More dreams of our mothers: Why women aren't supporting Hillary
Leah Zoppi's argument in favor of Sen. Hillary Clinton's candidacy drew fire and fans among Crosscut readers. Here, Zoppi offers a rebuttal.
Last week, following Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's victory at the Washington state caucuses, I asked an uncomfortable question: Why aren't more women supporting the presidential candidacy of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton? As a 29-year-old female and Clinton supporter, I wanted to start a dialogue about gender and the presidential campaign. Well, ask a provocative question, get some provocative answers. I have received a wide variety of responses from Crosscut readers (28, to be exact, as of Feb. 19, 2008), friends, acquaintances, and strangers — some incredibly thoughtful, some knee-jerk and sexist.
Many people said that for them, it's all about the issues, and gender doesn't come into play. I would hope that candidates' positions on the issues are first and foremost in what motivates people as they cast their votes, as they have been for me. Candidates' positions on issues are what motivated me to support Al Gore over Elizabeth Dole and others in 2000, and to support King County Executive Ron Sims over Christine Gregoire in the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial primary.
Let's make sure, however, that we're not ignoring gender equality as one of the issues. Undoubtedly, Barack Obama is a strong champion of women's rights. But in the other Washington, where only 16 percent of congressional seats are held by women, and none of our 43 presidents have been women, it's not unreasonable to ask for a candidate who not only supports gender equality but who shows us it has actually arrived in the highest office of the land.
Of course, the same can be said for Hillary Clinton when it comes to racial equality, and that has many people torn. As one progressive white man jokingly told me, "We're screwed either way we vote in this race because we've been the obstacle keeping both women and minorities out of power."
As for the rest of the issues, in progressive Washington, it would seem Clinton's more progressive positions on health care reform and renewable energy should have given her an edge. The pundits also give her credit for having more substance to her plans and for faring better than Obama when debating the issues. But with a longer track record than Obama, she also has more fodder for criticism, and that's where she loses points with some progressives.
Overall, on issues alone, there isn't a huge difference between these two. Both candidates want to change the direction of our country, get us out of Iraq, strengthen the middle class, improve access to health care and education, address the climate crisis, and advance sustainable energy. So taking the issues alone doesn't explain Clinton's incredibly lopsided defeat. It seems a lot of people took more than just the issues into account.
One of the biggest differences between Clinton and Obama is experience in the nation's capitol. Clinton knows intimately what goes into the day-to-day running of our country. She is tough, battle-tested, has an encyclopedia-like knowledge of policy, and is ready to lead on day one. In Washington state, we have a history of nominating the more experienced presidential candidate in the Democratic primary. From Kerry to Gore to Bill Clinton in 1996, we've gone for experience.
Now, all of a sudden, some have decided that experience is a negative. They call Clinton "entrenched" in Washington politics and are betting their hopes on a fresh-faced Washington, D.C., newcomer.
It could be the Bush years combined with Gore's and Kerry's defeats that have done it to us. Even though Clinton is in no way to blame for the Bush administration's disastrous policies, she is being treated like an incumbent. People seem to have forgotten about the unprecedented 65 percent approval rating the first Clinton had when leaving office and are only focused on the negative state of affairs today. The default rule in politics is that incumbency becomes a negative when people get overly fed up with the status quo. Perhaps that's the only phenomenon at work here. But how much of it is also gender bias? Are experienced men capable while experienced women are "entrenched" and "polarizing"? Would we take a newcomer running for president seriously if she were a woman?
Some people feel that to vote for Clinton would be to do so "just because she's a woman." Let me dispel that notion right now. Saying "just because she's a woman" is only a slip of the tongue away from saying, "because she's just a woman." It's sexist and belittling. It implies that the only reason one would be voting for Clinton is because she's a woman, which negates all her achievements, all her service to this country, all her toughness and endurance to withstand the scrutiny and grueling fights to get this far. She has earned her path to the presidency, as one of the three people in America left standing in the race for president. Hillary Clinton isn't "just a woman," and no vote for her could possibly be cast "just because she's a woman."
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 2:01 a.m. inappropriate
Presidential politics: I've read a lot of earnest, detailed evaluations of the candidates' stances on the "issues", mostly from young democratic journalists, many of whom seem to support Hillary. The assumption is that policies make the president. Certainly, a candidate's philosophical orientation on political issues is critical to choosing a president. But once you start looking at the fine print of a health care proposal, you've lost the forest for the trees. What's more, you're being naive.
