Right after finishing that last post, I went over to PostSecret and saw this:
...I'm glad to know I'm not the only one thinking about these things.
Showing posts with label HILLARY CLINTON. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HILLARY CLINTON. Show all posts
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Magic Of The Internet...
Hillary And Michelle: Presidential Paper Dolls
I've noticed on Facebook that some of my friends have become "supporters" of Michelle Obama. Though I truly admire Ms. Obama, in all her 5'11", fiercely-intelligent, jacked-badass-lawyer glory, fervor for her gives me a bit of a facial tic, and I'll tell you why:
Go back 16 years and all you have to do is change the names--we're talking about Hillary Clinton.
People say the same things about her that they did about Clinton back in the day--you even heard it a bit about Elizabeth Edwards before her husband dropped out. My favorite quote is always, "I wish I could vote for HER." Y'know, instead of her husband. MICHAEL MOORE said this about Ms. Clinton once. So while it's only hyperbole, sure, we endorse the first ladies. But if two administrations from now, Lady Michelle tries to run on her own? I guarantee you the coats will turn. While in the 90's even the damn Animaniacs joked about Hillary being smarter than Bill*, now it's all about how people ACTUALLY wish they could re-elect the first Clinton--or how they're afraid that if Hillary won, Bill would be running things, even though the opposite joke used to be canon.
And right now you can even see Obama's lame attempts to soften her own image for those on the other side of the spectrum. While she guest-hosts The View and talks about how she has NO interest in policy decisions**, HRC once did the morning show route with her COOKIE RECIPE. Which is standard fare for first lady hopefuls--even Teresa Heinz had to make some reporter a batch of scones***.
I don't know which end holds the problems--are people fooling themselves when they say they'd vote for the wife, to convince themselves they're feminists, or are they right to espouse the theory and merely cowardly when it comes to the reality? Honestly, I think we just feel uncomfortable--we see brilliant, powerful, accomplished women like Clinton and Obama and Edwards, and feel guilty about the fashion-tipping, pastry-baking, literacy-promoting ghetto to which they must consign themselves.
It brings to mind the various vocational Barbies. We feel good about seeing that unavoidable blonde as an astronaut or surgeon or what the hell ever, because we like the idea of setting that example. But if you ask people to draw a picture of a NASA hero or a doctor, I can tell you what those drawings ain't gonna look like. In our nation's hearts, we still think the likes of Clinton and Obama will seem more at home behind the wheel of a pink plastic convertible, the word "Malibu" in front of their names. So spare me the bullshit. You're a FAN of Michelle Obama, not a supporter. What're you supporting, the legality of her marriage? Anything else rings hollow, and it's salt in the wound, hearing these lies now that we all know that's what they are. There's nothing wrong with wanting Michelle Obama to be president, it just has to be TRUE. So color me disillusioned.
It beats bright pink.
*From the "Presidents" song: "Now in Washington D.C./There's the Democrats and the G.O.P./But the one in charge is plain to see/It's Clinton, first name Hillary." Also there was a bit in a "Pinky and the Brain" sketch.
**YEAH. RIGHT.
***Oh, and pretend her last name is Kerry. But I digress.
Friday, June 13, 2008
A Fond Farewell (For The Moment, Anyway)
Well, what kind of a feminist blogger would I be if I had nothing to say at this point on Hillary Clinton?
(I have a better photo on my computer at home, I'll switch it up later. If you image-google her, you'll find that most of what comes up are intentionally unflattering.)The problem is that so many others have had more intelligent, more eloquent things to say. Megan Carpentier of Jezebel posted something great, and Courtney Martin at Feministing, unsurprisingly, wrote a wonderful letter about HRC. What's left for me to say? I'm not sure. You all know I have a great attachment to Clinton, but I find that most of my thoughts right now are on the future.
-Assuming she isn't tapped for VP (I really cannot predict if she will be or not), let's address this "Clinton supporters will vote McCain" mishegos. That is crazytalk. No one who believes in anything Clinton stands for, and is politically aware enough to be that vehement, would vote for McCain. The election is not until November. In a month everyone will have calmed down and the Democrats will have reunited. If she's not Obama's running mate, Clinton might still campaign for him, and will at least be vocal in her support--as she already is. It might be true that some die-hard Clintonistas might just not drag their asses to the polls, but make the effort to go and then vote for the horribly anti-reproductive-rights McCain? Okay maybe the racists, but only the really motivated racists.
-I'm waiting for people to start talking about what a bad campaign she ran, how miserably she lost. Hell, they were talking about it while it was still happening. You know who lost miserably? Edwards. Huckabee. Giuliani. The people who didn't last more than a few states. Remember Mitt Romney? Yeah, me neither. So if you hear anyone talking about Hillary getting her ass handed to her, remind them HOW MANY TIMES the pundits thought THIS primary, FINALLY, would settle things...and then the next morning we were no clearer. They were neck-a-neck for a long time. Respect.
