NPR logo
Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic
  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
Hillary's Big Moment: Are We Post-Gender?

Hillary's Big Moment: Are We Post-Gender?

Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic
  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">

Senator Hillary Clinton speaks at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Mark Wilson/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Last night, Senator Hillary Clinton spoke at the Democratic National Convention. She threw her full support behind Senator Barack Obama, and appealed to those among her supporters who still feel resentment and anger about her failed bid:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

For some, Hillary's speech was a persuasive call to unite with Obama supporters. But for others, it still might not feel like enough. Today, we're joined by four female powerhouses: Farai Chideya, host of NPR's News and Notes; Susan Faludi, of Backlash fame, who recently wrote an op-ed for The New York Times titled, "Second-Place Citizens"; comedian and co-creator of The Daily Show, Lizz Winstead; and co-founder of Third Wave Foundation, Amy Richards. We'll talk about reactions to Hillary's speech, whether her message extended beyond Denver, and generational splits within feminism. We also want to talk about historical context. This is a unique moment in history — Senator Obama says we're in a post-racial era, past the battles of the 1960s, but are we beyond gender, too?

And we want to hear from you — what does Senator Clinton's candidacy mean for women's rights and feminism? And are we headed toward a post-gender society?



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

I am a full blood Native American and former Marine. I fully supported Hillary in her bid for the Democratic nomination.

Hillary's speech was well crafted with an awesome delivery. She knocked it out of the park!!

I will vote for Obama with passion in seeing change. America has had enough of the Bush administration and with the possiblity of McCain, it's more of the same.

Sent by Lyle K. Deere | 2:26 PM | 8-27-2008

I believe Sen. Clinton's speech was wonderful! I really wanted her to be the Democratic nominee. I was saddened that a woman wouldn't make it to run for the highest office in the land. And, petty of me, but I did have some "hard" feelings toward O'Bama-ians. However, as she so very eloquently put it, why did I vote for her? I truly want my issues supported, and that means I support O'Bama. I promptly made a donation to her campaign this morning, then his, then my local Dem. party in the state because her speech inspired me so much.

Sent by Geneva Bosak | 2:29 PM | 8-27-2008

I do not believe we are a "post racial" or "post gender" society. We still have to comment that O'Bama is black. We constantly point out that Clinton is a woman; Michelle O'Bama is tagged "angry black woman" not "angry person". As long as these titles continue to be attached, they have meaning in our society. The question existed out there: would Clinton be strong enough, as a woman, to lead our country in a time of war? I would like it to be otherwise for my daughters and for all women, but we aren't there yet. I would also like my sons to be able to cry, express emotion, show a tender side, be a devoted parent, without their sexuality being questioned, but we aren't there yet, either.

Sent by Geneva Bosak | 2:35 PM | 8-27-2008

Senator Clinton gave a very eloquent speech last night. But, does her candidacy posit that we are headed for a post-gender society? No. In fact, the response from the angry group of Hillary or John McCain segment are reaffiming how pervasive discrimination continues to be with the "older" segment of our country. From a positive perspective, the youth of our country and leaving discrimination based on race and sex behind. Sadly, our post 9-11 society has become very open to religious discrimination.

Sent by Jim | 3:21 PM | 8-27-2008

I think Hillary was amazing! It has been an incredible journey watching her evolve into the politician she is today. I hold no ill will towards Senator Obama but his supporters are another issue. They consistently put down the supporters of Hillary Clinton and keep telling us to 'get over it' and move on. Let us not forget that this was no second tier candidate. She received more votes than any other candidate, man or woman, in history that did not win the party nomination. Stop lecturing us, stop chastising us and stop telling us what to do. Why don't you take the time to acknowledge the history of her nomination and what she has contributed to the party and you will get a more agreeable reception from Clinton supporters.

Sent by Lori | 3:24 PM | 8-27-2008

I think Hillary Clinton was wonderful. Obama cannot expect more than that. I was Hillary supporter and will always be. I was really impressed with the support she tried to give to Obama who has been Senator for just 4 years. Me and my friends, core Hillary supporters have decided to vote this time for McCain as he you have to choose less of the two evil in this most critical time when country is passing thru crisis. Can you ask 10 yr old with very little experience to become a CEO when company is about to file for backruptcy or will go for 50 yrs old person with 35 yrs plus experience to get out of the trouble. This is what is happening in political scenario. I am impressed how Obama speaks and not at all convinced that he can get the country out of woods with so less experience.

