Young Feminists Split On Clinton

Washington Post: At Her All-Female Alma Mater, Students Debate Whether Gender Matters

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Eli Saslow.

---

The two students walked on the same paths across campus here this week, past the dormitory where Hillary Rodham lived for four years, past two dozen framed portraits of groundbreaking women in Alumnae Hall, past the banners on the quad proclaiming "Wellesley: Women Who Will." But Katie Chanpong and Aubre Carreon Aguilar -- feminists and political activists -- arrived at contradictory conclusions.

"If you're a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere," said Chanpong, a sophomore.

Carreon Aguilar, a senior, said: "If I'm supposed to vote for Hillary just because I'm a woman, that's kind of sexist."

Even here at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham Clinton's alma mater and a historic bedrock of progressive feminist thought, support for the senator from New York hardly registers as unanimous. Instead, the election has inspired a debate at this women-only liberal arts college about what it means to be a feminist. Do you vote for a woman to shatter the glass ceiling and further the cause? Or do you make an empowered, individual decision that is not confined by gender?

How women across the country answer that question over the next month could largely determine the winner of the Democratic nomination. In Iowa, women -- particularly young women -- overwhelmingly supported Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and helped him win the caucuses. Five days later in New Hampshire, Clinton won 45 percent of the female vote compared with 36 for Obama, forging her comeback.

Election debates take on a particular fervor here on the suburban Boston campus where Clinton lived from 1965 to 1969. On the worn sofas in the lobby of Pendleton Hall, about 30 students gather each Sunday evening to organize Wellesley support for Clinton, surrounded by remnants of her time here. Next to the Pendleton lounge is the office of professor Alan Schechter, who advised Clinton on her senior thesis 40 years ago. An autographed photo of Clinton hangs on a door. A button attached to a nearby bulletin board reads "It used to be a man's world."

For about an hour every week, the students brainstorm ways to help Clinton -- their Wellesley sister, they sometimes call her -- win the nomination. The Students for Hillary group set up a phone bank at school for making cold calls to voters and arranged more than 20 road trips to knock on doors in New Hampshire. "We feel tied to her, like she's one of us since she went here," said Chanpong, the group's communications director. "We'd try anything to help."

Hours after the Clinton meetings, a Students for Obama group occupies the same couches in Pendleton. Led by Carreon Aguilar and another Wellesley senior, the 10 members also shuttled back and forth to New Hampshire on weekends this fall. They visited dorm rooms and distributed Obama '08 brochures and signs, one of which now hangs on a door down the hall from Clinton's old room. "We tried to make sure it wasn't all Clinton, all the time," Carreon Aguilar said.

Ona Keller, the co-president of Wellesley College Democrats, spent time with both the Obama and Clinton groups for almost a year, but few classmates doubted her ultimate conviction. Keller often wears her mom's hand-me-down T-shirts from the women's rights movemen in the 1960s, with the text of the Equal Rights Amendment printed across the chest. She calls younger classmates first-years instead of freshmen, because none of them are men.

Keller tells friends she is "hard-core Wellesley": proud to attend a school that has never had a male president; proud to walk through the same halls as former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and Madame Chiang Kai-shek, the former first lady of China.

"Everybody who knows me thinks of me as a feminist," Keller said. "Nobody imagined I wouldn't vote for Clinton."

Three weeks ago, Keller changed her online Facebook profile to announce her support for Obama. She likes his rhetoric and his stance on the war, she said, and she considers his effort to become the first black president as historic as Clinton's bid. Within a few days, a handful of Wellesley friends had called or e-mailed to teasingly call her a traitor.

"It's like I'm ruining this great opportunity for women by not voting for her, but honestly I'm not too worried about that," Keller said. "I don't think gender is a good enough reason on its own to vote for or against anybody. I'm sure there are going to be other women in my generation, soon, who are able to run for president. This isn't like our only chance."

