2008 The First Woman President?
posted by on October 23 at 12:23 PM
Josh dragged me to the Hillary Clinton event at Benaroya Hall last night, in an effort to convince me that HRC ought to be my gal in Washington.
Like Josh, I wasn’t blown away. The first half of her speech struck me as a boilerplate rehash of standard Democratic Party red-meat lines: “Americans are desperate to turn the page”; “Too many people feel invisible”; “Americans are ready for change.” But once she got going on Bush/Cheney, the disappearance of America’s middle class, her “four big policy goals,” HRC caught fire.
An excerpt, edited for length:
I live in dread of discovering what we might find when [Bush and Cheney] finally leave town. I don’t think we know the half of it. The no bid contracts, the cronyism. … The turning point was Katrina and Rita… You would not have believed that you were watching something coming from America. I’ve got this old-fashioned idea – how about appointing people who are qualified to do the job?We will also end President Bush’s war on science. How about getting back to evidence-based decision-making? Enough with ideology. On my first day as president I will sign an order reversing the ban on ethical stem cell research.
I am not running because I’m a woman. I’m running because I believe I am the most experienced and qualified person to hit the ground running in January 2009. I don’t believe it’s about electing me—I believe it’s about deciding that we’re going to do what needs to be done for our country.
There are two groups that inspire me to keep going. One is women in their 90s who come to my events. … They all say something like, “I’m 95 years old. I was born before women could vote in this country and I’m going to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.”
The other group is the children who come… I see a parent lean over to a daughter and say, “See, honey? In this country you can be anything you want to be.”
OK, never let it be said that I’m not a sucker for a feminist argument. It’s about goddamn time we put a woman in the White House. That said: She voted for the Iraq War; she sponsored a flag-burning amendment (!); she (sort of) supports upholding DOMA and leaving the gay-marriage issue to the states; and her health care plan is only so-so.
But I may be coming around, for one simple reason: I believe Clinton would stand up more than her male counterparts for women’s and children’s issues. And yes, this is straight-up identity politics: HRC is a woman, and just like gay men or old folks or African-Americans or any other identifiable “interest group,” her interests are aligned with women’s interests—my interests. This is why Hillary has spoken out against countries that ignore trafficking in human trafficking and forced prostitution. It’s why she sponsored legislation that would make family-planning services, including emergency contraception, more accessible to low-income women and require insurance companies to pay for birth control. It’s why she supported allowing pharmacies to sell EC over the counter (and blocked confirmation of the new FDA chief until it was approved). It’s why she introduced a bill that would make EC available to all women in America’s armed services. It’s why she opposed the noxious Global Gag Rule, which bars organizations that receive US aid from providing information about abortion services. It’s why she sponsored legislation aimed at ending the pay gap between men and women. It’s why she wants to implement a universal pre-kindergarten program. It’s why she wants to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act and implement paid maternity-leave programs in every state by 2016.
And it’s why she says things like, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.”
I also love the way Hillary has inspired Republicans to reveal how ugly, sexist, and anti-woman they really are. They called her a lesbian. They attack her for being “dowdy.” They attack her laugh—ahem, “cackle.” They analyze her necklines. They call her a “man.” They manufacture fake “catfights.” They compare her to a “nagging housewife.” They accuse her of trotting out a manufactured “maternal” side. They even try to make her look like an ice queen for giving away her cat.
Feminist writers and others have debated themselves to death about whether being a woman means supporting Hillary. I don’t think it does. As a woman, however, I support Clinton’s record on gender issues—which is an entirely different thing than supporting a candidate because of her gender.
Interesting.
I'd have preferred she said more about how we as a nation are going broke sending US tax dollars to fight a civil war in Iraq that has nothing to do with 9-11 while 500,000 US citizens have had to flee their homes, while our National Guard is nowhere to be found (since they're in Iraq).
But, other than that, good article.
ECB,
Just wondering: but how come you and Josh are joined at the hip? Does it always take two to cover an event? Earlier this week, it was the Josh and Erica show at a bar, drinking and giggling about drunk drivers. One is needed to carry the other's notepad?
I'm sorry, was that supposed to be funny?
Josh, Eli, and I were all there--Josh because he's an HRC fan, Eli to cover it, and me because I wanted to see her speak.
COMMENT DELETED: Off topic
We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.
go edwards
At the most recent Republican debates, at least one of the candidates accused her of not having enough experience. First off, that's an astounding thing to say with Fred Thompson in the room. Second, it cracked me up when I was reminded of Ross Perot's same claims in 1992. Bill Clinton wasn't qualified because he had only been Governor of Arkansas. If I remember correctly, Perot compared it to promoting a manager of a local Wal-Mart to CEO. You know, as if a billionaire nutcase is more qualified to serve as executive of the United States government.