Sent by AK | 3:28 PM | 8-27-2008

I will not forget the OJ Simpson trial when it ended and the head of the NOW chapter in California called Black women ignorant.

I tend to believe that white women feel they are entitled just because they are white and that many of the women who were behind Hillary felt she should be put into that position simply because she is a white woman. I feel that white women have always looked out for themselves and this is just another example of that. When Hillary talked about her mother might have been put into a foster home had it not been for etc. White women, including Hillary, seem to forget the Black woman who have been excluded and whose children were taken, and are still being taken from them, simply because they have no one who will stand up for them. We Black women have always had to stand up for ourselves and our Black men. As we will continue to do.

So no, the womens movement has not been pushed backward. Or maybe I should say that it has been pushed no further backward than the movement of minority women.

Sent by Patricia Simpson | 3:33 PM | 8-27-2008

Susan Faludi's Time's article hit the nail on the head. Not only is the US behind Europe in the area of healthcare, but also in the fact that we are afraid of having a strong woman leader.
Obama's only experience since his first victory in Illinois politics has been to campaign for the next higher office-not the kind of experience I look for in a president.

Sent by Mary Ann Leskie - Tacoma | 3:33 PM | 8-27-2008

I thought for once I would turn on the radio and hear about women, and women only, but instead I have to hear about race, race, race. The fact is that the party selected Obama over Hillary. That it was the party is evident by the fact that the superdelegates made the decision. Why are we angry? We are angry because it's the same old, same old. To find Biden chosen, a mainstream party elite, only furthers the sense that Hillary was excluded from the club. Whether now, after she prostrates herself, she will be considered acceptable, in a subservient role, really is beside the point. Why was it required of her to accept defeat even though, arguable, she was not, in fact, defeated. Remember that PUMA stands for "Party Unity My Ass" and represents a fundamental sense that the party is not democratic but patrician.

Sent by Jamie | 3:39 PM | 8-27-2008

Can the feminists please quit using the word, "misogynist" to describe people who disagree with them? It's extremely offensive and makes it very difficult to take them seriously.

Not everyone who doesn't want to vote for Clinton is a misogynist, just like not everyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama is a racist. Please, feminists, grow up.

Thank you.


Sent by Alex | 3:42 PM | 8-27-2008

I was very impressed with Hillary Clinton's speech last night - I think she knocked it out of the park. What bothered me this morning were the talking heads criticizing her for not being harder on John McCain and more supportive of Barack. What people forget is that she and McCain are friends and respect each other. If he loses the election and ends up back in the Senate, she will still have to work with him so it serves no purpose for her to crush their relationship. Face it, things get done when people get along.

Sent by Mary Osburn | 3:43 PM | 8-27-2008

Senator Joe Biden claims that the Violence against Women Act is the greatest achievement of his career. As a result of this legislation, the federal government pays states to create laws effectively requiring that innocent men be removed from their homes and families without even an allegation of violence, with no legitimate standards of evidence, when a woman makes a claim that she is afraid.

Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association (1999), has said "the facts have become irrelevant... restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply. Regarding divorce cases, she states "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage". According to Epstein, who is also a former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out "like candy" and "in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had." Cathy Young reports on the Elaine Epstein quote and the broader issue at here:

This report from RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) provides much insight into the situation brought about, in large part, by Joe Biden.

State restraining order laws are starting to fall because they're unconstitutional. The federal law behind them, written by Joe Biden, is likely to fall as well, not because it isn't popular, but because it is clearly unconstitutional.

There is a rapidly growing activist community dedicated to addressing this issue. One of the focal points of this community is the Glenn Sacks blog, .

Sent by Ted Hansen | 3:45 PM | 8-27-2008

Do you think Hillary is being asked to be more gracious because she is a woman?

Sent by Beverly Leady | 3:47 PM | 8-27-2008

I don't know what young feminists are focusing on but I know what they are not, and should be: women will never achieve any real measure of parity until we learn as a society that fathers have just as much responsibility for their offspring as mothers do!

