Two quick hits: White Men For Anybody But Hillary
There’s a piece in Salon this week about the dude vote, those guys who lurve Obama and/or McCain but would rather stab their eyes out with a fork than vote for Hitlery. It’s an amazing phenomenon, really, second only to the phenomenon of people deluding themselves into thinking that the first phenomenon has nothing to do with sexism.
Think about it: lifelong Democrats who disagree with McCain on every single issue, but would vote for him in November if Hillary were the nominee. Hillary is too “Nurse Ratchedish,” you see. (Mr. Limbaugh, white courtesy phone. White courtesy phone, Mr. Limbaugh.)
The author of the Salon piece doesn’t offer much in the way of analysis, though he does close with the suggestion that other liberal-leaning dudes “suck it up” and force themselves to vote for Hills if she’s the nominee. Sure, it’ll feel like having your nuts pulled off with a pair of pliers while standing naked in a vat of battery acid during a hailstorm, but dude. Be a man.
Over at the Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford goes deeper with Obama’s White Male Voters: Do They Hear Something Blacks Don’t?:
White men have always been the most reactionary, racially-bonded voting group, the deepest well of anti-Black hostility in the country. So, what makes them flock to Obama’s banner? The answer is simple: Obama has based his entire strategy on sending messages to white males, assuring them he will take race and sex privilege off the table of American discourse. They got the message, and vote accordingly.
Now let me be clear that Glen Ford is most definitely not endorsing Hillary; he and his contributors generally regard Clinton and Obama as political twins. But Ford’s ongoing deconstruction of Barack Obama is some of the most interesting political writing out there.
18 Responses to “Two quick hits: White Men For Anybody But Hillary”
-
Max says:
Some of us don’t like Clinton because of her record and platform. If gender and race is removed from all candidates, Clinton is not a good choice. I don’t understand why so many (but not all, thank goodness) feminists rally behind her. So she’s a woman. Not only that, but a woman that claims progressive out of one side of her mouth, and falls back on patriarchal stereotypes as pathetic bribes for the meek woman vote out of the other.
Also, Obama can’t mention race. A woman can be progressive if she’s in a position of power, but if he so much as raises his voice, he becomes the angry black candidate, at which point his chances will vanish. Before his presidential bid started, he was very active and outspoken on issues of race and poverty. He isn’t saying those things because doing so would screw him.
I don’t like Obama all that much, but at least he’s a decent person, legitimately concerned with valid issues. Clinton has proven time and time again that she will do anything, no matter how disingenuous and hypocritical, no matter how disgusting, to accomplish a goal she has set. And her health care plan sucks.
Sure, she’s the target of a lot of sexism, but not supporting her as a candidate is not de facto sexist for every white male.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:28 am EST -
blondie says:
Since most people believe Clinton and Obama to share virtually the same positions on the “issues,” e.g., health care reform, national security, the environment, etc., a person who disappoves of Clinton’s positions would likely also disapprove of Obama’s positions. Or are there some specific instances of difference in which you prefer Obama’s positions?
As far as the following, how about stating specific examples rather than vague accusations:
– Clinton “falls back on patriarchal stereotypes as pathetic bribes for the meek woman vote”
– “Clinton has proven time and time again that she will do anything, no matter how disingenuous and hypocritical, no matter how disgusting, to accomplish a goal she has set.”
– “And her health care plan sucks.”
Finally, just what is the “meek woman vote?”
-
Violet says:
Before his presidential bid started, he was very active and outspoken on issues of race and poverty.
I guess that means his presidential bid started at birth.
You really ought to read the BAR.
Clinton has proven time and time again that she will do anything, no matter how disingenuous and hypocritical, no matter how disgusting, to accomplish a goal she has set.
You could just save time and type “I believe everything Rush Limbaugh says.”
-
julia says:
Dear Max:
Does ’strong, forceful, sharp, convincing’ mean
‘willing to do anything to get her way?’ when applied to a woman?
The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton is not pretending to be progressive. They are both centrist Democrats, there are no progressive Democrats in the true sense of the word. We Americans love to say everything is ‘progressive’ and ‘left’ and compared to Europe and South America, we don’t even have a Left Wing in this country.
To me, your post says ‘I hate the thought of a woman for president!’. Obama is at risk if he talks about race, Clinton is at risk if she acts like anything but a man. Tell me one woman you would fully get behind if she ran for president?
Clinton is not the only woman running.
Go to Google and research Cynthia Mckinney -
Ann Bartow says:
I don’t feel like I have much of a grasp about the “real” Clinton OR the “real” Obama. Everything they say and do is filtered through so many people, with so many different agendas. I think they are both imperfect but likely to be way better than McCain. That’s about all I feel confident about, at this point.
I keep trying to convince myself that despite all the ugliness, in the long run the Dem. primary will have normalized the prospect of a President who is not white and/or not male in a productive way. I’m tired of the damage so many women are inflicting on each other related to this race, and I hope we are all able to heal quickly when it is over.
-
tigtog says:
blondie’s point is the crucial one. Both Clinton and Obama have targetted their messages using focus groups that they may as well just be called TweedleDem and TweedleDemmer - they have both concentrated on differentiating themselves from the Republicans without moving from the centrist position. That gives neither of them much room to manoeuvre.
For people (white dudes) to say that they’d vote for Obama in November but would rather vote for McCain than Clinton if she wins the Dem primary cannot be credibly justified as voting on the issues. This is all about voting with the genitals.
