From primary season, let's move to secondary season; from the singular to the plural.

For as long as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been battling it out for the Democratic nomination, the spotlight's been on them: their qualifications, their promises, their baggage. According to a Pew Center study, in the first half of last year, only three percent of campaign coverage focused on issues. This year, that's stumbled to a pathetic seven percent. It's no surprise.

Feminists say the personal is political. In our privatized economy neoliberals say it's strictly personal. Your troubles, your chances, the way you're treated, it's all unique to – and determined by – you! So we're told. It's a convenient way to take systems of wealth and power and privilege out of the picture and a happy-for-some way to eradicate history. We've privatized prisons and health-care and education and war and we do the same to our politics and our politicians. It's all about them.

Well, enough about them. We better make this about us. The people I know who rooted for Hillary Clinton did it for a reason. It wasn't her hair, her shoes, her husband… It was out of a stubborn, long-suffering belief that after centuries of being put second, a woman president might put gender justice first. And by gender justice we mean human justice. As Kavita Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women explained on GRITtv Tuesday night, you can't teeter the welfare of the world on that part of society – the female part – that you treat the worst without consequences for the planet.

The Clinton supporters I know long for a president who would reprioritize; a president who would reapportion spending and security and power so that women had our fair share of each. They thought (and many still believe) that it would take a woman to do it -- and maybe it will, but it shouldn't have to. Not if we de-privatize and re-personalize. The problem – it's not about her. And the solution – it's not about him. It's about us.

Watch this commentary and a rollicking conversation among women on race and class and gender in the '08 race on GRITtv. "GRITtv with Laura Flanders" plays on Free Speech TV directly following Democracy Now, and online, at GRITtv.org. Sign up for a video feed.

Comments (24)

1. If only Hillary were more woman and less Rovian.

   Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2008 @ 08:47am

2. Well, first....

   interesting that somebody who was praising Ralph Nader, who for atleast these last two election cycles (2004,2008) is making it "about him" and how much PURER he is than the Democratic nominees...to be attacking politicians or politics that is "about them". (CRABWALK bait, I know)

   second...

   "long for a president who would reprioritize; a president who would reapportion spending and security and power so that women had our fair share of each."

   So Hillary would have been the President "for women"...not for ALL of us (men, too)?!?!??!

   Maybe THAT's a reason she flopped as well?

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 08:56am

3. If only Hillary were more woman and less Rovian.

   Posted by winyahn at 06/4/2008

   second this motion.

   ----

   Mask, will you be voting for Bush again?

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2008 @ 09:47am

4. Ah, Mask, back to your old trick of distorting an author's meaning by selective quotation. Here's what Mask left out just one paragraph earlier: "And by gender justice we mean human justice. As Kavita Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women explained on GRITtv Tuesday night, you can't teeter the welfare of the world on that part of society – the female part – that you treat the worst without consequences for the planet."

   I may fault those of Clinton's feminist supporters interviewed by Flanders for their incredible naivete, both about their former Wal-Mart Board Member and Democratic Leadership Council candidate, and women political leaders in general (Have any of them ever heard of Margaret F***ing Thatcher, for Heaven's sake!?!?), but Flanders clearly stated that by giving women their "fair share," they believe that this would promote "human justice" and good things for the entire planet. This is not exactly an unusual argument, as the economic right praises the trickle down effect of the economic activity supposedly generated by tax cuts for the rich, while the economic left argues that higher wages for the broad working class increases demand and therefore pushes economic growth.

   But you go ahead and keep setting up straw men to knock down. It's so much easier than actually engaging with what an author wrote.

   Posted by cka2nd at 06/04/2008 @ 10:22am

5. 'Tell me the backlash against feminism isn't crackling up a storm.' -- The Nation -- 8 May, 2008 -- Katha Pollitt

   'I've always met more discrimination being a woman than being black. When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being black. Men are men.' -- Shirley Chisholm (Associated Press interview, 1982)

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/04/2008 @ 10:58am

6. From your fingers to G-d's ears, Ms. Flanders. I still think Hillary hasn't learned that it was never about her; atleast not in my eyes.

   I also must say I heard more about Obama being killed in office than anything negative about a woman in the WH, in my community. I live in a predominately AA environment so I don't know how other cultures felt/feel about a woman in the WH.

   Posted by k330k at 06/04/2008 @ 12:14pm

7. Posted by cka2nd at 06/4/2008 |

   CKA, YES...Ms Flanders said "by gender justice, we mean human justice"....

   SHE ALSO said "long for a president who would reprioritize; a president who would reapportion spending and security and power so that women had our fair share of each."

   Which contradicts the "oh, we mean ALL humans" caveat.

   Ms Flanders could have said "reapportion spending and security and power so that EVERYBODY had their fair share, including women AND men."

   but she didn't.

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 12:21pm

8. Mask, will you be voting for Bush again?

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/4/2008

   No, unlike some....I learned my lesson from 2000 and won't make the same mistake twice.

   Now, if we could just convince a few "I won't vote for the lesser of two evils, even if it gives the election to the GREATER of two evils" purists.

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 12:23pm

9. I keep hearing writers at The Nation whine about sexism. Sexism this and sexism that. Misogyny this and misogyny that.

   What sexism?! Everywhere I look I see women in positions of POWER. I see 'em in corporate boardrooms, as TV anchors, as high-profile lawyers, as entrepreneurs.

   Should talented and intelligent men just roll over for less talented and intelligent women?

   Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton because he's better in EVERY respect. He's a better human being. He had better stands on the issues. He fought a SMARTER campaign. He was more gracious in defeat. He was more inclusive. And, I'm sure, he's going to make a much better president.

   All this "sexism" crap is really old and should go by the wayside.

