I do not think for one moment that Hillary is "reveling in separation." Because she acknowledges she's a woman? Because she addresses women's issues and wants women to help on her campaign? Because she gave an interview to a women's web site? Doesn't EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE try to appeal to women and/or whatever groups they think will help them? That doesn't mean they're being divisive. But BECAUSE Hillary is a woman, you think she is being so. That is _exactly_ what Steinem was saying in the column!
Anyway I think that Hillary wants to do what's best for the whole country just as much as Obama or any of the candidates. Maybe her rhetoric isn't as lofty, but that's one of the reasons I like her, because she's practical. Her ideas are good and I believe she has the ability to implement them. She spent several minutes in a stump speech the other day talking about her plans to improve environmental health. Maybe that's not as sexy as talking about "hope" and "change" but it GAVE me hope that things will change. But clearly she has an image problem among some people who just don't trust her, like you. I don't get it, and I really think it's a personality thing. And, at least partly to do with her gender.
Of course every candidate tries to appeal to women, various minorities, union members, any group they think will help. But it feels to me like Clinton focuses her appeals more specifically towards women than Obama does to black folks, or Richardson does to Latinos. And she and Steinem seem to be using the fact that she's a woman as a major qualification for the presidency. "No masculinity to prove". On NPR yesterday, I heard a Clinton supporter saying "we need a woman president" which I think is identity-politics BS. We need an honest, smart president with good policies. If Edwards or Obama had folks saying "We need a man to be president", they'd be booed, and rightly so. Why should the Clinton campaign get a pass on what is effectively sexist bigotry? Can you imagine some random pundit saying Obama would make a better president because "he doesn't have feminine issues"?
I don't trust Hillary, but I don't think that's because of her gender. I don't trust Bill either. I do like Bill more than Hillary, maybe because he's more charismatic and charming, but I'd vote for Obama over either of them.
why do you keep saying "she and Steinem" like they are in cahoots? Gloria Steinem wrote the column by herself, I'm sure she didn't have input from Clinton. There's no female conspiracy. Did you notice you called them "whiny" too? I didn't hear you calling that man who claimed gender discrimination a "whiner."
And a John McCain supporter called Hillary a bitch. Does that mean John McCain thinks that too? So WHAT if some women want to elect Hillary because she's a woman? Don't you think people choose who to vote for for much less valid reasons? Some people didn't vote for Al Gore because they didn't like the way he dressed. Some people vote for a president they think their special interest can control him. Some people vote for a president because he's a white man. Most people vote for a president that they feel will represent and protect them the best. No woman has ever had a chance to be president. And here you are passing judgment on women who want a woman to have a chance. You're calling THEM sexist bigots??? Why is their reasoning any less valid than yours? Not only that, you're blaming Hillary Clinton for it! You're blaming the first woman who actually has a real chance for the fact that women may have felt disenfranchised for the past 230 years, with good reason, and are now excited about feeling part of things. Don't you see how backward that is?? I promise you, you would not see this the same way if only women had been president and this was the first time a man had a chance.
I think you think it's wrong for women to feel that a woman could represent their interests better. I think the whole idea of that scares you. But that's really not that relevant to what kind of president Hillary may be. Some people might vote for her partly because she's a woman. Plenty of other people will NOT vote for her partly because she's a woman. Once someone is in office how they got there doesn't matter as much, which is why it is more fruitful to just think about which candidate will do a better job as president, not their supporters' motives. I don't happen to think that Clinton will pander to women if she becomes president, because of some gender loyalty you seem to be scared of. But you know what, even if I did think that and voted for her because of it? I would be well within my rights, justified, and not a "sexist bigot" to do so. Women make up more than half the population and deserve to have a voice in power.
And yes, I can absolutely imagine (and have heard) random pundits saying that. You seem to be saying it now. :P
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051110-remarks_of_sena_1/
Anyway I think that Hillary wants to do what's best for the whole country just as much as Obama or any of the candidates. Maybe her rhetoric isn't as lofty, but that's one of the reasons I like her, because she's practical. Her ideas are good and I believe she has the ability to implement them. She spent several minutes in a stump speech the other day talking about her plans to improve environmental health. Maybe that's not as sexy as talking about "hope" and "change" but it GAVE me hope that things will change. But clearly she has an image problem among some people who just don't trust her, like you. I don't get it, and I really think it's a personality thing. And, at least partly to do with her gender.
Reply
I don't trust Hillary, but I don't think that's because of her gender. I don't trust Bill either. I do like Bill more than Hillary, maybe because he's more charismatic and charming, but I'd vote for Obama over either of them.
Reply
And a John McCain supporter called Hillary a bitch. Does that mean John McCain thinks that too? So WHAT if some women want to elect Hillary because she's a woman? Don't you think people choose who to vote for for much less valid reasons? Some people didn't vote for Al Gore because they didn't like the way he dressed. Some people vote for a president they think their special interest can control him. Some people vote for a president because he's a white man. Most people vote for a president that they feel will represent and protect them the best. No woman has ever had a chance to be president. And here you are passing judgment on women who want a woman to have a chance. You're calling THEM sexist bigots??? Why is their reasoning any less valid than yours? Not only that, you're blaming Hillary Clinton for it! You're blaming the first woman who actually has a real chance for the fact that women may have felt disenfranchised for the past 230 years, with good reason, and are now excited about feeling part of things. Don't you see how backward that is?? I promise you, you would not see this the same way if only women had been president and this was the first time a man had a chance.
I think you think it's wrong for women to feel that a woman could represent their interests better. I think the whole idea of that scares you. But that's really not that relevant to what kind of president Hillary may be. Some people might vote for her partly because she's a woman. Plenty of other people will NOT vote for her partly because she's a woman. Once someone is in office how they got there doesn't matter as much, which is why it is more fruitful to just think about which candidate will do a better job as president, not their supporters' motives. I don't happen to think that Clinton will pander to women if she becomes president, because of some gender loyalty you seem to be scared of. But you know what, even if I did think that and voted for her because of it? I would be well within my rights, justified, and not a "sexist bigot" to do so. Women make up more than half the population and deserve to have a voice in power.
And yes, I can absolutely imagine (and have heard) random pundits saying that. You seem to be saying it now. :P
Reply
Leave a comment