Odds are, no one's health care proposal will ever become law, and if one of them manages to buck the odds, all the fine print will have been rewritten many times over. Besides, anyone can come up with good policy ideas. Policy is the work of low level aides.
Aside from general philosophical orientation, a president should be chosen based on his or her ability to lead. Specifically, can that person effectively articulate, through their words and example, a vision of what this country is about, and can they persuade a majority of the nation to get behind it?
In my lifetime, only two presidents have had that ability - Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. It's becoming increasing clear that Obama has it as well.
As for Hillary, she seems more like a Lyndon Johnson or a George Bush I, both of whom were experienced political operators with limited presidential talent who came into office riding the coattails of a great man.
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 6:50 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Presidential politics: I won't vote for Hillary - EVER! - because she's a crook and a grifter. I don't care at all whether she is black or white, male or female. She's a crook. You who support her in the primary & general had better get your serving of crow all heated up, because she'll be the Democrat's Nixon if she's elected.
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 8:26 a.m. inappropriate
Why I Can't Support Hillary: I can't speak for women on this issue -- at last check, I register in the "male" column -- but I believe many would agree with me on whether or not to support Hilary: it's not that we don't support Hillary, it's that we CAN'T support her. Her name -- front and back end -- have become associated so intensely as being polarizing and politicized that I don't think I could bear another 4 to 8 years of tooth-and-nails partisanship in Washington, D.C. The GOP, bless 'em, has so successfully demonized the Clintons that I doubt there's any hope for at least any semblance of a clean slate of governance in the White House. That's assuming she'd get elected after being pummeled by the Swift-Boat-Karl-Rove-tutored torture machine. Adding to my doubts last night during Hillary's speech was her comment that, once she got in the White House, she'd be ready to govern and "defeat the Republicans." Not a great way to become a "uniter, not a divider."
Honestly, I believe all people are dog-tired of cynical politics and are seeking the proverbial "breath of fresh air." Obama at least is advocating that approach. We do run the risk of enduring a couple of years of him getting his proper footing (anyone remember Jimmy Carter?). But I believe it's a risk worth taking.
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 9:27 a.m. inappropriate
Faux Feminist and Friends: Like I said in my comment on the last article, Hillary's ascendancy hasn't been along the career path of a feminist; rather it's the way women in my grandmother's generation achieved political or business power - by steering the career of a charismatic husband, and being "the power behind the throne." She also feels perfectly comfortable playing the "poor little girl" card when it suits her. Where's the "I am Woman, hear me roar" mindset in that?
In addition, she's personally odious. The "war room" at the White House and the "perpetual campaign" were her brainchildren. Mutch of the partisan rancor we still suffer under today can be traced to those initiatives, and let's not forget "triangulation", the strategy that doublecrossed as many Democrats as Republicans. I'd urge anyone to see the film "The Manchurian Candidate" (the original, not the dubious remake) and carefully observe Angela Lansbury's character in that film (for shich she was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress). There is a very distinct a premonition of Hilliary Clinton in that part.
Finally there's the Bill Issue. It may be unfair to her, but he's made no secret that he's part and parcel of a Hillary presidency. Maybe he'll even let her use the Oval Office when he's out carousing. Bill may have left the presidency with high approval numbers, but he's been "The Incredible Shrinking President" ever since; and while his naked narcissism may have been roguishly endearing in his youth, today he's just a self-centered old attention whore and more and more people are rightly sick and tired of him, and worried about how he might undermine the authority of his wife's administration at home and abroad.
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 10:20 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Presidential politics: "I won't vote for Hillary - EVER! - because she's a crook and a grifter..."
Glad to see you're still smoking, joking, and midnight toking, Steve!
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 11:54 a.m. inappropriate
Clinton; from a female over 55: Its not just the issues; I agree. Judgment, character, experience and ability to lead all play in the evaluation of the candidates. I question Clinton's judgment in her life choices: serving on the Walmart Board of Directors, working as a member of the Rose Law Firm( The establishment law firm in Arkansas), voting to support the Burn the Flag constitutional amendment, not disclosing her taxes, her votes surrounding the Iraq war....do we want her judgment at the pinnacle of the government? While these may be explained individually, when the are added up one by one, I question her judgment.
As for her character, I see her as making choices only based on the climb up the political ladder. Where are her principles based on what she does with her life. I would love to see her become a strong Senator working for what she says she thinks are important issues.