-There's a whole list of powerful female politicians--governors and the like--on whom we should keep our eye for future bids. (I'll add it later, I'm running out of internet time here at the hostel.) Megan Carpentier pointed out how incredible it is that a woman ran as the establishment candidate--I think (hope) that Clinton herself is right about having cracked that glass ceiling.
Oh, there will be a next time.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Too Much Manischewitz
So, apparently, my parents have not had sex lately because of Clinton vs. Obama disputes.
Yes, my parents are a Slate article. Or worse, A Sunday Styles piece in the Times.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Yes I Can
I've just realized that there is a really awesome byproduct of being an Obama supporter: I can call people out on Hillary-directed sexism with impunity. The "I voted for Obama, but..." may prove very useful, as I can make all the points that some women have made without undermining it all with the "and thus you should vote for Hillary or you're sexist too" ending.
This occurred to me at a coffee shop yesterday when I LAUGHED ALOUD at a man who was talking to the barista (baristo?) about supporting Obama because he got a "control, power-hungry vibe" from Clinton. I love* when people convince themselves that Obama is not a politician, that he doesn't want power, despite the fact that he's RUNNING FOR FUCKING PRESIDENT, which is arguably the definition of wanting power. This dude also followed it up with the, "She just wants Bill back in the White House" argument, which people use almost invariably in contradiction to their other arguments. She's power-mad, but she doesn't plan to have power? Someone hates their mother!
I didn't actually engage the dude, but he heard me laugh at him. So that was fun.
*If by love you mean hate! Which I do.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Better Than Nothing
Breaking news in Matthewsgate! Chris Matthews went on air and sorta-apologized for his ridiculous sexism. Media Matters has the video and transcript. I appreciate the apology, and it's pretty well-reasoned...except that it's based on the notion that Matthews only said one objectionable thing. He pretends that the uproar is in response to his comment that "the reason [Hillary Clinton]'s a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit."
It's nice that he doesn't pretend the statement was taken out of context or some bullshit--he says that, upon reflection, that last bit was not only gravely insulting but factually incorrect. He likens Clinton's marriage troubles to McCain's POW history, which in the context makes some sense (even though they are obviously of very different quality and calibre). Matthews had forgotten that 2000 was not so long ago and most people REMEMBER that election, so, yeah--he certainly had to deal with the consequences of his statement. And, as I said, he didn't do the blame-dodging bullshit-excuse thing that is so ubiquitous these days, which is appreciated.
But: come on man, you said a lot of other objectionable shit. True, this final comment got the most attention, because in addition to being hugely sexist it had the added benefit of being totally fucking untrue, whereas the other things qualify as off-the-cuff misogyny, which is not exactly rare. He has casually flung out the casually sexist memes that undermine any woman who dares to pursue a leadership position. He has done his best to lower the level of debate and to tar, if unconsciously, all women with the same brush. I'm sure his words will be recycled for years to come.
In summation: Thanks for the apology. Now where's the restof the fucking apology?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Can I Be RE-Outraged?
I confess: until just now, I hadn't actually watched the footage of Hillary Clinton's famed emotional moment. Give me a break, I can't watch videos at work (like, the computer actually won't LET me). Anyway, I finally did, and am even more astounded that this was labeled in any way as "crying." Oh my god. Have you seen this? I'd read on trusted blogs that she hadn't actually cried, but seriously--THIS IN NO WAY WAS ANYTHING LIKE CRYING. She didn't even sniffle! I want to go back in time so I could've been more FULLY incensed when this whole stupid thing went down.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
In Case You're Interested
Feministing has a "24-Hour Hillary Sexism Watch," and here is a particularly teeth-gnash-inducing post.
And don't worry, they hated Steinem's Op-Ed.
A Cheerier Note
I meant to say this before:
In addition to getting farklempt over My Mom Clinton winning New Hampshire, I was basically really happy all last night because of these two historic evenings we've just had. A black man and a woman have each won one of the two most hyped primaries in our nation's history. I think it's truly important that they each took one--perhaps this is Obama-eqsue idealism, but I believe that this has opened the door to both demographics. Women and African-Americans are officially viable candidates, whatever else happens.
Picking A Pony
I've talked before about my mixed Clinton-related feelings. Well, they've changed. Kind of. Yes, I too have gotten swept up in Obamamania. It's hard not to. But last night I was reminded that I've been loving Hillary since I was 10 years old. I grew up on her. Watching Hillary's acceptance speech, I actually choked up a little. My reaction was basically, "Oh look, my mom's running for President. My mom would be an AWESOME President!"
I'm over my lame trust issues, and now it truly is down to electability. This issue is two-fold: Hillary arguably being not-so-electable, and Obama arguably being super-electable. If you'd seen nothing but the speeches last night, you could well have thought that he had won. Though his speech didn't really have any content (do any of them at this point?), it was undeniably inspiring. He's a superb orator. He might actually unite rather than divide--though honestly, do we want that? Wouldn't we rather be divided but winning? But I digress.
