Watching with detached interest
by dixie
I am still torn between Clinton and Obama this primary season. I’m frustrated that while people have more or less gotten over the fact that Obama is black, they have not gotten over the fact that Clinton is female.
Granted, she hasn’t helped her case by nearly dissolving into tears. I must say, however, after watching the event on YouTube I wonder how many people having fits over this have actually seen a woman break down in tears the way they describe Clinton as doing. It really doesn’t look like that, guys. She got a little misty. It was probably the latest in a line of attempts to create an image that looks less bitchy and more likable. Whatever. Sometimes I wonder if all this obsession over trivia is really because there are no substantial differences between the candidates.
Gloria Steinem wrote a pithy and insightful article on the “female” issue. It is the first piece I’ve read during this entire election cycle (nearly a year now, considering my last blog entry on the subject was in February of last year) that I really liked and agreed with most of.
This is my favo(u)rite bit, but there are several other juicy lines in the article:
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
I don’t think it’s true that she doesn’t have to prove her masculinity (indeed, the requirement to do so has trapped all powerful women between the rock of seeming weak and the hard place of coming across as a bitch), but wouldn’t it be nice if no one did?
Comments
What courage? There’s a ton of examples of male politicians crying – Bill Clinton teared up at a funeral and (I think) an opera, Bush Snr. at an address in Florida. “A” daily show (8/jan/07) has some other examples, including Bob Dole at Nixon’s funeral in ’94.
It’s a pity that commentators are falling back on negative judgements about voter motivations, that they didn’t vote for a particular candidate because they were/weren’t black/women/mormon/endorsed by Chuck Norris.
The reality is that it’s an open field with two solid candidates on each side and voters are making decisions based on a close run: the line separating Hillary and Obama is thin, and it has very little to do with skin or gender.
There’s a huge difference between getting teary at a funeral and during an interview. I didn’t watch “A” Daily Show yesterday (too exhausted to stay up, I admit it), but I’m betting the examples shown were 1. not crying publicly during their own primary season and 2. men who had already proven their masculinity.
I’m not sure that the line between Clinton and Obama isn’t about race and gender. There’s very little of substance to separate them, so we resort to talking about trivialities, rather than seriously trying to gauge how heavily we should weigh experience and track records with or against what our gut tells us (which is largely informed by the media).
Hillary’s vote went up substantially on the night, but it was unexpected on the part of the pollsters. I’m cynical about them – they need a cover story as to why they were miles out and the racism card is an easy play. Are we really to believe this is because a bunch of people in NH are racists for picking Hillary Clinton?
What about Iowa? Hil’s vote was unexpectedly low – maybe it was because she was never going to do all that well there (Bill skipped it in ’92), or are Iowans sexist because they chose Obama and Roberts?
I read the extract you posted as saying that Hillary should be the better candidate because she has served more time. Experience is a terrible predictor for elections, it’s not clear that any candidate benefits from things that aren’t direct incumbency. Looking back over her time as First Lady, I don’t think the Hillarycare implosion makes a great note on her resumé.
Arguably, the most experienced Dem is Bill Richardson, since he’s a former Governor, Diplomat and UN envoy and he can’t get out of single figures.
I read the extract I posted as saying a famous feminist is picking Hillary because of her experience, not her gender, and that the same feminist will support either candidate after the primaries. I found that intrinsically interesting, not as a suggestion for how I should vote.
I also don’t think anyone is supposed to think any voters are either racist or sexist based on two primary results. I do think race and gender play a role (the latter more than the former), but it’s not fair to call someone racist because they believe (incorrectly, according to you but not to others) Hillary’s age and experience trump Obama’s rock-star image. The pundits (whom I haven’t read and don’t actually care to) must be flailing, and they have been wrong before. I don’t really care what they’re saying.
What about Iowa? I wasn’t there; I don’t know what happened. I don’t know if the voters in the caucus were swayed by passionate arguing by Obama’s young supporters or if they just don’t like women. New Hampshire? I don’t know anyone who’s actually from there nor have I ever visited; I don’t know if they just prefer an older candidate or if they hate blacks. Or if it’s something else entirely. I’m not trying to explain primary results, I just wanted to comment on the views that have percolated down to this actual voter who hasn’t been following things that closely but is noticing trends nonetheless.
And since you bring it up, Hillary’s health care debacle is in the “pro” column in my estimation. When living in a country where access to health care is not considered a basic human right, one starts to pay attention to people who care about fixing the system.
Isn’t there a small chance these racist/sexist voters are simply basing their voting on that 10% difference in policy everyone seems determined to ignore? When the tunes are so similar, people are going to listen for bum notes, and choose accordingly. Whichever of them get it, I hope they pick up Edwards as a VP.
I’m with you Dixie. I’m torn but in the end will do like Gloria and support which ever one is nominated.
I also think that Obama can’t win because he’s black. This is America after all and we did just hear from that politician in New Jersey…not somewhere in the deep south, in northern progressive right next door to New York: New Jersey.
The state of New Jersey is in the process of being the first Northern state to express regret for slavery, but there are some local politicians that believe doing so is unimportant.
Republican Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll states that blacks should be happy that slavery happened, otherwise we would still be in Africa:
“But, on a current note, if slavery was the price that a modern American’s ancestors had to pay in order to make one an American, one should get down on one’s knees every single day and thank the Lord that such price was paid. To the extent that America — or New Jersey — ever owed any kind of debt to anyone, that debt was more than repaid through the blood and suffering of 650,000 federal soldiers who died or were wounded during the war provoked by slavery. No one today need feel the slightest guilt, as no one today participated in the wrong.”
So, I do not think that color can be ignored in how this all plays out. I’m just sayin’.