Her stance is what some professors on campus refer to as an "inevitability attitude," and they say it marks a generational divide. Women who experienced Wellesley in the 1950s and '60s, such as Clinton, enrolled at a time when some Ivy League schools still refused to admit women. They believed, intrinsically, that they would have to scrap and claw for every opportunity in an unfair world. Wellesley functioned as their cocoon, a place for camaraderie and support before they were sent off as graduates to break barriers and challenge stereotypes. As feminists, they were linked by a cause.

The women of that generation now vote resoundingly for Clinton, poll numbers show, as if still bound by the urgency instilled 40 years ago. It's an urgency that their daughters, products of a less-sexist time, sometimes lack.

A woman for president?

"I'm sure there are a lot of women my age who are kind of moving up the ranks, doing whatever they're doing politically and could maybe be president," Carreon Aguilar said. "The way I look at it with Obama is that both candidates are really minorities. Both would be huge firsts, so that sort of takes away the reason to vote just because of somebody being a woman or being black."

A woman for president?

"That has an unbelievable 'Wow!' factor for those of us who have been around for a while and who have delved in the academics of this," said Linda Carli, a Wellesley psychology professor who co-wrote a book on gender and politics. "Some students believe all gender issues are already solved and this remarkable progress will just come, and that's overly optimistic. There's this sense that there's been a massive social change and everything is resolved. That's a very naive point of view."

Senior Kirstin Neff set a self-imposed deadline, the end of the 2007 spring semester, for aligning herself with a candidate. The co-president of Wellesley College Democrats, Neff badly wanted a summer internship with Clinton or Obama. But she felt torn between the two candidates . . . between two generations of feminists . . . between optimism that a woman will one day win and the feeling that it needs to happen now.

When Neff traveled home to Arizona for spring break, her deadline approaching, she confessed to her mother that she had started to lean toward supporting Obama. A five-minute conversation changed her mind.

"My mom didn't like hearing me talk about Obama much at all," Neff said. "She started telling me about how our generation takes for granted a lot of advances that women have made. She told me what it was like in the '70s and '80s and, you know, the general feeling that you were never as good or as important as your brothers or the men who you worked with. She talked about how women's stakes are so tied up in Hillary's candidacy, and how it could change what it means to be a woman and what all these little girls will think is possible in their own lives.

"So I just kind of started thinking about it like that, and it was like, 'Hmm. Okay. Do I really want to step in front of all of that?' "

[whitepicks2]

scartercmu, here''s the plans.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[scartercmu]

realpatriot1,

those women barely won thier states. Sen. McCaskill has low approval ratings in her state and will most likely lose her 2012 election. I''m a black man and I''m very clearly saying is if Obama is the nominee, then I will vote republican for the first time!

[scartercmu]

sjbj2322....I agree


I agree....as a black man Obama doesn''t appeal to me. He is a very uplifting man, so inspiring. But at the end of the day.....nothing. No plans, nothing. Thats the reason I support Clinton. Men need to quit being ***. Your mother raised you...is that not of value? Listen to the woman, she may surprise you.

[realpatriot1]

BarbJCI,

Listen to other elected women. Claire McCaskill has endorsed Obama and said that Hillary would be fatal for the democrats. Gov. Janet Napalitano of Arizona has endorsed Obama. These are women from red states who realize that Obama can win intheir states but Hillary can''t.

She already cost the dems Congress in 1994 by *** up healthcare, her one real chance at experience.

[barbjc1]

I also am a major supporter of Hillary Clinton, not because she is female but I have taken the time to hear all candidates (that includes the Republicans) in their debates. On the GOP side the only candidate that makes any sense at all is Mitt Romney and I am not impressed with him.
Voters of America, PLEASE REALLY listen to what Obama is saying. If you REALLY LISTEN, you will hear a lot of IFS in his speeches.

