As we head through another primary day, and the sense grows that Barack Obama is picking up unstoppable momentum, Melissa at Shakespeare’s Sister offers us a fine compendium of anti-Hillary articles. Melissa figured she’d be able to find twenty or so recent instances of misogynistic attacks on Senator Clinton; instead, she came up with 62.
I’m not the only person who’s gone back and forth between rooting for Hillary and rooting for Barack. Sure, as a registered Republican, I voted for McCain (as part of the quixotic effort to drag the GOP back to its centrist, moderate roots). And last year, I backed John Edwards. And literally daily, I vacillate between pulling for the junior senator from Illinois and the junior senator from New York. And one thing that keeps me leaning — ever so slightly — towards Hillary Clinton is my outrage at the venomous misogyny that is so regularly directed her way.
It’s been said of the Clintons that they have always been lucky in their enemies. On the verge of being removed from office for perjury, Bill had the great good fortune to have the attack against him spear-headed by the likes of the late Henry Hyde — a man so egregiously pompous, so stunningly self-righteous, that he raised the embattled president’s approval rating every time he appeared on television. The Clintons have always been able to say to the left “Look at who our enemies are; if they hate us so much, we must be really good.” And time and again, substantial elements of the left have rallied around the Clintons, often out of a sense that anyone who could arouse such colossal antipathy on the part of the right-wing must, must, must be a genuine progressive.
I don’t think Hillary Clinton is the most progressive Democrat running. Indeed, on most issues she seems slightly to Obama’s right. But everytime I think, “Dang, I’m ready to climb aboard the Obama express”, I read something like Katherine Jean Lopez’s article today in National Review Online: Turning off Men. (It’s a confused article by dear old K-Lo; she starts out making a point about Clinton’s lack of appeal to men compared to Obama’s, and then tries to make a larger argument about the Democratic party’s “man problem” — something that Obama’s success with males obviously contradicts.)
It’s moments like this, where young men yell at Hillary “Iron my shirt”, that I’m reminded of not only how enduring sexism is, but how acceptable. (As others have pointed out, imagine what would happen if two young white men yelled out “mow my lawn” at an Obama rally. And yes, it would be a similar offense.) And reading today through some of the articles Melissa links to, I find myself once more fiercely rooting for Senator Clinton.
I don’t know what will happen this primary season. I am happy that John McCain has emerged as the GOP leader; his success means that at least on many issues, the country will move left regardless of whomever wins the White House in November. Of course, I’d still rather have Obama or Clinton than McCain. Obama is electrifying, and I have no doubt he can do a better job of healing the political divide in this country than can his chief rival in the party. But I can’t yet let go of my support for Hillary, not least because for all her notable flaws, she is a sinner far more sinned against than sinning. And the sins against her go on daily, and the one unifying feature of them all is that they are rooted in a deep and profound hatred of powerful women. And that’s why she’s still got a hold on me.
I supported Hillary for awhile, but I began to realize how that it is very wrong to support someone based on their gender or race alone. For me, voting for Hillary just because she is female is just as bad as refusing to vote for Obama just because he is half black. I did a presentation on Hillary for my political science class about a week ago. When someone brought up the gender issue, I said something about how there is a lot of misogyny in the world, so I support Hillary in part because I want to help combat sexism. Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I started to like Obama, and eventually donated a couple of bucks to his campaign, then voted for him. I can’t remember a time where a Clinton or a Bush wasn’t in the White House, and I am eager to break that cycle with Obama. He also moves me to tears. When he talks about faith, I can’t help but think, “Wow — that’s exactly how I feel.” I am a Christian, but too often, faith has been used to divide people in American. Watching in his speeches abortion, he said, “I don’t know anyone that is pro-abortion.” And, “I want my daughters to grow up with the same opportunities they would have if they were boys.” I mean, it’s like, he “gets” my generation in a way that Hillary doesn’t. Thus, I am an Obama supporter all the way, but if Hillary wins the nomination, I won’t be too disappointed.
I’ve been having this same struggle. Ugh.
I can’t remember a time where a Clinton or a Bush wasn’t in the White House
Boy, if we ever need a final crushing argument against the idea that it makes no difference to anything for a woman to take her husband’s name.
Clinton should be held up in every history classroom as an object lesson for the girls of the nation in what happens when you’re a good wife who puts your husband’s career first, trusting that your turn will come. She’s treated like the equivalent of GWB, a man who rode his father’s coattails everywhere he went. She might as well be Bill’s daughter, the way people talk about fending off a “Clinton dynasty.”
