The one thing I do NOT think is that Clinton should be bounced from the race because her gender makes her unelectable. I couldn’t think that less. I think that in the negative sort of way. Like I think that America won’t elect a female President -100%, I so not-think that. I agree that a lot of the right wing and MSM hate at her is gendered, but I think that can’t be the sole measure. They hate her husband almost as much, like 80% as much. I think running a Clinton who is also a hated woman is what could get out the vote very well on the right while leaving a lot of liberal voters sitting it out.
Kate’s right that someone has to be the first. I’ll go one further and say that the supposed sexism of the majority of Americans is probably blown out of proportion and that they’d be happy to elect a woman. I think Clinton’s gender will probably work in her favor, in fact, because people will like voting for a woman. But the strike against her electability is probably more that she’s The Establishment Candidate, which means a lot of hate in her opposition and not that much enthusiasm in her support. I think a woman who wasn’t The Establishment would get more than enough enthusiasm to cancel out the pro-patriarchy vote, the Bible-thumpers and libertarian cranks. But my concern wasn’t just that she’d get out the vote on the right, but that she wouldn’t get it out on the left to counterbalance. I don’t disagree with the meat of Kate’s post, but I really hope that no one actually thinks that I would suggest taking a female candidate out because of gender. If it came across that way—that I thought the sole reason that Clinton was a threat was her gender, not her gender plus her inability to make people think “fresh start”—I apologize sincerely. There’s more to Clinton than gender, both in the person and in her reputation.
In sum: I think that sexism, especially against Clinton could get out the troubling pro-patriarchy vote. For candidates that don’t represent the neoliberal establishment, that would be more than counterbalanced by the people eager to vote for a female candidate. Unfortunately, I fear that Clinton may not get out that vote, though if the media keeps up with the sexism against her, people might be more willing to come out in her defense.
64 Responses to “To clarify….”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Is there any specific evidence that a Hillary candidacy would leave a lot of liberal voters sitting out? I don’t know of a single liberal who has mentioned anything about this. Am I missing a bunch of people? Links?
RG
Is there any specific evidence that a Hillary candidacy would leave a lot of liberal voters sitting out? I don’t know of a single liberal who has mentioned anything about this. Am I missing a bunch of people? Links?
RG
Reading all the utter crap (and wasting my time) with the canidate dairies focusing on the racism/sexism/homophobia, I think I would like to press one thing forward. *It’s going to happen*, because all truly democratic elections are about appealing to the worst of us as well as the best of us.
There will be regular coded appeals, obvious and non-obvious to people’s racism, sexism, and homophobia.
None of the three canidates are especially any of the three.
Therefore, we should refuse to be baited, for or against, by the canidates, their surrogates, or the media. In our relationship with the canidates, we should focus on the issues.
However, what *would* be good is simply to not let any of the crap go unanswered…not to the canidates, but explain to your friends and neighbors that they are trying to use coded appeals and that it shouldn’t be tolerated.
———————————————————-
Now, for something more personal as a comment
I am inclined to vote for Edwards. I like Obama, but I do not like how, positive or negative, he blurrs his narrative on the campaign trail. His campaign is substantially more conservative than his legislative or personal history suggests. I do not like the deception. If he’s a good guy, well pardon me, but non-corrupt black men are going to get shot if one tries to be just. At a minimum, in a variety of ways, a virtuous black president will have to, one way or another, address white privilege (stuff like lending practices, drug laws, etc, etc). It is my experience that many white people will not stand for that, and they will do their utmost to convince the rest (with lies if necessary). If he is of the Nagin or the Cory Booker type, then he’s ultimately shady, and I wouldn’t want to be associated with that.
I think Obama has to be more honest about what it would mean to have a person imbued with the Black American landscape as president (in terms of attitudes most of all), and show how that is a benefit to white people. Being a post-racial canidate isn’t valid in a country that isn’t post-racial.
With respect to Senator Clinton, I am largely chilly. Maybe many others do not remember, but the Clintons are at nature extremely opportunistic. I remember the 92 elections (I am Amanda’s age.) I remember Tom Harkin, who I rooted for, and Paul Tsongas, who my family voted for (I think). I also remember Clinton’s campaign. There were plenty of good things about it, but as many black people might tell you, he stomped on a few black heads to look good for white people. We didn’t care. It wasn’t really a devil’s bargain, but we *were* tolerating alot of crap like executing a poor black retarded guy or shaming Sister Souljah (who had nothing to be ashamed of and was not exactly marxist or a black panther or anything) in return for the first president since literally LBJ who wasn’t hostile to black people. Jimmy Carter wasn’t that great on the civil rights thingie, you know…
If you think black people are sensitive to stuff coming out of their surrogate’s mouths, it’s because well, they *do* have a history of mild race-baiting. It’s part of their general triangulation strategy. If you wanna understand Clinton, understand politicians like Bill Hartsfield, who was the mayor of Atlanta during the desegregation period. Places like Dallas and Little Rock followed the lead of Hartsfield’s politics (to avoid rioting or young anti-Jim Crow activists from targeting their areas), and the Clintons are obviously formed by that type of urban Southern politics. And part of that politics was in making deep connections with the black elites, being not overtly hostile to black people, but also making sure that the poor near-urban and suburban whites got their red meat (without it, no progressive agenda can be passed in the South) via proxies.
