So many of my liberal friends really....really.....really....HATE Hillary. Can you blame them? She's a mean-spirited, ambitious politician. She's artificial. She practices dirty campaign tricks. I've got proof, just look at some of the things she's done in just the past couple of months:
* She had to return over $150,000 in donations that were raised by a businessman who is being investigated for fraud, and with whom she's had shady business dealings for 20 years.
* She turned her back and pretended not to see Barack Obama at a recent Senate gathering, because she's so vindictive she could not bring herself to shake his hand.
* She refused to apologize after one of her senior campaign staffers launched a personal attack against Obama, in which he claimed that Obama's personality would make it impossible for foreign leaders to work with him. When asked why she had not fired or reprimanded this staffer, Hillary disingenuously replied "It's not clear to me why I'd be apologizing for someone else's remark. I have said repeatedly I have the utmost respect for Obama and have considered Obama an ally in the Senate and will continue to consider it that way throughout this campaign."
You can see what a horrible person she is - we should all vote for Obama! He's so pure, so wonderful, so fresh, so different. So inspiring. He'd never do the things that Hillary does. Except there's a problem with this judgment. It's wrong. Hillary didn't say or do any of the above. Obama did.
Why are we so willing to give Obama a free pass, and to assume the worst about Hillary? Obama has been connected for twenty years to Tony Rezko, the Chicago real estate exec who's being investigated for fraud, who arranged in 2006 for Obama to make a huge profit on a shady land deal, and whose $150,000 in campaign donations Obama has had to donate to charity so as to clear them from his books (you can read all about that here - (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article ). It doesn't seem to matter, nobody (neither the media nor Obama's supporters) says "Boo" about Obama's shenanigans, while people are still going after Hillary for the phony White Water scandal. Obama turned his back on Hillary when she approached him with out-stretched hand a month ago at the State of the Union, and he's still admired by all for his warmth and charm, while we think her cold and aloof. Obama's chief of staff told the press that "no world leader could negotiate with Hillary because they can't trust her" and Obama (and the media) let it go, while Hillary fired one of her staffers for opining that Obama's admitted drug use may be a problem when campaigning against the GOP nominee in November. No matter what actually seems to happen in the campaign, Obama remains the "nice guy", and Hillary is the bitch.
Why do we hold this double standard?
This is what I call the tragedy of Hillary. She is the first woman to come down the pike with a real chance (not a Geraldine Ferraro chance) to become president. In fact she may be one of the most qualified and capable candidates we've seen in years. She's tough, she's experienced, she's wicked-pisser smart, she is one of the hardest working people in the Senate, she has compiled detailed policy positions on every domestic and foreign policy issue, she's very well-connected, she has tremendous name recognition, she is respected world-wide, she was re-elected to the Senate by a wide margin (doing well even in conservative upstate New York), and she has proven her ability to work with both Democrats and Republicans. What does this deep, rich and powerful resume get her? Not just the hatred of the Rush Limbaughs of the world, but the dislike and distrust of liberals and Democrats, even women! People accept and admire such a pedigree when it belongs to a man, but it's not enough for a woman. Hillary is smart, strong and experienced but she lacks a lovable side, she's not warm, she's not cuddly. It's okay for a man running for President to be intelligent, calculating, driven - but not a woman.
"It's not discrimination", my friends say, "I would love to see a woman in the White House, I just don't like Hillary." I beg to differ. It's not just Hillary, we'd be saying the same things about Maggie Thatcher, who served longer than any British Prime Minister. Maggie could not get elected here. We'd be saying the same things about Angela Merkel. I think that we hold a serious female candidate to a different standard than we do a man, and that is discrimination. There's even a name for it, it's called the Goldberg paradigm. Scientists have studied our gender bias, and demonstrated over and over that we judge the same work authored by "Joan McKay" to be much lower quality than when authored by "John McKay". It turns out that we judge a woman's work much more harshly, especially in a "man's world" such as science or politics.