I would love to have a woman president. I does sadden me that so many of the responses to Clinton are based on sexist stereotypes. But I find her lacking in many of the qualities we need in the leader of this country.
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 4:47 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Presidential politics: Hey, as long as you buy the albums...
But let's be serious. Hillary might or might not be interesting for her positions on issues important for today - but so are the opinions/positions of 150 million other American women. Why pick such a deeply flawed candidate - who will doublecross you - when you have other choices who are far less odious. Heck, pick Feinstein - far more formidable and with a far higher level of integrity.
Hillary has shown herself to be a lying crook. Do you really think she's going to suddenly respect the rule of law? Seriously?
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 9:31 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Presidential politics: If you're going to dismiss a presidential candidate as a "lying crook", it's good form to say a word or two as to what exactly you are talking about.
By the way, "Come On and Dance" is the ring tone for my cell phone. No lie.
Posted Thu, Feb 21, 9:33 a.m. inappropriate
The way Hillary's campaigning is making me lose respect for her: Let's see--a whole lot of previously checked-out voters, many of whom are young, respond with enthusiasm and deep excitement to what Obama has to say. Does Clinton notice this, realize the importance of this shift from apathy to activism, wonder what these voters see that maybe she doesn't, and try to learn from Obama's success? No. She plays Swift Boat bullshit, working so hard to spin and belittle and explain away Obama's appeal that she has no time to learn from it, to learn something about the needs of the people she says she wants to lead.
It's not her fault that she's not good at the "motivate the troops" stuff--but then why is she running for a job that demands the ability to communicate to the public and inspire them in tough times? There are a lot of good jobs for dedicated, hardworking public servants who aren't gifted at public leadership per se.
At my caucus I was totally unmoved by the Clinton supporters who echoed Clinton's line: "She's qualified, and if you don't agree then you're a fuzzy-headed idiot in thrall to a guy who spouts empty rhetoric." But what is she so qualified for? She can't even run a convincing campaign--(who okayed the lame "On Day One" slogan, anyway?) I know she's experienced, but so is Obama in his way, so are a lot of people. Can she learn from experience? That's another question.
Whether or not Obama's got the right stuff to be a great President, he's clearly figured out a thing or two worth paying attention to: that what moves the country is the people, the people have a responsibility as well as a lot of needs, and it's high time we all woke up again from the nightmare of the past eight years and counting.
I support Obama but I'm not in thrall to him, and I'm open to persuasion. He strikes me as a tough and substantive thinker who also has an ability to bring people together and infuse them with hope and purpose--I don't see him as an empty rhetorician. Clinton would have a better chance of persuading me of her claims if she could show me that she sees what seems obvious to me--that we as a nation are sick, truly ill, from the empty semiotics of the cynical Bush/Rove regime--the "non-reality-based" garbage that treats us as consumers to be manipulated rather than as human beings to be engaged and challenged--and it makes me heartsick to see how Clinton has adopted some of their mindless tactics as her own.
Posted Fri, Feb 22, 10:03 a.m. inappropriate
RE: The way Hillary's campaigning is making me lose respect for her: "There are a lot of good jobs for dedicated, hardworking public servants who aren't gifted at public leadership per se."
That's very true, but I think we all know that Hillary Clinton's career goal isn't to be a "good public servant." She wants power, and lots of it. and she's ruthless in her pursuit of it.
Posted Sat, Feb 23, 10:09 a.m. inappropriate
Divisive?: I galls me when Democrats call Hillary divisive. She has demonstrated in the Senate that she is more interested in getting things done than in being narrowly partisan.
When people call her divisive, they're parrotting ideas they got from Conservative extremist talk radio, which they ought to be ignoring, in my opinion.
Posted Sat, Feb 23, 10:14 a.m. inappropriate
Power: People who focus on Hillary in this respect are being sexist. All the candidates for this office want power. Duh.
They want the power to accomplish the goals they see as vital for America.
And Hillary should know better than Obama just how limited the power of the Presidency really is,
Posted Wed, Feb 27, 9:14 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Presidential politics: "Lying" as in "Lies."
"Crook" as in "Crooked."
Posted Wed, Feb 27, 9:16 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Divisive?: Perhaps they are saying she's divisive because she IS divisive - no other politician running for the President garners such strong visceral reactions from the opponents. McCain isn't seen as Evil Incarnate by Democrats; Obama isn't seen as the Boogieman by Republicans. Hillary is seen as the Arkansas Grifter and the rapacious governmental leader who will "help us" see things her way - or else.
That's just the way it is.