Sent by Lucia | 3:47 PM | 8-27-2008

As a 29-year old woman, I grew up in what I now consider to be a "bubble". I was taught that I could do anything I set my mind to and that I lived in a country that was gender-blind. I even looked down on "feminists" as a crazy fringe group. It was not until I entered the Marine Corps at age 24 that I ran square into the "glass ceiling" and finally understood how much farther women have to go. We talk about gender equality in the workplace, yet the military forbids women from performing a significant percentage of jobs based solely on gender, not on ability. Sadly, this discrimination is legally sanctioned by the government. I served for 5 years and rapidly became frustrated that my fellow female Marines and I were barred from doing what we joined to do despite being far more highly capable and qualified than many men given the opportunity. I found it disheartening that even Hillary Clinton ascribed the male gender to the Marine in her speech. (...were you in it for that young Marine and others like him?) We still have a long way to go.

Sent by Kate Javes | 3:48 PM | 8-27-2008


I was so impressed with Hillary's speech last night and hope America realizes what it has lost. Although born an American I have lived most of my life in Europe and am used to women being treated equally and with respect. Alas something this country lacks at least certainly in this election.
The whole election procedure has disappointed me and I have found it somewhat unbelievable that it is a two tiered system, which in itself is unequal.
I am a Hillary supporter and will remain so, baggage and all. I believe she would have been a great President and one to have got America out of the mess they are in. However Obama is not ready to be commander in chief !

Sent by Lynn Beckett | 3:51 PM | 8-27-2008

Forgive me if this sounds obtuse, but am I the only one wondering what this "avalanche of misogyny" your guest refers to is? I'm not the most connected person in the world, but I do listen to NPR every morning or night, and I'm failing to remember this avalanche. If anything, I think Hillary Clinton contributed herself to this image of a "shrill" woman simply by being shrill. To ascribe her failure to win the Democratic nomination to this "avalanche of misogyny" seems like sour grapes and misdirection to me.

Sent by Dustin Harbin | 3:52 PM | 8-27-2008

Why should we wait until this country is "ready" to elect a woman or a Black man as the next President? A white man has always been elected, yet look where we are. I applaud Senator's Obama and Clinton for their courage; they didn't wait until someone said the country is "ready". I am an Obama supporter; I will be a Clinton supporter when she runs in 2016.

Sent by Tonya Alston | 3:54 PM | 8-27-2008

I don't think we're "post-" anything. I, a white male, was raised by Civil Rights movement parents who worked in Rochester NY. I was taught to value competence over appearances or, as MLK put it, content of character over color of skin.

In my view that experiment has gone horribly wrong. As a member of a generation of white lower-class origins male academics who've had our ambitions tossed under the bus in the name of hiring quotas, I no longer care at all about lofty visions of equality, and I don't believe anyone in either party who claims to value equality. Instead, what I see is that we have created a system in which people are encouraged to self identify as a victimized minority, regardless of the merits of the claim, despite the fact that much of what passed for "sexism" in the past was individual womens' career choices writ large, rather than any sort of oppression.

Sent by Mike in AZ | 3:55 PM | 8-27-2008

Having a woman head of state who was the wife, widow, or daughter of a male leader hasn't generally been a tag of a progressive or feminist country. Hillary Clinton is, herself, an impressive and accomplished politician, and this context isn't her fault, but I don't think she would have had the international symbolic weight that Barack Obama can have as our electorate's choice.

(I didn't make my own choice just for the national and worldwide symbolism, though; I'm a 49-year-old woman who voted for Obama for his judgment and political skills.)

Sent by Martha S | 3:56 PM | 8-27-2008

I am a 67 year old grandmother who is a strong Obama supporter. I never felt compelled to support Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman, even though I strongly believe in equality of both gender and race. Besides, my 11 year old granddaughter has her eye on the prize of being the 1st female president, so, I was told I could not vote for Hillary!