Hugo, you have got to be kidding me. You want to vote for someone because creepy misogynists hate her? That’s really letting gender blind you to all other things. Wow.
Sophonisba, you have got to be kidding me. You think people are talking about a Clinton “dynasty” because she changed her name at marriage? You make it sound like that’s the one magical thing that creates an illusion to the effect that she’s riding on Bill’s coattails. Which she is. And which she would be doing, under any other name.
Seriously, guys, what the hell.
Boy, if we ever need a final crushing argument against the idea that it makes no difference to anything for a woman to take her husband’s name.
Well, I never thought if it that way before. Hmmm…
I like both too. I wouldn’t mind either one, but lean slightly towards Obama. I don’t favor Obama because he’s black, and I’m not against Hillary because she’s a woman. The key difference for me lies in the issues. Yes, they’re similar in a lot of regards, but Obama comes out on a couple key ones for me. I can understand how, all things being equal, you’d choose Hillary over Obama.
Regardless of outcome, it’s going to be a good race come the fall.
@ sophonisba: You have it completely wrong. People aren’t apprehensive because Hillary is Bill Clinton’s wife; people are apprehensive because Hillary is a Clinton. Eight years as a senior– albeit informal– official in a Clinton administration. Eight more as a senator brandishing Bill as a potent weapon. People are apprehensive because Hillary has had every bit the role in shaping the Clinton name as Bill has, if not more. To suggest the criticism put before her is due to being a “good wife who puts [her] husband’s career first” is ridiculous at best and insulting to Hillary at worst.
@ Luis: Are you kidding me? Hugo, a known feminist, shouldn’t be allowed to decide based on gender sensitivity. Huh. Hugo, a person, shouldn’t be allowed to decide based on gender sensitivity. Huh. A person shouldn’t be allowed to decide based on gender sensitivity. Huh. Gender blind? Yeah, maybe if it were his sole reason for supporting Hillary, but it ain’t.
Anyway, that was fun. See you in Spring, Hugo (taking Early European)!
Well, my differences in position with the Democrat candidates aside, we know from HRC’s own friendly biographer that she committed domestic abuse against her husband in the 1990s, but I suppose I’ll be labelled a misogynist if I should broach the topic…
You’ve got a real blind spot about McCain. His reputation as a centrist is almost entirely undeserved, and much of it stems from his public stances and voting record in 02-03 when he was actively considering flipping parties and possibly running with Kerry. (He lost interest once Jeffords flipped, since being the second to flip wouldn’t give him the same kind of leverage). Since then he’s gone back to having one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate by almost any measuring system.
If you look at their records rather than their campaign rhetoric, the moderate/centrist choice in the Republican primary was clearly Romney.
DJW, McCain opposed drilling in ANWR; Romney favored it. McCain ruled out waterboarding unequivocally; Romney wouldn’t do so. McCain has said it is clear that global warming is partly due to human causes — Romney wasn’t nearly so sure. And as awkward as McCain-Feingold was, it was better than nothing — and infuriating to the hard right.
McCain is not a progressive. He’s not one of the real Republican moderate stalwarts (the two fine senators from Maine, Chris Shays, etc) — but he would be the least ideologically right-wing Republican nominee for president since Ford, perhaps since Eisenhower. That’s moving in the right (left) direction.
Well, yes, Romney is running as a conservative because he thought it would help him out. I take people’s governing (and voting) records much, much more seriously than what they say on the campaign trail. (Romney, especially, since he’ll say anything to get elected).
McCain honestly scares me. I sincerely hope that he does not win the election, I fear he’d be almost as bad as Bush.
However, I really can’t make up my mind between Clinton and Obama. I liked Edwards, but now that he’s out, I’m stumped. Both of them would make fine presidents and I agree with Mermade that Obama is a wonderful speaker and very inspiring (although the faith thing honestly turns me off–I know it’s a symptom of politics in this country and Hillary also does it to an extent, but the wearing of their faith on their sleeves just grates on my nerves). And either way it will be a historic election, but I really, really want to vote for her, even if I do have my doubts about her ability to beat McCain and about her voting record being generally too conservative for my tastes.
