On the op-ed page of today’s New York Times, Gloria Steinem writes:

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

Continue reading. View more political commentaries and coverage of women voters at the Women’s Media Center.

Plus: Hillary Shows Feeling, Is Slammed: Katha Pollitt explains why John Edwards just lost her vote:

It’s bad enough when the media goes after Hillary like a pack of addled lemmings. A few weeks ago it was her wrinkles — would people vote for a visibly middle-aged woman? today it was her welling eyes. But Edwards is not some on-air airhead. He’s supposed to represent "change," remember? You’d think he’d be more alert to sexist gender scripts, given that he’s been dogged by accusations of effeminacy for (oh horrors) spending too much time and money on his hair.

Start the conversation

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.