I would be unhappy with Senator Clinton as president, but a big part of that, aside from her insidery mentality, is that she simply isn’t as good as Bill Clinton at juggling interest groups that the triangulation strategy demands. I do not think she is inevitable. She can be mistake free, but despite what people say, her New Hampshire win was not impressive by a long shot, and she’s gonna *have* to show some real populism in order to win (even with an utterly repellent set of Republicans).
John Edwards. I like his policy promises. I don’t like that he is failing to engender much support among the lower classes. I also don’t particularly like his debate performances or his speaking abilities. He simply can not think on his feet that well outside of the courtroom that well. And yes, I would refuse to bet (the way I would for Obama) that he isn’t at least a little sexist.
Writing this out kinda helps me think about the canidates…hmmm
Given the stakes, I think that the important thing is that no bridges are burned in the primaries. A candidate at least as progressive as Clinton must win the election.
Clinton would not lose with the progressive community united behind her. I was a doubter, but I now believe that Obama would bring so many new voters into the election that it would be a sea-change in American politics. He is not as progressive as Edwards. And Edwards’ health plan (my pet issue) is superior (as Krugman has pointed out it would cleverly drain people from private insurers into a single payer system over time), but Obama might literally change the face of the electorate. This would mean more than the debated policy differences. Policies that weren’t on the table, like ending the drug war (which has made jail in America into a second round of slavery, shame on us), might be.
I sense a gathering storm.
If Hillary Clinton gets in (and that’s a big if), the right-wing media and their enablers will do their usual thing…lies, sexist smear jobs, and character assassination.
The political left and women in particular are simply not going to let this stand. The anger on the left is building.
Speaking as a Canadian, I am rooting for Edwards. But if Hillary wins, it will be sweet. Real sweet.
I think the media certainly will keep up the sexism, and I think we possibly saw a reaction to that in NH. However, thats a reaction among democratic primary goers. Unfortunatly, I’m not so sure how it would go in the general election- or, basically, in Ohio and Florida, since its in a handful of states like that the decision gets made.
However, if Hilary doesn’t reign in her campaigns negativity on Obama then the democratic race is going to take on the more hostile tone of the pathetic GOP bunch. Already, some of the things sound like the start of a long negative campaign, swift-boat fashion- say it till it sinks in.
In the words of that Clinton adviser: “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”
I think things like that are really appalling, and the fact that this is coming from a leading set of democrats shows that those saying that the impact of sexism on the campaigns is greater may be seeing a transient thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2238148,00.html
“I think a woman who wasn’t The Establishment would get more than enough enthusiasm to cancel out the pro-patriarchy, the Bible-thumpers and libertarian cranks.”
No way. A woman who doesn’t have “The Establishment” behind her can’t get elected town rep, never mind President.
And only an anti-feminist, Republican woman is going to get a pass from the Bible-thumpers. You, of all people, should understand that by now.
But please, go ahead and tell us more about how you would theoretically support a non-existent female candidate for President. . . someday. Who knows? Maybe she’ll miraculously emerge 200 or 300 years from now.
Reading all the utter crap (and wasting my time) with the canidate dairies focusing on the racism/sexism/homophobia, I think I would like to press one thing forward. *It’s going to happen*, because all truly democratic elections are about appealing to the worst of us as well as the best of us.
There will be regular coded appeals, obvious and non-obvious to people’s racism, sexism, and homophobia.
None of the three canidates are especially any of the three.
Therefore, we should refuse to be baited, for or against, by the canidates, their surrogates, or the media. In our relationship with the canidates, we should focus on the issues.
However, what *would* be good is simply to not let any of the crap go unanswered…not to the canidates, but explain to your friends and neighbors that they are trying to use coded appeals and that it shouldn’t be tolerated.
———————————————————-
Now, for something more personal as a comment
I am inclined to vote for Edwards. I like Obama, but I do not like how, positive or negative, he blurrs his narrative on the campaign trail. His campaign is substantially more conservative than his legislative or personal history suggests. I do not like the deception. If he’s a good guy, well pardon me, but non-corrupt black men are going to get shot if one tries to be just. At a minimum, in a variety of ways, a virtuous black president will have to, one way or another, address white privilege (stuff like lending practices, drug laws, etc, etc). It is my experience that many white people will not stand for that, and they will do their utmost to convince the rest (with lies if necessary). If he is of the Nagin or the Cory Booker type, then he’s ultimately shady, and I wouldn’t want to be associated with that.
I think Obama has to be more honest about what it would mean to have a person imbued with the Black American landscape as president (in terms of attitudes most of all), and show how that is a benefit to white people. Being a post-racial canidate isn’t valid in a country that isn’t post-racial.