So I keep going back and forth. Obama probably would have a better chance to beat McCain, he’s inspiring, and he’d make a really good president. But my heart (and my ovaries) are with Clinton. And I don’t vote until March, so there’s a couple more weeks of this until I’m forced to make a decision. However, it goes without saying that whoever the nominee is will have my full support and extra time as volunteer hours and a few extra dollars from my wallet in the fall.
Not so unequivocally: McCain just voted for waterboarding. He voted against the Senate bill for uniform interrogation-practice standards. The bill requires intelligence agencies to adhere to the Army Field Manual practices — which prohibit waterboarding, and which McCain once held up as an acceptable standard.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/
Thanks, Ted, that’s bad news.
More bad news for genuinely thoughtful, liberal Republicans: Wayne Gilchrist was beaten in the Maryland primary by a far-right challenger. The ranks of progressive Republicans are growing thinner, and that’s sad.
And the eminently decent Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island) has endorsed Barack Obama.
I can’t remember a time where a Clinton or a Bush wasn’t in the White House, and I am eager to break that cycle with Obama.
A little late in the thread to make this point, but seriously: the desire to not concentrate power (and by that I don’t mean just real political power, but the social power which comes with setting agendas, dominating the media, shaping public perceptions and expectations and the like) in the hands of a few interconnected individuals–and that definitely includes families–is a worthy desire; it has roots that go back to the beginnings of republicanism and self-government. Before the current Bush, there’d only been one true presidential dynasty in American politics, and that was John Quincy Adams following his father, John Adams, into the presidency after a quarter of a century; the idea of Bush following a mere eight years after his father should have been, simply on its own terms, a matter of grave concern to voters. Ditto the idea of Bill Clinton’s wife following him into office after so short a time. This isn’t Argentina or India; we’re not supposed to allows families to concentrate that kind of political influence.
Of course, we don’t live in a pristine, old-fashioned republican world. But that doesn’t mean the argument is worthless. This isn’t about what Senator Clinton can offer as a public servant; it is simply an argument that breaking cycles of intensifying rivalries and jealousies is a good thing: for the government, and for the country as a whole.
I think that’s fair, Russell — but sophonisba’s point that in a more ideal feminist world, we might be going Bush/Clinton/Bush/Rodham (with less of a dynastic ring) is pointed.
The right-wing who disliked Bush 41 clearly saw Bush 43 as a different man altogether from his father, which is why the son has such strong evangelical backing — which eluded his father. Hillary is as different from Bill as the two presidents Bush were from each other, and that perception isn’t out there. That may be unfair.
About McCain: Sen. Clinton described a possible McCain presidency as being like “a third Bush administration” last week, and I think that pretty much sums it up. Some right-wingers might not like the guy much, but when I look at his actual voting record I can’t see his nomination as a move to the left for the GOP.
Sarah, read what the League of Conservation Voters said about McCain:
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is far and away the GOP candidate most committed to addressing global warming and the nation’s energy challenges, according to the 2008 Presidential Primaries Voter Guide released today by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).
The Voter Guide, which takes a critical look at candidates’ plans for dealing with global climate change, makes clear that collectively, the Democratic candidates have outlined more comprehensive and aggressive plans than any presidential candidates in history and have made a point of telling primary voters that combating global warming is a top priority. Among Republicans running for president, the guide says, “Sen. McCain holds the distinction of being the only candidate to make global warming a part of his campaign agenda and to regularly address it on the campaign trail.”
While nearly all of the GOP Candidates acknowledge that global warming is a problem, only Sen. McCain has proposed a comprehensive plan for addressing it. In 2003, he introduced the first Senate bill attempting to curb global warming pollution and reintroduced similar legislation in 2005 and 2007. He supports reducing greenhouse gas emissions 65 percent by 2050. None of the other Republican candidates – Mayor Giuliani, Sen. Thompson, Gov. Romney and Rep. Paul – have offered any plan to address global warming. Gov. Huckabee, while also not putting forward a plan, has expressed support of a cap-and-trade system and would mandate a 35-mpg standard for vehicles.
It’s insane how the global warming crowd has hijacked environmentalism. Hundreds of scientists question the dogma that human activity is having the slightest impact upon climate change. You can have your doubts that there’s any relation at all between carbon dioxide emissions and the increase in global temperatures and still support lowering pollution, support wind and solar energy, and waste less water.
