My shift toward Hillary Clinton
I was an Edwards supporter early on. When he dropped out, I was at a loss over which candidate to support. By a hair’s breath, my vote swung to Obama on Super Tuesday. But now, all that is changing. I’m still not pledging undying allegiance to either candidate. But, I do find myself becoming more appreciative of Clinton’s policies, personality, and poise.
I think it all started to unravel when I read an article by Rebecca Traister on Salon titled Hey Obama boys: Back off already! In the article Traister talks about feminism, post-feminism, and the not-so-subtle sexism in the contest. I’ve experienced the exact same thing Traister has: people calling Clinton a bitch, and saying they would never vote for that bitch. Several friends (straight and gay alike) proudly display the Bros before Hoes icon on social networks and instant message avatars.
Seriously? Is it really that acceptable to condemn a woman today? To call Hillary weak for staying with her husband after he cheated on her? (My father cheated on my mother, and I think it was one of the strongest things she ever did to forgive him and let him stay after the hurt he inflicted on her.) Should we deride her for being a ball-buster devoid of emotion, and then slam her for showing weakness and tears? What about her policies? Does that even matter to people anymore? The fact that her healthcare policy is actually more far-reachng and progressive than Obama’s? Sure, she may be the establishment candidate, but she’s been a progressive leader and continues to advocate smart, liberal policies.
And then today I saw this 11 year old “Sexman” vlogging his disdain for Clinton. (I’ve blogged about Sexman before here.) A taste of his criticism: “Personally, I hate Hillary Clinton. I kinda find her bitchy and stuck up.” Watch it here:
C’mon, can anyone miss the blatant sexism here? And Sexman isn’t the only one guilty. Calling her a “bitch” is an all-too-easy way of dismissing her as a candidate without giving her and her sound policies a fair chance.
And then, of course, there was Obama’s interview on FOX News on Sunday. He lacked the polished fortitude necessary to prove he’s a true presidential contender. He was unprepared for at least one question, which should never be the case this late in the game. I’m going to wager that Clinton would have performed better, with more poise and grace under fire, in the same situation.
I still like Obama, and I will passionately devote my energy and financial contributions to whichever candidate takes the nomination. However, for various reasons, I now hope that candidate is Hillary Clinton.
And one final note. I read another article on Salon today titled The haunting of the Democrats by Andrew O’Hehir, about how a fractured party has led the Dems to defeat more than once in the last four decades. The party seems to be setting itself up for the same fate yet again. The one way I can see the party healing itself in the short-term, but more importantly in the long-term, is to truly bring the two disparate factions of the party together on one ticket. An Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket would dispel any notion that Obama supporters would jump ship if Clinton took the nomination or vice versa. And even better, it would create an example for how the progressive reformists and party establishment stalwarts can come together as a unified Democratic party in the future.
THANK YOU. I think you put into words exactly what I’ve been thinking. Behavior on the web lately especially upsets me, and I’ve seen that “Bros before hoes” T-shirt around. Do they think it really makes any side look good?
April 28th, 2008 at 7:51 pmI read Andrew Sullivan daily and can say that he feels strongly that Obama is the genuine pro-gay candidate of the two, but note that you didn’t mention that as an issue here.
If there is one thing clear on the web and in the MSM it is that HRC has be out of this race delegate wise for two months now. Obama has the most delegates, more popular votes, won more states and is 20 super-delegates away from pulling ahead of Hillary. HRC’s only hope is to destroy Obama’s character and convince the super-delegates to give their support to her. Had Hillary been loyal to her party and placed the good of her party ahead of her own ambition she would have dropped out ages ago.
We can look at this another way as well – race as opposed to gender. The problem for the DRC is the super-delegates have to support and thus reject either America’s first serious female presidential candidate or America’s first serious black presidential candidate. Every US President has been white. From a historical prespective I think it’s time a black candidate be given the chance.
