Opinion
After 130 years, Clinton erodes bias faced by first female candidate
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Marissa Rubin:
- Congress must fix birth control mix-up (February 5, 2008)
- University should maintain privacy (December 12, 2007)
- After 130 years, Clinton erodes bias faced by first female candidate (November 27, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
In the history of presidential campaigns, no fewer than 20 women have run as presidential candidates, but never has a woman had a better chance to get elected than Hillary Clinton does in 2008. The first, Victoria Woodhull, ran in 1872. As one might imagine, she was a woman ahead of her time, a prominent advocate for women's suffrage hoping to reform the government.
In the 1860s Ms. Woodhull and her sister Celeste Claflin opened the first woman-run stock brokerage firm. In 1870, Ms. Woodhull established Woodhull and Claflin Weekly, a publication that allowed her to freely express her ideas about social reform. Shortly thereafter, in an effort to become more politically active, Ms. Woodhull created the Equal Rights Party under which she ran the 1872 election.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 74f6aeae
Is it not problem that the woman have a smaller brain than the man?
IP hash: 74f6aeae
A woman’s brain is smaller than a man’s, in fact “…is size of squirrel.”
IP hash: 4840c364
Good article. Its interesting to note that the main criticism of Hillary is not that she is too feminine, but quite the opposite. She may be too aggressive, too secretive, too cunning, too masculine to be President. After 8 years of living under the “Machisimo” of President Bush, I dont think America can deal with any more of this. But it is great that Hillary is not being judged by her gender, but by her politics. Just as Obama is no being judged by his race…we have certainly come a long way…
IP hash: 038b6762
I just love that all you do is talk about Hillary, can we make a guess who you plan on voting for?
IP hash: 34f51f46
Who will be in her cabinet? Who will be in Obama’s cabinet? Who will be in Rudy’s cabinet? These are the important questions, but will be unpublished until after the primaries.
There are female CEOs, and the presidency is nothing more than a country’s CEO (hence, the executive branch).
Bush was a poor CEO, and surprise a poor president.
IP hash: 680c2176
I don’t get the sense that the author is a Hillary supporter. I for one believe she would make a poor choice for president, but discussions of the gender, race or religious beliefs of candidates should be a thing of the past.
IP hash: d1e55e52
“but discussions of the gender, race or religious beliefs of candidates should be a thing of the past.”
They should be, but unfortunately aren’t. We’re sheltered from it in Madison, but there’s definitely a large number who won’t vote for Clinton or Obama simply because of gender/race.
IP hash: 44c3782b
the country has gone downhill since women were allowed to vote. End women’s suffrage!
IP hash: d516baa5
This country needs a president who is bright and tough and a seasoned politician who can deal with both domestic and foreign policy issues effectively - looks to me like the only candidate in any party that fits that description is Hillary Clinton- unfortunately too many people will not vote for a woman for president simply because of gender - and that is a real pity! - Just one person’s opinion.
IP hash: 34f51f46
“This country needs a president who is bright and tough”
Yeah, the “tough” guys were my favorite meat-heads in high school. I’d vote for any one of those tough guys. Perhaps you mean something more in the line of “effective,” or something.
IP hash: e82f341e
4:54…you’re wrong in just about everything you said. We do not need a “tough and a seasoned politician,” we need someone in touch with the American people and hopefully out of touch with the Beltliners and their status quo. Hillary is certainly not the best candidate for foreign policy, that would be Sen. Biden; not someone who voted for the war that she now hates. Also, her gender will not turn people away from voting for her. It is her unnecessary intensity, secrecy, combativeness, and lack of a solid stance on the issues that people will notice at the voting booth.
And unfortunately, your is not “just one person’s opinion.” There are many others who dont know much about the election either…
IP hash: 8d06b405
Russ Feingold, running as an Independent, would easily defeat HRC in the November 2008 Wisconsin general election for President of the United States. In a 3 way race,Senator Feingold would also defeat any Republican currently declared, including Tommy Thompson ,who is really just another Corporate candidate.
With a Feingold victory,Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes could be the margin which prevents HRC from attaining the requisite 270 votes for an Electoral College win. The Constitution, even after 8 years of merciless gutting, still requires that a non-majority Presidential election result go first to the House and then to the Senate for resolution. Theoretically,a candidate only needs one electoral college vote. So, a motivated student body in Madison,WI could MAKE HISTORY and `CHANGE HISTORY by bringing about a WI “favorite son” victory for an alumnus.Senator Feinfold could actually end up becoming President of the United States, by first becoming “President of Wisconsin ” and getting the 10 votes that get him to the next stage of the process- thwarting the plans of Corporate America to use the “winning” gender card to preserve the status quo by using a fair, feminine face as a subtrafuge.