The Trouble With Hillary
Rebecca Traister has an article in Salon today about feminist attitudes towards Hillary Clinton. In case you didn’t know, we’re divided. Most of us I think will vote for her if she’s the nominee, because any Democrat is better than any Republican. But do we want her to be the nominee?
Reasons to support Hillary:
A) She’s a woman,
B) She used to be a good feminist and liberal, before she sold out, and
C) Bill would be a really interesting First Gentleman.
Reasons to oppose Hillary:
A) Iraq war, Patriot Act, flag-burning, making nice with conservatives, etc.
B) Right-wing hatred of the woman burns with the heat of a thousand suns, which is maybe not a great situation for your candidate going in.
Actually Traister’s article doesn’t mention the right-wing hatred factor at all, except in a sidelong mention of why Hillary sold out to the conservatives. Janeane Garofalo is quoted as saying, “There’s no way she could fully believe in that [flag-burning legislation]. Having said that, this woman has been so browbeaten, so picked-on, so ridiculously maligned that I don’t blame her for having these spurts of post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Granted the wingnuts are insane; there is absolutely nothing remotely rational in their antipathy for Hillary Clinton. (Even if she did personally murder Vince Foster with her bare hands.) Still: they exist, they’re really loud, and they’ve spent almost a decade and a half now preaching that this woman is the anti-Christ. Given all that, is Hillary even electable?
And if she is electable, do we want her to be the nominee?
Hillary’s stands on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act are reprehensible; her cozying up to the anti-reproductive rights crowd is nauseating; the flag-burning crap is just fucking stupid. I would love to be able to wind the tape back and erase the past 5 years or so of her public record, which I see as pretty much one long craven plea to the conservatives not to hate her so much. And I really question whether, if she did manage to get elected, the wingnuts would stop foaming at the mouth long enough to let her govern.
Nevertheless, and unbelievable as it may sound, I still have a bit of a soft spot for ol’ HRC.
Yes, I want a woman President. Sorry, I just do. I grew up hearing that “in America, any boy can grow up to be President!”, and goddammit, I want to change that. I don’t want it enough to vote for any woman: if Condi Rice were the Republican candidate, for example, I would not vote for her over a Democratic male. I would stab my eyes out with a fork before I’d vote for a Republican.
But Hillary’s a Democrat. She used to be a good liberal and a good feminist, and deep-down possibly still is. I admired her quite a bit before she turned into GOP-lite. And the sheer historical coolness of the former First Lady getting elected President while the former President becomes the First Gentleman — well, you’ve gotta admit that’s kind of delicious.
Basically for me the thinking process is always an endless circle that goes: Hillary’s a sellout, give me Feingold or somebody decent, but oh it would be kind of cool to have a President Hillary, but goddammit she sold out, give me Feingold or somebody decent, but oh it would be kind of cool…
Thoughts?
15 Responses to “The Trouble With Hillary”
-
Mandos says:
I think in general that history has shown that you rarely get women into power who aren’t sellouts or vicious (Thatcher, Merkel, etc), so rationally if you think that having a female president is an inherent good, you should vote for Hillary.
But it’s not clear that benefits flow to women from this. Do they?
October 16th, 2006 at 1:18 pm EST -
Mandos says:
Also while the Trading Places Hillary/Bill thing might be cool, it is also contributing to a disturbing trend to a sort of dynasticism in American politics. This dynasticism one sees in “democratic” countries with extreme class division, like the Nehru-Gandhis in India.
-
nina says:
I love the thought of Hillary as president, I’m just not sure she’s electable. Lots of lefties hate her, too. I sadly don’t think we’re ready for a woman in the white house–people across the board still seem to have too many issues with powerful women.
-
Violet says:
Janeen! You’re Nina again?
-
Violet says:
But it’s not clear that benefits flow to women from this. Do they?
It’s about barriers and symbolism. Every time we have a “first woman” something, it matters.
