"Those Who Don't Learn From History......"

CDonian Writes: Of course it's your blog! But, honestly, many people oppose Hillary for substantial, nonsexist reasons. I know an awful lot of folks, including midlife-and-older women, who have issues with her experience, character, Senate record, et al. Some women are puzzled by her "feminist" thing, since her experience, and campaign, are so Bill-dependent.
I spend most of my professional time awash in news/media/political/legal research, so I see sheer tonnage of commentary by Hillary/Obama fans, grassroots and other. In general, Obama supporters are all over the male/female + age range, and tend to be policy-oriented. Hillary supporters are primarily female (esp. older), and tend to project their personal lives or stories onto her.
It's interesting. But as a sexism-pummeled feminist female, I don't view Hillary as a victim of sexism. She's not the average woman, or candidate, or woman candidate, but has both years of public baggage and enormous (even controversial) advantages.
And on a Dem-party note: I'm distressed by (a) those who say, "If she's not nominated, I'll vote for McCain" -- thus trashing all that Hillary and her party stand for; and (b) the surfeit of Dem.-grassroots gender-vs.-race warfare. Both (a) and (b) look like a mad GOP/Limbaugh plot, not like a spat among Democrats.

Reply: Let me say first, I have not decided emphatically who I will support in the anticipated November race between McCain and Obama (though were that election held today, I would vote McCain. -- After all, he seems to like animals. He and Cindy have a whole buncb of pets).

My main problem with Obama is lack of preparation and experience to be Commander in Chief.

As said earlier, this is not an "American Idol" contest.

Putting aside Obama's grand and lofty speeches and his obvious charisma, what we essentially have is a man who has served in a State Senate and spent (really) one year in the US Senate before running for President.

What record or "policy" is there to truly go on?

What do we really know about Barack Obama? His soul values and beliefs? The major influences in his life? His character? His ability to take defeat, rejection and even seeming hopelessness?

You say Obama supporters are "all over the map" in male/female and age.

That is not true.

Obama has put together a base composed of mostly young people (under 30), affluent, college educated, left leaning liberals ("MoveOn.org, Daily Koss, Huffington Post, etc.) and African Americans.

Hillary Clinton's core of support is senior citizens, Catholics, Latino, Asian, mature women, non-college educated blue collar workers, and Middle of the Road (i.e. "Reagan") Democrats.

That is a base that cannot be belittled, ignored or tossed out in a general election.

Speaking as a "non college educated" Hillary supporter, I am miffed that we are depicted by the Obama campaign (including the candidate himself) and much of the media as Archie Bunker (racist) types who "cling" to religion, guns and "antipathy towards those who are not like us."

That is pure bull.

As you know, Hillary Clinton won 67% to 26% in the West Virginia primary last night against Barack Obama.

The New York Daily News ran the headline this morning: "HILL BILLY Wins"

Clever, but to me, insulting, both to the people in West Virginia and to the rest of us who support Hilary Clinton. We're not all, gun toting, bible thumping, "hillbillies" and "uneducated" racist morons.

As the Governor of West Virginia said yesterday, the people of his state, "Have PHD's in life."

Thank you, Mr. Governor. To quote, Dylan, "You don't need a weatherman (or Harvard Degree) to know which way the wind blows."

You say: Some women are puzzled by her (Hillary's) "feminist" thing, since her experience, and campaign, are so Bill-dependent.

I don't agree. Bill's role in this campaign has been quite marginalized since South Carolina.

Who, after all, has participated in (and won) most of 21 debates? Hillary, not Bill.

I have never viewed Hillary as "dependent" on Bill. She is her own woman.

Yes, in many ways, the two are a team. They complement each other's weaknesses and strengths. And I truly believe, that aside from all the headline "affairs" on Bill's part, Bill and Hillary truly love and rely on each other.

One suspects, Bill Clinton would never have in fact, won and secured a successful Presidency without Hillary's help, active participation and brains.

If you say that without Bill, Hillary would not be where she is today, that is probably true to some degree. But, there is little doubt that without Bill, Hillary would still be a strong and enduring figure on the national political stage; perhaps a Governor or high profile Senator. (She is, as we all know, very determined, smart, ambitious, hard working and driven on her own.)

Other people can help or inspire you. But, no one can "give" you the strength, fortitude, "fire in the belly" and resiliency to endure on the high political front for more than two decades.

You also say, that Hillary's women supporters tend to "project their personal lives and stories on her."

That's called, "identity politics" and I'm sure its probably true for many female Hillary supporters, as it is for many African American supporters of Barack Obama. One tends to identify, relate or empathize with one's own. That is nothing new in the worlds of politics or sociology.

