Letters to the Editor
-
Obama is less bold and progressive than Hillary
Greg in FL said:
"In essence, they believe Obama would lead America to reject and discard the reactionary tenor of the past thirty years, which is an essential prerequisite for dealing with the emerging new problems of the 21st Century. So their rejection of Clinton is not so much that she is a woman (though some likely feel that way) but rather that she is about the old way of doing things, of incrementalism and caution."
This would make more sense if Clinton did not have bolder, more progressive policies than Obama. He is the more cautious one in this race. Why people think he will overthrow incrementalism is beyond me. He is heavily funded by Wall Street and corps such as Archer, Daniels, Midland and has been a good free-trader and war funder in the Senate.
Hillary's health care, economic, mortgage debacle and trade proposals are all to the left of Obama, who has been the most center-right candidate in the race, perhaps even more so than Dodd and Biden, definitely way more than Edwards.
What bothers me is that people are accusing Clinton of being the "old way" when Obama is more conservative and less boldly progressive than she.
Don't forget: She really isn't Bill. And bitches get things done! If they are men, they are called strong and effective.
Obama's proposals have moved a bit to the left because of Edwards and Clinton. And of course he discovered the problems of the working stiffs when he needed the votes of folks in the states where free trade has been a disaster, and moderated his free trade rhetoric there.
But do you really think he won't turn back to his previous stands on free trade if he's elected? Do you think his "bringing us all together" doesn't depend on having center-right stands that appeal to Republicans?
How do you think things get done in this government with its Constitution that places so many checks and balances on each branch? What is the real-world image of how Obama will negotiate in that world, and just throw off all these years of difficult divisions? What precisely do you expect to happen on each issue - not in generalities but in the real-world specifics?
Sure, Clinton is aggressive, ambitious, brilliant - and more progressive than Obama. But check the policies, not the Kool-Aid!
-
80% of the noise is from 20% of the people
So don't draw too many conclusions based on rude remarks you may hear.
As for Obama supporters' being uncomfortable with the idea of a woman president, that's not necessarily the case. Hillary Clinton is not All Women. Her style tends to be abrasive and confrontational, she's a litigator. Many perfectly good litigators would be disastrous as presidential candidates.
I've had female superiors at work and it's just not a problem, I can't tell you how much I don't care. I think it'd be great to have a female president, but not this particular woman. If Bill Clinton were running now, his style of politics would not be nearly as effective as it was back in 1992. And yes, he did get re-elected, but he was not running against a particularly hot opponent -- Bob Dole was running because it was "his turn." Kind of the same reason HRC is trying for the nom.
Is the fact that a lot of people find her off-putting based on sexism? It's pretty hard to say, because how do you separate a person from his or her gender? She and Bill have evidently not countered the 15-year sliming operation against them all that well, because a lot of it has stuck, even though the vast majority of the slime is total BS. Yes, HRC has "survived," but that's largely because they don't impeach First Ladies. I don't think that makes her battle-tested, I think it shows that she's not all that good at countering the noise machine.
How do you make America ready to have a female president? Unfortunately, it's going to take at least one miracle worker, a Jackie Robinson or, well, a Barack Obama. In a lot of ways, HRC's situation is comparable to a player on a team, who is getting a lot of attention until Michael Jordan comes on board. Unfair? Sure. But do you make Michael Jordan sit on the bench? Come on.
-
Guys Don't Like Being Nagged
You know what's funny? The more the Hillary supporters nag us and call us sexists, the more we're going to tune them out. The problem with Feminists is that they STILL have no clue how to get their message across to guys. Obama doesn't nag us. He inspires us. Duh.
-
@LeCastor -- Don't Lump Everyone Together...We Can Support Women and Still NOT Support Hillary
LeCastor writes: "It's unlikely that these people will ever feel comfortable with a candidate who is both ambitious and smart enough to run for president and is a woman. Usually, those ambitious and smart people aren't very cuddly and feminine."
It's true that some folks don't like Hillary for sexist reasons-- everything from her voice, to her pantsuits, to her relationship with her husband, to her looks, to the simple matter of her chromosomes. All absurd and sexist reasons. And yes, no matter what woman you present to that sort of person, they will likely to explain away that candidate in specious ways, avoiding the real problem -- they just can't get their mind around the idea of voting for a woman because, well, she's a woman.
So you are correct when you say "The fact that Obama may be the best candidate, and the fact that many people dislike Hillary because of sexism are not mutually exclusive." I agree with you.
But those who dismiss Hillary due to their own sexism are a subgroup of those who do not support Hillary. They are not all the detractors. Can we agree on that?
It is unreasonable to lump everyone who does not support Hillary together like that. We can not all be painted with a broad brush.
I support Obama, and I do not support Clinton. (Though, as I've always said, in the unlikely event that she IS the nominee, I WILL vote for her. I am not a Democractic traitor -- and I believe the Dem. nominee must be voted for to ensure victory over McCain.)
I am a woman, and I have voted for women in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. I have voted for candidates of different race, creed, even party at times, in my quest to choose the candidate I feel is best, and who best represents my views.
I vote for the person I believe to be the best candidate -- gender (race, religion, etc.) aside.
And there are plenty of strong, tough, take-no-prisoners woman I admire, and who I could imagine being president one day, and would gladly vote for.
But Hillary Clinton is most definitely NOT one of them.
So yes, it IS that she's who SHE is. But that has nothing to do with her gender.
In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is not prepared, in terms of the nature of her experience, to be president.
Hillary Clinton has exhibited poor judgment in her Senate career, and in particular, her decisions re: the war vote, and the bankruptcy bill, among others.
Hillary Clinton does not have a strong leadership style and communications skills that the next president will need in order to succeed.
The ideal candidate of any gender/party/etc. IS a unicorn, as we can see here on this thread alone, with all the internecine Democratic warfare. No one will meet everyone's needs and expectations.
So it's a given that there will never be the perfect female candidate -- because there's never been a perfect male candidate.
All we can hope is that as each woman candidate enters the fray, she is judged -- hopefully by the majority -- on the basis of her qualifications, her skills, and her abilities. And not her gender. Just as we hope that as each candidate of color, or of different religious background jumps in, they too are judged on ability, and not on demographics...
And you know what?
While there are some chuckleheaded sexists who dismiss Hillary bec. of her gender -- shame on them -- the majority of Hillary detractors are, in my opinion, judging her on her qualifications, her skills, and her abilities. And we find them lacking.
P.S. I don't believe Obama is perfect -- far from it. He has made plenty of mistakes in the campaign, which is to be expected. But in general, I find his ability to admit his mistakes refreshing and unique among the candidates, he appears to be intellectually superior to Clinton, to have a better grasp on the nation's social and political dynamic, to operate from a fundamentally more positive and quite different place than Clinton, possesses a more effective leadership style, and he will be more attractive to the rest of the world as we strive to repair a decade of damage to our world reputation.