I see the Goldberg paradigm being applied to our judgment of Hillary and of her campaign. My Obama-mama friends (and I should mention here that I voted for Obama, although I could happily support Hillary), tell me "I don't like Hillary, she's too ambitious". Of course she's ambitious, anyone who signs up for the grueling two-year gauntlet of a presidential campaign had damn well better be ambitious. I will guarantee you that Obama is ambitious, as was Bill, as was LBJ (LBJ dripped ambition). Is Hillary any more ambitious than JFK was? Why is it wrong for a woman to be ambitious? My friends say "Hillary's just like Karl Rove". All I can say is that anybody who thinks that Hillary's campaign tactics bear any similarities to Karl Rove's has a very short memory. Hillary has run a tough campaign, but she has been fair (does anyone remember Kerry's swift-boating? McCain's "illegitimate black child"?). Hillary immediately fired the staffer who mentioned Obama's drug use, Rove would have promoted him and then hired agents to plant crack vials in Obama's hotel room. Karl Rove would be insulted to know that people compare his Machiavellian dagger-in-the-dark campaign tactics with Hillary's.
I don't know if we'll get to the place in this country where we can vote for and even celebrate a tough, smart, experienced, ambitious woman, instead of demanding that she be warm and fuzzy and motherly. I don't see it happening any time soon. Meanwhile, there's really not much that Hillary can do (short of a sex change) to escape the tragedy of being Hillary. She's trapped in a solipsistic, self-fulfilling prophecy. We just don't like her. She's not electable, she has such strong "negatives". We're not ready to vote for a woman who has what it takes to be President.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
To suggest that a woman can't vote against a woman is insulting. I've voted against many, many men in my life. Does that make me sexist...?
Are those who vote against Obama racist...?
I do believe that Hillary has:
- returned campaign donations (Norman Hsu)
- has snubbed her rivals (did you watch the debates?), and
- has refused to fire staffers after they've made personal attacks against her opponents, (her husband, and the president of BET, to name a couple.)
There's no such thing as a pure-hearted politician.
At any rate, I can identify at least six women who I think would have more appeal, at least to me, than Hillary:
Janet Napolitano, D-Gov. AZ
Susan Collins, R-Senator, ME
Olympia Snowe, R-Senator, ME
Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Rep., TX
Barbara Boxer, D-Senator, CA
Kathleen Sebelius, D-Gov., KS
Not only are these women smart, but are very-well liked and respected across racial/gender/socio-economic lines. It would be difficiult for me NOT to be sexist in supporting their campaigns, because I do believe they've overcome gender obstacles to get where they are. Still, I hope I'd vote for the *person* who I feel would best do the job.
We're not attacking Hillary because she's a tragic character. We're attacking Hillary for two reasons. We just don't like her, and she has a record. Obama doesn't have a record, and we really like him. Maybe it's stupid to vote for someone who doesn't have a record that we can rip to shreds, but there you go. I'm sure the minute Obama starts chalking it up to experience, we'll throw stones at him, too. His time is coming.
The only people who are willing to give Obama a free pass are those who vote for him against their convictions. John, why did you vote for Obama if you think Hillary's the better candidate...? Against the advice of friends, I caucused for Bill Bradley in Iowa. I voted for Ralph Nader in the general election in that state. I voted for Howard Dean in the NH Primary. I voted for these folks because their message appealed to me the most, even though they might not have been the "smahtest", or most experienced. I just liked them.
I rode the Hillary fence for a long time. I think she's more than qualified to do the job. But I'm holding out for inspiration. Folks need to get involved, and Obama makes folks want to do that. That wouldn't be enough for me if I didn't believe he also had some smarts to go along with his charm. I think he has both. I'm willing to give him a shot, and yes, his lack of experience makes my nervous. We like to talk about religion on this blog -- let's call it "blind faith"; I voted for him because it felt right. But my vote for him is, in no way, a vote against a woman. It's just a vote for him.
Lisa
For the most part I agree. I've been left speechless when I've heard women attacking Hillary for being ambitious. If one is viably running for president, one is ambitious. Recently I heard someone complaining about "that voice"...I think that, too, is because it's a female voice. I don't find her voice at all offensive, but that could just be me. Mosht importantly, it'sh not dubya's...