With respect to Senator Clinton, I am largely chilly. Maybe many others do not remember, but the Clintons are at nature extremely opportunistic. I remember the 92 elections (I am Amanda’s age.) I remember Tom Harkin, who I rooted for, and Paul Tsongas, who my family voted for (I think). I also remember Clinton’s campaign. There were plenty of good things about it, but as many black people might tell you, he stomped on a few black heads to look good for white people. We didn’t care. It wasn’t really a devil’s bargain, but we *were* tolerating alot of crap like executing a poor black retarded guy or shaming Sister Souljah (who had nothing to be ashamed of and was not exactly marxist or a black panther or anything) in return for the first president since literally LBJ who wasn’t hostile to black people. Jimmy Carter wasn’t that great on the civil rights thingie, you know…
If you think black people are sensitive to stuff coming out of their surrogate’s mouths, it’s because well, they *do* have a history of mild race-baiting. It’s part of their general triangulation strategy. If you wanna understand Clinton, understand politicians like Bill Hartsfield, who was the mayor of Atlanta during the desegregation period. Places like Dallas and Little Rock followed the lead of Hartsfield’s politics (to avoid rioting or young anti-Jim Crow activists from targeting their areas), and the Clintons are obviously formed by that type of urban Southern politics. And part of that politics was in making deep connections with the black elites, being not overtly hostile to black people, but also making sure that the poor near-urban and suburban whites got their red meat (without it, no progressive agenda can be passed in the South) via proxies.
I would be unhappy with Senator Clinton as president, but a big part of that, aside from her insidery mentality, is that she simply isn’t as good as Bill Clinton at juggling interest groups that the triangulation strategy demands. I do not think she is inevitable. She can be mistake free, but despite what people say, her New Hampshire win was not impressive by a long shot, and she’s gonna *have* to show some real populism in order to win (even with an utterly repellent set of Republicans).
John Edwards. I like his policy promises. I don’t like that he is failing to engender much support among the lower classes. I also don’t particularly like his debate performances or his speaking abilities. He simply can not think on his feet that well outside of the courtroom that well. And yes, I would refuse to bet (the way I would for Obama) that he isn’t at least a little sexist.
Writing this out kinda helps me think about the canidates…hmmm
I’ll go one further and say that the supposed sexism of the majority of Americans is probably blown out of proportion and that they’d be happy to elect a woman.
This in the same country where Chris Matthews is considered a political pundit? I don’t think so.
Tinter, where is the outrage over Obama’s failure to reign in his campaign?
He is going to ride a wave of misogyny all the way to the White House. His loyal followers come off as extremely rabid and immature when all they got is,
“She’s an ugly bitch.”
Don’t pretend the Obama camp isn’t capitalizing on America’s fear of the pussy.
Is there any specific evidence that a Hillary candidacy would leave a lot of liberal voters sitting out? I don’t know of a single liberal who has mentioned anything about this. Am I missing a bunch of people? Links?
RG
The thing is, I don’t think any of the Republican candidates except McCain have the potential to rally the Republican troops enough to defeat a Democrat this time around. (I can see Huckabee carrying the South and maybe the Midwest bar Illinois/Minnesota/Wisconsin. But this will make the Republican establishment and the business types Crap. Their. Pants. bigtime.) People are so sick to death of the Rethugs and that will work in any Dem candidate’s favor.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is so very much at stake in this election. Echidne had a post about this, and I agree with her. People are so terrified that one misstep and it’s four more years of Rethugs, that I think we’re harder on Senator Clinton than we need to be.
Ailurophile - not that polls can be trusted completely, but McCain just got an enormous bump.
“But the strike against her electability is probably more that she’s The Establishment Candidate.”
Right. Because *so* many people who vote are against The Establishment! Boomers comprise nearly 28% of the adult US population. These people actually vote. A lot of college students just *say* they will vote. I did when I was in college.
I’m also not sure about what sort of “left vote” you’re counting on to stay home if Hillary Clinton is elected as the Democratic candidate. I suspect that most people on the so-called “left” are smart enough to utilize their vote and vote Democratic regardless of the candidate. The bottom line is they don’t want to see four more years of Bush. And Hillary Clinton is a lot more different from Bush than, say, McCain or Huckabee.
The important thing is that no bridges are burned during the primaries. Someone at LEAST as progressive as Clinton must win in November.
I have favored Edwards, especially for his health plan, which as Krugman pointed out would gradually drain citizens from private plans into a single payer system.
But I’ve come to believe that Obama would bring so many new voters into the election, that it would be a sea change in electoral politics.
Issues that aren’t even on the table, like ending the drug war (which America’s second try at slavery), would be on the table.
Let’s not savage each others’ candidates in the mean time.
Clinton would win a hard fought victory if the progressive community were behind her.
My comments are being eaten or I’ve annoyed our great and mighty blogmistress.
Given that Hillary recently called Obama a “part-time” Senator - which, in my book, is about this far from “lazy” - I don’t think her partisans are in any position to complain about his.
Although it’s hard to tell from how the Democrats have behaved since the 2006 election, in that election, voters rejected the Republican establishment, booting thirty of them from the House and six of them from the Senate. And they are no happier now than they were then.
If the question comes down to “which do you want, the establishment Democrat or the establishment Republican,” I think the people would choose the establishment Democrat - but why should that be the choice?
As for those dastardly college students - perhaps those for whom, as Hillary told our friends at the US Chamber of Commerce, “work is a four letter word” - they’ve been turning out in greater and greater numbers. They gave the Democrats the Congress in 2006, for God’s sake:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/11/youth_vote.html
But yeah - screw ‘em. Let’s focus on those hard-working, establishment boomers instead!
“I think the people would choose the establishment Democrat - but why should that be the choice?”
Because I don’t want a closet socialist running the country? Because I want someone with a long history of political commitment and experience?
