My mother, who like Hillary Clinton was born in the 1940s, told me on the phone last week that for all the progress we've made as a society, this presidential campaign had been nothing but a painful reminder to her that a huge portion of this country still thinks it's perfectly OK to treat women like they're subhuman. The media has said, done and written things about Clinton that would never be considered of a male candidate. Bolstering my mother's point is the latest "trickle-down" example from over at MSNBC News. While appearing on "Tucker," political analyst David Shuster said of Chelsea Clinton's work on her mother's campaign -- "doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way." He later (sort of) apologized for the phrase (and got suspended by NBC), but as Media Matters points out, he made things worse by claiming (LYING) that he'd also said "a lot of wonderful things about Chelsea," like "Americans should be proud of [Chelsea]" and that "everybody, all of us, love" her, none of which he ever said. Obviously no one in politics is thin-skinned enough to think Shuster was implying that Chelsea is a prostitute. But when have we ever heard someone say such a thing of a male family member campaigning for male candidate?
We spoke before Tuesday's big primary day, but my mom -- who has been known to be right about a lot of big issues -- predicted that of the narrow-minded white male population out there, they'd stick by a fellow man -- even a black one -- over a "stupid" woman every time. And I think the polling data shows she's right. Blame it on which woman it is -- the evil Hillary Rodham -- all you want. I saw the exact same thing go on when Dianne Feinstein ran for governor against Pete Wilson years ago when I lived in California. And similar stuff when she and Barbara Boxer first campaigned for the Senate. It's been 24 long years since that huge door opened and Geraldine Ferraro was on the Democratic ticket and odds are it will be even longer before we see another woman get even this close.
Friday, February 08, 2008
It's a Man's World
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
AMEN! The "Good Ole Boy" network is alive and well - and it SUCKS. I think Hillary would be fan-friggin-tastic president. And nasty comments about Chelsea are just WRONG on so many levels.
Your Mom's right...
KW..as you know, I agree with you over 90% of the time, but on this one I must disagree with you and your Mom. For anyone who has spent any time with her, she is not a nice person...has NOTHING to do with the fact she is a woman.
I agree that Hillary has had things said about her that could ONLY be said about a woman. I also think that, womanhood aside, she's personally skewered with much more glee than any other candidate since...well, since her husband. Perhaps she has earned some antipathy over the years. But I think it's a mistake to rely too heavily on the men-stick-with-men theory of Obama. His candidacy is truly bringing in new voters in unprecedented numbers. It's not "just because he's black" (as some have said), and it's not "just because he's not the woman." It's not even "just because he's not THAT woman." It's mostly because his supporters see him as he is—a brilliant progressive with a great rhetorical flair who would be, inarguably, a change from the expected. (A woman would be a change, but THAT woman would water down the change factor.) I voted for Hillary. I honestly believe she's the best person for the job, and I like her. But I also like Obama, and the way the caucuses go this weekend and the way the next couple of primaries go, if they go his way, I want her to get out. I do NOT want to wait until the convention in August and some kind of shotgun wedding. She can always get on the Supreme Court, where her skills would be even better suited (and longer-lasting!) than they would in a four- or eight-year presidency won after a March to August dogfight.
I always guage things through historical examples, and I think there's enough evidence that women can be just as capable, just as full of integrity, just as ruthless, hawkish or dovish (and, in some cases, just as ruthless and corrupt) as men.
Sen. Clinton is old school. That's the bottom line--she speaks in that traditional politician rhetoric and as much as people do not care for her, she perpetuates it. She is highly divisive across party lines and has that old political two party mindset that the Democrats are better than the Republicans. Rather than polarizing our nation any more than Bush #2 has, we need a unifying front and Barak is the candidate who brings that. Hillary comes across to me as another George Bush--just on the other aisle of the congressional hall. Time for the Baby Boomer Gen to move along for new ideas.
I hope Hilary wins. She has experience and having a former president at her side will be an invaluable asset.
And I think Chelsea is great too.
Post a Comment