Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Hi Froma, I commend you for being truthful among your peers in the media"Obama lovefest". Never has the media been so biased, hateful, disrespectful, and filled with double standards. It made me physically ill to watch and hear their rantings and obvious glee at her defeat. The media, with only a very few exceptions, throughout this Democratic campaign seemed determined to twist and turn a path for Senator Obama's brokered nomination. Senator Clinton could do no right, while Obama could do no wrong.The offense has indeed turned personal. I voted for Hillary Clinton because she was, and still is, the best candidate. The media loved to portray her supporters as uneducated, blue collar, rural folk. Some news commentators/reporters remarked as if it were gospel that we only voted for Hillary because we could or would not vote for an African-American, so I suppose we were called racist, too. I am a 51yr old, college educated, white woman, who teaches banking & finance at a community college. You bet this is personal. The democratic party leaders are also blundering idiots so I plan to register as an independent. My vote in November will go to McCain.

Reply
Report this post

I have friends who are die hard republicans and their values match Mccain's. I respect their choice. Women who would vote against their beliefs in order to punish the black man for running are lending credence to the argument that women are too emotional to lead. It's demeaning and destructive.

Reply
Report this post

I wholeheartedly agree w/all the above posts. Female "Revenge" voting seems "her-moan-all". How good or bad the next president will be, gotta be better than the past eight years. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached years ago. Too bad none of these women wanted to exercise their power or their vote when needed. Whoever gets the presidency, woe be to them; what an awful mess they are inheriting. The Bucheney's could not have done their damage without the support of the American people and now, even now, people are talking about revenge voting to create even more havoc and division. Talk about mis-placed anger. Want to know who's to blame? Look in the mirror. All these candidates want to do is have a hand at trying to fix the mess the American people allowed this country to become. Sure, it could get worse...revenge voting is a good way to start.

Reply
Report this post

Hi Froma: I am a white, American/Italian male who has waited a long time for a woman to become President. At my age, 72, I don't expect to ever see this opportunity come again. I am very disappointed that Senator Clinton was treated so differently than Senator Obama. Her shabby treatment by press has been appalling. Senator Obama was given a bye. I will have a difficult time voting for Senator Obama. I have been a 50 year Democrat and have supported the party financially for these many years. I shall not support the party unless Senator Clinton plays a very important role on the Democratic ticket, such as the VP. If she is not given the VP nomination, I shall vote for Senator McCain unless he nominates Condoleezza Rice for his VP. Then I will write in or vote for Ron Paul or sleep in on Election Day. Silvio