And basically, because I think that most Americans value and trust the so-called Establishment.
Shorter Drew and Amanda: We’re not sexists. We would vote for a woman. Just give us a woman with grassroots charisma, very little money, and no connections to corporate America–someone like Cindy Sheehan.
If it came across that way—that I thought the sole reason that Clinton was a threat was her gender, not her gender plus her inability to make people think “fresh start”—I apologize sincerely.
For the record, it did not come across that way to me, and I apologize sincerely if my post came across as saying you thought that.
Basically, I used your thoughts as a jumping-off point for a rant that went way beyond it. But I think we just fundamentally disagree about two things: 1) whether fear of the GOP getting out the vote against her should affect our votes, and 2) whether Clinton is a worthy candidate.
I totally understand and respect your arguments against her, though I don’t happen to agree on all points. But the question is, if someone IS inclined to vote for HRC, should fears about people coming out to vote against her stop them? And I say no. That was all.
Showing up for votes is part of a Senator’s job, Drew.
Do college students think 2008 and beyond are going to be fun years or something? Everything they say about Obama and how he can change the entire country by uttering one word (”hope!”) is frighteningly naive.
The message is compelling, but it’s pretty irresponsible to stop there.
Hillary - on the outside, it looks human. Skin, hair, flesh, grown for the Cyborgs.
As often as I hear people refer to her as inhuman, I never hear any evidence for this claim.
I’d love for the snappy one-liners to be replaced with reasoned arguments re: her alleged inhumanity.
If Clinton’s personality resided in a male body would it even register a blip on the national radar?
SarahMC,
I enjoyed how he called her “it.” He must be that serial killer from The Silence of the Lambs.
*sigh*, posts in moderation hell is hell on my nerves…
Luckily, I got my copy of Rhonda Thompson’s “Confessions of a Werewolf Supermodel” ready and rarin’ on my Sony E-reader.
Advance notice that my post is probably doubleposted and apologies in advance…
Showing up for votes is part of a Senator’s job, Drew.
Oh, and I’m sure that’s what she meant, Sarah. She was no more racist in that statement that Edwards was sexist in his.
Otherwise, the data shows that those under the age of 30 are voting in greater and greater numbers, and voting for Democrats when they do - they’ve given us the House and Senate and they may yet give us the presidency.
Or they might, if the candidate running for president didn’t accuse them of being too lazy or naive to participate in the process, when the former clearly isn’t true and the latter - well, these are a group of people who have come of age around Bush v. Gore, 9/11, nad the Iraq War.
I don’t think any of them harbor any illusions about the nature of our government.
I’m gearing up for “It was a joke!”
And that’s the thing. These “jokes” that are deep-down rooted in sexism permeate the national consciousness and somehow become “the truth.”
Half of what is turning me off to Obama at this point is his fan-club. Not even him. His supporters act like they’re voting for class president or something. Um, the person we elect will be the POTUS.
He’s dreamy & you think he can get better food in the lunchroom and Fridays off.
Is his failure to take a stand on bills an invalid concern?
At what point will Obama’s Senate record be completely off-limits to his opponents?
“I think that sexism, especially against Clinton could get out the troubling pro-patriarchy vote.”
And, you know, racism could get out the troubling pro-KKK vote. So maybe she should give up?
“I think a woman who wasn’t The Establishment would get more than enough enthusiasm to cancel out the pro-patriarchy, the Bible-thumpers and libertarian cranks.”
This is so breathtakingly naive I don’t know what to say. I am actually dumbfounded by your remarks. They seem like the remarks of someone tired, hopeless, depressed.
Whatever, Sarah. If you want to attack the sexism you see from the Obama (and Edwards) campaigns, then you can’t really ignore the racism that’s come from the Clinton campaign.
Or maybe you can. You certainly have so far.
As far as the fan club - really. Although as an Edwards supporter, I’m clearly more enamored with his fan club, it’d be a little, I dunno, adolescent to pretend that mine is so mature while another is so childish.
What? That’s more a non sequitor than anything else.
More substance, please!
I’ll go one further and say that the supposed sexism of the majority of Americans is probably blown out of proportion and that they’d be happy to elect a woman.
I take it you’ve never lived in rural red states and listened day after day to seemingly normal, responsible, employed family men talk incessantly about the great Jewish-N-word-Bitch conspiracy to deprive white men of their God-intended place as the leaders of all us lower beings.
Honestly, and I’m not saying this to be dramatic - I’m afraid some gun-toting redneck will shoot her if she wins the ticket, let alone the election.
I’ll go one further and say that the supposed sexism of the majority of Americans is probably blown out of proportion and that they’d be happy to elect a woman.
I take it you’ve never lived in rural red states and listened day after day to seemingly normal, responsible, employed family men talk incessantly about the great Jewish-N-word-Bitch conspiracy to deprive white men of their God-intended place as the leaders of all us lower beings.
Honestly, and I’m not saying this to be dramatic - I’m afraid some gun-toting redneck will shoot her if she wins the ticket, let alone the election.
I’ll go one further and say that the supposed sexism of the majority of Americans is probably blown out of proportion and that they’d be happy to elect a woman.
I take it you’ve never lived in rural red states and listened day after day to seemingly normal, responsible, employed family men talk incessantly about the great Jewish-N-word-Womenz conspiracy to deprive white men of their God-intended place as the leaders of all us lower beings.