A lot of people reject Hillary for who she is. She tells people what they want to hear not what they need to hear. She shamelessly has accepted support from the political right whom btw only support her because it hurts her party. HRC has also launched savage personal attacks on a credible BLACK candidate, how progressive is that?
There are idiots on the web who call HRC a bitch and call her names (I usually call her “Shillery” myself). These people don’t bother me. It is the people like some of the Democrat voters in PA last week who refused to vote for Obama for the colour of his skin. One last thing to think about, who will be more disenfranchised if their candidate doesn’t win, feminists or blacks? We all know the answer to that question.
For the record, my pick for a great female presidential candidate would have been Elizabeth Dole about a decade ago.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:24 pmReg, to respond to a couple of your points:
Obama may be ahead and be able to pull ahead, but by the party’s own rules he still won’t have enough delegates to “win” the nomination. Just because he’s ahead doesn’t mean Clinton should drop out.
As for who is the most gay-friendly, they are the same to me. Neither supports gay marriage, and therefore both are pandering to the middle. Only Kucinich and Gravel actually promised to legalize gay marriage. Not even my main man Edwards supported gay marriage.
You point out that all past presidents have been white. Well, guess what?! They’ve all also been men. That argument doesn’t hold water for me. Both candidates are minority candidates in the presidential field.
I have no doubt that racism is involved too, and that Obama faces it in ways that we can only imagine (being white guys ourselves). But it’s not and either/or system here: racism instead of sexism or vice versa. It’s not like we have to pick one as the most important or most destructive. Both exist in this campaign. It’s just that people are more conscious of and disapproving of racism, imho. Sexism is unfortunately more acceptable in America, bc, well ‘women are evil.’
Hillary has launched character attacks against a fellow candidate. That’s politics my friend. And to call them savage. HA! Obama should be able to hold his ground against a fellow Democrat who has lobbed a few character questions his way. He’ll need to survive these minor character challenges, because they’re nothing compared to what Rove and his buddies are prepared to bring in the general election. Why is it “poor Obama” whenever something sordid from his past comes up to bite him in the ass? Why is it Clinton’s fault? I still don’t get that.
Also, Reg, I wonder why the people who call Clinton a bitch don’t bother you. Isn’t that blindly discriminatory in the same way that racists who won’t vote for Obama are? It’s not either/or here. You can be disgusted by the people who won’t vote for a black candidate based on race alone. They’re called racists and they should be ashamed. But you can ALSO be disgusted by people who dismiss a candidate for her gender.
My point in the post is that people who call Clinton a bitch or dismiss her as a cunt, frigid, weak-moraled victim for staying with Bill, Shillery, etc should also be ashamed. Sexism should not be any more acceptable than racism. Unfortunately, they’re both alive and well. In my humble opinion, sexism is the more acceptable one. Because, well, powerful women are bitches who need to be put in their proper places.
And my general point is that I feel people are overlooking the positive aspects of Clinton as a candidate, and the strengths of her policies simply because she’s a woman.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:19 pmI guess things must be going well for the DRC when a progressive conservative Canadian and Liberal American have a debate over who would be better for President – a black guy or a women. I take solace in the fact that while you might disgree with me, I have John Cleese on my side!
and now for something completely different:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/an-iranian-diss.html#trackback
May 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pmThe attached article is well writeen and does shed light on the sexism running rampant in this election. i especially am drawn to the point that one guy made about how some might be ostracized for saying they are uncomfortable being led by a woman but that they CAN say her attitude is off-putting. I think this is the case with many many more people than is realized. I have a hard time seeing our redneck soldiers feeling comfortable with a woman leading them into battle, alpha males supporting an alpha female taking control over their country, etc. There are many other very good points made (i.e. separation of today’s woman from the feminist movement, etc…) but all-in-all I think the sexism recognition is too little too late and will be blown off by most as it was Hillary and her cam,paign, not her sex, that was the problem. Case closed.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm