You are my sunshine/my only sunshine
So I'm totally conflicted about this Obama vs. Clinton thing.
First of all, I am a historical Clinton fan. I believe that Hillary was one of the great boons to public policy in the US in the 90s, particularly in domestic terms. She and Bill Clinton were clearly a team and Hillary in particular seemed to pay close attention to the development of national debates and policy agendas, sparking the whole "we didn't elect you"* debate that seemed to be interminable during that era where the conservatives couldn't take a trick.
I was disappointed, as I think many feminists were, with Hillary's response to the Monica Lewinsky saga. Whatever one might think about "standing by one's man", Tammy Wynette style, it is also clear that the relationship between President Clinton and a young intern was an abuse of personal power. Had Clinton been the CEO of an office cleaning company, this implication would have been clear.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure what I make of Obama. He is clearly an inspirational character. I don't see the substance, but maybe that 's because every time I see him he seems to have Oprah or George Clooney hanging about the edges. He clearly has a long political future ahead of him. I do worry that there is some kind of dirt file yet to see the light of day. Although there are strong claims that Hillary's campaign has been playing dirty, it's nothing compared to the partisan politics which will characterise the later half of the year. And we already know all the "best dirt" on Hillary, so it's likely that this wouldn't be a factor in any campaign she runs.
One of the things that has been getting up my nose is the persistent notion of "dynasties". It's used exclusively to skewer Hillary Clinton, and to me denies the reality that she is an excellent policy brain with a real concern for the future of the country. I even heard Jon Faine and Alan Attwood huffing in exasperated tones about the possibility that Chelsea Clinton might run in the future. Well, give the poor girl a break! If she wanted to run for President, who can fairly stop her? The thing about democracy is that the people get to decide, and in the American system they even get to decide who their candidates are. I have no problem with generations of politicians, unless they are poor representatives, in which case everyone is being cheated. But even Arnold Schwarzenegger has shown (somewhat worryingly) that he isn't completely dense and is capable of running a state, so while celebrity might put you there, it can't keep you there if you do a godawful job.
My problem with the whole Clinton/Obama thing is that I think either would be an awesome President. So I have to wonder, who is the most likely to beat John McCain? Because ultimately, it will be the American voting public who decide. What are their feelings? What are their prejudices? Will their desire to "turn American around" be enough to overlook McCain's war hero status, or to elect a black man or former First Lady? I certainly hope so.
* I notice this argument is strangely absent in current conversations about Bill's role. Seems everyone is pretty comfortable with him running the country by proxy. Bastards.
First of all, I am a historical Clinton fan. I believe that Hillary was one of the great boons to public policy in the US in the 90s, particularly in domestic terms. She and Bill Clinton were clearly a team and Hillary in particular seemed to pay close attention to the development of national debates and policy agendas, sparking the whole "we didn't elect you"* debate that seemed to be interminable during that era where the conservatives couldn't take a trick.
I was disappointed, as I think many feminists were, with Hillary's response to the Monica Lewinsky saga. Whatever one might think about "standing by one's man", Tammy Wynette style, it is also clear that the relationship between President Clinton and a young intern was an abuse of personal power. Had Clinton been the CEO of an office cleaning company, this implication would have been clear.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure what I make of Obama. He is clearly an inspirational character. I don't see the substance, but maybe that 's because every time I see him he seems to have Oprah or George Clooney hanging about the edges. He clearly has a long political future ahead of him. I do worry that there is some kind of dirt file yet to see the light of day. Although there are strong claims that Hillary's campaign has been playing dirty, it's nothing compared to the partisan politics which will characterise the later half of the year. And we already know all the "best dirt" on Hillary, so it's likely that this wouldn't be a factor in any campaign she runs.