Honestly, and I’m not saying this to be dramatic - I’m afraid some gun-toting redneck will shoot her if she wins the ticket, let alone the election.
But the strike against her electability is probably more that she’s The Establishment Candidate, which means a lot of hate in her opposition and not that much enthusiasm in her support. I think a woman who wasn’t The Establishment would get more than enough enthusiasm to cancel out the pro-patriarchy vote, the Bible-thumpers and libertarian cranks.
I think you’re being naive here. The only reason Clinton’s electable as a woman is because she’s Establishment. They can’t knock her down, she’s been around too long. She has too many connections and too much status to be effectively marginalized. That’s why dynastic female candidates and conservative female candidates tend to be the First Female Leaders in countries all over the world. The only ones who can get that far the first time are the ones who are either entrenched in political life (via a father or a husband) and therefore familiar to the public or actively supporting the antifeminist traditions.
Clinton vs. Huckabee would be fascinating because the corporate Republican dollars would go to Clinton. It would absolutely fracture the Republicans’ racist coalition.
I’m completely in agreement with the comments being posted about Hillary’s “establishment” nature and how that’s actually a good thing in a lot of ways. While I’d love to see someone from the farrrrr left in office, we all know that’s not going to happen, and none of the top three in the race on our side are part of that far left. On a recent thread, several people said Hillary would make a great VP or Sec/State because she has had diplomatic experience as a first lady. Isn’t that exactly what we want in a president? While being connected to the establishment might be bad in some ways, it also means that she has funding, she has backing, and she has an “in” when it comes to dismantling and reforming from within, which seems to be the only way things get done.
While I’d love to see someone from the farrrrr left in office, we all know that’s not going to happen, and none of the top three in the race on our side are part of that far left.
We all know that’s not going to happen because people far to the left of Edwards, Clinton, and Obama (but hardly on the far left if we understand far left, properly, to be, say, ANSWER or the ISO) continue to support candidates like Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, rather than candidates like Dennis Kucinich.
It’s not a “far left” position to want immediate withdrawal from Iraq, unless a majority of Americans are “far left.” And yet, none of the leading presidential candidates from either party favor immediate withdrawal.
As I see it, there are really two conversations going on in this thread. The first is a complicated–and potentially interesting–conversation about sexism, racism, and how the general election campaign would look with different Democrats at the top of the ticket. There seems to be a consensus (with which I certainly agree) that choosing to vote or not vote for someone on the basis of speculations about “electability” is a mistake.
The second conversation, just below the surface, is the biennial ritual of progressive Democrats talking themselves into yet again supporting candidates and a party who put corporations before people and build American foreign policy around the aggressive use of a bloated military. Despite the often complex form it takes, honest versions of this argument always boil down to one simple fact: the Repubilcans are worse. And indeed they are. But that doesn’t make the lesser evil Democrats progressive. And merely avoiding the disaster of four more years of a Bush-like presidency won’t solve any of our nation’s–and the world’s–most serious problems.
I brought that up, because no, what I want to see in a president is someone who is going to put big programs into place. And I don’t think she’ll do it. I think as top person, she’d be a big strong leader for the status quo. I think big businesses would be catered to as much as ever.
Making nice with other nations will be important, and wouldn’t it be great to send someone to talk to Heads of State who is already comfortable doing that? But, to me, it comes in at a much lower priority than getting America’s economy headed in the right direction.
I tend to agree with the comment on Obama being lazy. the guy didn’t vote on a lot of things. he didn’t held one damn hearing on his subcomitee, you know the one that actually deals with foreign affairs? And he’s been to Iraq exactly once.
Amanda is trying to dress her anti feminist position into a fake concern that voting for Hillary would bring the conservatives out to vote, assuming they’d stay home to begin with. That is bullshit, and was clearly explain by others.
Hillary is the most qualified democratic candidate for the job. Assuming that she will do this and that seems somewhat disingenuous at this point, and voting on assumptions is fucking dumb . The fact that people are willing to give more credit to an empty suit with a record of not taking a position instead to someone competent is the best proof that democracy is failing.
Ragnell said:
“I think you’re being naive here. The only reason Clinton’s electable as a woman is because she’s Establishment. They can’t knock her down, she’s been around too long. She has too many connections and too much status to be effectively marginalized. That’s why dynastic female candidates and conservative female candidates tend to be the First Female Leaders in countries all over the world. The only ones who can get that far the first time are the ones who are either entrenched in political life (via a father or a husband) and therefore familiar to the public or actively supporting the antifeminist traditions. ”
there is nothing more to be said about this. And all of the history of feminism shows that this is how it happens. Since I refuse to believe that Amanda doesn’t know this, the result is that she is deliberately ignoring it. Which is bad.
Drew said:
“As for those dastardly college students - perhaps those for whom, as Hillary told our friends at the US Chamber of Commerce, “work is a four letter word” - they’ve been turning out in greater and greater numbers. ”
Not in NH they didn’t.
find a better excuse Amanda
So everyone who doesn’t support your candidate is bowing to sexism and being disingenuous? Thats a pretty weak position. Going to Iraq is hardly a sign of being lazy. All candidates do when they get there is force a bunch of Iraqis to suffer being “locked down” by US forces so they can have a photo op, big whoop.