[barbjc1]

We need a woman President NOW, and that is because when Hillary wins the presidency other women will run for major public office. Then we will see the social, economic and global changes that are so badly needed. Women voters of America, just think what the impact will be on countries that still treat their women like chattels or second class citizens, if the most powerful nation has a Woman President. Electing a racial minority president frankly will be no big deal because he is male.

[tucano2]

Hilariously graphic Headline on this story - oops, it''s not BILL C. you mean!

[sjbj2322]

I think it sort of funny that this was an article on feminist views and its received so many responses from men. Still trying to manipulate views - aye! Yes, women do use more than mere emotions when considering such important questions as who will be the leader of this country and that is the point being made by the article. No, I am not supporting Hillary because she is a woman. No, I am not supporting Obama because he is trans-racial (get it - that is the appropriate term). As a Democrat, I am supporting Clinton for the simple fact that she has done far more for the rights of people (yep - that includes women) than Obama ever dreamed of (or hoped for). Moreover, as for checking her record. Remember, like Obama, she is a Jr. Senator. Don''t just look at her individual record but the record of legislation she has co-authored or supported. As for the issue of taxes. Don''t be stupid. They are going to go up whether its a Republican or Democrat cause somebody (us) has to pay for the damage Bush has caused this economy. The question is where will that burden rest - with those who are barely getting by or those that have historically made the most and paid the least in constrast to their interest, earnings, or assets.

[gunownerdan]

Both Hillary and Barack say you as a citizen cannot be trusted to own common handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles while they are surrounded by armed guards carrying MACHINE GUNS.
Congress has the lowest approval rating it has ever had in history, much less than George W. Bush''s approval rating yet all of the democrat "front runners" and half the republicans came right from congress. Plus, they are all members of the "Council on Foreign Relations"(CFR) which has hijacked America''s foreign policy!
WILL AMERICANS WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE???????

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual ... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
-- Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

a-human-right.com

[realpatriot1]

jon2012,

When Hillary was in the White House, having not been elected by the people, she took it upon herself to pull the FBI files of her politicl opponenents.

As a Democrat who was outraged by the Republican smear machine and Ken Starr I have no particular sympathy for her targets but as an American citizen I don''t ever want to see her near the White House again.

She opened the door for the Constitutional abuses that Bush has gotten away with and it''s up to Democrats to show her the door.

[samthetvcat]

"Too bad all your work is meaningless because you did not do anything resembling a comparative analysis which included other candidates'''' records to provide context. Since you are delivering a finding of sort, you needed to have a more convincing case. For example, did Obama and Edwards accomplish more and exactly what are those things? And then cite your sources."
Posted by jon2012

Do the grunt work yourself, slacker! I wasn''t trying to convince anybody of anything - 90% of the electorate doesn''t vote based on the issues, and judging by your lack of logic you''re not one of the 10%.

[libra127]

(continued from previous message)
Dividing Hillary''s 350 by her 7 years in the Senate and the others'' numbers by the applicable 11 years, one sees that Hillary''s 50 pieces of sponsored legislation is HIGHEST OF ANY of the 546 members of Congress. I call that impressive evidence.

The data are from:

www.govtrack.us/data/us/110/repstats/enacted.xml

Check it out and do the math yourself.

[libra127]

"Too bad all your work is meaningless because you did not do anything resembling a comparative analysis that included other candidates'' records to
provide context" jon2012

Hillary comes out EXTREMELY WELL in such a comparative analysis. She has sponsored more legislation per year than ANYONE else in the House or Senate. The evidence is as follows: Hillary has sponsored 350 pieces of legislation over her 7 years in the Senate. Out of 546 senators and congressmen, those who have sponsored more are: Feinstein 534, Andrews 526, Snowe 441, Schumer 407, Hatch 402, McCain 403, Durbin 387, Grassley 368, Bingaman 366. The numbers for ALL of those 9 are over the 11 year period from Jan. 1997 - Dec. 2007. (continued next message)

[whitepicks2]

Remember the last debate in Vegas? Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" later wrote on her MySpace page on Nov. 16th that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Feminists might frown on nonsense like that.