Sent by Jane Winnerman-Shaw | 3:56 PM | 8-27-2008

One of your guests took the media to task for their treatment of Hillary Clinton as if it is due to her gender...what if it was simply due to her? I am a woman and did not support Hillary Clinton because I do not think she is honest nor do I believe she ran an effective campaign. If her campaign was in such disarray, how well would she have run the country. That said, I still would have voted for her if she had been the nominee because I believe in the democratic values more than I believe in one person.

Sent by lizzy | 3:59 PM | 8-27-2008

Your guests' comments seemed to imply that Senator Clinton was subjected to sexist remarks during her campaign whereas Senator Obama was not subjected to racist remarks. This is simply not the case. Clearly they have not been visiting the thousands of internet forums that are filled with racist and derogatory slander about Senator Obama: some of it now being posted by Senator Clinton's bitter diehard supporters. While I agree that the sexist remarks directed at Senator Clinton were inappropriate, suggesting that Senator Obama has been given a free ride is completely disingenuous.

Sent by Jesse from Portland | 4:02 PM | 8-27-2008

I am an African American, a woman and an immigrant - to total embodiment of American values and ideals. I heard senator Clinton's speech and I still have not changed my mind. I will not vote for Obama because I am neither republican nor democrat, I am an American. I supported senator Clinton because she is hardworking, caring and genuine. I will not support Obama because he strikes me as a lazy, cocky, big talker with nothing but hot air. He played politics with his constituents' life when he voted "present" one time too many. He allowed his campaign to label Bill Clinton as a racist, sat and listened to a divisive pastor for more than 20 years and is married to someone who was not proud of this great country until it was apparent that he was the nominee. He can't be authentic about his need for change when he has the backing of the old establishment. And lastly, I REFUSE to let Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy dictate to me who I should vote for. After all, they are more interested in securing their place and their family's legacy in history than they are about the well-being of the American people. The better candidate lost because of sexism, cronyism, and affirmative action - yes, I said it. I have no respect for the DNC and the Media and they way they treated a true hardworking American. I will pass on this election and keep my vote. I don't want to be a part of this circus.

Sent by Megan Wright | 4:05 PM | 8-27-2008

I am 65 year old man and I have been working my butt off for most of my life to support feminist causes. I used my house for a women's shelter. I worked hard on Jimmy Carter's national women's convention in 1976. And all along I've been waiting and waiting for a women candidate for president.

And what happens? The universe sends this woman who is owned body and soul by the DLC. So now I have to decide whether to be a misogynist or a fascist? How dare anyone accuse me of being a sexist when I am presented with a candidate who promises a continuation of repulsive disasters like NAVTA?

Issues matter. Those who ask me to vote for a person based on essentially trivial things like the shape or color of their skin when serious matters are up for decision, are mad.

Sent by Mike Colyar | 4:10 PM | 8-27-2008

One of your speakers made a comment about decisions being made by white males. Sexism is not just a white male issue. White males have come far further in respecting womens rights then most any other cultural group including women themselves. Yet, we continue to propagate the point that white males are the primary problem. We should get past the categorizing and continue to work at changing the culture of our nation to be inclusive and fair for all.....And yes, I'm a white male.

Sent by Clay Eubank | 4:20 PM | 8-27-2008

Hillary's campaign was about more than running for President. It was about liberating the female voice of authority in the culture. The more she campaigned, the better she got. Her convention speech was a tour de force. I loved her Harriet Tubman allusion. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are fine. They'll make a great, if not overly-exciting, team. It just would have been more fun to watch Hillary take on John McCain and then turn the country around. Yes, yes, I'm sure Barack and Joe will get it done...

Sent by Jill Wiley | 5:05 PM | 8-27-2008

I am a 68 year old woman who has been
very aware of the rights of women all my life. I am aware of patronizing remarks, crude jokes and "glass ceilings." However, I find it really difficult to believe that women have suffered from the same level of discrimination and hatred as African Americans have. Have we forgotten The KU KLUX KLAN,the 1950's riots that took place when black children were placed in white schools? Doo we hnow that suicide rates among black children have risen 20% in the last ten years? That
NewsWeek took a poll of white middle class people who openly stated that they wouldn't vote for Obama because he is a black man? I am sorry, but the
level of hatred African Americans face in this country is much deeper and much stronger than anything women face. I may be luckier in some way than most, but I have faced very little discrimination. I haven't have people spit on me or call me vile names because i am a woman. I think wanting a woman to be president is fine, but
I would rather see a good president, elected for their ability to lead than for their sex or color. And by the way, how many Obama supporteres advise us to vote for Obama because he is Black?

