New York City
Feminists for Obama
Just as they wouldn’t back Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice, argues a member of this camp, progressive women don’t automatically owe their vote to Hillary
avg229@nyu.eduNew York University sociology professor Judith Stacey considers herself a lifelong feminist, but for the 2008 Democratic presidential candidacy, she is standing by a man.
One might think Hillary Clinton would be the obvious choice for feminist voters. Yet a number of prominent New York feminists have thrown their support to Barack Obama.
Obama’s unambiguous early opposition to the Iraq war is one big reason. In a campaign featuring the first viable female candidate for president, Clinton’s vote to invade Iraq has split what many thought would be a solid block of feminist volunteers and voters, and cost her support from a group of women who might have otherwise been her greatest supporters.
“The invasion of Iraq was the single most catastrophic disaster for the U.S. and the universe,” said Stacey, 65. “I think it’s now an irreparable mess. But for me, the fact that Obama did not vote for the war resolution and Hillary did made it very easy for me to choose who to support, especially because their positions on most issues of significance for feminists are very close.”
The National Organization for Women, a feminist advocacy group, endorsed Clinton in March 2007. A NOW spokesperson declined to comment for this story, referring a report to information on the NOW website.
“Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate to win in November, and to set our country right,” says Kim Gandy, chair of NOW’s political action committee, on the group’s website. “We know she can deliver on Day One — from getting our troops out of Iraq, to fixing the shattered economy and the mortgage crisis, to winning health care that covers every single person in this country.”
Recently, more than 150 New York City feminists, Stacey among them, signed a petition entitled “Feminists for Peace and for Barack Obama!” affirming the group’s support for Obama over Clinton. The group based its decision on Obama’s consistent stance against the Iraq war, starting with his vote against the U.S. invasion “at a time when this position was politically unpopular and when he was aiming for national office.”
Another signer, Columbia University professor Victoria De Grazia, said such anti-war sentiments are firmly-held feminist beliefs.
“Feminists often felt that they had a particular role, to speak out against war as a military initiative,” De Grazia said. “But now, as in the case of the Iraq war, clearly there are women soldiers, women secretary of state, so we know now just being a woman doesn’t mean you are against war. It means more likely that feminists in particular have insisted that we will be against a woman because she is taking positions that we do not agree with, with the Iraq war.”
Lynne Haney, 41, a New York University sociology professor and another signatory, said feminist voters were focused on issues like the war and the economy, not on the candidate’s gender.
“Just like we wouldn’t vote for Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice, as far as a Democratic woman, she does not automatically get the support of those who call themselves feminists,” said Haney.
The war issue didn’t sway all feminists, of course.
Lawrence Mead III, 64, a professor of American politics at New York University, predicted that neither Clinton’s war vote nor Obama’s growing base of feminist support would do much to subtract votes from Clinton’s base of women supporters. They’ll continue to vote for the candidate whose policies they agree with most, he said.
“The feminist vote is clearly identified with Hillary, although she hasn’t run as much as a feminist any more than Obama has run as a black man,” said Mead. “Women may be more sympathetic to Hillary, but I don’t think they are acting as feminists necessarily, they just think she is paying more attention to their issues.”
Feminists like Haney, who continue to support Obama, express a similar view, of supporting the candidate best fit to tackle the nation’s issues, as well as women’s issues.
“The war is extremely important,” said Haney, “But I wouldn’t be supporting him as a feminist if I didn’t think he would make concrete changes for women’s lives.”