In my first post for this blog in February, I enthusiastically and ardently supported and defended Hillary Rodham Clinton, a leading Democratic candidate for the US Presidency in the 2008 election. "She has the intellect, experience and ability to achieve these goals. 'Calculating' is not necessarily a bad trait, if she is calculating for the sake of the higher good...The U.S. and the world need her integrity and trust and respect." Now, I still support Hillary over all other candidates (probably with an exception of Dennis Kucinich), but my faith in her is dwindling, and for me not a single day passes without having some thoughts and temptations to switch my support to Barack Obama.
Around me, almost all of my left, liberal-minded friends support Barack Obama (or Kucinich, Nader. I haven't met a single Hillary supporter. I am confused and isolated; one day, the moment I pronounced my support for Hillary, my friend with an incredulous look quizzed me "how dare you support that warmonger corporate pupper, a right-winger in Democrat's clothes?". Yes, I was aware of her past ties to Wal-Mart, the Arkansas retail giant corrupted by horrendous sexism, racism and exploitation; also Murdoch's support for her. I read some of compelling leftist pieces of article criticising her for being too "moderate", or conservative, such as "Hillary Inc." and "Who is Hillary Clinton?" by renowned and admired Barbara Ehrenreich. It seems there are far more than enough reasons for me to convert to Obama, but one crucial factor has kept me from abandoning my support for her; feminism and misogyny.
My point is not that I simply support her only because of her gender. Obviously, voting for a female candidate doesn't always mean voting for feminism. I would have vehemently opposed Margaret Thatcher had I lived in the 80's Britain, and I would support almost anyone who's standing against Katherine Harris, the worst thief in history. (In contrast to these right-wing female politicians, Hillary's feminist credential is impeccable; even among left-wing few questions her commitment to feminism, demonstrated by her masterpiece 1995 speech.) But my concern is, why this hostility and anger against her? Aren't all these negative remarks about her partly prompted by hidden, insidious or even subconscious misogyny? Though the Right is much more sexist without a doubt, it is also naive to think that the Left is totally immune from misogyny. Were she male, would she have been criticised and slammed harshly and intensely as this? Doesn't abandoning my support for her, influenced by these criticisms of Hillary that might have been influenced by Patriarchy, mean submitting to, or tacitly cooperating to, the structures of Patriarchy that is the reason why more than 5 in 6 Representatives and Senators "lack ovaries". As this insightful article rightly points out, " Clinton's supporters also argue that women candidates are unfairly subjected to higher standards," and I never, ever wish to contribute to any form of misogyny by ceasing to support her.
I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama; far more strongly than I supported Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. However, I just can't desert her unless it is proven that Hillary isn't subjected to higher standards than other candidates because of her gender (that is, by credible liberal sources that criticise her). Any opinion (especially from Obama supporters) that might change my mind is welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I was actually talking today with someone about the U.S.A. Presidential elections, and they asked the question about whether gender and ethnicity should actually determine who one votes for.
It is an interesting point. When it comes to questions of oppression based on class, age, gender, ethnicity and sexuality, perhaps we should draw our attention more towards what policies the different candidates have on those different forms of oppression rather than which of those oppressed groups they belong to. Ultimately isn't it the policies, not the personality, that should matter most in politics?
However, I am going to contradict myself there to say that I support whichever candidate looks most likely to get the Democrats in power, no matter who it is. For that reason alone, I'm currently supporting Barack Obama.
Well, obviously policies are what matter most. But I can't take a perfectly "colour/gender-blind", John Roberts approach when racism and sexism are still perverse. It reminds me of Elizabeth Edwards' comment, that John's policies help women more than Hillary's.
Though in terms of women's rights I still think Hillary has the best policies, however, I have to say I have stopped to support Hillary more than other Democratic candidates. The main reason for that is her strong ties with Rupert Murdoch, being reminded by his takeover of the WSJ of the imminent, grave danger he poses upon the US society, I have decided that it is too big an issue to ignore.
I now temporarily support Bill Richardson, but it is far from my final decision. I think his foreign policies and environmental policies are brilliant. And my support for Richardson is also my protest against the media power, who unfairly treat Hillary, Obama and Edwards as "top-tier" or "serious" candidates and decisively undermine other candidate's chance (the higher poll ratings these "top three" always get is an effect, not a cause, of the media's biased reportings). I considered supporting Chris Dodd because of his call for the FCC investigation of the Murdoch takeover (and the only candidate to do so) and his continuous efforts to restore habeus corpus, but his disproportionately heavy emphasis on compulsory "national service" for high school students prevented me from supporting him. I find Biden too moderate, Kucinich and Gravel too unelectable. Currently I support Obama after Richardson, I like what John Edwards says but I don't trust his left-wing credentials, considering he was a moderate typically-Southern Democrat in 2004 and he dramatically shifted to the left for this election, which seems to me, for the election purpose.
In terms of electability, I think it is important to consider it, but I don't think Obama is particularly electable. I think Richardson has a unique electability factor as he can secure New Mexico(5) and is likely to win Colorado(9), Nevada(5) and even Arizona(10) (so 29 votes combined).... though I'm also aware that he might be weaker in even more populous and crucial Great Lakes states, such as Ohio (20), Michigan(17) and Wisconsin(10), and Iowa(7) Pennsylvania(21), New Hampshire (4).
Our New Zealand elections in 2008 will be between our incumbent Prime Minister Helen Clark and Opposition leader John Key.
The comments on the blogsites are always comparing Clinton to Clark. They are saying that if Clinton falls, Clark will/should/may also lose.
Much like you supporting Hillary, I support Helen Clark because a) I need to show I am appalled by the arrogant, sexist, personal insults directed at Clark. b) her policies which are more inclusive of all New Zealanders are far better than Key's monetary policies over people type of thinking.
Helen Clark has been PM for eight and a half years now and has confounded all the derogatory comments around 2000 that she couldn't cope, should go back to the kitchen, having a woman leader was a sign of the devil - you name it - it has been stated. Even religious groups have been created eg Destiny Church based on an American group; the Promise Keepers which are an American group and I am sure you know about them and the well established religious groups - Anglican, Methodist, etc, are now grouping together to call for her to be replaced. Before the 2005 election the media even quoted a taxi driver saying a woman leader was responsible for the all blacks rugby team losing! Unbelievable. I guess that's why an earthquake is blamed on Mother Nature and a miracle is attributed to the biblical God.
She also spent some of those years repairing the damage National and a right wing led Labour Party (David Lange as the talking head, Roger Douglas as the real leader - he's back in politics this year unfortunately, in a far right wing party called Act)
The blogging and media bias really proves to me that equality for women in New Zealand is only lip talk, not real belief.
I am also very disappointed, like you mentioned, that even Labour supporters want her to be rolled in favour of a male leader, yet she is the best of all of them. Even her own caucus knows that. That's why she's still there.
Good luck with your personal choice. I know who I'm voting for - a woman and by far the best candidate to lead New Zealand to a better place for all New Zealanders, not just a few or a gender or a race.
Jude
Thanks anonymous for your comment! I absolutely agree. Misogyny against Hillary Clinton is still so pervasive in most of the American mainstream media. I hope Helen Clark wins the NZ election and her historic fourth-term. Regardless of the polls now, I believe Labour (and the Greens) can still win!
Post a Comment