One of the things I liked about Traister’s article was that she acknowledged that our feelings about this may be irrational but they’re real. Certainly most feminists agree that gender shouldn’t matter, and we’ll readily vote for a good male candidate over a lesser female candidate, but that didn’t stop women at the screening of “Commander in Chief” from welling up in tears. A fictional character becoming the first woman president on a goddamn TV show, and women well up in tears.
I guess you either get that or you don’t.
-
nina says:
I don’t know who the hell I am anymore. But I absolutely agree with you that there is a big psychological and emotional impact for women and little girls at the thought of having a woman president. I don’t think this should be discounted.
-
richard cherry says:
Given that whoever is elected has to be a bloody american you may as well have a woman as not. We soo enjoyed Thatcher here. I’ll have a female homicidal lunatic with the sense that the world begins and ends at the US border over male equivalent. It’s alos worth pointing out that Thatcher and Merkel were the right wing choice in their respective countries. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Rodinator is to the left of anyone but I don’t imagine she’s far to the right of the Republicans. I won’t even mention our favourite topos ‘the swedish model’ (no! not the porn thread) and the woman who had to resign because she hadn’t paid her TV licence. They are so sweet!!!!
-
Mandos says:
So it’s my overall feeling that Hillary probably won’t win the nomination, and if she does, she probably won’t win the presidency. But she’s pulled rabbits out of hats before.
But I think it’s more likely that you’ll get an Xtreme wingnut female president first. That’s what usually happens.
Though in France they may get Segolene Royal. She’s a social-democrat but she has wingnutty ideas about a few issues, I’m told.
BTW, is C-in-C still running?
-
richard cherry says:
she’s french she must be anti-muslim
-
richard cherry says:
B) Right-wing hatred of the woman burns with the heat of a thousand suns, which is maybe not a great situation for your candidate going in.
So is this in fact the cause of global warming? Thought it was something to do with cows… -
Violet says:
Also while the Trading Places Hillary/Bill thing might be cool, it is also contributing to a disturbing trend to a sort of dynasticism in American politics.
Might as well go with the flow. At this point we’re pretty much the fucking Merovingians anyway. Bush is just a mouthpiece; surprised they don’t grow his hair long and haul him around the country in a cart.
-
Jeff says:
How many of you can tell me that you had acutally heard of Bill before he started his run to the White House? Hillary has been in the public eye for the last 15 years, so necessarily, she had to formulate a different strataegy. Who’s to say that she learned from Bill, or that he learned from Hillary? I really don’t care. All I know is, that for the last 26 years, the only administration that has put the people of this country, and the attempt to improve the overall condiditions of every citizen of the world, AHEAD of their own ambitions has been the Clinton(s) Administration. I am thoroughly conviced that what this country needs is ANOTHER Clinton(s) Administration. And who knows, maybe by that time we can get that totally rediculous ammendment that reads “No President may serve more than two terms” to read “No elected offical OTHER than the President may serve more than two terms.”
The problem seems to stem from the other IDIOTS who have no limitations by law and are thereby corrupting our laws. Think about it: FIVE HUNDRED, THIRTYFIVE people (Senate and
House) elected to govern our country, plus the THOUSANDS of Federal Judges to watch over them and their decisions. The Congressperserons can hold on as long as their money and support hang around. The Judicial appointees are for LIFETIME.THIS what needs to be changed.
-
Mandos says:
-
Douglas, Friend of Osho says:
Yeah, Jeff, NAFTA was really a caring moment in world history. So was the Defense of Marriage Act. And let’s not forget ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the firing of Jocelyn Elders, not to mention Ricky Ray Rector’s execution, which admittedly happened while Bill was trying to get into the West Wing. I’ll agree, though, that term limits for the President are silly.
-
Jeff says:
Good, Douglas. Now we’ve got you thinking. Now, sit down and make a list of Reagan’s screw-ups, then Bush I’s screw-ups, and if you have enough time, paper, and ink, Dubya’s screw-ups. How do the lists compare? Nobody is perfect in their BEST moments, but Clinton was closer in his not-so-good moments than the last three Republican presidents have EVER managed during their whole lives.