#5+
Not to mention one or the other is quick to defend when this is brought up.
the sheer horror of the Bush years makes any Democrat look swell
and Hillary is hard as nails, from friends from Arkansas and some voices from the Clinton years
she is looking better every day
like edwards, but he just does not click
COMMENT DELETED: Off topic
We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.
People talk shit about you, Erica, but this is a solid, specific, point-by-point argument that isn't based on ads, slogans, or metaphors. Very persuasive. I'm supporting Obama right now, but I think Clinton is a good candidate.
The thing that worries me is, can she withstand the assault? Will she be able to command the direction of the campaign, and react swiftly and decisively when it gets dirty later on, like Kerry never could, and like I worry that Obama will not be able to either?
2,5,8,10
WTF...they are coworkers. Coworkers often end up friends.
Fan Fiction for Stranger characters? Get a life.
COMMENT DELETED:Off topic
We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.
I'm a member of the Democratic party, but as you say above ECB it is in part about identity politics. Let's just say I identify as a big fat homo.
I'm growing tired of dumping money and time to democrats that are not in favor of repealing DOMA, quiver a bit on DADT, and take the GLBT community for granted. We've got thousands that can't get their foreign partners into the country on a permanent basis because of fucked up immigration laws. All of this is being ignored by HRC and to be fair, the other candidates as well. They are all happy to come and raid my pockets out of the EXPECTATION that I have no where else to turn. I won't turn to the republican party, that's for sure. But I also grow tired of having our issues marginalized by the "mainstream" Dems.
And that sums up the Democratic party in general- they take the GLBT community for granted. Which I guess they should do since few in the community want republican ideology to move back progress to the 1950's.
As a fag I'm happier with some of the other things the Dems are standing for- health care, taking care of things like parks, etc. I"m also happy that while they spend money like drunken sailors its more on public transport, health and other issues instead of continuously beating a war drum.
HRC disturbs me not because she's a woman but because it will mean 4 or 8 more years of dynastic style politics in DC. Her election will mean that she'll have to spend a significant amount of time just batting away republican horseshit. Sometimes one can be well qualified but can also recognize that they are not the right person simply because they are hamstrung by their prior history. Maybe it's unfair and not their fault, but there it is.
Even in Washington, where we have close to supermajorities in the House and Senate we have a governor that is so spineless she's not at the forefront of making equality in the GLBT community an issue. Then again, Gregoire is a perfect example of ignoring her base almost to the point of not being elected.
What would bring me around to HRC would be how she would move America forward so that we're a country of discourse once again instead of more of the same bitter divisiveness. That division will hamper her more than any other candidate out there on the stump as I see it and until she can answer that I have a hard time supporting her campaign.
If we nominate her, we will lose, and that is that.
@14 - give me a fucking break with the dynastic politics bullshit. If HRC, or any other candidate, doesn't kowtow to what even YOU would have to admit is a very small minority of voters then find your own candidate and sideline yourself by voting for that person in November 2008.
The only dynasty in Washington DC is money.
i've seen this before
Hilary W. Bush
couldn't agree more
@Erica: Good stuff.
she'll get my vote in the general. but till then, Kucinich.
and in the general, my parents (in ohio) would vote for adolf hitler over HRC. theirs is an irrational, burning hatred fed by FoxNews & WLW - and it won't change.
so @ 15 has a point.
word up, erica.
and @11--if you don't think hillary can overcome attacks, consider the healthcare debacle of the early 90s and the fact that she overcame it and turned around to win over republican upstate new york by a rather fierce majority. in fact, she's probably the one democratic candidate that can withstand the attacks and win anyway.
@2,5,8,10,12 - or maybe they carpool?
@19 - I think you might overestimate the size of that segment of the population. Certainly there is a certain segment of the population that is fueled by the firm belief that Hillary Clinton is the Antichrist and that her first executive order will somehow involve mass castration ... but this really isn't the general public's view. And all she needs is enough for electoral victory (which, as we've seen, doesn't even require a majority).
BTW, your choices as to what constitutes an offtopic post seem awfully arbitrary.
Just sayin'.
Please stop deleting comments that may be "offensive" or "in poor taste," and marking them as off-topic. I have no idea what the deleted comments say, but clearly they are not "off-topic" because people are replying to them.
I'm guessing they're colorful references to Josh and ECB going at it -- perhaps not raising the level of discussion on this page but certainly not completely off-topic.
Don't even try to stop trolling. It's impossible. Get rid of spam -- that's it.
I can see why Hillary dreads what she'll find given what happened when the last administration left the Whitehouse. Maybe more door knobs will be stolen.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/trashingthewhitehouse.htm
I'm curious too, if Bush will issue a 140 pardons to drug dealers, and scam artists on his last day the way Bill Clinton did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy
Hillary charged that "Monicagate" was a huge "right wing conspiracy" until the DNA evidence was in. Recently, when asked a challanging question at a town hall meeting she wanted to know who put the questioner up to asking that question. She's parnoid.
I'll vote for her over whatever right wing cretan the GOP fields but I'd rather be voting for Obama.
Fnarf @11: I'm supporting Obama right now, but I think Clinton is a good candidate.
This pretty much captures where I am. Not that I'm even such an Obama enthusiast. I'm underwhelmed by the candidates' positions on energy and global warming. But let's face it, they're simply responding to the lack of public demand on that front.
Sure, I worship Al Gore as a god, but a presidential candidate or president without a mandate on an issue is going to have an uphill battle. Better for Gore to keep pushing the climate change issue, and let's see how he could influence a Clinton or Obama presidency.
The people who say that Clinton will lose mystify me. She's got higher support in likability polls and head-to-head matchups with Republicans than any other Democrat. She's got higher negatives, too, but those are actually softer and trending down over time. It's typical for well-known politicians to have higher numbers of people with an opinion pro or con--Hillary Clinton is not unusually unpopular for a high-profile public figure.
She's got more experience than the other top-tier Democrats not even counting her experiences in the first Clinton White House. If you want more Senatorial experience, your choices are Dodd or Biden. If you want more executive experience, Richardson's your guy. But if you want White House-appropriate experience, you can't beat Hillary.
She also has a record of fighting back against right-wing smears, so I don't know why some people are worried that she'll pull a Kerry/Gore/Dukakis/Mondale. The Clintons have both always stood up to the smears and they had to endure more smears than anyone else in history.
Hillary's only downside is that she's too conservative. That's why I'm wavering between Edwards/Dodd/Kucinich for the caucuses instead of supporting Hillary. But I'll be happy to support her candidacy if she's nominated, and I'll looking forward to voting for a woman for a change.
she is going to win, i have no doubt about that, though, i am not supportive of her, i was there to hear her out. she knows her audience and peltz knew that she could pack em in.
was that josh talking to the ron paul people outside? im sure theyre passionate about their candidate, but man they have a larouchean air about them.
I agree especially about how Hillary brings out what sexist bigots many in the GOP really are--she makes them show their true colors lately, that is for sure.
However, the fact remains Hillary is her own wedge issue. If the GOP nominates Guliani many of the Christian Right will just stay home....unless the Dem nominee is that bogeywoman Hillary Clinton. They've been weaned on anti-Hillary propaganda at Rush Limbaugh's tit since 1992. They will even vote for a pro-choice divorcee to vote against her.
I am inspired by Hillary Clinton and think she would make an amazing president. However, I am more determined to get a Democrat that can win the general election because I want a Democrat in the White House above all else.
If we nominate her, we will lose, and that is that. Actually that sums it up, sadly.
They make LaRouche look sane. And that's pretty darned hard to do ...
I will vote for a crusty sock for President, so long as it's running as a Democrat.
Cascadian @27
The problem is that she stands up to "right wing smears" that exist only in her own mind and she sounds nutty when she does.
If Hillary Clinton is nominated the smears will start in earnest. How will she react when an interviewer plays a tape of her "right wing conspiracy" statement and asks her if she still believes that was a conspiracy? I think she'll behave badly and that will be the end of that.
Some of the simpering defeatist baby butt crap here is amazing.
I am more convinced every day Hillary can win. And I want to win. Is she perfect, hear me Dave Coffman, no. But by god democracy is at stake and the cards are on the table. The barbarians at at the gate.
It is not time to fuss around and play at politics, maybe this or maybe that.
It is time to win. The next year of my life will be devoted to getting the neo con cabal, and any R thereof version out of the White House.
I really like Edwards, but I think Hillary can win.
My mom is 88. And, amazingly Hillary mentioned her, by telling about all the elderly women who come to her and tell her how they are waiting for the first woman president. That is my mom and she has watched Hillary for years assuming it would be her.
And my mommie is very rich. I never ask about her money, but I know Hillary will get some fat checks.
In the next month I will choose for sure, but Hillary is coming up on the list day by day.
I have a one year old daughter. When Hillary comes on the television, I tell her that the woman on TV might be the president soon. The thought that her childhood through age 10 might take place with a woman as president is the number one reason to support Hillary's campaign. If I forget about policy and just think about how the symbolism of a woman president will change things both for women born right now and the women who remember not having the right to vote, and how we all, men or women, deal with gender, it's hard not to be moved to support Hillary Clinton. What's more progressive than that?