Sent by Margaret Murphy | 6:09 PM | 8-27-2008

I am convinced that the Democrats still do not get it. The party's goal, above all else, is to win the White House. Giving every quarter its moment to express FEELINGS and to EXPERIENCE catharsis is stupid and self-defeating. And to do this in public is suicidal. Republicans are so much smarter at politics - winner take all primaries, unity through holding tongues, and focus on the cause rather than the emotions.

Trust me, if the Democrats lose the election they will blame Obama when the truth is that they are like the Los Angeles Clippers of the past 20 years - can't handle pressure, can't hold a lead and most comfortable losing the big games.

Sent by Vincent McCoy | 7:35 PM | 8-27-2008

Hillary showed such a strengh aand endurance ..showing what she is capable of..and what a great loss the country experience by the swing of the dem party ...I consider myself democrat and have voted up to mow for democrat presidents, although for othher races I may have voted for the best candidate-even if republican
That is my position: vote for the candidate and not for the party..and that is why I will not vote for the presidential slot: I donot have a candidate. Obama had all my admiration in the last convention: he emerged as a promising, intelligent individula ..with a great future..He just rush to fast for me: GREEN(not as in "save the environment") but as NOT RIPE- and excited by the posibilities that power can offer to an individual -are a scary combination for here my local candidates I will go to the poles..I just do not have a presidential I'll skip that slot!!!

Sent by Dharma Valentini | 10:04 PM | 8-27-2008

In 2004 when Bush won by less then 1% his supporters said,"get over it". Others said, "you lost now move on". I was offended and frustrated but not nearly as frustrated as hearing the same petty attitude from my fellow democrats. Bush's failed presidency is testament to the short sightedness of, "governing by 51%" and that is the attitude I get from the Obama camp. It is condescending and, frankly, rude. I finally understand what republicans mean when they say that democrats are elitist. The Obama campaign and the Obama supporters clearly act like they don't need my vote. Senator Obama and his campaign has until November to get over it, grow up, and convince me that he is better than his supporters.

Sent by J. Kepler | 2:32 AM | 8-28-2008

Feminism is alive, well, and absolutely NOT the feminism of Gloria Steinem and the beginnings of Ms. Magazine. Feminism, in fact, is undergoing a kind of "metamorphosis," so to speak. What is unfortunate is that Steinem and her generational peers are still living in the days of Ms. Magazine's beginnings. It is 2008, not 1972. It distresses me that these "Hillary Clinton or no one" viewpoints seem so superior to the recent groundbreaking views that have been featured in the likes of Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture (, make/shift (, and the thriving feminist blogosphere (Essential blogsites include Feministing, Feministe, La Chola [Brownfemipower], and Pandagon, to name a few). These talented, smart, savvy people behind them were more influenced by the even more important but overlooked expressions of bellhooks and Angela Davis (both loud and proud women of color feminists) than Steinem and her peers.

Bitch's Andi Zeisler wrote a bold op-ed in the Washington Post last fall where she questioned that Hillary Clinton may not be her kind of candidate. I decided right then and there that she is not my candidate, at all. The Clinton era is said and done. Today's young feminists-who could vote for Obama, Nader, or McKinney, even-agree. By the way. I am 45 and do not consider myself a feminist who identifies with Steinem and her peers at all. I am a feminist who is more like Richards (who has written some essential books, by the way) and pretty much like Faludi. Finally, I completely agree with Clay Eubank's comment that sexism is not just a white male issue. It is a white female issue, too. It should be about the REAL LIFE issues people in ALL WALKS OF LIFE deal with on a daily basis and none of this trivial race, gender, age stuff. It's time to move on and forward and feminism must have the potential to do so.

Sent by Lori | 4:39 AM | 8-28-2008

Voting for someone because he/she is a certain color or voting because of gender is RIDICULOUS reason to vote!! A person who is qualified deserves my vote. Ted Kennedy, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the others will not persuade me.

All this 'change rhetoric' is empty promises. I wish the American public understood that no change will come to this country until we have more choices. The two-party system continues to fail us. Consider our other options, such as the libertarians or the green party. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Sent by Kristine | 11:27 AM | 8-28-2008

I think most people missed that Hillary posed the question as "were you in it for yourself" not the "me" as in Hillary. She said "ask yourself" were we in it for "me" and more self-centered reasons, as in "my husband also committed adultery" or "I am a passed over middle-aged woman, too". It was coded language to those of us who saw our own struggles personified in hers. She meant that we need to, once again, suck it up and do what is right, not what feels good to our egos. And yes, it hurts like hell, but we must once again suck it up and do what's good for our children and our families and toss those merchants of evil out of office.

Sent by Sherry Luna | 12:30 PM | 8-28-2008

Hilary Clinton's speech at the democratic national convention was eloquent, pragmatic, insightful, and symbolic of the true spirit of the Democratic Party. Her emphasis on coming together for the greater good was inspiring.
I am proud of Hilary Clinton, as well as the Democratic Party for their message at the DNC last night. Clinton stressed unity, healthcare, peace, responsible funding for education, and goals of helping "the little guy." Instead of trying to appease conservative swing voters, the Democratic Party is beginning to create a new platform of change, responsible government, and universal positive rights for the people. Positive rights such as healthcare, education, equal rights, and a peaceful end to the war in Iraq make up an agenda I can believe in.
I believe that both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are advocates for change and a new America. I was appalled by the slander, and misogynistic comments made about Hilary Clinton. And I was appalled by the racist, hurtful, and bigotry said about Barack Obama. I am a feminist, and I am a firm believer in African American rights. As proprietors for equality we should not compare the two sufferings as if they are separate fights, and pit ourselves against each other. We had a woman and an African American running against each other for the highest office in the country. I am proud of that. And I am proud of the Democratic Party. And I am proud of the people who will come together to support Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
As Clinton emphasized in her speech last night, the struggle is bigger and more important then just "Clinton vs. Obama", because both of them: "ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years." And that is who the real struggle is for.
I was (and still am) disquested by the Bush Administration for the last eight long years, the media for its bigotry, by the war in Iraq, bills such as the PATRIOT ACT, and many more. When I vote this November, it will be to fight against these things that are horribly wrong in America, and for those that are right. It will be against the racist things said about Obama, AND the sexist things said against Clinton. And because I believe in progress and change, as Clinton discussed, it will be for Obama.

Sent by Grace Oerther | 1:16 PM | 8-28-2008

Feminist Beware
Republican must be giddy right now anticipating a second run by Clinton if Obama loses. They will at that point no doubt roll out all the photographs and video of white women protesting and vowing never to vote for Obama. They will work diligently to convince African Americans that white women did not support the first African American candidate and it was all Hillary's fault. Once again they will sow the seeds of discontent and anger. Hillary will lose a crucial demographic that has also always been taken for granted. And another white male will be in the white house.

Sent by greeney1 | 5:28 PM | 8-28-2008

While listening to the program, I heard a caller mention that it is pathetic(I believe that was the word used) to refuse to vote for a candidate because of race or gender. On this point I agree, however, is it OK to consider race or gender when voting FOR a candidate ?

Sent by Jim | 9:03 AM | 8-29-2008

I resent the contributors who have taken the position that women like me who voted for Hillary Clinton and are now considering voting for McCain are simply embittered because our candidate lost, or that we supported Hillary in the first place merely because she is a woman. I supported Hillary because I viewed her as the best person for the job. I am now undecided as to whether Obama or McCain would be the better person to lead the country. Although I am aligned with Obama on social and environmental issues, I am not yet convinced that he has the skills or experience to lead the country in tough times. I applaud the fact that John McCain chose a female running mate. I think it is high time for the Republican party to have some diversity on the ticket. However, if I do vote for McCain in the end, it will not be because he has a female running mate. That does not influence my vote any more than George H.W. Bush's choice of a pretty face, i.e. Dan Quayle, influenced me to vote for that ticket. I find the insinuation that female voters cast their votes based on such factors demeaning and degrading.

Sent by Pam | 2:38 PM | 8-29-2008