Reply
Report this post

Froma Harrop, I read your column today and felt you were inside my mind. I am 60 years young and like the women in your article I am angry at the politics of today. The more I thought about it the women you mentioned are of the generation that stood up so very long ago and said NO MORE! Where we have been in the intervening years I don't know. Some of us have been keeping the "battle" up and marching on to make sure that others and especially the people of today don't have to sit in or stand up and shout to be heard. And us White Women (and women no matter what the color.) out here ARE taking the gloves off. And we are not feminists in the conventional thinking. I am a mother of 5 and grandmother of 10 who enjoys doing the Mom/Grandma thing. The last 8 years have been hard for me with the current resident in the White House. I have been against him from before he was elected but felt like I was shouting in the wind. Especially in certain quarters. When Clinton was in I was asked if I was a Democrat and was told "I am sorry" when I responded in the affirmative. He was a devout Rush man. But I saw a glimmer of hope. And I have to admit I was not sure I wanted Hillary at first. But as time went on I saw and heard more that I wanted from her and decided to firmly pitch my tent in her camp. I watch the news and the commentary programs and the talking heads. They have been anything but fair with her. With glee in many cases. You can see them smacking their lips and rubbing their hands together with glee. My gentleman friend argues otherwise. But today, finally, admitted that he cannot understand how I as a 60 year old white female sees the world. Since he is a 50+ year old white male without my experiences. What I see happening is what I have lived for many years. In 1967, when I was 19, I joined the Women's Army Corps. I saw things and experienced things that young women of today don't HAVE to deal with. Being asked in front of my fellow male soldiers if I was wearing a girdle for one. (Yes, they still do with some things) I saw a lot of history since I was stationed at Fort Myer VA at Arlington Cemetery. The inequities of our treatment were incredible. In Oct 1968 I was "kicked" out of the Army because I dared to get pregnant. I got an Honorable discharge because I was married. If unmarried it was dishonorable due to morals. I was told I could never go back in to the Army. In 1974 I was trying to get into the Oregon Army Guard. The recruiter said only drug addicts or thieves got the number on their discharge I did on mine. When they ensured it was due to pregnancy they enlisted me. Jan 1975 is when I started another battle. I was put into the Petroleum Platoon. I was the only woman in it most of the 15 years I spent in there. (eventually 33 years in petroleum field) The battles I had ahead. From dealing with being called a heifer to being passed over for rank to insults to 3 years in a row at the two week training going 7 days without a shower with fuel on me and my clothes while the men had one at least every other day. But I became the platoon sergeant for 6 years until I ran into a very short man (new commander) and he made it his job to get rid of me and he did. I went to another Brigade for my own "safety." The next 18 years have not been easy either but the battles of before had been won. A group of us stood up against the Combat Probability Code and its effects on our Battalion and won. I fought some of the same things that Hillary has fought. If I gave an order in the same tone and attitude as my fellow male soldiers I was being a hard bitch. If I gave understanding to one of my young soldiers and encouragement I was "mothering them." My judgment was in call by the males of the units many times usually very loudly. But when proven right they either took the credit for it or just let it slide by. I have seen this happening to Hillary time and time again and been frustrated. And it is not, as my gentleman friend says, "Because my candidate did not win I will take my vote and go elsewhere." It is because the party that supposedly "plays fair" does not! It is run pretty much by old school ideas and it is past time for the women of the party to stand up and say NO MORE! I don't want McCain. I am now retired from the Army (this year after almost 35 years) but I have been against the war from before it started. We need a change. Obama is not the change. He really does not understand what a good part of his party has gone through to get us to this place in time. While the sweetie thing was probably an accident I can't ignore that type of thing. I was called a sow by a soldier. When I told him I did not appreciate it I was told I was too sensitive (another great fall back by some). But on the other hand I was insensitive to the fact that in Vietnamese it is liar and the soldier was Vietnamese so I was therefore insensitive to his origins. Sweetie/Sow still insulting. I don't want to leave the party I have been a part of since 1968 and I don't want to throw my vote away. I won't vote for McCain. But I might just consider agitating now to do a write in of Hillary's name. Just not sure. Just know that I am very unhappy with the Democrats and how they have treated one of their own and with that the rest of us out here who not only support her but who have lived through the same times and similar experiences. The super delegate thing and telling her to get out of the race before it was over and other attacks have been beyond belief. This has hit me right in my heart and soul and I wanted you to know that you spoke for many of us out here. Thank You very much. PEACE AND HONOR - Pat Hebb

Reply
Report this post

Hi Froma, I have been reading your editorials in the Torrington/Winsted Register Citizen for several years (CT). I enjoy them very much, and find them a breath of fresh air. However, being a supporter of Barach Obama, I feel your negative prejudice to a high degree. Here is my take - It's a little like pitting the Puerto Rican against the Black, and the white man wins. I see that happening here - and of course, being politics, there is mud slinging and I would say on both sides. (However, I am not heavily involved so I really don't know the ins and outs, yet feel heavily invested in Mr Obama.) It's a first time that a woman and black man have gotten this far in this system, and I believe one of them should win as they have what is needed more than what the white John McCain can bring to this county. It seems like this msg is being posted, and that is not my wish. However, I do not know how to e mail you directly. If this doesn't work out, I will contact the Register Citizen to see if they can help me. Take good care. God bless the whole world - NO exceptions, Bruce Mason

Reply
Report this post

Froma, After reading your column today I had to double check that I am still a middle-aged white woman. If you are to be believed, every woman in my demographic is an ardent Clinton supporter. I whole-heartedly support Barack Obama and have since the beginning of his candidacy. Clinton's candidacy is so divisive and polarizing that it even thas the democrats at each other's throats. Enough already. Please do not assume you speak for me. Erin Mahanay Medford, Oregon