The Goldberg paradigm is most interesting. When I was a teacher I was shocked to catch some of that behavior rolling right out of me. And these were young kids. Shameful! Imagine how much I didn't catch. It wasn't so much that I deemed girls' work/intelligence to be inferior (though I 'm sure those prejudgments did exist). It was that I really wanted the boys to do well! Maybe it was more of a challenge? Maybe I generally liked the boys better? But why? Dr. Freud, help me! (just kidding). I'll definitely have to look into the Goldberg paradigm because I'm certain the answer lies there. And even more stunning than noticing this behavior in myself was realizing how much the behavior of my parents and the adults in my childhood still, STILL limit me today on a very subconscious level. THIS is why we need more women in powerful roles. Go Hillary! I love ya Madeline and Janet!! ahem.
I voted for Obama, but at the time was really on the fence. I would be happy with Hillary, too. However, I would vote for Obama again with no indecision today after seeing the tack her campaign is taking now that it's a bit desperate. Perhaps it's not right to blame her for some of Bill's remarks, but I'm disappointed in both of them. It would be great if there are no hard feelings to prevent both of them from getting on the same ticket.
Also, I do not think it's fair to guess what reasons Obama had for not shaking Hillary's hand or to condemn him for not being phony. I can think of a few scenarios where that outstretched hand could be the ultimate in manipulative behavior. I don't think it's fair to assume that that's what it was either.
As far as Rezko (or Whitewater) goes, I don't know enough about it to judge. And Obama's campaign theme has always been about changing politics as usual to something we can all respect. For someone on his staff to say no world leader could trust Clinton...well, that is too much spin perhaps, and too personal. I didn't realize that "apologize for someone else's remarks" was referring to his chief of staff, though. On the other hand, to say Obama's drug history is a reason he would fail as the presidential nominee was wrong on a few levels. It's not relevant today, and why give the Republicans something to run with...they'll find it themselves. I think Hillary had no choice but to fire that person, not because she disagreed with him, but because of the political fallout, she had to be seen as distancing herself from him. Would Obama have done that? I guess not. Whether that is indicative of a closer scrutiny of and higher expection from Hillary or Obama's unwillingness to play the game is not clear to me. Perhaps both.
I like Hillary; I think her heart and mind are in the right place. I like Barack for many, many reasons. They are both smart and incredibly thoughtful and both bring assets and baggage to the table. This is the first time in a looooong time, well, ever, really, that I have felt no trepidation about even one let alone two democrats making it to the top. It's a good feeling.
In response to Lisa's comments regarding voting for someone against one's own convictions, I have two comments of my own.
I voted for Kucinich in the last pres. primary. That was insane. I love him! He's just not right to be the leader of a huge and hugely polarized country. As much as "the other side" riles me, it's their country, too. It's not selling out to vote for someone who is clearly more electable...and here's why...my second point:
My boss/friend, a registered pseudo-independent, stunned me when he told me he was voting for Hillary on Super Tuesday. Granted he said it's because he likes Bill, but still, I said "Good for you" when he told me that he did indeed vote for Clinton. Well, I overheard him yesterday on the phone telling a friend he voted for her because he thinks Obama can actually beat McCain! He'd be happy with McCain OR Clinton (so he says, but why should I believe him), but he does NOT want Obama.
I don't think it's sexist to not vote for Clinton or racist to not vote for Obama. I think there are many people, however, who do not examine what's really going on behind their decision making, and to say it is not worth examining because "I know I"m not sexist" precludes that examination that might reveal surprising and uncomfortable realities. I in NO WAY feel you are one of these people...nor do I believe that about anyone who has posted here. I know that sometimes I assume everyone else likes to ruminate and reflect as much as I do, and I run into trouble when I'm confronted with the reality that they don't, especially when that reality presents itself in the guise of a boss/friend.