People don’t need an “excuse” to support a candidate, there are significant diffrences in policy and approach between them. Identity politics is certainly having a big impact this time round, but that doesn’t mean its how everyone should pick their candidate.
I take it you’ve never lived in rural red states and listened day after day to seemingly normal, responsible, employed family men talk incessantly about the great Jewish-N-word-Bitch conspiracy to deprive white men of their God-intended place as the leaders of all us lower beings.
In all the eagerness to show how much more wise you are than me, you didn’t do your research. Here’s where I grew up. My high school graduating class has something like 81 students, which was like a record for that high school at the time. My town literally had tracks separating the mainly white part of town from the mainly Hispanic part of town. My stepdad had a massive gun collection and my dog went deaf from going hunting all the time. Most people I knew lived in double wides, and I had a friend that kept the West Texas version of a wild pig for a pet. My high school boyfriend had an outhouse. You’d sooner get in trouble for chewing gum than chewing tobacco in my high school classes. But I don’t know anything about rural red state life.
Let’s try this again: Maybe my “problem” is that I resist that Republican propaganda that states that you’re not a “real” American if you life in a city, drive a fuel-efficient vehicle, or think that gay people are human beings. I resist that bullshit. That bullshit eliminates the majority of Americans from being called “real” Americans. It also implies, wrongly, that every one of us rednecks is a Republican. Hell, when I was in high school, we had a governor that was a woman and a Democrat, and didn’t have to use a man’s power to get hers. Maybe you’ve heard of her? Hint: She had tall white hair, following the mandate of 20th century Texas broad-ism: The higher the hair, the closer to god.
I agree that the cranks and the Bible thumpers are out there. And they are fucking crazy, and a lot will sit out an election against Obama or Edwards. But they will crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton. Which wouldn’t be a major issue if Clinton gave me the sense that Obama gets that she’d be able to get out the vote on our side.
I think she’d still win. But it would be more of a squeaker.
I would like evidence for this
“a lot will sit out an election against Obama or Edwards”. Any evidence. Because all that you are doing so far is keep saying the same thing and hoping it would stick.
Show me the evidence to this or just admit that your fangirlness is what leads you to support the most incompetent of the democratic candidates against the one woman who is in fact competent.
Tinter:
“Going to Iraq is hardly a sign of being lazy. All candidates do when they get there is force a bunch of Iraqis to suffer being “locked down” by US forces so they can have a photo op, big whoop.”
Not showing up to vote on important matters and not holding one fucking audition in one;s subcomittee is being lazy. If Obama worked for a company in that style he would have been fired for lazyness a LONG time ago. Try harder.
Presidents don’t make social progress by fiat (though they can successfully break it). Progress occurs because massive and deep movements in the general public pretty much forces the ruling elites to accomodate them somehow, if only as a way of co-opting and pre-empting them. This is how I see the so-called “Progressive” movement of the early 20th century, as a dilution and top-down co-optation of deep and seething Populism in the decades before. And the New Deal was a sort of culmination and synthesis–the people insisting on fulfillment of the elitist version of the general promise of pragmatic social justice that originally took a more radical form.
Thus I think it is mistaken to judge Presidential candidates as ideal Leaders of a top-down reform. What is hopeful about all the current Dems is that I think they will respond reasonably and creatively to a general, grass-roots, movement to recitify the crying injustices and outright incompetence of the past few decades. But if we don’t provide that, don’t expect any Leader, however benign and visionary, to do the job for us. The most we can expect of a President is that they not be actively reactionary. Maybe if we get lucky we can get a decent President inspired and confident in bold progress, but never count on it.
As a principled radical I expect that any serious attempts to address even a few of the issues now well into Red Alert will pretty quickly lead to sweeping and deep criticism of our fundamental institutions, and thus either to panicked reaction on the ruling elites’ part or some kind of muddling, willy-nilly institutional progress. Most likely both unless the former predominates, but perhaps Bush Jr has done more to undercut than set in place the mechanisms of reaction. The machinery is more developed than ever, and the credibility of barbaric options more established than ever, but perhaps the popular will to submit to their massive application is eroded.
I’ll go one further and say that the supposed sexism of the majority of Americans is probably blown out of proportion and that they’d be happy to elect a woman.
Right. Because the majority of Americans do everything they can to stop rampant sexism. Men and women alike decry the harassment women get when walking down the street. Hollywood has stopped selling the sexualization and slashification of women as major entertainment. Women make up 50+% of government (fed, state, & local), and 50+% of CEO positions and tenured professorships and chairMANships of university departments. We have paid leave after childbirth/adoption. We have free birth control. Abortion is not even a controversy. Rape is punished swiftly and without question. There aren’t tens of thousands of followers of a website called “Shut up and make me a sandwich.” Nobody told a sitting Senator of the United States to “iron my shirt!” The press and pundits alike — from Chris Matthews to Maureen Dowd to Keith Olbermann — criticized Senator Clinton for her political platform rather than for her gender. Male bloggers have never harassed, threatened, and stalked women bloggers for the crime of suggesting a different opinion about software coding.
Thanks. I’ll stop worrying my pretty little head about the misogyny that is the lifeblood of American “culture” now. I’m sure some big strong man will come along and be president and take real good care of all my needs.
