At the beginning of this week, I wasn't entirely sure whether I would vote for Clinton or Obama. The way I look at things, anyone's better than Dubya, so let's just get on with the switch-up. Hell, at this point I would even take McCain. He may still support the war, but I'm guessing he'll handle the mess with more efficiency and intelligence. Clinton and Obama have very similar policy positions, so the choice seems less urgent than it might with two other candidates. And they're both for change right?
I didn't decide who I would vote for until I showed up at the polls. Ultimately, my decision came down to this: I wanted to vote for a woman. Clearly I wouldn't have voted for a woman if she had the political views of Huckabee or the smarminess of Mitt, but in this choice gender was a deciding factor for me.
As the week has progressed, though, I am more and more satisfied with my choice for reasons beyond gender. Here's what it's really all about:
1.Too much kumbaya. During Tuesday night's Super Tuesday coverage on ABC, Charlie Gibson referred to Obama's supporters as his "followers." And as Obama talked to the crowd, many of them seemed to be in some sort of orgasmic trance. Followers indeed. Add to this that Oprah is a mega-follower of Obama. This is a woman who believes in and promotes The Law of Attraction, which suggests that the universe is just waiting to deliver to you whatever you ask it for (including shiny stoves and houses on the beach as illustrated in one of her shows about The Secret). Further, increasingly his speeches mimic the rhetorical styles of MLK and JFK. Granted, these two were expert rhetoricians, but I worry that his derivative style may indicate that he is also lacking in original, pragmatic plans for action. Invoking MLK's style and "echoes from the hills" may be inspiring, but I need something a little more concrete. To consider this point further, read David Brooks' excellent and hilarious NY Times column.
2. What's with all the sexism? Based on the chatter surrounding the Clinton/ Obama contest thus far, I am beginning to suspect that our country may be far more sexist than racist. Yes, we are racist, but much of our racism is connected to poverty. With all things being equal in terms of education, class, and political views, I think being female is a bigger stumbling block than being black. (Another NY Times column on this point.) And strangely, much of the sexist response to Clinton has been from highly-educated, liberal women. Recently, there was a whole collection of essays published (can't remember the title) about Hillary by various high-profile feminists. Were they writing about Hillary's politics? Uh, no. They were writing about her as a woman, how she reflects on their identities as women, how her life speaks to their own insecurities. Where's the book about Obama's role as a man? Clinton tends to get far more support from older and working-class women than she does from upper-middle class women. Maybe working class women know that being a woman means both mothering and working--it's not a matter of trying to "have it all"--and they just want someone to help them out a little bit in managing that life. I'm not saying anyone should vote for Clinton because she is a woman, but they certainly shouldn't not vote for her for the same reason. She's a candidate, not the foil for your feminist insecurities.
That's all I have to say--for now. Kumbaya.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It is a toss-up as to whether our country is more sexist than racist, but the deciding factor for me is that minority women are in the worst possible spot (one can examine various statistics, but I won't go into that here, as I am hugely lazy). That means that sexism trumps racism.
I, too, voted for Hillary, and for many of the reasons you enumerate. I, too, can't stand the sexism--nay, the misogyny. I have misgivings about her, and I will vote for whomever wins the nomination. But for that day, when I was faced with the two of them, I picked her, because I wanted to be able to say that when I had a chance, I voted for a capable, competent, intelligent female candidate. And I feel just fine about that.
I am also lazy, but there is some research in sociology/psychology about the relative detriments you get for being either a woman or a minority. Apparently being a woman affords less advantage than minority for various levels of income, self-esteem, happiness, position-in-life, other people's perceptions of you etcetera-type metrics. The classic is the job resume experiment where subjects rate resumes of a fictitious person of a given sex and race: The same resume is rated worse if they are told its a woman rather than black.
The other day NYT had a column by Gloria Steinem which pegged the Obama-Clinton thing: I paraphrase that she said something like that Obama is seen as a uniter for his race while Clinton is seen as divisive for her sex.
Yes. We have a long way to go.
I think it is harder for Hillary. It just is. Which sucks. But I agree with your assessment, that she is judged unfairly for being ambitious, etc.
But I want a candidate who can win. And I don't think independents will vote for her (for the reasons you mentioned). And I wouldn't be happy with Macain (suddenly I can't spell it!). I can't take another 4 years of Republicans. I just can't!!!!!
I think Hillary has a tougher time. The sexism and misogyny and the blind, unreasoning hatred of the Clintons is difficult for her to over come. But for much of the twentieth century African Americans have obviously faced tougher obstacles. (I found Gloria Steinem's NY Times utterly unconvincing for this reason.)
