I agree 100%.  But realistically...HRC knew about this scandal way before yesterday.  I understand the case actually broke a month ago but it wasnt until recently that Spitzer was IDed as Client 9.  HRC had time to figure out what the smartest response would be and this was probably the best one.  If she makes a big deal out of it people will be drawing even more comparisons between this and the Lewinsky scandal that they already are.  Better for her to lay low and distant.  Though as a fervent Obama supporter...we couldnt ask for better news on the eve of Mississippi's primary.

Didn't this just happen yesterday?  I wouldn't expect that anyone would start condemning or making judgments just yet.  His wife is still breathing in the smoke of whatever this scandal is and no one really knows what happened yet.  Hillary didn't leave her own husband when caught up in his scandal.  Why would we expect that she detach herself from someone else's husband an hour after a story breaks.

Prostitution is against the law. But if any candidate started separating themselves from every man whose visited a prostitute or had an affair,  there wouldn't be any left. What I do think is that, perhaps, this is proof that we need a female President. Too many powerful men seem willing to throw away their entire lives over a piece of tail.

overall i tend to agree with you on your position melissa.  however, regarding the notion that spitzer should somehow be blamed soley for the decisions of women who choose to engage in these practices is not fair and simply dangerous.  while, it is true that systemically patriarchical supremacy has and continues to be a primary agent in the oppression of women, women also play an equal if not greater role in the maintence of these systems, and prositution is no exception.  

<i>while, it is true that systemically patriarchical supremacy has and continues to be a primary agent in the oppression of women, women also play an equal if not greater role in the maintence of these systems, and prositution is no exception.  </i>

That "prostitute" was getting 5K a pop.  I don't know what tasks she performed but I submit that a whole lot of men would take up that deal as well.

Lots of black women are only now coming to the realization that feminism was never meant to be a tool for their liberation. Feminism was always meant to advance the interests of white women. The fact that there was some trickling down benefits to some middleclass women of color is besides the point. Gloria Steinem has always used the black male image to advance the cause of feminism, and i'm just happy black women like Melissa are waking up to that reality. Feminism remains foreign to the black experience, and African women throughout the diaspora don't need lessons in being strong.

If you want excoriate someone for the difference in how Hillary and Barack are being treated with respect to who they must explicitly reject, then blame the media but wishing for the same shabby treatment for both candidates is wrong.  

No doubt Hillary's feminist credentials are pretty weak, but she can't win here; if she issues a statement of support then she's not feminist enough, if she immediately kicks Spitzer to the curb then the hulla-ballo will be over how cold and ruthless Hillary is in quickly distancing herself from a political ally.  Even if HRC explicitly said something specific about feminism in her repudiation of Spitzer the speculation would be about how insincere she was.  

Just wait until Melissa finds out what another feminist icon, Geraldine Ferraro, has said about Barack Obama. I suspect Melissa will turn in her feminist card for sure!

There has always been a racist streak in the feminist movement.

I actually said the same thing.  I want to know if Hillary is going to denounce and reject Spitser and I want to know if she is going to denounce and reject her husband because as far as the Farrakhan issue goes, her husband supported the Million Man March which was led by  Louis Farrakhan. She is so quick to sling mud at Obama but now that she is in the spotlight, she doesn't have anything to say.  She is a fake that's what she is.  

For Qusan;

I agree that Hillary did stay with Bill during his scandal and that was one thing.  When they had their last debate and they were grilling Obama about Farrakhan she jumped in and wanted him to reject AND denounce Farrakhan for his racist views.  Is she going to denounce and reject the governor because of his actions? I haven't heard her say anything yet.   If it was some dirt to be thrown on Obama she most certainly would have had something to say by now.  Also regarding the Million Man March, is she going to denounce and reject her husband because he supported the Million Man March which was led by Farrakhan? I mean while fair is fair and you can't denounce and reject one person who is doing something unpopular and don't denounce and reject another person just because they are endorsing you, you do know that the governor is endorsing her don't you? Should she denounce and reject his endorsement the way she wanted Obama to do to Farrakhan?

Ok here's what I think.  I'm not sure how many white people respond to this site but I found it via slate.com and I find it fascinating.  I'm basically a southern white man who's been living in Canada for close to 20 years and I've lived through a couple of contradictory things relevant to this election: defending the Clintons to my increasingly conservative and irritated family in the south while living the life of universal health care and so forth in Canada.  On top of that, as a gay man I've always considered myself a feminist.

