Still, the problem is that it paints Hillary as being in a romantic relationship with the party, instead of a part of it. Seeing the party as male, and Hillary as it’s girlfriend is the source of treating her differently, and separating her out of it. I think that’s where the sexism has crept in… and it’s more subtle there.

Nobody would call McCain as the psycho abusive husband of the Republicans, because that would imply femininity of the party - which, given that it’s full of flabby old men in suits, would be a little odd. Maybe of the nation? America is frequently anthropomorphized as lady liberty.

And yes, despite the oppression olympics, I would say that America is generally more sexist than racist. Why? Because we all have to deal with sexual differences in our daily lives. Most of us have never personally lived with a coke-dealer or a welfare bum or a pimp, so tacky racist jokes about Obama along those lines are obviously foreign and tasteless. However, most heterosexual women do live with a man at some point in their lives, and vice versa. After dealing with enough psycho-ex-girlfriends in your own personal daily life, tasteless jokes about Clinton being one can strike a chord.

For example, one could go through a nice long gag about the Republican party being America’s abusive boyfriend that she just can’t get away from. Would that be similarly sexist?

/actually, now I’m tempted to write that…

“Baby, I don’t LIKE hurting you - do you think I want to send out more troops? I love you and I’ll make it better. Come on, we’re going to get you a nice economic stimulus package and everything will be fine. Now never talk like that ever again.”

Of course. But they would be doing that whether or not their husband was running for office or not. The question at hand was whether or not the wife was doing anything specifically related to the campaign and the level of uncompensated effort she was engaging in on that.

First off, giving up your own career to help someone else’s *is* a big deal and a sacrifice to your own career, whether you’re an engineer, a teacher, a pilot, a designer, a miner, a carpenter, a dancer… whatever. Why? Because that is time when *you are not doing/advancing your own career*. You are no longer “up to date” on procedures or equipment, you lose seniority, etc.

Absolutely. But not every woman has a career outside the home, or wants one. They then would not be sacrificing something they don’t have in the first place. And not every candidate’s wife puts a huge level of effort into their husband’s campaign. Cindy McCain does not visibly appear to be putting a huge amount of time/effort into her husband’s campaign. She either owns or runs a beer distributorship; I doubt what she does is keeping her from moving particularly farther up, or if she even wants to. Being Bill Clinton’s wife has probably enhanced Hillary’s political career - do you think she’d have been elected Senator if she had never married him? I don’t know enough about Michelle Obama to know what effect being Barak’s wife has had on her career, but I’m not so sure she’s a positive influence on his. We sure haven’t heard much from her since she proclaimed that her husband’s candidacy was the first thing that made her proud of America.

Those are examples of women being First Ladies, but we’re talking about before the election, not after it. What role did these women take in the campaigns leading up to these men’s elections?

>>Depends on the candidate and on the wife and on the office being run for. Some candidate’s wives hit the campaign trail every day, some don’t.

Being someone’s wife is work (as is being someone’s husband). Relationship work is most often done by women. Whether the wife in question is actively campaigning or “merely” keeping the relationship and family going while her spouse campaigns, she is still doing the work that makes the spouse appear more stable.

Now sometimes political wives are indeed dismissed by the title “hostess.” But think for five minutes about the work involved in coordinating political social affairs for a national president. And then think about Harriet: how to run a dinner party in 1859 and have to find a way to make it work when there are legislators from slave and free states in attendance (not saying that if she had given better parties there would have been no Civil War; just saying that dealing with this stuff is *work*, political freakin’ *work*, and it’s kind of vexing to have to point this out so often). So think about it for a second: if networking is a big deal; if deals are done and decisions are made in the corridors of power; if it’s not what you know, it’s who you know… then anyone who says that political wives are “just” anything is ignoring all of that social capital that is leveraged by “hostesses.” Social capital which they exercise independently, for the benefit of their husbands’ careers.

Then think about all the other work that First Ladies (and other political wives!) do. Cultural diplomacy, both for the nation WRT other nations, and for the pol WRT their own constituencies. Harriet won great favor with the American public, and used that goodwill as an activist in many realms. Cleveland’s sister was less visible because she didn’t like the work, but when Cleveland married his wife, Frances, was an incredible and astute coordinator of the President’s social contact. She was also hugely popular, helped him win reelection, and when Grover got cancer in his second term she helped to cover for him.

I am just scratching the surface here. And I think that Clinton has done herself a disservice by downplaying the importance of the social and cultural diplomacy that she conducted by focusing on other, more questionable, stuff. So in some ways this is my heart-cry to all those who are saying “well, she was just a first lady.” I mean, if nothing else, the insight into how the presidency is effective on a world stage, who are the people you are dealing with, and how can you deal with them… these are not negligible things, and Hillary does have 8 years of experience with it all.

