If you were one of the political junkies who spent all evening January 8th watching newscasts covering the New Hampshire primary, you're well aware of the unexpected upset that occurred on the Democratic side. The last twenty-four hours have been filled with all kinds of speculations and accusations as to who failed where and why, and the difficult thing is that nearly all explanations have validity. Bottom line: nobody is absolutely certain why projections of an easy Obama win turned sour in the short time before the vote.
But I personally think Jodi Kantor of the New York Times
hit it directly on the nose:
Even Democratic women with no intention of voting for Mrs. Clinton found themselves drawn into the debate and shaken by what briefly seemed like a humiliating end to the most promising female candidacy in American history.
The process seems to have changed a few minds, at least for now.
“I was really pained by the thought that her campaign really was over,” said Amy Rees, a stay-at-home mother in San Francisco who will vote in the California Democratic primary on Feb. 5. “I kept thinking that the truth is, a woman — even a woman of her unquestioned intelligence and preparedness — can’t get even a single primary win. It really stung.”
Ms. Rees had favored Senator Barack Obama of Illinois; now she is thinking of voting for Mrs. Clinton.
What we have seen is a blossoming of diversity on the Democratic side. We have a woman, and African American, and a Latino sharing the stage at debates and all vying for the reigns of the nation. Beyond the usual motivations of position, experience, and presentation are issues of race and gender. And while blacks and women have been elected and serving in a myriad of elected positions in America for decades, the glory of the Presidency is a seat that has traditionally been reserved for the white Christian elite.
With this in mind, it is easy to understand where the pundits and the pollsters went astray. Used to dealing with the name Clinton, but not how a female candidate could galvanize female support, the issue of sex was treated as minimal, certainly not something that could sway an entire state primary. So when New Hampshire women perceived that Clinton's campaign was being treated unfairly - even chauvinistically - by the mainstream media and flocked to the polls to support her, they caught everyone else off-guard.
Exit polling
confirmed that there was a strong turnout of women voters in the New Hampshire primary, many of whom voted for Clinton over Obama. What we see is that, while Obama remained strong in taking the youth vote, it was the older female Democrats who swooned to Hillary's side. It was the working women - those old-guard feminists who have lived through the struggles of the feminist movement in the last few decades - who saw what they believed was an unfair, misogynistic tone towards someone whom they believed was at least as qualified as any other Presidential candidate.
As Carrie Wooten of the Bilerico Project
muses:
A highly qualified, highly intelligent, highly respected woman who is being met with curious opposition from her own side in favor of less qualified male candidates. How interesting. If Hillary was a man, would we be advocating as a party for a Senator from Chicago with only two years experience in Washington with such gusto?
A valid question. Katie Heimer from the National Association of Women
echoes those same sentiments, observing, "Clinton's gender does make her standing as Democratic frontrunner groundbreaking. However, journalists seem fixated on this one aspect, as if her gender wholly defined Clinton as a candidate, and not in a good way."
This was an element of the race that, up until now, had been completely discounted. Never before in the history of Presidential races has old-guard feminism
played such a blatant role. In may ways, this furthers the notion that 2008 will see a race far removed from those of the past, one that sets a provocative tone for the 21st century.
But as a potential Democratic voter (and I emphasize "potential"), I cannot help but raise an eyebrow when I attempt to discuss Hillary Clinton with some of her supporters. To many I have talked to in the Clinton camp, the thought of a liberal opposing a Clinton is absurd, and therefore must be the result of some kind of latent chauvinism. Tara Bonistall of the Kentucky Kernel
wonders, "Could it be that the reason many people don't like Hillary Clinton is because she handles her political power like a man?" Why, oh why, would someone who is against the Iraq war, for universal health care, and for dethroning King George II be against a Clinton?! I can assure you, it has nothing to do with the presence of a uterus.
(Allow me state this right now: this is not an attempted critique of feminism, nor is it an attempt to somehow criticize feminists. This is merely a liberal expressing concern over what he sees all too often in American politics: people flocking to a candidate because of image, not issues.)