I think you’re being naive here. The only reason Clinton’s electable as a woman is because she’s Establishment. They can’t knock her down, she’s been around too long.
Good point. I guess living in the state that gave me Ann Richards maybe set my goals too high. And look what happened to her.
Maybe these posts about “strategic voting” for Edwards/Obama are all part of Amanda’s secret plan to get us so ticked off about issues of gender that we will all vote for Hillary?
I thought sexism no longer existed, just like we abolished racism way back in the 1960’s. At least that what Faux News told me…
Seriously, I know there are Reichwingers who would “crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton”, but don’t you think there would also be a hell of a lot of non-wingers who would do the same to prevent one more Rethug administration?
Is there anyone on the progressive side of the political spectrum who thinks we can just wait out four more years of Reichwing predation on this country and our Constitution?…
“Good point. I guess living in the state that gave me Ann Richards maybe set my goals too high. And look what happened to her.”
I always found it disappointing that Texas had a woman as Governor before California. And we’re supposed to be such a leftist/progressive/socialist state…
Amanda:
Braggart.
Because the majority of Americans do everything they can to stop rampant sexism.
Is it that hard to see that there are a lot of people who go along with sexism because they don’t see it or don’t think they can do anything about it, not because they actively want to hurt women? Voting for a female president is about a million times easier than telling your friends to stop making rape jokes, and it lets liberals give themselves a whole lot of credit for a little bit of work.
It is such a shame that the media has succeeded, through its obsession with the horserace, in completely distorting the primary process. There are, I think, two types of candidates that run in the primaries - shapers and contenders. It is important to have shapers - the people who bring up the issues blocked by the ‘establishment’. Until recently, that was the American tradition. But ever since McCarthy ran in 68, the establishment - the higher ups in the media, the consultanate in D.C. - has tried to destroy this function of primaries. The best way to do it is to instill, from the very beginning, the notion that the primary thing is electibility. Now, electibility depends on the shape of the political landscape - and if there is nobody suggesting change, then the status quo wins, no matter what discontent there is out there with the status quo, because everybody will aim for the establishment’s vision of the political landscape. Which is seriously fucked.
Edwards has been both a contender and a shaper. But, of all the candidates, he’s the one who has been subject to the most extraordinary coverage I can recall - that is, a media blackout. Fred Thompson, the ugly muppet who is running on the sleepin’ in a rocking chair platform, gets more media coverage than Edwards - as does Giuliani. That’s a pretty strong intervention on the part of the corporate media. I think it is a much more serious situation than the sexist remark, or the racist remark, of the people in the circles around the candidates - because, obviously, it slims the chances for a future, more radical non-sexist, non-racist candidate. Clinton and Obama represent the wave of the future - there will be more and more viable women and black and black women and Hispanic men and all kinds of non-Anglo non-male mixes of candidates. Demographically, it has to be coming. But it would be nice if they don’t just slot into defending the same old, hyper-aggressive, environmentally blind, anti-egalitarian system.
I find it sad that in January, people are making assertions as if they know for dead certain who is going to achieve that 2 to 3 percentage points in November that will be the margin of victory. If someone has that information, they should be using it to clean up on the stock market.
For those in the progressive community to say that Clinton is running a racist campaign, or Obama is running a sexist campaign is self-defeating cannibalism. Stop.
Clinton is entitled to make the point that, however feminist Obama is, she share experiences with women that Obama doesn’t, and Obama is entitled to make the point that however anti-racist Clinton is, he shares experiences with African-Americans that Clinton doesn’t.
Despite the rumors, innuendoes, and quotes from “spokespeople”, I think Obama and Clinton have remained relatively positive.
Why must the progressive blogosphere become an echo-chamber for the negativity?
Honestly? I am absolutely not letting myself consider “electability’ in which candidate I support, because I feel like I can’t consider that without racist or sexist reasons coming into the equation (by worrying that people would vote against them due to race or gender).
Amanda, I absolutely agree that she probably won’t get out enough on the left to counter the hatred on the right. I also agree she’s “establishment” and therefore not as in tune with every issue I personally really want to see addressed.
It’s not as simple as wanting to vote for the girl. How anti-establishment is it to vote for the white guy who (in the minds of the troglodytes) won’t make waves? How is that not status quo? Is he really going to be able to get more done?
Trying to second-guess the electorate hasn’t worked in the past. Trying to keep the boat steady enough to get more swing voters on board lost us the last one. I’m also sort of fed up with the patronizing bullshit about wanting to see a woman or black FINALLY in office just isn’t the same thing (or nearly as important) as what’s best for the whole country. It sounds suspiciously like the second verse of the same old song.
Still undecided. Dammit.
Actually, they did:
But keep trashing them - it’s a sure path to victory for your favored candidate.
It doesn’t seem like anybody is interested in who is the most electable so let’s vote for that one. They’re going to vote for who they want. And most likely vote for whoever gets to the Nov ballot. (Not all, but quite a few I’ve seen and I’m one of the one.)
Trying to figure out the American public train of thought is a useless endeavor. You can say that the majority of Americans aren’t ready for a moc or woman president, and they can show you to be wrong. They might also show you to be right. But there’s no fricking way of telling until the ballots are counted.