Also, RonF, I think maybe you are missing a couple of points. First off, giving up your own career to help someone else’s *is* a big deal and a sacrifice to your own career, whether you’re an engineer, a teacher, a pilot, a designer, a miner, a carpenter, a dancer… whatever. Why? Because that is time when *you are not doing/advancing your own career*. You are no longer “up to date” on procedures or equipment, you lose seniority, etc.

And the whole point of other people pointing out family connections is to say exactly that *it wouldn’t matter* if Evan Bayh’s family connections got trotted out more, any more than with the Kennedys or the Stevenses in Alaska or etc etc. The point is that often the only time someone seems to ding a politician with the “you are just where you are because of family connections,” and *have that be a successful attack*, is when that person is a woman and the “family connection” is the man she married. It’s a frustrating exception to the rule that calls into question all of the kinds of contributions I talk about at the top of this.

Sorry for the novel-length disquisition.

Depends on the candidate and on the wife and on the office being run for. Some candidate’s wives hit the campaign trail every day, some don’t. Michelle Obama is out there hustling, but her manner of presentation and the things she says are likely hindering, not helping (haven’t heard much from her lately, have we?). Some speak to policy issues, some don’t - note how much of a shock it was when Mrs. Bush spoke out on Darfur recently. McCain’s wife has been pretty much silent, as far as I can tell. The image need not be an active one. If the image is that of loyal helpmeet caring for the family while the candidate takes on the world then that effort itself is work, but it’s not additional work to use that to augment the candidate’s image.

And while providing said image, wife of candidate is not doing other things, which is then used against her later on for not having forged an independent path.

By who? And in what context? Being a housewife concentrating on the family instead of on an independent career is probably more of a plus than a minus for a Republican candidate, whereas it would be the reverse for a Democratic one, I suspect (although that may be too sweeping a generalization). It would only be a problem down the line if the candidate’s wife then decided to become a candidate herself.

On the other hand, not having had certain other experiences might truly be disqualifying, and this is something that women need to think about given their long term aspirations. That’s why many of us discourage women from completely exiting a career track when they have children. It does have consequences. But politics is a field unto itself and all kinds of experience can be relevant for politicians.

Having said that, I think it was just a tactical mistake for Clinton to cast her campaign in terms of what I would call substantive experience in this manner because it raised an issue that otherwise might have been completely dormant. Neither Edwards nor Obama, the other front runners, have materially more independnt experience than she does. By raising it herself, it’s like she was begging these questions to be asked.

That is all.

Providing. This. Image. Is. Work.

Radfem:

The problem with that is that Clinton is essentially saying the votes of the majority of Black voters shouldn’t really count now.

I’m not clear on what you mean by this.

Especially if she’s trying to woo superdelegates to get the nomination that way, counter to the not-so-super delegates and the popular vote.

But that’s exactly what superdelegates are for, to counter the elected delegates if they think the elected delegates are wrong. She didn’t make up the rules; why shouldn’t she play by them?

You see, we don’t really have [effective Democratic party candidates] in the HOR races in my district b/c they don’t receive any funds or support from the Democratic Party at all. So usually, no one runs let alone a candidate who’s connected enough to fund raise either enough to capture the support of the DP or to survive not receiving it. In some areas of the country, the Democratic Party has essentially written “effective representation” off.

In the State of Illinois the two parties essentially work together in what is called “the Combine” to divvy up the state. In the City of Chicago there are few effectively supported Republican candidates. Ditto for Democrats downstate. Only the suburbs see any real races, and that not so often. The Combine would rather see someone they know they can cut deals with of either party in office. The most egregious example was during the 2004 election when despite the fact that the national GOP was desperate to try to keep control of the Senate, the Illinois Republican party refused to support an incumbent Senator (Fitzgerald) because he had had the audacity to appoint a U.S. Attorney who was from out of state and actually threw a bunch of their corrupt buddies in jail. Just to say - you’re right as far as you go, but don’t think that this is something limited to the Democrats.

And regarding your election dilemma - I’ve written my own name in more than once.

Bjartmarr:

After a decade of seeing zero candidates that I supported get elected to office,

I’ve been thinking of having a T-shirt made up that says “My candidate always loses in the primary.”

DaisyDeadhead in support of Lori:

Random, recent example: Not one time, during the Indiana primary, did anyone say “Senator Evan Bayh, elected primarily because he is the son of another Indiana senator”–which is the truth.

Yeah, but so what if they did? In my Congressional district the current incumbent got his job when his dad ran unopposed in the primary, won in a walk (and also thus ensuring that his Republican “opposition” would be a cipher), and then quit. Under the rules of the game here, the Democratic Party committee met and picked - out of all the people they could have picked - his son, who happened to be a professor of Poly Sci at the University of Tennesee at the time. And the current incumbent Cook (a.k.a. “Crook”) County President (an important office, lots of money and patronage and it’s a very big and populous county) got his job when his father had a stroke, didn’t give out any medical information, won his primary, and then managed to pass along his office to his son.