McCain scares me for one major reason: his stance that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, and generally his entire view on reproductive rights. For me, end of story on whether he’s “progressive” or not. I realize that in the current climate, a pro-life Republican wouldn’t be politically viable–but I don’t care. Unless he’s willing to protect my right to make my own decisions about my body (and for women all over the world to gain even the knowledge about reproductive options), I don’t want him anywhere near the White House. Or any political office, really.
That said, I understand what you mean about the misogynistic attacks directed at Clinton. I myself am a part of that group wavering between Clinton and Obama (I’m a smidgeon towards Obama at the moment, but that could change). So far, the most convincing argument I’ve heard so far as to why the nominee shouldn’t be Clinton (similar but not identical to what other people have noted above) regards the precedent it sets for future female politicians. Not because her last name is ‘Clinton’ rather than ‘Rodham’, not because she did or did not play a major role in his administration, but because then it could be questioned whether she could have gotten the job on her own merits. A woman shouldn’t need a powerful man by her side to help her wield such awesome influence–I don’t want the first female president’s credentials to be able to be questioned as Hillary Clinton’s inevitably will should she win.
I think the analogue between the Bushes and the Clintons breaks down: Bush 43 was more or less explicitly running against his father’s record in some ways (more accurately, he was running as Reagan’s “true heir”). Sen. Clinton, meanwhile, has run at least in part on the promise of a “third” Clinton term, sometimes explicitly. So, the perception that she’s running to some extent on Bill’s coattails isn’t merely unfounded perception.
At the end of the day, though, politicians are far more actors than acted upon. The real difference to me is that Obama is, best I can tell, more committed to ending the war in Iraq and less prone to start new ones than Sen. Clinton (and obviously the differences with McCain are even starker). Granting someone power isn’t an end in itself - it’s all about what he or she will do with that power.
I can’t remember a time where a Clinton or a Bush wasn’t in the White House
We’ve seen what a disaster a second Bush administration has been. A lot of people are perhaps thinking that a Clinton II administration might be just as bad. Perhaps a given family should have only one shot at the White House?
I’d also say that a lot of people want to move on, not revisit the 1990s. Which is why Obama gets so much support — people want to go into the future.
Sophonisba:
I honestly don’t think names alone have much to do with the case. Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham would have the same connections. I believe that letting the idea that only people with connections (by blood or marriage) to certain families can attain political power has real and corrosive effects in a democracy. Making sure that any citizen with talent and drive can hope to attain the highest political office in the land, and that every citizen knows it, may require a sacrifice from otherwise qualified people from time to time, but I believe the advantages outweigh the costs.
Hugo, I live in NH now and those asses who yelled at Clinton to iron their shirts were plants from a Boston radio station there to manufacture controversy. It’s hard to assess if they said it because they are really believe that women or Clinton in particular should be home ironing shirts or know that sexism against Clinton would make it newsworthy and get them some free advertising for the station…or both. It appears that it may have backfired on them, last I heard they might be suspended or fired from the station, but as of now they are still on the station’s site.
The idiot who was holding the sign at the rally is Aldofo at the bottom of this page:
http://www.wbcn.com/pages/57721.php
On the right hand links there is something about “the agonizing race” with Adolfo and Intern Nick, Intern Nick is the other jackass at the Clinton rally.
The real difference to me is that Obama is, best I can tell, more committed to ending the war in Iraq and less prone to start new ones than Sen. Clinton (and obviously the differences with McCain are even starker).
Commitment does not equal ability to implement - note the performance of this Congress.
Just after the 2006 mid-term elections, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D- Ill., the architect of the Democrats’ takeover of the House stated the war spending bill “is going to be the turning point for a new direction.” Well, if you count tacking on the minimum wage increase as a rider to supplemental war funding, then maybe. Otherwise, this Congress has appropriated even more money for defense and OIF/OEF operations than the last one - without restrictions.
In 2006, Nancy Pelosi stated “I would not want any president — Democrat or Republican — to have the expanded power the administration is claiming in this case,” (interview with The Associated Press on FISA) — Clearly, not enough to block expanded FISA legislation.
Look at either Clinton’s or Obama’s “end the war in Iraq” proposals — very little chance of actually implementing those plans when either of them view the real options as Commander-in-Chief as opposed to basher of the Commander-in-Chief.
Col Steve, it’s true that the rhetoric around Iraq may not match the realities when the new commander in chief is sworn in.
What will be very interesting to see is how the McCain plan for the century-long occupation plays out!
And thanks, Donna; I’m delighted to hear the nincompoops were identifed and, at the least, publicly excoriated.