So I'm walking in my door tonight and the TV's on and I hear cheering on it and I fully expect to see Barack Obama giving a victory speech, but instead I see Hillary Clinton and I think, well, maybe she came in second, but no, the text on the screen is proclaiming her the winner of the New Hampshire primary and for someone who isn't a big Hillary fan, I am a somewhat surprised at my happiness.
I have written numerous Hillary posts in my head, but I haven't managed to get one down on "paper." It's the result of the huge ambivalence I feel over a Hillary candidacy. On the one hand, she's way too DLC for my tastes and there's her Iraq vote. But, on the other hand, call me a sexist* (I know you will) but I got a real thrill in the early debates when she dominated and bested a stage full of men.
I was ready to write an entirely different post tonight. One on the overt sexism Hillary Clinton has faced in the last day or so. I was going to point you all to Melissa McEwan's post at Shakesville on how Obama and Edwards should have reacted to the unrelenting reports of "Hillary's emotional moment":
"The sexism being wielded against Clinton is despicable, and it needs to stop. I want to beat Clinton on the issues, not because I benefited from the favor of bigotry."I was also going to quote Gloria Steinem in today's New York Times about gender and race in this election re Hillary and Obama:
That wasn't so hard, now, was it?
What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.Steinem goes on to plead that this should not, however, be a contest for who has it worse running for president -- a black man or a woman. As she put it:
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
Can we all** agree that it's pretty damn wonderful that, finally, after 200+ years the first two winners in the Democratic presidential primary process are an African American and a female? And, that there's a damn good chance that one of them will actually end up as President?
* Though, I've never had the chance to vote for a female president . . . or governor, or senator, or US rep., or mayor (wasn't in Pgh for Sophie), or city council person, etc.
** And, by "all" I am of course excluding our Rethuglican trolls. Oh yeah, I'm guessing that the Edwards supporters ain't exactly happy either tonight and I'm saying that they should also be less than happy with his response to Hillary's "moment."
.
6 comments:
John K. says: What! The pollsters were wrong? How could that be? These same pollsters have been telling us for four years of Bush's low poll numbers. And you left wingers have been echoing them. Now that the pollsters were wrong on Clinton, no cries of rigged elections, as when the pollsters were wrong on Kerry in Nov 2004. Hmmm, wonder what else the pollsters have been wrong on. Can we say the Bush Presidency and the Iraq war.
John K. says: Having predicted a Hillary Clinton loss in Iowa, I also predict a Hillary Clinton loss in NH.
I guess the pollsters were's the only ones that were wrong, John. As you demonstrate, it is much easier to make your predictions after the fact.
How do you think Hillary will do against Major Andre?
Can't type OR proofread this morning. Obviously, I meant "the pollsters weren't the only ones..."
Drat. I'm crossing my fingers for NV and SC, though. It'll be interesting to see what Obama can do from here on out.
- Shawn
...no cries of rigged elections, as when the pollsters were wrong on Kerry in Nov 2004.
Duh! it's the exit polls that matter where fraud is concerned. Kerry was winning the exit polling and after Bush was declared the winner, CNN changed their exit polls at 2:00 am to relfect the vote.
Hillary's exit polls matched the vote.
Poor Hillary, beset by sexism.
This lady can't decide what she wants to be.
When everything's going great - and she's ahead in the polls - she's just one of the boys: cold, distant, aloof, but a 'leader' and 'on top of the issues.'
When the chips are down and the numbers aren't looking too good, she turns on the waterworks.
So you tell me who's a vicitm of sexism?
Maybe, just maybe, she's only appearing to be whatever will win her votes - and then having her cake and eating it too by decrying the 'sexist characterizations' made about her.
The poor, put-upon woman.
Post a Comment