The point being that everyone knew these guys had gotten their jobs purely because their fathers were passing it along, it was in all the papers, much high dudgeon and criticism AND THEY STILL WON!

WTF?!

So even if the papers did say that, I’m not sure that it would matter.

BTW; the Congressman seems to be doing a reasonable job, but the President of Cook County is a damn disaster.

Regarding Amp and YRM on guilt-by-association; I don’t think that Sen. Obama is guilty of any violations of the law because of his associations with Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rev. Wright, or anyone else. But what it does do is to call into question his ability to make good judgements in the people that he assembles around him for mentoring, assistance and judgement. And assembling people with judgement and character happens to be (as we have repeatedly seen) an essential characteristic for an executive, much more important than it is for a legislator.

A little loyalty to one’s friends, relatives and staff is necessary in an executive as well. In fact, in anybody. McCain rides a bus in his campaign; Obama uses his to throw people under if he thinks it will get him votes. His own grandmother, for God’s sake. It’s a chiche!

And to everybody; not that I’m particularly enamored of the woman, but I’m in full agreement that she’s been subjected to blatant sexism in this campaign. I don’t know whether it’s been the deciding factor, but it hasn’t helped. While it’s hard to quantify, it seems that sexism has been a lot more acceptable than racism.

Damn hard.

That means that their wives are doing uncompensated labor that is, at best, invisible or, at worst, mocked and ridiculed, as in this case.

No, it doesn’t. Not necessarily, at any rate. You are making an assumption; the reason that an unmarried man would have a hard time getting elected President would be that he would be bereft of work that a married candidate’s wife would be out there doing all kinds of work for him.

But that’s not necessarily true. I propose to you that the major contribution a wife makes to a husband-candidate is that of image. An unmarried candidate appears less trustworthy; if he can’t maintain or won’t commit to a personal relationship, what’s he really like? I suggest that the “work” a candidate’s wife performs for him doesn’t really matter all that much. In fact, in Sen. Obama’s case whether or not his wife is a credit or a liability has yet to be demonstrated. And I wouldn’t say it’s an open-and-shut case that Bill has beem am asset to Hillary’s campaign. Hell, apparently Hillary shut Bill down at one point.

John McCain and John Kerry married money, which helped their political careers immensely; in the modern era, they are the political figures probably most in debt to a spouse’s pull. Neither Kerry or McCain would have likely gotten to the Senate without their wives’ support; McCain probably could have managed it with an ordinary, non-super-rich political wife, with the bona fide war hero record he has.

The real help a spouse gives a politician, though, is the Nancy Reagan / Hillary Clinton type of help - being a powerful and useful political tool for the political family. Reagan was more of a personal helper than Clinton, but both buttressed their husband’s careers immensely. I suspect a close reading of any modern politician’s bio, at least in the United States, is going to show the same pattern. You don’t get ahead without a great political spouse.

The Clintons show that plainly, as well as indicating that it goes both ways. It’s quite clear that Hillary Clinton would be a bigshot lawyer in a small-time practice without Bill - she doesn’t have the political instincts to get elected dogcatcher on her own hook; equally clear that he would be some schmoozing middle manager somewhere without Hillary - he doesn’t have the discipline and focus to achieve anything major on his own. I think they each owe the other big-time for their political success. A nice story, really, if they were different, less sociopathically dishonest, people. ;)

On the one hand, dismissing her as having gotten to where she is because she is merely “somebody’s wife” fails to ackowledge that there are many male politicians, as well as female politicians, who have gotten where they are almost solely because of family associations. Just to name a few: Kennedys, Molinaris, Fossellas (to be au courant), Bushes, Gores, Caseys, Fords (in Tennessee, the Fords are a veritable political dynasty), Kilpatricks (Detroit), Cuomos, etc. Even Christine Todd Whitman was the daughter of a powerful NJ pol.

I have to admit that this is one of the traditions that I love least about our current political environment, but why is it only or primarily nefarious when the politician is somebody’s “wife”? That’s where the sexist subtext becomes clearer. With a few exceptions, it is also noteworthy that familial affiliation is rarely sufficient to maintain a political career (as Clinton is finding out). So cut it out with the wifey bit — it’s insulting and demeaning and unfair and yes, sexist.

However, the Clinton campaign has been just as deliberately obtuse about the value of those connections, saying over and over again that we should vote for Hillary Clinton because of her numerous accomplishments, even as they run in the other direction when she is confronted with what those accomplishments are: Iraq? Kyl-Lieberman? The health care reform fiasco?