One of the things that has been getting up my nose is the persistent notion of "dynasties". It's used exclusively to skewer Hillary Clinton, and to me denies the reality that she is an excellent policy brain with a real concern for the future of the country. I even heard Jon Faine and Alan Attwood huffing in exasperated tones about the possibility that Chelsea Clinton might run in the future. Well, give the poor girl a break! If she wanted to run for President, who can fairly stop her? The thing about democracy is that the people get to decide, and in the American system they even get to decide who their candidates are. I have no problem with generations of politicians, unless they are poor representatives, in which case everyone is being cheated. But even Arnold Schwarzenegger has shown (somewhat worryingly) that he isn't completely dense and is capable of running a state, so while celebrity might put you there, it can't keep you there if you do a godawful job.
My problem with the whole Clinton/Obama thing is that I think either would be an awesome President. So I have to wonder, who is the most likely to beat John McCain? Because ultimately, it will be the American voting public who decide. What are their feelings? What are their prejudices? Will their desire to "turn American around" be enough to overlook McCain's war hero status, or to elect a black man or former First Lady? I certainly hope so.
* I notice this argument is strangely absent in current conversations about Bill's role. Seems everyone is pretty comfortable with him running the country by proxy. Bastards.
posted by gigglewick at
8:19 pm
12 Comments:
I've seen a few vox pops now where the dominant anti Hillary argument was a fear of Bill Clinton being back in the Whitehouse. I do wonder whether the people in question were genuine Democrat voters, or whether they are just as unlikely to vote for a black president, who knows.
It would be a shame if McCain picked up undecided voters or conservative democrats by virtue of Bill's poor public standing though.
Also Obama gets kudos from me this week for his stance on LGBT issues .
Eh - the ones I've seen have Bill as a "two-for-one" kind of deal.
Pretty offensive.
But re the choices made - let's not forget this is a country that re-elected GWB. RE-ELECTED him. It would be quite the departure for them, I believe, to vote in either HC or BO.
* snort *
BO
The fact that there is a term limit on how long one can be in the Whitehouse is what disturbs me about Hillary (and Bill's) campaign to get back there. It is the 22nd Amendment to the US constitution -
"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
I don't think it is morally right - the people who put the term limits there clearly meant that people should be there for a maximum of eight years. Bill served those eight years. He shouldn't be able to get back in there via his wife.
And Hillary just scares me full stop. I agree with your thoughts on the Lewinski saga - I'd have kicked Bill to the kerb. But feminists are so keen to get a woman in the Whitehouse that they don't seem to care about the morals of that woman they are trying to get in there!
Snoskred,
There are a few things here.
Firstly, I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman to be a politician or elected official if her husband has been. Certainly there are examples of that in this country. I'm also not sure that the framers of the Constitution had any idea that WOMEN might seek high office when they drafted the Constitution.
Secondly, I think it's critical for people to try and work out what they mean when they talk about politicians and the roles of their families. Okay, so if Hillary can't run for President, can a former Chief of Staff? What about a Press Secretary? How about a driver, or a personal assistant? There is an argument that these people have been as privy to decision making as spouses, so perhaps they also void their candidacy?
I also disagree that "feminists are so keen to get a woman in the whitehouse that they don't seem to care about the morals of that woman". I think plenty of feminists are majorly conflicted about Hillary. I think feminist organisations have had to make some tough calls about whether they support her. And I think you'll find that there are plenty of feminists who DON'T support her.
Feminist politics is a lot more complex than "any woman at any cost", otherwise feminists would wander all over the political spectrum supporting candidates due to their gender alone. As none of us are single-issue voters (despite my protests to the contrary on occasion), our decisions are complex and multi-layered. I personally know a whole bunch of feminists who support Obama. I know other feminists who support McCain - not all feminists are implicitly left.
It's a good discussion, and as I said I'm not at all black and white about where I stand in all of this. But I like the conversation.
I'm confused too and sympathize. I've decided to deal with my inner conflict by deciding that either one are a great improvement.
And re the feminist thing. It's not much good having, finally, a female President if she's not going to be great. Doesn't exactly further the cause if she's morally despicable or lacking greatly in any important areas, etc, etc. The future will just echo with jaunts of "Not voting for a woman again! Not after the last one!".
EB,
Indeed.