And "mikeblanco," the vast right-wing conspiracy was and is real, as anyone who's not now a Bush dead-ender figured out by 1998 during the Clinton impeachment farce.
I suspect you might not feel the same way if the female candidate in question was, say, Elizabeth Dole, who indeed is also a woman.
Kim @20, overcoming New York State is a hell of a lot different than overcoming the whole US of A. She needs to take one southern state, remember. Just one, especially if it's Florida. But she needs to take it.
Just because the polls say Bush is unpopular everywhere now does NOT mean the Dem is a shoo-in there a year from now. We haven't even seen the garbage they're going to come up with.
The challenge is to keep all that "she murdered Vince Foster" junk firmly on the kook side of the ledger, and not let it seep into the general population like the Swift Boat thing did.
The thing is to fight back; Kerry's failure to fight back cost him a lot more votes than the original Swift Boat story would have even if it was true. The Swift Boaters weren't going to be voting for Kerry even if he'd grown stigmata and started shitting out thousand-dollar bills for everyone, but the regular people looked at his non-reaction and said to themselves "what is this story, why doesn't he say something, seems untrustworthy".
But the Republican firehose hasn't even been turned on yet. The cleavage BS is just the beginning.
@36 -
Why would you assume that would be easier for Giuliani or Romney than Hillary?
BTW, a recent poll actually showed her polling ahead of Rudy in Virginia, FWIW.
@35 - snap. Yeah, Elizabeth Dole is plenty scary, and so Beltway she makes the Beltway Boys look like outsiders.
34, good point, even if Elizabeth Dole is really one of those reptilian aliens from the old 1980s miniseries V, so she doesn't count.
I'm no fan of Margaret Thatcher, for that matter.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton seems likely to be similar to her husband in terms of competence and ideology. Having a woman president who is worthy of the office, even if she's often wrong, means something. And yeah, even a right-wing Republican woman president would be a symbolic improvement over yet another white man with the same views on policy. I guess in Hillary's case the differences over policy are small enough that her gender is compelling.
mikeblanco:
"The problem is that she stands up to 'right wing smears' that exist only in her own mind..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Scaife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_by_the_right
Oh, and no I didn't think using my email address to vote for Edwards was funny.
She's smart, experienced, and most of all she is just tougher than the others. She will attack the Republican smear machine.
Also, she got a huge percent in NY state, proving she can get votes from independents.
@40 @34
Yes, of course there are right wing smears, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, the "stained dress" smear was the one she went on TV to fight and, while it was very silly in the overall scheme of things, it wasn't fabricated and she looked like a fool. Last month when she badgered the questioner we saw that same view of her.
She became a partner at Rose Law when her husband was elected Governor. She was elected Senator from New York because her husband had been elected President. My gosh, she just moved to the State to run!
"Cascadian," (why are we putting names in quotes?) if you want an example for you daughter find a woman who has noteworthy achievements because of what she's done, not who she's married too. There are lots of them out there and Hillary's position is an obviously cynical attempt to take advantage of your attitude.
Geez, look at the quoted speech in the blog. I'm not running because I'm a woman, but I'm inspired by women who will vote for me because I'm a woman and the children who will work harder because I'm a woman. What in the world?
from mikeblanco
To be expected when women take power.
To the contrary, every person close to the Clinton team has ALWAYS given Hilary great credit. She earned every step of her various careers, in spades.
We used to call people like you chauvinist pigs.It is still an on target good classic political label
The women of America will elect Hillary along with enlightened males. The others can lament the passing of the Bush years to their graves, and they will.
Ida Mae, I could respond in kind and say you favor Clinton over Obama because you are a racist and should be labeled as a bigot.
What you're saying is that people on Clinton's team all say she deserves a lot of credit. Hmmmm, maybe the people who think otherwise are not on her team.
I think I have more respect for woman than you do because I don't think its a done deal that they will vote for a woman, just because she's a woman. To go to the point made earlier, will you be voting for Libby Dole if she runs? She actually has executive experience, running the Red Cross, and has been a Senator longer.
I've heard a lot of women say they hate Hillary - including moderates. The polls are missing something big. For her sake, I hope she loses. If she wins, the Secret Service will have their hands full 24-7. That's the kind of hate the GOP smears of old have seeded into the population. I know a dude in favor of a lot of liberal values that totally believes the "murderer" rap. How will he vote? And how many people will be cleaning out their rifles the day after the GOP concession speech?
I'm more interested in how her running mate will govern, because I doubt she'll get the chance.
-
christopher-
"I know a dude in favor of a lot of liberal values that totally believes the 'murderer' rap."
Then that dude is a dipshit. Hopefully he's not a family member or boyfriend, so that you can avoid him without too much difficulty.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).