Letters to the Editor
-
H and O
Last night, I lay in bed thinking about who I would vote for tomorrow.
I felt unhappy. I couldn't get involved in the decision. I could only think of it in terms of who would have a better chance of defeating the Republicans in November.
I don't like Hillary, and I am a leftish, youngish woman. I don't like that she's arrived at this spot through her husband. I don't see how this latter fact can be denied. I don't like that the only crack women have had at the presidency so far has come through a marriage.
When I started hearing six or seven years ago- or was it that long?- that Hillary was being groomed for the presidency, I thought, no way. She'd never be elected. Not after all this.
And here we are, in the next nightly installment of the charade that is American politics.
As for Obama, he seems to be a blank slate. I'm in London and haven't been able to watch the full debates, although I did see the August debate. Kucinich and that weirdo Gravel were saying the things I wanted to hear, and Biden and Richardson were speaking with the most weight. I couldn't figure out why Hillary and Obama kept winning the polls.
I'll vote for him if I think he has a chance. But I still don't know. A black president? Is that what Americans will vote for now? I'd go back for the hoary white male if I thought he had the best chance. But we're picking a black man or a white woman. It becomes a symbolic gesture, because the history of their voting records are of such a comparable length. No one seems to be debating policy. Above all I want the less hawkish candidate. I'd also like health care to be addressed. Hillary seems to be more committed to this issue. But still...
Whoever wins will be a hawk. It's built into the position, unfortunately. The best we can do is choose someone who will front an administration that understands how to use diplomacy. I just don't know who that will be. Anyone? I don't mind some help on this.
Ms. Traister's musings about the black or the woman contain the usual level of serious analysis we can expect from mainstream journalism, which is none.
Still, I wish I could vote for my cat.
-
Clinton is one step forward but many steps backwards for women and the Democratic Party
The assumption that Hillary Clinton as the nominee will represent a step forward for women as politicians is flawed. She brings decades of political baggage to the table, along with an approach to politics that is highly polarizing. There are many other political women who would be more effective leaders in the reasonably near future. Voting for Clinton mainly on feminist grounds may, ironically and tragically, set female politicians and the Democratic Party back for years to come.
If nominated, Clinton will put a Democratic win in jeopardy (as Traister implies, Clinton is likely to mobilize conservatives who would otherwise be inclined to stay home, particularly if McCain is the Republican nominee). The takeaway would then be that maybe a woman can't win a presidential general election – a story that will hurt other political women -- even though the loss may be entirely specific to Hillary.
And even if Clinton can squeak by to victory in November, she will have a nearly impossible time governing effectively. This is going to be a very difficult era in which to govern for any candidate, and it will be far more so for a candidate who comes in with almost half of Congress against them apriori. The Clinton Honeymoon would be practically non-existent. There are likely to be yet more scandals, not least of which will involve substantial donations to the Clinton library over the years. If Hillary cannot overcome the polarization she starts with (unlikely - she has had many chances already) and she tries to pass anything truly important, she stands a good chance of losing Congress to the Republicans in the midterms just like we saw in 1994 after the original health care debacle. And the chances for a two term presidency in light of polarization and four more years of Clinton fatigue are very low indeed.
In the event of any of those likely scenarios, the story will invariably be that women cannot govern effectively when again, that may be entirely specific to Hillary Clinton. That will be a much harder outcome to explain to my daughters than why Clinton was not the best Democratic nominee in a very strong pool.
Having an effective Democratic president furthers the interest of women. Having the effective female politicians in office benefits women. Losing the presidency because we wanted a women in office – even one who has a long history of being divisive, polarizing, and scandal-plagued -- rather than her dynamic, unifying opponent (who also happens to represent a huge opportunity for broader representation in society) will represent one step forward and many more steps backwards for women and the future of the Democratic Party.
-
now is the time for all good women........
Decades ago Shiley Chisolm, a black female representative from Brooklyn, made a run for the Democratic nomination for president. When she was asked which she found more of an obstacle to advancement in her life, being black or being a woman, she replied without hesitation "Being a woman!"
Women of all races have been relegated to the margins of society for millenniums. In this election the woman is smarter, better prepared, more knowledgeable than her younger male opponent. The man is gifted in the art of oratory, but oratory doesn't cut it when the day comes one must govern.
I understand that African-Americans feel the need to vote for someone who looks like they do, because no one who looks like they do has ever been president before. Why is that considered OK, but when a woman wants to vote for a woman because no woman has ever been president before, that is considered sexist?
Hillary Clinton is the better qualified of the two, and I am button-busting proud that she is a woman.
When I vote for Hillary I will not feel sad in the slightest.