Re feminist thing - yes, I agree. But I don't necessarily hold that Hillary is morally despicable. I think were any of us in her position (which many of us surely have been, out of the spotlight) we might not have worked through it in a particularly admirable way either. Relationships are as murky as anything in politics, so while I didn't agree with her judgment on that one, I can't condemn her forever due to that decision.
That's OK GW. I was just using that as an example (wasn't referring to what you had said). I mean, any woman Pres who has some major flaws - and who really knows if Hillary has some big ones until she is actually in the role of President - will be bad for the feminist cause.
Like you, I can't decide how major her flaws are and whether they're worse than Obama's. If I were able to vote (don't we wish!!) then I'd look into them a lot further.
It's really the same for Obama. If he becomes President then he'd better do a damn good job as all future black Presidential candidates will be judged somewhat by his track record. Unfortunate, but true.
That's all I was saying really.
Well, at least I'm not the only one who is confused. Hillary would probably be a good president, and would certainly be a huge improvement on the dude they elected the last two times, but every time I hear one of her speeches or soundbites the phrase 'focus group tested poll driven power hungry phoney person' wanders through my mind.
I know that could be applied to a few other politicians, but its seems to apply to Hillary more than most. Still, I like her policies.
The main reason why I'm cheering for Obama is that I want to see a real life campaign between the guy Matt Santos may have been modelled on and the guy Arnold Vinnick was absolutely blatantly modelled on.
It's possible that there are other, better reasons, also.
EB,
Yes - sorry, I knew you weren't responding to what I said...I was drawing on your example also! :)
However, I do note that no one is saying "Hey, white blokes. Let's not give them a go at the presidency anymore after the cock-up this one's made of it".
INC,
Could it be that with Hillary what you're feeling is a sense of over-exposure (excuse the pun)?
Also while I applaud your desire for WW to flow over into real life, I worry that you may in fact be disappointed. And also, imagine that race if Nancy McNally had run against Arnold Vinnick. Just IMAGINE!
Hi GW,
Your well argued response to Snoskred actually pre-empted my post. I was about to put my hand up as a feminist who is emphatically behind Obama. There are myriad reasons for my decision, but one of these is, unfortunately, race. I think race politicises a person even more than gender - there are too many examples of women, and political leaders at that, like Margaret Thatcher, whose gender seems to have had little effect on their policies and decisions.
My problem with Hillary is that she (whether by proxy or personally) has launched some disturbingly racially-themed broadsides at her opponent, as has her husband. In one example, Bill ungenerously remarked that 'Jesse Jackson had also done well back in the 90s' (ie. and lost) when he was asked for his thoughts on one of Obama's primary victories. He failed to draw any link between Jackson and Obama, leading one to draw the nasty conclusion that he was talking about 'the other black man'. HillBilly might be running on a liberal platform, but she lost me after that.
I fear that, in some ways, this democratic campaign has become dogged by minority labelling to the point that it is impossible to separate the candidates' credentials from their status as flag-bearer for a cause (race or gender). As someone who cares deeply about both issues, I am sickened by the simplification/reduction of each, to the exclusion of the other. So, like you and other commenters, I am similarly conflicted and exhausted by this campaign (but fascinated nonetheless).
I don't know if you saw this Tracee Hutchison article:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/01/1201801032995.html
But I think it to be one of the most facile pieces of writing I've come across in a very long time, particularly from Hutchison, whose writing is normally worth a gander.
She's pitting the struggles of (white) women against black men, in a 'who's had it worse' way, and by so doing completely removing all complexity (and shades and combinations of difference) from the equation. The article presumes that the two issues never intersect - and nothing could be further from the truth! I was going to blog about it at the time, but I got too steamed up, and subsequently forgot about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think the link should be:
add 'tml' to the end of that link and it should work. *fingers crossed*
PS: I suppose I should add that I have no problem with spouses running for office and I don't judge Hillary for any of the decisions she made vis a vis her marriage. I should also add that if she were to be the endorsed candidate I would gladly vote for her (if I were a US citizen, obvs). My linking of Hillary and her husband during her campaign is due to Hillary's own press. Unfortunately Bill has had too high a profile in this whole race and it has harmed rather than boosted Hillary's campaign.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home