   Posted by KSP556 at 06/04/2008 @ 1:01pm

10. Now, if we could just convince a few "I won't vote for the lesser of two evils, even if it gives the election to the GREATER of two evils" purists.

    Posted by Mask at 06/4/2008 | ignore this person | warn this

    Good luck with that.

    Posted by k330k at 06/04/2008 @ 1:05pm

11. Flanders writes, "It was out of a stubborn, long-suffering belief that after centuries of being put second, a woman president might put gender justice first."

    I think for centuries women were put FIRST. Men died in battle for women. They erected monuments for women. They wrote poems and songs for women. They died trying to search for food for women.

    This "gender justice" notion is complete and total bullshit.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/04/2008 @ 1:09pm

12. KSP556 is presumably male but possibly a Queen Bee. Whatever – for the record there are 10 female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies and all of 20 CEOs in the Fortune 1000. Congress has 87 elected women with 16 in the senate and only 5 Republicans. Oh wow, that must mean sexism is finished. Look again - at the boardrooms where if there is a woman it is only one.

    I suspect KSP556 doesn't want to see any women in those positions which is proof enough of how much sexism is alive and well in the good old USA.

    You are entitled to your opinion of Obama but no one knows which one would be a better president. I am just so proud that we had such great choices. Two great Firsts of which only one could get the nomination.

    azul66

    Posted by Azul at 06/04/2008 @ 1:40pm

13. Now, if we could just convince a few "I won't vote for the lesser of two evils, even if it gives the election to the GREATER of two evils" purists.

    Posted by Mask at 06/4/2008

    Then we should stop putting up 2 evils. Yesterday was a good start. Had HC been the nominee we would have been in the same ol same ol. I would certainly take no guff from anybody, and certainly not from a person that actually voted for Bush, for not voting for her, (Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton)or McCain (Bush reworked).

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2008 @ 1:47pm

14. azul66 is presumably....androgynous, pussy-whipped? Not quite sure after reading that dismal reply.

    Some facts.

    The Secretary of State of the United States is a woman.

    The Speaker of the House of Representatives is a woman.

    The runner-up in the Democratic primaries is a woman.

    There are 8 female governors in the U.S.

    Of the 10 richest people in America, 2 are women (Helen & Alice Walton).

    Visit any law or med school: women abound.

    Turn on the TV: female anchors can be found on every network.

    Pick up The Nation: some of the WORST columns happen to be written by women.

    It is a complete lie to say that women are not adequately represented in the professions today.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/04/2008 @ 2:00pm

15. Yesterday was a good start. Had HC been the nominee we would have been in the same ol same ol.----Posted by crabwalk at 06/4/2008

    CRABBY?!?!?!?....am I detecting a little chink in your Pure Progressive/Naderite armor...and you might slip away from Ralph towards the "sell-out" side of the Force and Obama?!?!?!?

    The guys in the We're So Good Club won't take kindly to that!

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 2:01pm

16. Flanders writes, "It was out of a stubborn, long-suffering belief that after centuries of being put second, a woman president might put gender justice first."

    Uh, what makes you think that? Did Margaret Thatcher put women first? Benazir Bhutto? Why are US feminists so backwards as to push that essentialist agenda? It does a disservice to women professionals everywhere and mirrors the racism of those who think that "white looks out for white and black looks out for black," as one of Hillary's eloquent male supporters from West Virginia said.

    Good riddance. I hope she stands down and soon.

    A better female VP candidate would be Kathleen Sebelius, who has achieved a progressive platform in a conservative "red" state, all by herself with no help from her husband.

    Posted by stinavelez at 06/04/2008 @ 2:12pm

17. Considering that women are one of two genders in this world (with due respect to the transgendered), if they took their "fair share" it is simple math that men would be left with their "fair share". To criticize the wording of the author in this instance is extremely petty.

    Posted by davefoley0 at 06/04/2008 @ 2:24pm

18. In the U.S. racism is far more prevalent than sexism.

    Voters in PA, WVA, and Kentucky came right out and said race informed their voting decision.

    Obama has had to overcome far more hurdles in his life than Hillary Clinton, who, let us not forget, rode to fame and fortune off the back of her husband.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/04/2008 @ 2:34pm

19. Posted by davefoley0 at 06/4/2008

    Then she should have SAID that.

    This is the old "Group Politics" which has been disasterous, but indictative of Democrats and the Left for years.

    Playing up "This little group will get theirs if WE are elected or if a person OF that group gets elected"...alienates everybody NOT in that group or even others.

    (BTW, my kid loved you in "A Bug's Life"...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 3:09pm

20. dukaka?

    CAPS?

    Srsly?

    Posted by badtimmay at 06/04/2008 @ 3:51pm

21. There's an awful lot of fear underlying libzRfreaks' writing (masked by all the nonsense claims and CAPS). If this race focuses on issues (and probably even if it doesn't) McCain is in trouble. I don't envy him having to polish and re-sell so many failed policies. Making stuff up about Obama is probably a good strategy, but one that won't work this time.

    Posted by Be Good at 06/04/2008 @ 4:04pm

22. the various incarnations of "libz..whatever" is some wackadoodle extreme right-winger, who needs to up his meds....Ignore list, you'll miss nothing.

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 4:12pm

23. GREATER of two evils" purists. Posted by Mask

    Mask, I bet purists are a smaller proportion of Hillary's supporters than her "working class whites" (whose motives are less than pure). Would you agree?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2008 @ 11:39pm

24. All I know is that it took 8 Senators and 23 other Congressional figures to tell Hillary to stop the madness.

    The actions of those elected officials (all of who BTW were actually Hillary's strongest supporters) has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with her feeling entitled to something and having put herself ABOVE the process. As her speech in NY clearly demonstrated.

    Posted by digit at 06/05/2008 @ 01:43am