Letters to the Editor

• Chautauqua (venomless sharing of ideas)

  [Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Smart Bumper Sticker: "I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy."

  As the boychild of single mother I love and admire, I, too, and disgusted by the blatant misogyny Hillary's run inspires, not to mention the catch-22 powerful women face: be neither elitist nor airhead, "frigid" nor "emotional," timid nor emasculating.

  And it's not hard to see why many women, the majority after all, would feel that it's high time for a woman/feminist leader. Of course, black folks might have similar ideas.

  (for a nuanced story of a Chicago mayor facing similar dilemmas: http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=84)

  But of the various feminisms, I tend to dig those that stress inclusive humanism rather than narrow ideological gender-based uniformity. Ecofeminisms, for example. Or Mary Pipher, author of Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls, who wrote the forward to William Pollack's Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood. In the forward she encourages us to work together as people rather than get bogged down in suffering contests, which lead to pyrrhic victories at best.

  I think H. Clinton is experienced, smart, well-connected, highly competent, and unquestionably far more progressive than, say, McCain.

  And it's true that Obama, beneath the charm and gifted oratory, doesn't have the most impressive resume.

  ~~But the way I see it, the biggest issues we face are not

  (un)equal pay or what unfair drug laws are doing to inner-city communities.

  They are the foreign policy, energy policy, civil liberties for everyone (habeaus corpus restored; no cruel and unusual punishment OR interrogations), and the outsized influence of multinational corporations (granted charters by states to serve the public interest, but loyal—by law—only to stockholders and the bottom line)on our representative democracy. These issues are huge and related. See Naomi Klein's latest, Shock Doctrine, for more info.

  http://www.naomiklein.org/main

  And in this context, I want Obama. I want hope and audacity, populism, some degree of outsider-dom (and yes I am convinced that this is more than rhetoric). I want America, the Great Experiment (with all its flaws), to be a beacon of democracy, equality, and justice in the world. That's not a bad way to win hearts and minds. I hope fervorently for Edwards as a running mate.

  It's true that Ms. Clinton got unfairly lambasted after her heroic foray into the healthcare debate during Bill's tenure. She makes very valid points about political compromise and pragmatism getting important things done albeit imperfectly. And it's great to point out that she was trying to change SprawlMart from the inside rather than just thow out a contextless fact as implicit attack. And whether she honestly thought the war authorization vote was necessary for national security, or just thought it politically wiser to live to fight another day, I honestly don't know.

  But it boils down to this: the danger of working from inside the system is that it will co-opt you, and I don't see Hillary confronting these problems as directly as is necessary (I've been wrong before, though).

  I don't hate Hillary and this is not an attack, but I won't be meekly tarred as an anti-feminist for not choosing her, either.

  As for electability, well I'm sure we'd all love to vote issues and ideals rather than horse-race—and render moot rather than implicitly validate the SwiftBoat-ian sophistry of the wingnut attack dogs—but recognize the utility of such considerations. That said, it seems to be to be a wash.

  They will have big fun with Obama's past drug use, melanin, and middle name, but also remember that Limbaugh and ilk made vast fortunes conditioning followers to have visceral negative reactions to anything Clinton, especially the lawyer lady part.

  As far as who's the best match for McCain, well I won't pretend to know that. Pros and cons for both.

  I don't think you're stupid or evil if you disagree with me.

  I'm happy to hear contrasting ideas, but maybe we should, you know, elevate the level of our discourse. The stakes are high.

  Permalink Friday, February 8, 2008 02:11 PM