Now we''ve also had crying used for the sympathy vote in New Hampshire. The Hillary Machine is campaigning to the June "Leave It To Beaver" Cleaver crowd, not liberated young women.

[jack3213]

JON- OH PLEASE, don''t be hasty to hand over your money to a Clinton? Are you and others that naive? She is a TAKER not a GIVER. The Clintons should be in JAIL. They have so many so convinced they are the ticket, the blinders will hurt your eyes come the day you will have to take them off. From all the illegal negotiations they have done, to the unreleased papers, to the racial slurs, to the many women being falsely supported for those pieces of trash, I am surprised I am even spending so much time talking about such idiocy....The Clintons should evaporate and I ..and all those who have a sense, would be very pleased. Evil is as evil does.

[jon2012-2009]

She''''ll let you cheat as long as you promote her and let her take your money. Whatever.
Posted by jack3213 at 09:08 AM : Jan 12, 2008

I suppose this is in reference to Mark Rich who had faced charges of tax evasion and jail but received a pardon from Bill and last I''ve heard has left the country to enjoy his freedom.

To my knowledge, this is the only accusation against Hillary Clinton''s character that seems to have some substantiation. Pencil this one under "minus" in your list of pluses and minuses for her. Then give it some appropriate weight.

As disappointing as it may be, all candidates have long lists of both good and bad.

No guarantee she''ll do the same exact thing when and if she gets her turn so don''t be too ready to hand over your money if you''d need this kind of favor.

If that was the only thing you can dredge up about Hillary from her eight years as First Lady (as such she didn''t have the authority to pardon), then it''s not as bad as it looks. Give us more.

[jon2012-2009]

Holy cow, I was just pouring over her record of co-sponsored legislation and it''''s pages and pages of bills doing nothing - recognizing, denouncing, honoroing, congratulating . . . the sad thing is I get the sense that all of Congress wastes their time on this stuff.
I just looked through Hillary''''s 2005 record and there were NO action items that actually affect anybody''''s lives in a tangible way - NONE.

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 03:07 PM : Jan 11, 2008

Too bad all your work is meaningless because you did not do anything resembling a comparative analysis which included other candidates'' records to provide context. Since you are delivering a finding of sort, you needed to have a more convincing case. For example, did Obama and Edwards accomplish more and exactly what are those things? And then cite your sources.

[jack3213]

Pakkal: You''d rather pay higher taxes and be told by a woman where to put your money vote for the woman. You''d rather have an inexperianced person run foreign affairs and expect peace, vote for a Democrat. You''d rather be disappointed and represented by an emotional manipualtor, vote for Clinton. Maybe you have awife like this already. She''ll let you cheat as long as you promote her and let her take your money. Whatever.

[samthetvcat]

"SamTheTVCat: "Obama isn''t down - so on the surface the it would seem like numbers might be coming from Richardson (the experience/seniors votes) and Edwards (the ''war on the middle class'' votes)."

Try to keep up now, Richardson isn''t even in the race anymore."
Posted by pakaal

Wow, that takes some nerve to try and make a young female sound stupid in a thread about ''young feminists''. Even more embarrassing for you, you actually tried to portray me as stupid relative to you.

Since I stated that Hillary is up 14% and Obama hasn''t moved, and since Edwards is down 8% over this same period of time my conclusion that Hillary''s increase must have come from Richardson is necessarily dependant on Richardson having dropped out of the race. Of course you probably didn''t know that Edwards was down 8%, so maybe ignorance is your problem and not stupidity . . .

[pakaal]

SamTheTVCat: "Obama isn''t down - so on the surface the it would seem like numbers might be coming from Richardson (the experience/seniors votes) and Edwards (the ''war on the middle class'' votes)."

Try to keep up now, Richardson isn''t even in the race anymore.