I voted for Obama for three reasons. 1) I like the way he has brought young people into the process. It can only be a good thing when a generation of young liberals feels excited and invested in a candidate. This may translate into a form of followerism, but I actually find it refreshing. (Oprah is weird, though.) 2) The movement behind Obama represents a genuine grassroots phenomenon. Obama is getting his money from masses of small donations. This is where I think David Brooks mischaracterizes the difference between Hillary and Obama. 3) I'm persuaded that Obama is more electable.
Geesh lis, I promised to post a weighty blog entry in support of Obama in response to your anticipated Clinton post. But I just put a video up of Gus. What that says about the typical Obama supporter, I don't know.
Because I couldn't decide between the two, I just didn't vote. When my son asked me who I voted for, in front of my wife, I pretty much bumbled around in the dark--this will come back and bite me in the ass I'm sure.
If I were to vote now, I would vote for Obama. While watching the 60 minute interviews with both of them yesterday, I realized why. Because if Clinton becomes president that would mean four (count 'em!) presidents switching between a Clinton or a Bush. And that just doesn't sound like a democracy; it's more like the royal families of each party. If she made it two terms that would mean 28 years! (more than a 1/4 of century) of one of the royal families. This just doesn't look right.
It's too bad because this Clinton is certainly better than either Bush and probably better than Bill; certainly better if we assume she wouldn't have any cigar incidents in the oval office which, in my estimation, allowed Bush jr. in.
So, it comes down to the historical ramifications plus a tad of the electability factor referred to by the Dr. and MB team.
I voted for Obama. I generally like Clinton and would support her in November if she won the nomination. And I do hate the way the media freaks out every time she shows emotion (if it's not "Oh, look! Hillary cried! She can't take the heat!" then it's "Look how conniving she is, pretending to cry"). I'm not happy about that, and I understand that the reason she's a polarizing figure is largely because sexism is alive and well. But my decision came down to a bunch of other factors.
First, there's electability. I think Obama would win over more independent/swing voters against McCain than Clinton would. I don't think I could stand to see Democrats squander all this momentum and antiwar sentiment they've built up by losing in November. I also think Obama may have an easier time working with both parties in Congress.
So that's the pragmatic reason. The political ones: Like you say, there aren't that many substantive policy/record differences between the two of them, but the one I can't get past is that Clinton supported the war. Also, I really, really don't want to see the US bomb Iran. Obama has said he thinks it's shameful that we don't talk to world leaders we don't like and that he would start a dialogue with Iran, and I like that.
Also, like Counterintuitive said, I'm a little uneasy about Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.
Other reasons: I'm genuinely impressed by the grassroots support Obama has. I'm excited to see kids getting excited about politics. Do some of them act like they're fawning over a rock star? Sure. But he's tapping into their very real sense that no one has been representing them. What he's managed to do is all the more impressive because he doesn't take campaign money from lobbyists or PACs. You're right, there's a bit too much kumbaya in the media, and the "Yes we can" chants do grate, but I see something real here. I think we're all so raised on irony, we can't help but suspect that where there's style, there's no substance. I know I tend to assume that. But I think he has both.
Is a rebuttal coming to the Obama folks, Unhip? I was hoping so. Really!
the rebuttal's coming, CI--just as soon as I get through a few more stacks of papers!
Obama is fine as far as platforms go. I think however that the view that he is more electable may fade in the long run next year. The oft cited example is Dukakis, who had a huge lead in the polls early, but due to a ill-advised photo-op with a tank made him look like a total amateur. I think Obama is smarter politically than Dukakis, but the comment he made that he was willing to talk with that Iranian clown (and he is that) Amedjenadad (sp?) could spell trouble running against mccain. All it takes is one moment of naivete and he's out.
Will Obama be able to be bipartisan? Absolutely not. His platform is very liberal. Just like with clinton or kerry, expect a swift boat. If Obama pretends to be biparisan but the repubs will balk then will paint obama as naive and ineffective. It may be hard for him to shake that branding by election time, especially since McCain's own branding is the strong-willed maverick.
My final point. Since Obama has been running campaign based on nebulous "hope" and inspiration his support is tied to that. Identity politics have totally hijacked the political discourse of late. Expect major policy discussions to be off the table for the rest of the year: It will be feeling good with obama versus being strong and tough with mccain.
If we're comparing unpopular foreign policy positions, I'll see your "I'll talk to Ahmedinejad" with "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Then I'll raise you a "maybe we'll be in Iraq for 100 years."
Post a Comment