[Conor Friedersdorf]
I appreciate the point that Megan and John are making. It's a shame that sexism is a factor in this election. But I'm one Hillary hater who is repulsed by the New York senator for reasons that haven't anything to do with sexism.
It seems to me that those of us who've long suspected she is power hungry to the point of derangement -- I started thinking that way when it occurred to me that, knowing her husband is a philanderer, she nevertheless joined a campaign to vilify the young women he exploited as sluts and liars -- have been vindicated by events.
The latest example is Senator Clinton's insistence that a plan she endorsed to strip Michigan and Florida of its delegates is actually a retrograde attempt to disenfranchise voters, and that her opportunistic attempts to reverse that decision share moral characteristics with the civil rights and women's suffrage movements.
Were Senator Clinton's primary opponent Dianne Feinstein, or if she faced Elizabeth Dole in a general election, I'd still think that only one frighteningly Machiavellian candidate who'd put her own interests above the good of the country was in the race.
As it happens, she faces Barack Obama and John McCain, two rare politicians I respect, though I've got disagreements with both men. I'll say this though: just as William F. Buckley once said that he'd rather that random people chosen from the Boston phone book govern us than the Harvard faculty, I'd happily substitute the average educated American woman for the average member of the United States Congress.
"I'd happily substitute the average educated American woman for the average member of the United States Congress."
But then the Democrats would have 60 senators. Is that really what you want?
Talk is cheap. Mr. "Some of my favorite Senators are gals!" There are plenty of voters who say that race isn't a factor in why they dislike Obama and yet people don't -and shouldn't- take all these self-exonorations at face value. Ditto your claims.
To me the charge that HRC is too ambitious and ruthless is itself reflective of gender bias given that ANYONE who gets near the presidency is crazy ambitious and ruthless, very much including Obama who flipped on the death penalty and handgun bans and lied about it, who started running for President five minutes after getting to the Senate etc. GHW Bush is now considered an elder statesman. He through all his moderate positions overboard to get nominated.
Hillary is not so different, but the fact that she's a she while she's being an ambitious politician freaks people out.
Vito,
The problem with your argument is that anytime anyone concluded any female politician is too Machiavellian to be a good president you assume sexism, though it's obviously possible for a woman to actually be too Machiavellian to be a good president.
Of course, it's also possible for men to have this characteristic. Indeed I can think of many more men who I think possess it, starting with our current VP.
Anyway, Senators McCain and Obama are obviously very ambitious men. But the former has proven that he is willing to put the good of his country and what he considers honorable above his own physical well being. And while I can't point to similar evidence that Senator Obama is, at his core, an honorable man, his behavior suggests to me that is the case.
This observer shares his household with five females. Most of his teachers have been female. Ditto for most of his commanders in the Army, and for most of his bosses in his white-collar career.
This observer has learned to appreciate what able, strong women can achieve, including being on top of hierarchies.
This observer thinks HRC is a bad example. She has not achieved much by herself. She enabled egregious misconduct by her husband by demonizing his co-conspirators (victims?). She denounced the VRWC and now dances with them. She has used every dirty trick in the book. She claims to have been the victim of sundry machinations that she either put in motion or ignored when she felt it convenient. She displayed a tin ear with her comments (MLK, JFK). She lied pure and simple (Bosnia). Do you need more examples?
Is this being sexist? Give me a break.
There has not been one bit of sexism in this campaign, and definately not from Obama. If anything, it almost amazes that she can raise that accusation while bludgeoning Obama over race and encouraging everyone to believe that he is not white enough to get the most whitest of white votes.
Hillary and team (Bill, Ferraro, Rendell) have just been running various thematic permutations to use as arguments to bolster her decision to keep a campain running that is dead and out of money.
She has tried race. She has tried class. And now her sole remaining sophistic weapon is to claim sexism-- and as if the sole claim of sexism will blunt the facts at hand:
1) She is behind in voted delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, funding, states won, polls and will be dead circa June 4th when the remamining superdelegates put her to sleep.
2) Back in December, when she had 50% of the black support, she made the statement (as quoted on one of the political morning shows on Sunday) that by February 5th all would be over.
But it was not over. And with bad organization and wrong assumptions, she was caught sitting on her perceived throne, pantsuit pulled down to ankles, with the house on fire. Thus private parts exposed, she has struggled to put the clothes back on.
Every step of the way since, she has tossed out one explanation after another, and used every tactic conceivable, to keep her campaign alive. And now, she is using the hopes of women toward selfish end.
It's amazing that the Clinton's can even manage to roll people's minds through these thematic permutations that do not one jot affect the reality of Hillary's current status, but apparently our minds are weak.
It's also incredibly annoying that some can even offer the delusional idea that Hillary has a harder time with sexism than Obama has had to face regarding racism. Despite the fact that whole sections of the country won't vote for him for being black and that Hillary is reminding you of that. Nobody is out there saying, "Oh, don't vote for Hillary because she is a woman".
Mostly people are saying that Hillary, unique to herself in blind ambition, is perfectly willing to borrow money, and force Obama to use money as well (that could better be used against McCain) to force an impossible outcome, the book having largely been closed since March.
In many ways, the Clinton's are quite bright, and we are incredibly stupid.
It's like having a farting dog who is a beagle, and you decide to get rid of it, and the beagle says to you, "You don't like beagles!" and you say back, "No, it's not that you are a dog, or a beagle, and in fact you are pretty cool cause you can talk. But it's your farting I cannot stand".
(And excuse my misplaced apostrophes, but I was ranting)
Hillary is power-hungry. Just like every other Presidential aspirant including (but not limited to): John McCain, Barack Obama, Bob Barr, and Ralph Nader.
The second sentence was a non-starter.
One thing I like about Hillary: she drives journalists crazy. It is not a virtue (for me) that Obama and McCain were the respective media darlings of their party.
Yes. I agree that Megan is quite homely.