Hi, pcs -- I don't think John is a sellout for voting for someone more electable, but you're correct to point out that I may have been implying that. I think John is quite practical, and bases most of his decisions on hard evidence, so I it makes sense that he'd vote for the most "electable" candidate. But I still have to give John a hard time here. He voted in the NH primary, the first in the nation. Obama wasn't technically on a roll, and most polls at that time said Hillary would win the nomination and a general election, didn't they...? Still, I really do think John is politically astute -- perhaps he was able to see the writing on the wall.
And I don't think you're "insane" for voting for Kucinch, pcs. I think it's necessary to push the debate. He's been very successful in doing that.
And because you mention Kucinich, I think it's relevant in light of the subject of this post, to talk about gender traits in men, not just women. Why do you think so many people won't vote for Dennis Kucinich...? How many folks talk about his "Keebler Elf-ish" looks...? Or his squeaky voice...? Or his diminuitive stature...? Based almost entirely on physical appearance, I truly belive many discount him as a viable candidate without even having listened to his message. I don't think John is one of these folks, but surely, there are millions who are. The guy simply doesn't look presidential enough for some.
PCS, you mentioned that a friend spoke of Hillary's annoying voice. This makes me think of something my mom said during the 2004 campaign, when Lieberman was stumping for the nomination. She told me she could never vote for him because she couldn't imagine having to listen to his voice every day! So you see, some of us -- surely the less enlightened -- criticize men for many of the same reasons John says we criticizing women.
:)
I agree with you that we are policial junkies; that we take these matters seriously, and hold ourselves up to standards higher than those who employ racist or sexist thinking.(Hmmmm...are we elitist, intellectual snobs...?) You're right to point out that many others don't think quite as deeply about the issues. Perhaps they are happily watching reality tv.
:)
Lisa
aHA! So your mother's anti-semitic, eh? (nobody get alarmed, I AM kidding)
I really didn't think you were specifically calling John a hypocrite or something. I thought the comments were generalized for people at large. In fact, I'd bet that John wanted to blog this because it's a good, debatable topic, not because he feels Hillary's pain. (But I don't know him very well)
But you raise an interesting point about appearance. Hillary said "Hair matters" and unfortunately she's right. Nobody took Grace Ross seriously either and she was just a font of common sense, but not at all chic. Course it didn't do Mitt much good in the long run. I confess, I would have had a tough time with Edwards' accent. I have an irrational revulsion to southern accents...one more reason January can't come fast enough.
And btw, I think Janet Napolitano rocks! Her voice is rather grating, but it's very real.
Hey Lisa - Who said John voted for the more "electable" candidate? I don't get that impression at all, and I live with him! It does seem true that many folks who profess to hate Hillary have a lot of trouble vocalizing (or writing) the reasons. (BTW - I think that this does not hold true for Cynthia, who seems to have a fine grasp on why she doesn't like her). I came close to voting for Hillary, but in the end went with the candidate I have been impressed by for the last 2 years - Obama. I did not vote "against" Hillary. I voted "for" Obama.
...and while I'm thinking about it, I do agree with John's point about folks not liking Hillary because she is the type of woman who can make it to the top in this currently, predominantly man's game. I have hope that as women become much more a part of politics on all levels the game will change. I've heard that this phenomenon can hold true in the sciences as well, that woman who make it to the top in the more male dominated sciences are not always so "likable" but that's the personality that can make it, or even wants to make, it in these male bastions. I don't think that this is any indication of, or reflection of, woman's intelligence. (Think former president of Harvard) The rules of these games were invented by men and have been played by men for a good long time and reinvention takes time. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the unfolding the of new rules in politics (and academic science).
Hi again Lisa -John says you're right about the electability part. I guess it was ME who didn't want to factor electability into my decision. I didn't like hearing that some black voters were wondering if Obama was electable and maybe not voting for him because they thought he couldn't win. I don't want o guess about other peoples votes.
Ok - enough from me.
Plenty of folks have voted for Hillary and are continuing to vote for her . . .
As a female New Hampshire voter, I had a difficult time making up my mind between Obama and Clinton. That all changed when I had the chance to meet each of them 'up close and personal,' that is to say more than just a passing handshake. Barack was lofty and, dare I say, a bit arrogant. Hillary was warm and engaging, the very antithesis of the way she is usually portrayed. She was very smart and able to focus on the myriad of details that made up a presidency, and not just paint with broad brushstrokes of words like 'hope' and 'change.'
