Kate says it better. . .

For weeks now I've been trying to articulate my feelings about the democratic presidential candidates, largely for myself, but like my friend Kate at ak8, a cat, a mission, I've been asked who am I voting for? I want to direct everyone to Kate's thoughtful response to this question; she says it much better than I think I could have.

I do, however, want to add that if I had to vote today I am still unsure who I would vote for. I fully admit that the posts I have made here suggest that I would vote for Hillary Clinton, but I really don't know. A big part of me wants someone new in the White House. I don't think it will be advantageous to our country to establish a Clinton-Bush Dynasty. We've experienced 4 years under George H.W. Bush, 8 under Bill Clinton, and 8 under George W. Bush. If Hillary Clinton is elected (and possibly reelected), does that mean that we have to endure another Bush in the White House? I'd really like to move away from dynastic politics and encourage growth in Washington. That said, I like the idea of Hillary Clinton as president for many, many reasons (which I'm not going to go into here). I also find Barack Obama compelling for a number of reasons. In an ideal world I'd love to see an Obama/Clinton ticket (or vice versa). I really think their blend of experience and different views would be beneficial to the country. Unlike my fellow bloggers Solon and Harrogate, I tend to believe the ideal could really happen, but then sadly, I am generally disappointed. . .

Is anyone really surprised?

I'm always a bit annoyed when the results of studies examining the "lingering" affects of sexism are released. One such study, on Title IX, has just been released. I do think these studies are important and keep the general public aware that yes, sexism and gender discrimination continue to exist in our country. But my immediate reaction is always, "Well, yeah. Didn't everyone know that?"

And of course the answer is, no, everyone didn't know that. Or at the very least, most Americans seem to believe that gender discrimination is a non-issue. I am continually amazed that people, especially the young women that I teach, believe that sexism no longer exists. I have been repeatedly surprised and angered by the lack of attention given the issue of gender discrimination in the current presidential campaign. The racist ways that Barack Obama has been treated (often by his fellow candidates) has received a fair amount of attention, and deservedly so. But those who recognize this overt racism seem less willing to acknowledge the sexism that is also pervading the campaign. Certainly Hillary Clinton has called attention to her gender (as Obama has called attention to his race), and there are those who would argue that by playing the gender card herself she should be prepared to be criticized for playing it. But, thus far, no one is saying that Obama should be prepared to be criticized for playing the race card.

It is a fact in this country that sexism has always taken a back seat to racism, and again, perhaps justifiably so. Historically, victims of racism has suffered much more than victims of sexism, but both minorities and women have suffered tremendously, and both continue to suffer. Further, racism and sexism know no boundaries, and many women are victims of both. But few people are surprised to be told that racism is still an issue in this country, but everywhere I go I meet people who tell me, "Sexism doesn't exist anymore." Why is that?

Call her Clinton

I want to initiate a conversation here that I began at Separation of Spheres. All political preferences aside, I'm having a really hard time with the media's tendency to call Hillary Rodham Clinton by her first name. Our own Megs even does it in one of her recent posts. I'm sorry to use you as an example, Megs, but you have, unfortunately, illustrated it beautifully. People from Maureen Dowd to Chris Matthews to the other candidates have routinely referred to Clinton by her first name. Calling her "Hillary" rather than "Clinton" is sexist and disrespectful. No one ever (at least not as far as I can tell and I have been looking) refers to Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, or Mike Huckabee by their first names--not even the people they are running against. And to reiterate the point I made here, no one is calling Senator Clinton by her first name to differentiate between her and former-President Clinton. In the appropriate context, I think the average American realizes what Clinton is running for president in 2008. I also don't buy the argument that the media and political pundits call her by her first name because they are familiar with her from her time as First Lady. Last time I checked no one was calling Laura Bush by her first name; she was being respectfully addressed as Mrs. Bush or as the First Lady. Calling Senator Clinton by her first name implicitly questions her ability to do the job and , her viability as a candidate, disrespects the work she has done for the country, and directly undermines her authority as a U.S. Senator. While I certainly don't think the average person consciously does any of these things, I do think that Clinton's opponents and the Republicans are conscious of what it means to refer to a woman in power by her first name. Further Calling her "Hillary" rather than "Clinton" is the equivalent of calling adult women girls while calling adult men men.

Obama, Clinton, and Identity Politics

I wish I could have expressed my thoughts on the current focus on Obama's race and Clinton's gender as well as Judith Warner does in her weekly column. She raised a compelling question: can the left separate identity from politics? I have to agree with her: I'm not sure we can.