Soopermouse:
“Not showing up to vote on important matters and not holding one fucking audition in one;s subcomittee is being lazy. If Obama worked for a company in that style he would have been fired for lazyness a LONG time ago. Try harder.”
I’m not a supporter of any of the 3 candidates, so I’m not “trying” to do anything.
The fact that you put this after a quote rebutting that not going to Iraq is lazy suggests that you are most concerned with smearing candidates you don’t favour than anything else. That kind of attitude really isn’t going to help anyone in November.
People don’t need to “assume” how Hilary will act once in office, they can judge on her voting record and policy statements. Presumably you can do the same, or are you supporting her just on identity politics?
How exactly is Edwards lazy and incomptent by the way, if Hilary is the only competent candidate?
Of course, Edwards has pandered to the sexism in the campaign, and Obamas policies are at best naive on many foreign policy issues. That doesn’t mean all their supporters are sexist idiots, any more that Hilarys are, say, racist idiots.
Making vicious attacks on not just the candidate you don’t like, but a third of what will be your candidates base of activists if they get selectected, doesn’t serve the Democrats or your candidates cause well.
OT: DUPLICATE POSTS:
apparently LiveJournal has devised a way to prevent duplicate posts: surely someone could nag WordPress to do the same.
Like: run a checksum on posts from the same poster and if they are identical, delete the last one posted.
I’d be happy to nag them, but I don’t have a blog here.
I won’t vote for Hilliary for two reasons. 1) I want a president with some balls (not literally) but if she kicked Bill to the curb I’d have a little more respect for her. 2) So far, she is just another politician.
I like Obama in some ways, but I don’t understand how he is going to pay for the things he has promised. Lots of talk, but when requested I could not even get a spreadsheet that shows the math - Yes, none of them would provide me with that, but if he is so sure about how to fix things, show me the math.
I probably don’t need to even mention most of the republicans who are running. The only one who is slightly different is Ron Paul.
What I really want is a candidate who has worked a real job. How can someone who is a millionaire ever really understand or represent people who make $50k a year or less?
Perhaps once again I will vote for “anybody else” because the outcome is going to be the same regardless. Another crook in the white house.
“Why must the progressive blogosphere become an echo-chamber for the negativity?”
Human nature? Negativity is more fun. See P.J. O’Rourke for case studies.
This is sort of a belated response to Ben Alpers, but I’ll go ahead. I agree with your comment for the most part, but I think the real issue is that the majority of Americans, even Americans who call themselves Democrats or liberals, are not part of the far left. Even if the whole “far left” got together and backed a far left candidate (and for the record, I don’t think Kucinich would be a good candidate for that purpose for a lot of reasons), they/we still wouldn’t get very far. Hence the compromising on a Democratic candidate. If those of us on the far left want to even have a shot at seeing one of our candidates in office, the whole electoral system–or the whole mindset and political beliefs of the American people–would have to change. I think the former is more likely, so that possibly is what we should be working toward.
@ Amanda
“Ann Richards maybe set my goals too high.”
Amen! I never lived in her state, but just reading about the amazing leader that she was and being able to see how amazing she was under the pressures of the horrible take out the Bush’s smacked down on her, was enough to make her one of my most favorite heroes of all time.
Hillary’s biggest weakness is that her last name is Clinton. Republicans hate the Clintons far more than they hate Democrats or seeing women in a position of power, in general.
And to your point that Clinton risks being unable to rally the support of progressives, frankly, the simple truth is that much of our organizational success as a party in 2006 was thanks entirely to the Dean progressives who have been systematically working to change the party - please look to Joe Liebermann as an example of what happens when the party ignores this movement towards giving more strength to the anti-establishment wing of our party.
Why were last weeks endorsements for Obama so unimportant to your average American and yet key to those of us who are non-DLC Democratic activists? Because he won the endorsement of an establishment candidate, like John Kerry at the same time that he won the endorsement of the guy who tried to take out Liebermann, and the right-hand man of Speaker Pelosi.
Amanda you are dead right when you assert that Clinton doesn’t win the favor of many progressives in our party. But what is more amazing is how Obama can win the favor of people from every wing of the party and independents at the same time. Hell my right-wing conservative neighbor told me yesterday that she really likes Obama. It is truly amazing stuff that has really impressed this Edwards supporter.
“Hell my right-wing conservative neighbor told me yesterday that she really likes Obama. “
All true, but when have the elected Republicans actually accomplished anything their supporters want. When in majority, the accomplish great things for the corporatists who get them elected, and when in minority they stand for nothing but putting a stop to progress. With an Obama presidency, I fear what would be put on the chopping block, in the name of “compromise”, especially with his pandering to the anti-LGBT vote.
So your comments are so fucked I put my response on my own page, but to your suggestion that some woman who would rally the base better would be a better choice for Dems, I say this: Barbara Jordan. Rock star to the left, ‘washerwoman’ to Republican Texas House members who worked with her.
I always assumed that the first woman to be the president of this country would be a Baptist Republican oil heiress, so Hillary’s ‘centrism’ delights me because it makes me think my mother in law would vote for her. The only reason John Edwards is in contention and came in 2nd in IA is that he’s a rich white man. No woman, no person of color and no kid from his high school who didn’t ’succeed’ in the terms set by our society as spectacularly as Johnny did could get on the ballot at all saying ‘poverty’ and ‘greed’.
Only Nixon could go to China.