Reply
Report this post

Froma, Your article today has me puzzeled. I too, was quite excited to cast my vote for the first woman president. I was also excited to get Bill Clinton back in the White House. I was proud that my country's conscious had moved beyong gender based politics. But what happened? An unlikely, unseasoned contender burst into the scene. Obama's and Clinton's platforms are nearly identical. Debate after debate they echoed each other's politics. Are you telling me now that Clinton supporters will vote for McCain to simply spite the Democratic party? Will these "white women" vote to continue the current administration's policies for revenge? If so, then I believe these people would best serve their country by not voting at all. I doubt 4 or 8 more years of Republican sleaze justifies this act of defiance. Hillary Clinton lost me with her Bosnia sniper lie. Sorry, but that was the "greasy" politics that so many of us are sick of. She shouldn't have gone there; it was refutable on tape, and I don't buy the "exhaustion" excuse...Obama is just as exhausted and I haven't heard one lie or exaggeration from him yet. Also, the shooting shots with beer chasers was ad nauseam. The analogies to Annie Oakley was simply theatrics. The more I hear her touting she has the popular vote, the farther from her I get. Which popular vote? The Clinton's mathmatics, or the clear-cut apples-to-apples mathematics? Bill claims there's systematic discrimatation against her...sorry, that's sore loser talk from the bully in the ring. Obama gets my vote for a number of reasons. The 1st reason is as it should be: he speaks of the change we need in our govt to repair this damaged country (the same change Hillary supports). 2nd: he has not shown himself to be of the "oily" political meshwork (sorry Hillary, you are so drenced in this perhaps it isn't even recognizable to you anymore), and 3rd: Obama has run this campaign with utmost honesty and integrity and moral consciousness. It's a damn refreshing thing to see in this day and age. Anyone want to blast him for calling a reporter "sweetie"? Come on people! The man lives with three females. I'm sure he says it at home often and meant nothing but polite friendliness. For the life of me I cannot find that comment offensive; I would find "excuse me, Ms." to be offensive. What's being more "politically corrrect" these days? Being outraged over the overblown comment of "sweetie" or voting for a canditate that is sure to continue turmoil in this country as revenge? Commentaries such as yours are helping divide the Democratic party, Froma. We must look beyond this or we are no better then what the Republican party has become. And yes, I am a 50+ middle-class, educated white woman.

