Why I'm Voting For Hillary, or: GO VOTE!!

So I was sitting there like an idiot watching the MTV debate this past Saturday. Amid all the blaring technical errors with the videocasts (were you there when MTV made Ron Paul sound like a robot?), the totally off "instant polls" (if they were accurate, they would have made the candidates truly uncomfortable like the thing intended to), and the wholly obnoxious reporters from Washingtonpost.com and the Associated Press (I liked the kids' questions better than anything they said) -- I sat there, thinking. Up until this shitty waste of a political moment in the campaign, a tv show most people in the engaged, political stratosphere would deem inconsequential, I had no opinion. I was an uneducated voter at 23, watching an MTV special in the hopes that it would prepare me for voting in the primaries in three days.

I had done a little preparatory work, however. In my hands sat a huge binder with materials I put together: printouts of voting records, 'nonpartisan' collections of assorted information, and countless stanced articles, blogs, and reports from major media dated from the past half year. Eventually, the banter from the MTV debate reduced itself to a steady hum, and finally I could feel that I was starting to focus. Before I opened the binder, I tried to picture what the faces of our country might look like a year from now -- both president and vice president.

My gut whirred with exhilaration at the thought of a Hillary/Obama team, but my gut also told me that only one combination of the two would ever come to play: Hillary would never bottom...for anyone. Even after a thorough reading of all the materials in my binder (a reading that led me to agree with the same points Hillary's campaign emphasizes -- more experience [especially in foreign affairs], a more competent and convincing speaker/debater, a stronger connection with the players of this country), my gut was getting louder by the minute. If I thought that Hillary even had an ounce more quality as a candidate for either presidency or vice presidency, I needed to vote for her as president. And here's why:

My gut first started rumbling when I read Gloria Steinem's article from the New York Times back in January; she touched on the gender-oriented anxieties I have had for a long time about the election that I could not yet put into words. Our country may strive for equality on paper (if that), but we still live in both a white supremacist AND patriarchal society. Most sociologists and gender theorists would agree that both schemes of institutionalized marginalization are deeply embedded in many pockets of our country (and I would argue, most importantly, among the ruling groups with the most power). But my concern is this: When society sits back and thinks about the face of their country a year from now and who could effectively sit in the seat for vice president, Hillary's identity as a woman disempowers her far more than Obama's non-white racial status would if he were to sit as VP.

It's not politically correct to explore the race vs. gender game, but each identity status operates differently in different social spaces of our society, and the social space occupied by political candidacy cannot be ignored. If Hillary was VP next to a president Obama, she would be a lost face in the political and social landscape. She would be subject to the same hierarchy of gender that she has been fighting all along, a hierarchy where Obama's maleness pulses a fervent lead, leaving Hillary struggling for an appropriate gendered balance of fashion and rhetoric -- I'm inspired by her butch, commanding demeanor, but as VP she'd be silenced. Obama would face no such barrier whatsoever. If he were VP next to a president Clinton, I think he would be effective at changing our country for the better. I want both Obama and Clinton up there in the top seats of our country, but Clinton must be in the highest seat for both of them to have major influence as leaders and agents of change.

My thoughts about the election were interrupted by a loud commercial inbetween MTV shenanigans, but after the break it was Hillary's turn to speak to the youth of our country. She was eloquent, convincing, and seemed real. I felt similarly about Obama, albeit just slightly less convinced. But I knew that for a better society, it has to be Clinton. And I pray that Obama will take it like a man and be the VP. Clinton gets tested regularly, and I know she's safe.

(...to the full post)

SistersTalk: Sexist Jabs Are Exactly What Hillary Clinton Wants

Genia Stevens joins us from SistersTalk:

A Star Tribune analysis posted late last night discusses how women voters are now standing firmly behind Hillary Clinton after noticing what they considered was blatantly sexist treatment by the press, other politicians, and some male voters

Even Democratic women with no intention of voting for Clinton found themselves drawn into the debate and shaken by what briefly seemed like a humiliating end to the most promising female candidacy in U.S. history. The process seems to have changed a few minds.

I've already said gender will be a big issue in the 2008 election. But many female voters of a certain age range never really thought gender would be a factor in the 2008 presidential race. People like 37 year-old Allison Smith-Estelle stated, "I do want Hillary Clintom to take the White House, but until she lost Iowa, I didn't realize how much, or how much it had to do with her being a woman."

If Hillary's emotional breakdown on January 7 -- and the media's subsequent treatment of that breakdown -- was what Clinton needed to (gently) remind non-supportive female voters of her gender, then I'm thinking Clinton is patting herself on the back right now and saying "Mission Accomplished." Obama would accomplish the same thing with Black voters who don't plan to vote for him if could suddenly position himself as the victim of media-encouraged racism. Let's keep our eyes open for that one.

There's no denying Clinton is treated differently because she's a female. On the flip side, that's exactly what she's hoping for. It's rare that I read articles or blog postings written by female Clinton supporters that don't focus heavily on two things: Clinton's gender and their own desire to see a female in the White House. It's always been my belief that no publicity is bad publicity. For Hillary Clinton, negative publicity related to her gender is the best (and cheapest) publicity she could receive right now. Sexist jabs at Clinton will translate to sympathy votes from females who never planned to vote for her.

Usually when I write about Clinton, I address her by her first name -- as most bloggers do, both male and female bloggers. How often do you see bloggers calling Barack Obama by his first name only? Rarely. Some would argue that addressing Senator Clinton by her first name is a sexist move since we don't usually address male politicians by their first name. Even if it is a sexist move, it's a really good thing for Hillary. Very few of us address our friends by their last name only (unless it's an old habit you developed in the military -- my aunt still calls her husband of 30 years by his last name). In my opinion, when you're on a first name basis with someone, that person enjoys friendship status -- or a status closely resembling that of friendship.

Yes, you can argue that we often call our enemies by their first name. But how many Bush-bashers call George W. Bush by his first name?

Maybe the reason so many people call Senator Clinton by her first name is because it's the easiest way to inform our readers which Clinton we're hatin' on at the moment. That argument is flawed as well since there were two Presidents with the last name Bush and rarely did we call the latest one "George" to differentiate between the two.

It's my opinion that Hillary wants the world to see her as Hillary. As long as we continue to see her as Hillary-the-female-politi cian, she can hold on to her dream of becoming Hillary-the-first-female- President of the United States.

(...to the full post)