I wish people would stop talking about Hillary's unelectability. Not because they're wrong, or because it's not a valid issue, but solely because, well, it makes me sad. It irritates me the same way as when people criticize Juno even in the slightest--I want to cover my ears and scream "CHANGE THE SUBJECT CHANGE THE SUBJECT!"
Which means that this post is not actually as substantive as I'd intended, because I don't really feel like thinking about the many reasons why nominating Clinton could potentially be a bad idea. Maybe I'll return to this subject later. The bottom line is, I am officially torn. I have no idea whom I'm voting for in a few weeks. I love Hillary, and while I don't think she's UNelectable, I think Obama's hard for any Republican to outcharm.
Sigh.
In Defense Of Steinem. (Mostly.)
Yeah, so, many of you have by now read Gloria Steinem's NYTimes Op-Ed piece about sexism and Hillary Clinton. Many people have had problems with it. This was my reaction after the first read: "She's basically right, except for the part where all this means that everyone should vote for Clinton." I would say I "mostly liked it."
Not that we shouldn't vote for Clinton. (More on that to come.) And if we ignore that paragraph, and pay attention to her other points, there's a lot to embrace. I have long held that sexism is the last acceptable "ism"--even among young, liberal, well-educated people like me and my friends*. Steinem seems to agree:
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race... and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
The evidence is everywhere--but because we're so bombarded with it, it's easy to shrug off even the most overt examples. And that's what I'm talking about: explicit sexism. Sexism is not necessarily more prevalent than racism, but being overtly sexist is way more acceptable. Sexism is mainstream. Take my Chris Matthews examples below: could you imagine him saying, "Do you find it difficult to debate a black man?" Far more egregious is the instance in Salem, New Hampshire from a few days ago: at a Clinton rally, a young man stood up and started yelling, over and over, "Iron my shirt!" He had a big yellow sign that also bore the slogan. Imagine if someone had stood up at an Obama rally and shouted, "Pick my cotton!" It would've been a huge event. There might have been violence. It certainly would've gotten media attention, whereas this event was ignored in favor of Clinton "crying**."
Perhaps the simplest example--which won me some supporters at a bar last night--is the question "Do you think a woman can be as effective a President as a man?" This question is being debated on Facebook. WTF? Think for a second. Can you actually imagine someone asking, "Do you think a black person can be as effective a President as a white person?" If you can imagine someone asking that, the person you are imagining probably not only has a Confederate flag tattoo, but would also actually say, "I hate black people." To ask a question like that, you have to be an avowed racist.
I'd been planning on talking about this for awhile--in the context of how it's okay for a movie to be sexist--but the issue's really come to a head. And while I DON'T agree with Steinem that it's cool to support Clinton because she's a woman (and this "on-the-job training" argument makes me uncomfortable for various reasons), what she says about the media's treatment of her is almost all undeniably true:
[W]hat worries me is that [Obama] is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex... What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations... What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
Steinem offers a few reasons for all this, which may or may not be valid. I mentioned the ubiquity of sexism, and how it's desensitized us to the problem, and I think ubiquity is also one of the root causes--in short, sexists know more women than racists know black people. There are more opportunities to be blatantly sexist. It's the oldest form of prejudice there is, because gender is the first characteristic available to us. After establishing that a person is, you know, human, gender is the next thing we want to know. Newborns are labeled as such in hospitals.
I'm not saying we should be squeamish about using gender as an identifying feature--I mean to illustrate the significance of gender in our lives from the moment we're born. And if we're basically okay with gross displays of sexism, think about how okay we are with implicit and unconscious sexism. It's scary.
*Perhaps even more so, since among this demographic the other "isms" are SO unacceptable.
**And Edwards being a douche about it, but that didn't get much attention either.
Prelude To A Post
In attempt not to bombard you with one giant post combining my thoughts on Clinton, Obama, Steinem, my mother, and possibly the movie Juno, I'm going to start with some evidence that I will later introduce to an argument. So, below, a (no doubt inexhaustive) list of weirdly sexist things Chris Matthews has said about Hillary Clinton:
-He asked Chris Dodd, "Do you find it difficult to debate a woman?" Dodd, sanely, said no.
-He then went on to tell Tim Russert that Bill had her on a "short leash."
-He pinched her cheek. Repeat: he pinched her cheek.
-Last night after the primary results came in, he said to her Communications Director Howard Wolfson something like about how her appeal lies in the "contrast" between her "strength" and her "being a woman." Not actually a joke. This is something I actually saw, but unfortunately I can't find a link to it. He actually contrasted being a woman with being strong. Wolfson was, rightfully, slightly thrown.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Call Me Aunt Tom?
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