I'm totally for Obama because I'm sick of fighting this fight that the Clintons started years ago but Jesus this is getting polarized.  I'm also tired of it because the Clinton strategy is becoming increasinly indefensible from any perspective.  My question to you is how do we move this agenda forward from a multi-racial, pro-feminist, gay rights perspective in a way that doesn't alienate the traditional Democratic base?  In other words, how do we create a space for Obama to win?

PingBack from http://www.racialicious.com/2008/03/12/links-for-2008-03-12/

I completely agree Melissa! but I think her card should have been revoked a while ago, she makes me so angry

So what are Obama's feminist credentials? If we're judging our candidates on whether or not they themselves are feminists, I think we're going to be generally disappointed, but that Hillary will come out marginally ahead.  Steinem's point is that women are treated to a double standard, which is clearly evident in your commentary here.  

It's not that she doesn't get it, it's that she doesn't care.  Whatever works for her, she is for.

Were you to substitute the expression "feminist" for "woman" and vice versa, I'd concur 100% with you on this piece.

This was on one of the blogs...I watched this last night and was STUNNED!!! Can we get some respect for black women!

"Buchanan flips out, tells guest to ’shut up!’Tonight on MSNBC’s Live with Dan Abrams, guests Pat Buchanan, Rachel Maddow, and Keli Goff discussed the role of race in Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Buchanan suggested Obama is winning the black vote simply because he is black. Goff countered that Obama has won states that have small populations of African-Americans. As Goff spoke, Buchanan grew more agitated, ultimately lashing out. “Shut up for a second please!” Buchanan yelled."

First, I agree with Melissa.  HRC had a chance at redemption with the Spitzer debauchery.  I can understand the inclination to have let the Lewinsky issue slide with her own husband AND the fact that she was not running for president at the time.  But now she is and she claims to be a feminist so she should have stepped up this time.  Who cares about Spitzer's support?  Him as an ally amounts to two rusty nickels these days.  Her laissez-faire attitude with this only fuels the idea of patriarchy.  Hillary Clinton basically said without saying that she needs the support of men to win this.  Oh but no, HRC, bad move...

It's good that you pointed this fact out.  But your argument is along the lines of Marc's "Obama's not black enough" - a notion which you have consistently disagreed with.  I suppose Hillary is a lot more keen on invoking identity politics, and so she should be called out more readily when she fails the feminist 'litmus test'. -yohannes

There's no winning for Hillary. And there's no comparison between Farrakhan espousing hate of white America and Elliot Spitzer paying a prostitute. Spitzer broke the law and will be punished accordingly. While I would usually see the prostitute as a victim of the system, I can't see that here -- not at all (in the same way I don't see Monica as being "preyed upon" by Bill Clinton -- some of these chicks have accountability too, right?).

I think Hillary has to be wary of any response to a situation like Spitzer's, because of what it brings up from Bill's past. But she's not espousing hate for a race or gender in her behavior. Please, some perspective.

When did public rejection and denouncement of a man hiring a prostitute become the very definition of being a Feminist?  Is private rejection and denouncement not enough?  From Melissa's comments, she clearly does not understand that being a woman, wife, mother, senator, and presidential candidate is a complicated life.  Take out the last two, and life is still very complicated.  Just because one woman thinks Hillary should have "done this" or "said that" in order to be a "true Feminist", then it makes it so.  This is not unlike women judging other women on how well they are a Woman, Wife, and Mother.  Why do we have to judge our own sex so harshly?  And never allow for the circumstances or reality.  Real life is hardly ever so clear cut.  We all do the best we can and hope that others can have enough compassion to understand that.  

I'm saddened by how often people are willing to use double standards when evaluating Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton.  Why should SHE have to comment on everything anybody else does or says when HE is allowed to deflect questions about HIS choices by blaming some subset of black people.

Just because people share an adjective (whether it be black, female, Democrat, or left handed) doesn't mean that they share any other adjective,  All black people have not experience nor suffered from racism the same.  Some have suffered greatly by particular practices, while others have not been affected much at all, and still others have actually net benefited.  My observation (since I'm male) is that the same is true for women.

I just have trouble understanding why so many people are willing to perpetuate the treatment of people based on the same old stereotypes that so many have fought so long and so hard to dispel.

What does vicodin look like.