On this subject of "projection" it should also be noted that because Barack Obama is in many ways, an unknown slate, many people (especially younger ones) project on to him, their hopes and ideals; "Change we can believe in."

But, older voters tend towards skepticism of the unknown. We question the "changes" that Obama claims. We question Obama's 20 year influence of Pastor Wright and the "friendly" relationship with former weatherman and terrorist bomber, Bill Ayers. We tend less to "idealize" those we do not know well. We believe in the adage, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't."

You talk of Hillary's "baggage" and that in your view, Hillary "was never a victim of sexism."

I disagree on both counts.

One doesn't work in the political and social fields for more than 30 years and not have "baggage" or in my view, a record. If one is a successful woman, then she has indeed encountered sexism along the way. Just ask Barbara Walters or any other successful woman from the "baby boom" or previous generations.

Ask Hillary Clinton herself. -- Though quite frankly, we don't need to. One look at the headlines she has garnered over the months of this campaign or the diabolical comparisons to the Glen Close character in "Fatal Attraction" tell anyone but the dumbest, that sexism is indeed alive and well in 21st century America.

Despite all the drama of the previous Clinton administration, I think on the whole, it was a damned good one. Far better than most of the Presidential administrations over my lifetime.

What's more, Bill Clinton was the only Democrat to be elected for two terms since Roosevelt. Most other Democrats can't even claim winning one term as President. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been champions for all kinds of progressive civil rights causes, for people of color, women and health care for children. That many people seem to take for granted these efforts and accomplishments or demonstrate ingratitude is unfortunate.

Hillary Clinton in fact, campaigned for the election of Barack Obama to the US Senate and contributed to his 2004 campaign. -- So much for loyalty and gratitude on Obama's (and a number of his supporter's) part.

The bottom line reality here is that the present ultra liberal base spearheading Barack Obama towards the Democratic nomination is the very same one that has spelled (usually embarrassing) "defeat" for a long list of Democratic nominees from Adali Stevenson to John Kerry.

There is little doubt that the Democrats are heading down the exact same primrose path if nominating once again, a leftist leaning liberal whose main appeal is to one extreme of the party and the country.

We've already had 8 years of (far right) "extremism" in this country under George W. Bush.

I personally believe that most thinking Americans want to now get back to the centrist middle (and sanity) such as what we had under the previous Clinton Administration. (One reason McCain won the Republican nomimation over the other more "conservative" rivals.)

Though he may wear a lapel flag pin now, the memory of Obama's former pastor's radical and hateful rantings, as well as Michele Obama's statements about "mean" America in 2008 and that she has "never been proud of her country until now," leave most moderate Americans cold.

Though as said, I don't know for sure, who I will support in a November election between Obama and McCain, I will predict right now, that this election will go the same way as all others when Democrats nominate via their hearts rather than their brains.

"Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it." -- PCA

*******

Written by mandy787 Blog about this entry

This entry has 1 comments: (Add your own)

#1 Comment from cdonian
5/15/08 2:49 AM | Permalink

I campaigned and fundraised for Bill Clinton in '92 and '96.
That being said: This is not a typical primary season, and I know *many* Democrats who don't fit their candidate's alleged "base" group, and-or who resent having the primary framed as a race/class/gender/age war.
I'm also seeing movement away from Hillary - even by my blue-collar neighbors, and by others who voted for her months ago in a primary (NY or other). They're turned off by her policy twists and by the way she has reshaped herself for exigency's sake. Some are flipped out by the ugly, extreme, and racist tone of grassrootsers' pro-Hillary comments on varied respectable news sites/blogs and on "backdoor" pro-Hillary sites.
[I can vouch for that. I'm an ex-news editor/reporter, so am inured to the worst of everything. But much of this grassroots pro-Hillary/anti-Obama stuff is so vile that I refuse to even paraphrase it. There's no equivalent coming from the "pro-Obamas" ... not even in the sexism dep't, which I'd spot miles away, since I'm female and have experienced sexism up the wazoo.]
Finally, I wouldn't quickly generalize re:, or identify with, W.Va. I've worked there and have known some fine W.Va. folks, but it's a 1955 time-warp. Like swaths of Pa. and Ohio, it's not just blue-collar; it's a whole 'nother world, whose values you'd surely find alien-to-upsetting. I didn't expect more than 50 W.Va Dems to vote for a black candidate. If Obama were white, Hillary probably would have lost due to gender. And, as Bill Clinton griped on Monday: Though W.Va. is majority Dem., it went solidly for Bush in '00 and '04 (as did Ohio).

Tales & Tails of New York Public Journal
Back to Journal	Archives \| Alerts x Entry Alerts Comment Alerts \| Feeds

Tales & Tails of New York

"Those Who Don't Learn From History......"