-
Max says:
Here’s a few examples:
-Writing herself a check for $5 million dollars, but then refusing to release her tax returns.
-One of her staffers was in part responsible for the circulation of the Obama is a closet Muslim out to destroy America emails.
-The distinct possibility that her staff was responsible for the picture of Obama dressed as a Muslim, a blatant attempt to play up racism, as a black man dressed in Muslim garb isn’t near so frightening as Clinton dressed in Muslim garb.
-The old scandals of Vince Foster and Whitewater.
-The sudden silence about her health care plan years back, immediately followed by her becoming the highest paid Democrat by insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
-The ongoing controversy over whether or not all the documents from her time as First Lady have been turned over to FOIA requests.
-There’s the issue of her initial support of NAFTA and what she did during her time spent on Wal-Mart’s board of directors.
-Using her background in child psychiatry to go after the 12 year old victim’s credibility (incorrectly) as part of an aggressive defense of an accused rapist.
-Crying on national television after a battery of (sexist) accusations that she’s not human (feminine) enough.I don’t listen to Rush. This is information from leftist / feminist / anti-racist sources.
I know that I’m guilty until proven innocent regarding issues of sexism, as I’m a man. I know that, as a straight white male with almost as much middle class background as lower class, I’m privileged as all hell. I know that I am not representative of white men at large, that a lot of white men fall under the descriptions given in this article.
I understand all of this, but gender aside, she’s not a good candidate. An unfortunate side effect of this patriarchal society, were she to be elected, any and all female candidates in the future will be judged by her performance. Given this, electing her is counterproductive to women. Give me a woman with a conscience, a woman with a health care plan that acknowledges that we have to take steps to change, instead of jumping right into it. Give me a woman that has the strength of her own convictions.
-
Violet says:
I don’t listen to Rush. This is information from leftist / feminist / anti-racist sources.
Then they must listen to Rush.
Jesus Christ, dude. If you believe all that stuff then you’re on the wrong blog. Try Free Republic.
-
Max says:
Wait, so because I don’t think Hillary Clinton would make a good president, I can’t read this particular feminist blog? Can I read the other dozen or so I’m subscribed to?
Like I said, I’m sure that quite a lot of white males fall under the description given in this post, but it’s the logical equivalent of saying that all women will vote for Clinton or all blacks will vote for Obama. I may be in the minority here, but I’m opposed to her because of her platform and her history.
While we’re criticizing sources, maybe you should stop reading that second wave dinosaur, Gloria Steinem, and open your mind a little bit more to reality.
-
Violet says:
Like I said, I’m sure that quite a lot of white males fall under the description given in this post, but it’s the logical equivalent of saying that all women will vote for Clinton or all blacks will vote for Obama.
No, it isn’t. Noting that many white men are too sexist to support Hillary is not the same as saying that “all women” will vote for Clinton or “all blacks” will vote for Obama. There is no equivalency there at all, and if you think there is then you’re either deficient in logic or the English language. Or both.
-
Max says:
Sorry about that, you’re right. Typo on my part.
What I meant to say was that your blanket assertions about the voting trends of white men are as flawed as assertions about “the black vote” or “the woman vote.” There are far too many men out there that fall under your description, but it’s a logical fallacy to assume that men opposed to a Clinton presidency are such for solely sexist reasons, just because there are a lot of jerks.
There are white men out there that don’t like her for the same reasons they don’t like other politicians. That’s my issue with her; she’s everything I hate about politicians, male and female. I’m not opposed to her because she’s doing things that “men are supposed to do,” it isn’t some bogus misogynistic double-standard.
Really, is it so hard to imagine that some people might not like her because of her platform and past?
-
Violet says:
your blanket assertions about the voting trends of white men
Nowhere have I ever said that sexism is the only reason a white man wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Nowhere have I ever said that sexism is the only reason any person wouldn’t vote for Hillary.
The fact that you keep yammering on as if this is my position is annoying the living shit out of me. This is not a blog for stupid people. Go away.
-
Ann Bartow says:
No one dispatches a troll quite like you!
My last few days have been filled with fun and feminists: my book club, a baby shower I co-hosted, a conference panel on gender under the Roberts Court, and dinner with friends. Blogging is generally a far inferior way to spend feministic time, with certain notable exceptions, including this blog.
-
Violet says:
Your life is more fun than mine!
-
Dave says:
Funny how the gender card is played so much here in the US. In Germany we have a female chancelor (highest position in the state) and her sex wasn’t really an issue during the campaign, apparently. And, she got elected mostly by white men. Duh. Are women underrepresented in German politics ? Yes. But it’s still not the same debate. I’d like to know why you’d go with Hillary other than because of positive discrimination. BTW, I don’t like her too much because of her fake smile and because Obama is more of a woman than she is. Now shoot me :D
-
Violet says:
Damn, here comes another one.
-
blackstone says:
Most of Obama’s political positions are in fact the same or similar to Clintons.
http://www.naacp.org/news/pres....._Obama.pdfOf course there are differences here and there, but thats to be expected, they want to differentiate themselves from each other, but not stray to far right or to far left.
-
Dave says:
“BTW, I don’t like her too much because of her fake smile and because Obama is more of a woman than she is. Now shoot me :D”
Ok, that last bit was, of course, pure irony. However, I’d be really interested to know how you people see Clinton as better qualified than Obama. Who knows, maybe she is.
