I used to love Hillary Clinton. Loved her like Michael Moore loved her. When she ran for Senate, I was thrilled. I was pink with pride over having the best pair o' Senators in the nation: Chuck and Hill.
But President Hillary Clinton? Not so much.
So, when did the switch happen? I'm not sure. But I find I do not trust her on domestic issues like gay marriage and civil liberties. Except that I of course DO trust her on the subject of reproductive rights, which I only realized JUST NOW, and that's obviously not a small thing for me and I'm suddenly forgetting the other things I don't trust her on so what gives? Michelle Obama has said that her husband doesn't poll well among African Americans because black people have internalized racist ideas about who our leaders should be. Is that what I'm doing? Why do I find myself pulled towards both Obama and Edwards? In 2004, I called Edwards a mimbo! I started a Facebook group about Obama's lack of experience! Do I really think Clinton's Supreme Court nominees would be any less liberal than Obama's? Don't I trust her most to follow through on issues regarding contraceptives and sex-ed, while Obama and Edwards could well get away with lip-service?
So now I fear that I've just internalized the idea that Presidents are Men. I know liking Obama over Clinton is the hip thing to do, but when all we really care about is beating the Republicans, it's hard to sort things out. All I know is, I saw this post on Hillary's possibly floundering campaign, felt myself cheered by it, and now all of a sudden I can't quite remember why. Good thing I live in a state where primaries don't matter!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Call Me Aunt Tom?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Susan, though I sympathize with the confusion and the self-scrutiny, I gotta say that breakin' out the 'ole "internalized *ism" metaphor is a bit premature.
Remember how she voted for war? How her husband's presidency, and her policy influence within it, was only groovy on lefty issues, government transparency, and corruption in comparison to W's house of horrors? And if the practical politics of winning the general election are the issue, remember how Hillary-bashing is the wingnuts' and dittoheads' most favoritist, base-pleasingest kind of red-meat there is? They practically built Bush II's first campaign on that shit, man.
But I tell you, the thing that gets my back up most is the dynastic element. Maybe I've been spelunking too long in the politics of early American history, but damn if there wasn't a reason we had a revolution. The thought of having an alternating monarchy of Bush/Clinton for twenty-plus years makes me want to reach for my tumbril, ya know?
I'm willing to entertain the possibility that some of this is gender bias, but – and this is a big but for me, at least – there's a whole lot of substance running against a H. R. Clinton presidency that ain't got nothing to do with her laugh, her hair, her cleavage, or any other stupid thing the media gets a twitter about.
That said, any Dem'll do.
I second the barking goose (and have always wished to utter this phrase). If one divorces Clinton and Obama from their respective gender and race and views them solely in terms of actions and policies- and ideally we all should- it seems apparent that the latter is far more reliable and consistent with respect to most of our common political goals and values, or what I assume them to be anyway. It is valid that Hillary may be more effective in practice (indeed largely because of a more slippery and compromised nature), and she is certainly more experienced in government (not that that's always a bonus), but her being female has nothing to do with such questions, and certainly shouldn't be a reason for one to regret losing absolute admiration for her.
It also struck me- when did Michael Moore ever love Hillary Clinton? He goes out of his way to embarass her in Sicko, and was a fierce critic of the Clinton White House all throughout the 90s (a fact that those who believe he is fueled purely by hatred of Republicans often overlook). This is of course not a huge deal, and I don't really like Moore much anyway, but I think it's important not to conflate the views of these two powerful and polarizing figures on the left just because Fox News does.
Alan Diggs: In Moore's 1997 book "Downsize This!", there's a chapter called "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I remember him at the time telling a story about taking his kid to vote and the kid asking, "Can we vote for Hillary?" and Moore responding, "If only." [or something to that effect]
That, of course, was then.
Barking Goose: As for the war vote, Edwards not only voted for the war, he cosponsored the resolution. And while it's easy for Obama to say he wouldn't have voted for it, we'll never know. MOST people voted for the war. And practical politics are actually not the issue in this particular post--whether or not she's electible might well affect my vote, but should not affect whether or not I like her as a potential leader.
Also, you are judging her by her husband's presidency which is not necessarily fair because the climate is so different now--we need someone to bring things BACK to the center. But if you want to talk about that, Bill Clinton's Supreme Court nominations were superb. I confess, the Supreme Court is my main concern right now--the next President will certainly have at least one slot to fill. It's a critical time. It's been argued that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned because then the religious right would lose its big issue, but I am at least slightly skeptical of this theory, and certainly don't want to take the risk. The dynastic point is an excellent one, and I agree, but that alone is not enough to discredit a candidate IF one finds the candidate otherwise qualified.
To both: I of course am trying to divorce the candidates from gender and race--that's my point. I think it's a lot easier to find criticisms of Clinton than of the other front runners because her career's been longer and/or far more heavily scrutinized. (And the wingnuts and dittoheads hatred of her is inextricable from her gender-- First Ladies are supposed to bake cookies on talk shows and tout literacy causes, but little else.) I don't think Obama's lack of (national) experience is a problem unto itself, but I'm not sure he'll feel able to truly stand up to the conservative near-half of Congress. As for practical politics...Elizabeth Edwards is going to die in the next 4-8 years. Would that this were untrue, but it's hard to deny. Her husband clearly loves her. Will he be able to handle running the nation after she passes? I don't have a strong view on this, but it is a consideration.
But yeah, any Dem'll do.
Post a Comment