I cannot hope to impart my experience to any other voter, because I could not have known this myself without my unique experience of the circumstances under which I met them. All I can say is, since then, Hillary has had my complete support . . .
Sparky's post makes me think that the only way anyone might learn to appreciate Hillary is if they meet her in person. Certainly the likelihood of anyone coming away from cable news feeling good about her is slim.
It's not just Rush. Lately, Hillary's been so unfairly portrayed by CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, etc. -- it's rare to hear any of the pundits (especially the guys) say anything good about her. Every night, though, it's a veritable lovefest for Barack.
I voted for Barack; I hope he wins the nomination. But Hillary gets played by the media. No matter how much Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman try to suggest it, though, I'm in no way ready to count her out.
Oh, and Norah. I'm not much good at political "strategery" either, especially when it comes to making guesses about other peoples' votes. I just vote for the one I love.
:)
Lisa
I voted for Hillary in Georgia's primary after being on the fence. I really did think she was the best candidate and that she has the best experience to lead this country but I didn't like her "stand by her man" stance in light of Bill's philandering. I thought that either she or Obama could beat any Republican. But I finally decided to vote for her because it is time for a woman President and we are lucky to have her as the one.
My dream is that she stays in and wins and choose Obama for a running mate. Then, in 8 years, he will have the experience he needs to be a great leader.
Christine
chrissybugs, I would propose that Hillary and Bill's marital arrangements are on the same level as Hillary and Bill's religious beliefs -- not applicable. Just like any marriage or relationship, theirs is their own business. If Hillary chooses to stay with Bill, or if she doesn't, if either of them philanders or not, none of it has any bearing on their ability to do their jobs -- just as your personal relationship has no bearing on your qualifications in your own job. No one should pay that any attention at all -- nor should they pay any attention to what church Hillary belongs to (or doesn't).
Now to gender: Any woman can tell you times she has experienced sexism. It has happened to every single one of us, from men, mostly, but maybe from women, too.
If you were passed up for a promotion or a raise, if you were asked to do an assignment a man would never be asked to do (that happened to me), if you were charged more at a car dealership because the mechanics found dragons in your tailpipe and figured you were too stupid to understand the technical jargon, if you were steered into being a nurse and not a doctor, a teacher and not a principal, a clerk and not a lawyer, a secretary and not an executive -- this is sexism and it happens all the time.
Hillary does face the same problem all women in power face -- strength is perceived as bitchiness, weakness is perceived as typically feminine -- she can't order anyone around, she can't cry, she can't waffle, these are things that every woman has experienced. There are studies that women executives will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid crying in front of anyone. New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/fashion/thursdaystyles/13crying.html
HOWEVER
this does not mean that every person against Hillary is against her for these reasons. She is, in fact, a real contender -- not a poser. This means she has real things people agree with or disagree with. As someone here said, we are not sexist if we vote against her, any more than we are racist if we vote against Obama -- any more than I am racist if I vote for McCain!!
I wouldn't vote for Hillary because I feel she is devisive, negative, manipulative, and the world is pre-disposed not to listen to her -- not because she is a woman but because she is a hawk, she is not a diplomat, she is 'old-school.' We have a tiny window of opportunity to redeem our country in the eyes of the world -- Hillary will squander that opportunity. I believe that that opportunity is our last hope for world stability -- it's that important. I feel Obama is unique enough to coax an open mind from the World and once he's done that I believe he can talk in such a way that true progress can be made.
Cynthia.
I said that I did not like her for that reason but I put that aside and voted for her. I didn't like Clinton for his behavior but I also voted for him.
Christime
It's a bird, it's a plane...no it's a satellite....
Whose idea is it really to shoot a missile at the satellite with the toxic fuel (leaking? or heading to earth?) This sounds like a wild one.... is this a military exercise? Precursor to invade Iran? Makes one wonder.....