Moreover, the Clintons (the both of them) have operated under the assumption that Hillary Clinton is “owed” all of the loyalties built up by William Clinton as part of his political career, exemplified most notably in their shameful treatment of Bill Richardson. Why is she owed that loyalty? Isn’t she running as her own person, even if, to some extent, she “built up” the Clinton franchise? If she is running on her own record, she needs to call in her own political cards (as she has done for the numorous super d’s on whose behalf she has raised money).

I think Clinton is qualified to be president, but I think that her campaign is speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue and this has driven Obama supporters (like me) a bit crazy. However, I deplore the kinds of statements made by Wheaton, et al., as well as the media, that have clearly been sexist and degrading. I would also note, in a final irony, however, that Clinton’s supporters have lately taken to using extremely macho imagery as a way of saying that she is the “masculine” one while her opponent is the effete feminine one. In other words, manly=good; feminine=bad.

There’s enough hypocrisy and idiocy to go around for everyone.

I am glad you articulated this- and I am glad that so many of your commenters have done as well. I have been appalled throughout this campaign at how much underlying sexism there has been against Clinton- and I think worse is how powerless she is to speak out about it because anything she does will “prove the point.”

Both campaigns have made missteps in dealing with each other; I don’t condone the divisive politics that have been happening- but the media and our public representatives should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating sexist statements- but who is going to call them to task- and when?

This bears repeating:

How easy would it be for an unmarried man, even an unmarried, white, straight man to be prez? That means that their wives are doing uncompensated labor that is, at best, invisible or, at worst, mocked and ridiculed, as in this case.

1) In general: patriarchy is still alive and well. For most men, marriage actually increases their individual earnings from 10-40%. (For childless women, it’s about 4%).

[This statistic comes from a fairly conservative source, i.e., Gallagher & Waite, Why Marriage Matters, 2000, (here’s an overview). I don’t agree with their interpretation of their data, which is naïve about the workings of poverty and rooted in a delusion that God-fearing marriage will save us from all social woes, but I don’t think this stat has been contested. They use it to contest feminist claims that women are harmed by marriage while men benefit enormously; they try to say that both benefit a lot, men just a little more. For the oligarchy, however, it’s clear: men definitely benefit hugely from marriage. ]

How easy would it be for an unmarried man, even an unmarried, white, straight man to be prez? That means that their wives are doing uncompensated labor that is, at best, invisible or, at worst, mocked and ridiculed, as in this case.

2) And, moreover, in this specific case, HRC’s income as a law partner actually provided the bulk of the family’s finances while Bill developed his political career. He wouldn’t have gotten there without HER EFFORTS.

3) And she had a powerful career of her own not just as a partner in a law firm but also working in Washington DC before she even married Bill. Her individual record is certainly as solid as many men who have run for president, in addition to her using her family connections.

I am not a fan of oligarchy, so I’m not exactly keen on all this labor by and for the ruling class. And I’m an Obama supporter from quite a ways back who at first felt like “I could vote for either” but I now am deeply appalled by Clinton’s utilizing of racist strategies that I believe can only hurt the party, long term. But like Amp I also REALLY hate the sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton by both left and right.

Exactly which male figure in contemporary politics got where they are largely because they’ve slept with someone who was president?

None, because no openly gay man has reached higher office in America or will in the near future.

On the other hand, there are many undeserving men in politics who got where they are by knowing the right people or being born into the right family. It’s pretty much the norm, not the exception. That you think the situation is somehow worse when sex is involved - between a married couple, no less - suggests to me that you’re a goddam prude.

Neither Clinton nor Obama got where they are by giving up when told to quit. Right now we need a bulldog. We have two. This is a good thing!

A little bit of bullheadedness and arrogance is a good thing in something as life-and-death competitive as politics. I recall the way Gov. Gregoire pulled away with a victory, which was a beaut. Al Gore could have been President if he were so, but the man’s just not cut out for politics. (Emphasis on could - I’ve read accounts both for and against the idea that Gore would have prevailed in a full recount.) I don’t think Kerry could have overturned Ohio in any case.

This nation has yet to fuly deal with its racism, but the difference is we reject racsim and shame its supporters.

Sexism is laughed at and made into jokes for media and TV talk shows. Too show outrage against sexist comments or statements is met with shock and dismay.

The same people who laugh at sexism aren’t being benign when they take racism more *seriously*. Nothing’s taken more seriously than the kiss of death. I’ve seen competitive female candidates come and go proudly declaring themselves a champion of “women’s causes”, but I’ve yet to see a competitive Black candidate declare him/herself a champion of “Black causes”. Because it’s taken so seriously, see.

Which is not to play oppression olympics or say that racism is always worse than sexism. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it’s the other way around. Sexism and racism aren’t the same thing, and they operate differently.

Random, recent example: Not one time, during the Indiana primary, did anyone say “Senator Evan Bayh, elected primarily because he is the son of another Indiana senator”–which is the truth.

And plenty more where he came from.