Letter to the Editor I just sent The New Yorker
Attempting to illuminate why women in large numbers might be drawn to Clinton as a candidate, Hertzberg boils it down to the year we won the right to vote and our shared experience of discrimination in the workplace. However, he argues, these injustices pale in comparison to the history of racist violence-from slavery to lynchings to Medgar Evers-which cuts a far deeper wound.
He further suggests that aside from Clinton's failure to stand with the minority in the US Senate who voted against authorization of the Iraq war, "it's hard to find anyone who will dispute" that she was basically not a very good campaigner-her message too negative and incoherent compared with her eloquent opponent.
First of all, it bears pointing out that while the horrors of slavery, segregation and white supremacy are inarguable in their atrocity, the atrocities committed against women throughout human history are no less painful. The raped and battered bodies of women litter the landscape of American history; and it is a complex intersection of race and gender that leads to wartime rape of civilian women and the bayoneting of their pregnant bodies-an act which aims to annihilate not only the woman and her unborn child, but also the very source of women's unique power.
I am not-could not-argue that oppression of women is worse or deeper than oppression of African Americans and other people of color in our culture. Comparing racism to misogyny is like asking, "How would you rather be executed? Firing squad or guillotine?" You can make an argument on either side, but it is better to reject both.
To offer an alternative view of Hillary's candidacy: voting for Hillary was a difficult choice because of her vote on the Iraq war and the sense that she is by nature a compromiser-one source of her effectiveness and also a source of disappointment when it came to her husband's Presidency. When I entered the voting booth in Illinois, Edwards was out of the race. In Obama I recognized a powerful and persuasive leader during times when we need to believe in hope. In Hillary I saw a career spent working for the interests not of women, but of children. Her career and Congressional voting record reflect her conviction that our best hope for the future lies in providing educational opportunity, health care and other basic necessities to the next generation of Americans.
Just like McCain voters, I would venture to guess that Obama and Clinton supporters are motivated not as much by race or gender, but by the issues. Obama supporters are less forgiving of Clinton's war vote and less interested in her hard-won victory passing SCHIP, one of the only progressive pieces of legislation to make it through to law during the Bush II years.
For Clinton supporters, her vote on the war may disappoint, but we recognize how unlikely it was that a protest vote would have been effective and how likely it would have been used against her as evidence of her feminine weakness, thus thwarting her Presidential ambitions. That one vote, for us, does not outweigh her dedication to ending poverty through enactment of concrete policies that address the burdens on the working poor -- including the women-headed households who disproportionately make up their ranks.
That Clinton is also more experienced, has sat on committees that give her deeper and more broad policy experience in the area of defense, and was a champion of health care reform long before the issue was an issue are all factors in our voting for her. The role that sexism or feminist consciousness plays in all this is small but irksome-because we cannot help but notice that Obama supporters like Hertzberg dismiss our concerns and dismiss our candidate, asserting that this photo finish was a sweeping victory for Obama and that despite her seniority in politics, Clinton lacks his political acuity in the areas that truly matter.
As for “our” issues, Herzberg’s evidence that Obama is just as good a candidate as Clinton when it comes to “women’s issues” is that he was raised by a single mother, has two daughters, and is married to a strong-willed woman. I agree that he seems like a good father, son, and husband, but you'll pardon me if I don't swoon.
Hertzberg ends his Comment with a challenge to women: it's up to us to respond to Obama. Don't worry, Hendrik. Speaking demographically, women are nothing if not responsive.
I was a stronger Obama supporter when I voted for Clinton in the primary. The more I see Clinton and women voters patronized by Obama's ardent supporters, the less voting for him really feels like change.
He further suggests that aside from Clinton's failure to stand with the minority in the US Senate who voted against authorization of the Iraq war, "it's hard to find anyone who will dispute" that she was basically not a very good campaigner-her message too negative and incoherent compared with her eloquent opponent.
First of all, it bears pointing out that while the horrors of slavery, segregation and white supremacy are inarguable in their atrocity, the atrocities committed against women throughout human history are no less painful. The raped and battered bodies of women litter the landscape of American history; and it is a complex intersection of race and gender that leads to wartime rape of civilian women and the bayoneting of their pregnant bodies-an act which aims to annihilate not only the woman and her unborn child, but also the very source of women's unique power.
I am not-could not-argue that oppression of women is worse or deeper than oppression of African Americans and other people of color in our culture. Comparing racism to misogyny is like asking, "How would you rather be executed? Firing squad or guillotine?" You can make an argument on either side, but it is better to reject both.
To offer an alternative view of Hillary's candidacy: voting for Hillary was a difficult choice because of her vote on the Iraq war and the sense that she is by nature a compromiser-one source of her effectiveness and also a source of disappointment when it came to her husband's Presidency. When I entered the voting booth in Illinois, Edwards was out of the race. In Obama I recognized a powerful and persuasive leader during times when we need to believe in hope. In Hillary I saw a career spent working for the interests not of women, but of children. Her career and Congressional voting record reflect her conviction that our best hope for the future lies in providing educational opportunity, health care and other basic necessities to the next generation of Americans.
Just like McCain voters, I would venture to guess that Obama and Clinton supporters are motivated not as much by race or gender, but by the issues. Obama supporters are less forgiving of Clinton's war vote and less interested in her hard-won victory passing SCHIP, one of the only progressive pieces of legislation to make it through to law during the Bush II years.
For Clinton supporters, her vote on the war may disappoint, but we recognize how unlikely it was that a protest vote would have been effective and how likely it would have been used against her as evidence of her feminine weakness, thus thwarting her Presidential ambitions. That one vote, for us, does not outweigh her dedication to ending poverty through enactment of concrete policies that address the burdens on the working poor -- including the women-headed households who disproportionately make up their ranks.
That Clinton is also more experienced, has sat on committees that give her deeper and more broad policy experience in the area of defense, and was a champion of health care reform long before the issue was an issue are all factors in our voting for her. The role that sexism or feminist consciousness plays in all this is small but irksome-because we cannot help but notice that Obama supporters like Hertzberg dismiss our concerns and dismiss our candidate, asserting that this photo finish was a sweeping victory for Obama and that despite her seniority in politics, Clinton lacks his political acuity in the areas that truly matter.
As for “our” issues, Herzberg’s evidence that Obama is just as good a candidate as Clinton when it comes to “women’s issues” is that he was raised by a single mother, has two daughters, and is married to a strong-willed woman. I agree that he seems like a good father, son, and husband, but you'll pardon me if I don't swoon.
Hertzberg ends his Comment with a challenge to women: it's up to us to respond to Obama. Don't worry, Hendrik. Speaking demographically, women are nothing if not responsive.
I was a stronger Obama supporter when I voted for Clinton in the primary. The more I see Clinton and women voters patronized by Obama's ardent supporters, the less voting for him really feels like change.