BTW John - Betty Hall - NH Rep is bringing impeachment proceedings to committee this Tues. Feb. 19. I believe that impeachment proceedings do not play out negatively against a party as you suggested earlier in your blog.
:-)
Susan
I disagree with Cynthia's comment wherein she states that Hillary and Bill's marital arrangements are not applicable. I definitely think personal life has a bearing on one's ability to do a job well.
If a president and his/her spouse are *content* with their marital arrangements -- whatever they may be -- that's one thing. I have no problem with two people defining what works best for them, regardless of how untraditional that might be. But I'm not so sure Hillary was happy with Bill's philandering...?
If I suspected that my candidate of choice would have to deal constantly with a tumultuous personal life, I wouldn't vote for him/her, even if he/she had a superior intellect and could leap buildings in a single bound.
Problems and responsibilities in our personal lives can be all-consuming and can seriously distract us from tending to our professional responsibilites. I want my president to be emotionally sharp every day. I know that my own personal relationships have definitely had a bearing on my ability to do my job well. Thankfully, I had folks like John to back me up.
:)
Anyway, I think Hillary and Bill have reached an agreement about their personal lives -- it seems to me that they're a very strong team right now. I didn't even consider Bill's shenanigans as an issue for Hillary during this campaign. I think he's with her 100%.
Similarly, I *do* want to know if my candidate's religion will impact his/her ability to govern. I can't believe that Huckabee's "values" wouldn't cause him to challenge our constitution on a daily basis. So while we have no religious test for the office, I listen to and watch my candidates closely.
Lisa
Our discussion has swerved over to one about the personal lives of candidates so I'm curious if folks would feel comfortable voting for a single man or a single woman. If a non-disruptive personal life is important, what about a person who is single and may want to date? (think: president of france!) There is also a movie about this topic called "Love Actually".
Here's a cc of letter to ed I wrote after results of Maine caucus:
Are Mainers sexist?! Remember when Hillary won New Hampshire, some news analysts posited that her win showed that a lot of New Hampshire voters must be racist (since fewer voted for Obama) even if they deny being so.
I wonder if these same insightful and brilliant analysts will be writing columns on Maine's sexism, since fewer votes were cast for Hillary in Maine.
Sharyn -- good letter.
This is an interesting election. No matter WHO you vote for, on any side, you can be accused of some "ism."
Fascinating! There must be some pithy philosophical conclusion to draw from that.... Perhaps our world is finally diverse enough that we are ALL some sort of minority. How cool is that!
Hey, Cynthia. I would definitely vote for a single man or woman for President. Look at Queen Elizabeth I -- she did a smashing job as Head of State.
:)
I don't think it's safe to assume that a single person is necessarily even interested in dating. I would be more likely to assume that any single person running for the office would probably expect to take a hiatus from dating.
Though, imagine the pick-up lines...
It'll be interesting to see if Sarkozy's personal life interfere's with his political responsibilities. In the end, though, I think the personal lives of marrieds can be just as distracting.
Lisa
Americans are not ready to admit that they are not ready for a woman president. People feel that powerful women are bitches. (or crazy) I come from a long line of crazy bitchy woman. I remember a few years ago my brother said only a woman could straighten out this whole mess
I have heard all kinds of reasons why people think Hillary would not be a good president. Some say she has no experience (few people have the experience she has) Others say she "used" her situation to get where she is. Who really can blame her- if my husband gets a blow job in any office from another woman I am thinking I will "use" the situation to get where ever I want to go and do what ever I would like. Hmm a chance to be president??? I say go for it sistah. (sort of crude I know but someone has to say it)
Honestly I like Obama and Hillary for the presidency. I just hope that racism and sexism will not take over and neither of them win in the end. I think this is an awesome time we have quality choices. It is so exciting that we have the option of a black man and a woman. It is about time. It is really fun to watch my 4 kids 2 are biracial and 2 are female watch this campaign. I think they are for Obama! My daughter decided she and her twin brother can vote this time if you add their ages together they are 18. If they both lose I am heading to Canada. --Not Cindy
Post a Comment