everyone in this room to write in the name of Hillary Clinton on the ballot when they go to vote and …"

Another woman announced that she intended to launch a boycott of MSNBC. "I want all of you to sign my petition."

The chairperson of "Women for Obama," Becky Carroll, had flown in from Chicago and said she was tired. You’d be tired too with all that invective flying around the room. But Ms. Carroll couldn’t very well intervene, if catharsis was what was needed to unite Democratic women. Ms. Carroll was in a tough position – too tough to point out that Hillary Clinton had announced that her supporters should "take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama …" These emotional outbursts — and there were several more — are just what male chauvinists say about woman’s incapacity to coolly assess a situation.

Please note that so far there’s been no "I" word in my comments. The "I did this, I did that, I am hurt, I may not vote, I may vote for McCain," and so forth that have been heard lately may be what’s holding Democratic women back from fulfilling their potential to become a powerful coalition that could help guide this country back to safer ground.

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

My Two Cents
I am beginning to understand the function of delegates and super delegates, they are meant to make the election go the way the party wants it to go. It’s not about the popular vote at all, which may be a good thing, hearing the reasons people are giving for voting or not voting for a candidate.
By My Two Cents on 06/26/2008 11:26 am
phyllis Doyle Pepe
Actually the founders were leery about the lack of educated people ( back then many of the colonists were uneducated) that could vote in a democracy–––I think it was Madison who called them “the great unwashed”–––democracies are messy, but always challenging. I’m sometimes amazed at how all this works even a little bit.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 06/26/2008 1:02 pm
Bonnie Oliver
You are correct Phyllis. The founders were also keen that only those men who owned real estate should qualify to vote.
By Bonnie Oliver on 06/26/2008 2:20 pm
beverly linens
I remember my dad called the election of 1952 when Eisenhower was elected, a bloodless revolution. He said it was a miracle. I was 15.
By beverly linens on 06/26/2008 8:54 pm
CAT Tastic
This is just history repeating itself. The Black man was allowed to vote before women. A black man will be allowed to be president of the U.S. before a woman.
By CAT Tastic on 06/29/2008 6:57 pm
Alice Wolfson
SUPREME COURT only measure that counts. Yes—Hillary has changed things for all the women who are to come. Yes, it is good that our daughters don’t remember illegal abortion or an unsafe birthcontrol pill, or, for that matter, no birth control at all, but we should all remember two words: SUPREME COURT! Are any of us so shortsighted that we are willing to let McCain appoint the next three and possibly four justices? That could mean business interests triumph for the next forty years. Nothing is worth that!
By Alice Wolfson on 06/26/2008 11:40 am
Marjorie C.
Dear Barbara, FYI, the whining female Democrats are over it. Hillary is out. Besides, it isn’t about Hillary, it’s about BHO. One thing the Democratic party of Pelosi, Dean and Kennedy can’t seem to get over is the fact that many, many Independents and former Democrats do not like BHO. They despise him. They will not vote for him. Period. The Democrats of Pelosi, Dean and Kennedy have to come to this point and to the realization that possibly 20% to 25% of former Democrats are not going to vote for the DNC’s beloved BHO, so stop whining. McCain (or anybody but BHO) for ‘08
By Marjorie C. on 06/26/2008 12:13 pm
Diana T
Good. We can all end up with McCain and the war and the economy and all the rest of it.
By Diana T on 06/26/2008 2:30 pm
Star Lawrence
Little secret—-presidents don’t control the economy much. Your candidate may listen to those generals and wait and see—it may be more like McCain’s 4 yrs, not 16 mos, if then.
By Star Lawrence on 06/26/2008 2:45 pm
Mugsy Peabody
What would be good for you to get over is the idea that women’s strong support of feminism is whining. “Black people should quit whining because the police disproportionately stop them for traffic violations.” Sexism is like racism, deadly. “Black people should just understand they are only 15% of the population and have no real political power.” People would be up in arms. But bash women who oppose sexism? Oh, that’s fun. I’m not responding further to this.
By Mugsy Peabody on 06/26/2008 12:33 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
Hi Mugsy–––been waiting for you because I have a question re: your take on Charlie Rose––on different thread–––and was curious as to why you think him a pseudo intellectual and why you think he treats women unfairly–––maybe unfairly wasn’t the word, but whatever it was I found it fascinating because I had never picked that up. And re: above–––Amen.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 06/26/2008 1:19 pm
Ulla
Hi Mugsy and Phyllis … yes, re. Mugsy’s post above: in total agreement —- sorry for jumping in here, P, but I missed M’s comment on Charlie Rose … but I do share that thought (posted about it somewhere on this site, at some time …) - it’s a great show because one doesn’t get to see these kind of people, discussions and interviews anywhere else on tv … but Mr. Rose can get me to the point of shouting at the screen for him to let his guests speak and not to try to prove so damn hard how smart he is, he often seems condescending but in my view more so to women … and then he would never dare to say to any male guest something like ‘I adore you’ which he does to female guests … not to be too pc here, and he should certainly express being a great fan of whatever actress/writer, but it is just very uneven … just my take on it, sorry, I know you wanted to hear from M. ….
By Ulla on 06/26/2008 2:43 pm
Mugsy Peabody
Thanks, Ulla. I wish others would say what they think instead of criticizing those of us who do. Except for the personal attacks, I really don’t give a damn what anybody thinks, as long as they do. Please keep writing. I really appreciate your viewpoint.
By Mugsy Peabody on 06/26/2008 4:10 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
Thanks Ulla and Mugsy for your reply. I find myself yelling at Charlie to “shut up” ––––he asks a question and then proceeds to answer it himself and I think––is he showing us how well versed he is on the subject? Or is that just his way of engaging. I will watch him more closely re: the female interaction–––I find it strange that I didn’t pick up on that, if indeed, that is the case. But Mugsy–––you didn’t answer my question about the pseudo-intellectual thingy––––please give me your take on this.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 06/26/2008 5:00 pm
Elisabeth S
Phyllis, Mugsy and Ulla, I have had the same thoughts and experience watching Charlie Rose, He did it just last night, interviewing Emmy Lou Harris. Very patronizing and kept interrupting, when she tried to expand her thoughts. And she is such a classy and talented woman. But he does have guests/discusssions you can’t get elswhere. Maybe WOW can find a female Charlie?
By Elisabeth S on 06/26/2008 5:33 pm