Reply
Report this post

As a WOMAN - I could NEVER vote for McCain - Disgusting Discriminator How Dumb Are We?How long will women shoulder the blame for the pay gap? By Dahlia Lithwick Updated Saturday, April 26, 2008, at 7:33 AM ET On Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have overturned a Supreme Court ruling (PDF) that sharply limited pay-discrimination suits based on gender under Title VII. In Ledbetter v. Goodyear (2007), the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, held that the clock for the statute of limitations on wage discrimination begins running when the employer first makes the decision to discriminate, and does not run for all the subsequent months—or in this case, years—that the disparate paychecks are mailed. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, found that the plaintiff in this case, Lilly Ledbetter, was time-barred from filing her discrimination suit because it took more than 180 days after she first got stiffed to discover that she was being stiffed on account of her gender. The court agreed her jury verdict should be overturned. Many of the Republicans who blocked the vote to reinstate the original reading of Title VII claimed they were doing so to protect women—read "stupid women"—from the greedy clutches of unprincipled plaintiffs' attorneys and from women's own stupid inclination to sit around for years—decades even—while being screwed over financially before they bring suit. That means they were, in effect, just protecting us from the dangerous laws that protect us. Whew. For the purely Vulcan reading of the case, Justice Alito's opinion offers some good reading. But for those of you who suspect that gender discrimination rarely comes amid the blaring of French horns and accompanied by an engraved announcement that you are being screwed over, it's worth having a gander at Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent. Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire in Atlanta for almost 20 years. When she retired, she was, according to Ginsburg, "the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236." So she filed a suit under Title VII, and a jury awarded her more than $3 million in damages. The jury found it "more likely than not that [Goodyear] paid [Ledbetter] a[n] unequal salary because of her sex." You see, Ledbetter hadn't just negotiated herself some lame salary. She was expressly barred by her employer from discussing her salary with her co-workers who were racking up raises and bonuses she didn't even know about. She found out about the disparity between her pay and her male colleagues' earnings only because someone finally left her an anonymous tip. There is plenty of evidence that all this had nothing to do with her job performance. Quoting Ginsburg again, "Ledbetter's former supervisor, for example, admitted to the jury that Ledbetter's pay, during a particular one-year period, fell below Goodyear's minimum threshold for her position." The jury also heard evidence that "another supervisor—who evaluated Ledbetter in 1997 and whose evaluation led to her most recent raise denial—was openly biased against women" and that "two women who had previously worked as managers at the plant told the jury they had been subject to pervasive discrimination and were paid less than their male counterparts. One was paid less than the men she supervised." Ledbetter was told directly by the plant manager that the "plant did not need women, that [women] didn't help it, [and] caused problems." Stop me when you're convinced that maybe her gender was the issue here … The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, already passed by the House, would have reinstated the law as it was interpreted by most appellate courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, i.e., that every single discriminatory paycheck represents a new act of discrimination and that the 180-day period begins anew with every one. Yet 42 members of the Senate—including Majority Leader Harry Reid, but only procedurally to keep the bill alive—voted to block cloture. How can that be? As Kia Franklin notes here: Women in the United States are paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men; African-American women earn only 63 cents, and Latinas earn only 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men. Yet the Ledbetter decision tells employers that as long as they can hide their discriminatory behavior for six months, they've got the green light to treat female employees badly forever. Why isn't this problem sufficiently real to be addressed by Congress? Have a look at some of the reasons proffered: • The White House threatened to veto the bill even if Congress passed it. Why? The measure would "impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved." Of course, there is a place for finality in the law, and nobody wants businesses to face prospective lawsuits for conduct from 20 years earlier. But unless an employee is psychic, 180 days is simply not long enough to sniff out an ongoing pattern of often-subtle pay discrimination. The notion that expeditiousness in resolving legal disputes should altogether trump one's ability to prove them is cynical beyond imagining. And the very notion that extending the statute of limitations somehow encourages scads of stupid women to loll around accepting unfair wages for decades in the hopes of hitting the litigation jackpot in their mid-70s is just insulting. "Sorry, kids! SpaghettiOs again tonight, but just you wait till 2037! We'll dine like kings, my babies!" • Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, did one better in insulting women when he said, "The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases." See, now this is the argument that holds that the same women who are too stupid to bring timely discrimination claims are also too stupid to avoid being manipulated by those scheming plaintiffs' attorneys. First off, some of us still believe that those damn civil rights attorneys do good things. But what really galls me here is the endless, elitist recitation that it's only the really dumb people—you know, the injured, the sick, and the women—who aren't smart enough to avoid being conned by them into filing frivolous lawsuits. • Here's the other reason proffered to oppose the equal-pay bill: According to the invaluable Firedoglake, it seems that some women themselves are actually to blame for their inability to negotiate. No need to fix Title VII! Just build more aggressive women! Women also are apparently to blame for not chatting with their male colleagues about the differences in their wages, even when that's explicitly forbidden, as it was in Ledbetter's case. So remember, ladies, it's better to be fired for discussing your wages than to be paid less for being a woman. • All of which brings us to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who skipped the vote on equal pay altogether because he was out campaigning. (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both showed up to support it.) McCain's opposition to the bill was expressed thusly: He's familiar with the pay disparity but believes there are better ways to help women find better-paying jobs. "They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else." As my colleague Meghan O'Rourke pointed out yesterday, all that is code for the obtuse claim that the fact that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work as men will somehow be fixed by more training for women as opposed to less discrimination by men. Wow. Hey! We should develop the superpowers of heat vision and flight, as well. So, 42 members of the U.S. Senate blocked a bill that would allow victims of gender discrimination to learn of and prove discrimination in those rare cases in which their employers don't cheerfully discuss it with them at the office Christmas party. And the reasons for blocking it include the fact that women are not smart enough to file timely lawsuits, not smart enough to avoid being manipulated by vile plaintiffs' lawyers, not smart enough to know when they are being stiffed, and—per John McCain—not well-trained enough in the first place to merit equal pay. So how dumb are we? Well, if we don't vote some people who actually respect women into Congress soon, we just may be as dumb as those senators think.

Reply
Report this post

Came across this comment today regarding -- "Bros before Hos" tee-shirts. In effect the writer pointed to -- Disrespect for Hillary. Disrespect for women! from the Oprah.com Community: Who would want a president, that condones the "Bros before Hos" tee-shirts at his campaign sights? May 23, 2008 6:15 PM www.oprah.com/community/thread/66923 - 68k - Cached - Similar pages

Reply
Report this post

I found your article today very puzzling as well. Although I am for Obama, I still respect and admire Hilary Clinton and would certainly vote for her if she won. Nothing would ever make me consider voting for John McCain on any of the issues that are so important to rebuilding our country. I am the nearly 60 year old mother of an Army helicopter pilot. McCain is completely in the Bush camp about this war. Please don't let bitterness about the primaries guide your vote. The military and their families deserve votes of conscience about the war.