For starters, we can look to Clinton's voting record. Right away we see a number of votes that, in all honesty, look more at home on the resume of John McCain or Rudy Giuliani than someone purporting to be a liberal:
YES on the Patriot Act
YES on authorizing pre-emptive war in Afghanistan and Iraq
YES on funding for both wars, up until around the time polls showed it wasn't politically viable anymore
YES on funding for a border fence along Mexico
YES on funding for the REAL ID Act
YES on declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization
YES on conformation of Tom Ridge
YES on confirmation of Michael Chertoff
YES on confirmation of John Negroponte
If you go back and look at her rhetoric even as the Iraq War was being waged, it is difficult to differentiate between Senator Clinton and the words coming from the Bush Administration. For those of us who have dug through the old speeches and now hear her talk about ending "cowboy diplomacy", it's too easy to see that she has simply maneuvered herself into a position that is most politically favorable to her at the moment. If polling showed that the Iraq War was still popular, I guarantee she would not be singing the tune she is right now.
And not only am I frightened of Hillary as President, but also with Clinton being anywhere near the White House for another term. This is the same Clinton who increased funding for the Drug War, pushed through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which has lead to all of the media conglomeration that Democrats complain about), and oversaw the NAFTA treaty which has wrecked Mexico's economy and sacrificed countless American jobs. The Clinton years also saw the emergence of the PMRC and a wave of censorship in the music industry, something Hillary was completely supportive of. Forgive me for not wanting to have to go through that for another four years.
I'm not suggesting that we wait for a candidate who is pure as the virgin Mary, but I am saying that we shouldn't settle for Clinton. And that's not even settling, that's practically handing the reigns to the same people who have them now. Yet there are droves of people who consider themselves "progressive" and "liberal" who get giddy at the idea of putting a Clinton back in the oval office. And for many in New Hampshire, that seems to have more to do with her being a woman than it does with her being a good candidate.
For the same reason I criticize evangelical Christians for supporting evangelical candidates on the merits of their religion alone (a trend that may thankfully be dissipating as Mitt Romney picks up momentum), I criticize voters who would vote for a candidate solely because she is a woman, or solely because they feel like she was getting a sore deal from the press. Why not vote for Ron Paul, someone who is routinely belittled and ostracized by virtually
every media outlet for holding legitimate views on how this nation should be run? Just because he's a man it's ok if he's treated that way?
But I don't want people to finish reading this and go away fuming. What we're seeing in terms of candidates from the Democratic side is reassuring in a number of ways. As I said before, we're seeing diversity, we're seeing real grassroots support for serious change in this nation, and there is a lot of momentum building to topple the decades-old Republican dynasty in this nation. But I am concerned that serious issues are being marginalized or completely ignored by some Democrats because people who are critical of their candidate are immediately being labeled as discriminatory against women. Feminism is not something to be shunned, but it is also not something that should be used to shield political candidates from legitimate criticism. Not only does is hamper discussion of serious issues (and with the Clintons there is no shortage of them), but it also breeds resentment and division among people who otherwise would work hand in hand.
I don't want to see a Republican in the White House any more than the rest of you. But I also know that Hillary Clinton, regardless of her party affiliation and regardless of her current rhetoric, will
not produce the change that many believe she will. And I'm sorry if such a position makes me a sexist.
Update: This
comment on Dibgy's blog echoes my point. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but here are some of what I believe to be the more interesting observations:
The simple truth is that Clinton has been very willing to kiss up to the people who are most responsible for where we now find ourselves. She's done it early and often, as she "triangulated" for votes that, for her, do not exist. If you want to slide that, you can, but it was an act of monumental political stupidity that is coming back down on her now, and it's the main reason why she gets pounded in the progressive straw polls.
She is not a progressive. Not even close. And for you to defend her is a shock to me.
[...]
Her supporters are, with every passing day, being exposed as "progressives" who don't care how much support she's given to bush and the neo-cons. Just like you, they don't want to hear about her track record.
[...]
They are so caught up in turning her into Saint Clinton, and making her untouchable in the process, that the consequences of it are just not open for discussion. And if someone DOES insist on discussing it, then we're "sexist snakes".
