Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Pictures make a difference
I offer the picture on the far right (whoever would have put her there!) from the Politico site to show that there is at least one flattering photograph of Hillary Clinton circulating out there somewhere. Wouldn't you rather vote for this candidate than for the one we keep seeing on the evening news?
....And I offer on the left this version of the Somali-outfit pictures (I got it off The Scotsman website) to show that a picture of Barack Obama can be unflattering. It's not the clothes he's wearing, by the way, that make him look foolish here. It's the goofy grin on his face. At least when Obama gets visually skewered he still seems likable, if not particularly authoritative.
By the way, and this is no great insight, Clinton is most likable when she is least authoritative.
Richardson's Endorsement: Who Cares?
One of the web sites -- Huffington Post or Politico, I think -- is reporting that Bill Richardson will be announcing his endorsement in the Democratic primary by this Friday.
Does anybody care any more? Back when
Some people saw him as a valuable spokesman for the Latino voting bloc. Latinos -- Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Argentine, Dominican and Spanish-Americans among others too numerous to list -- don't actually vote as a bloc. But that's another story. Some people saw him as a significant bellwether for influential former Clintonites. Lots of people cared what he might be thinking.
Bill Richardson wasted that time. He watched the Super Bowl with Bill Clinton. He grew a beard and renewed his devotion to his pet causes here in
In my case, since I had contributed a couple of bucks to his campaign, I was still on the email list. One missive carried the tagline "
I was suddenly receiving emails from Lt. Governor Diane Denish, who was endorsing and aggressively supporting Hillary Clinton. Gee, I'm registered as a Republican, so how could they possibly have gotten my name? Maybe from the
It makes a lot of sense that Denish would support
The only evidence I have is my sudden appearance on the mailing list. That's not persuasive, because my support of
I am delighted at the possibility of having two great nominees -- McCain or Obama -- to choose from in the general election.
Labels: richardson's choice
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
What is so feminist about Hillary Clinton?
Okay, here is my obligatory disclaimer. I don't dislike, let alone hate, Hillary Clinton. I didn't vote for her husband, but that was because I preferred the men he ran against. I am after all a moderate-to-liberal Republican. Yes, Ann and Rush don't want you to know this, but we exist. Although I never went out of my way to watch or listen to her either as first lady, senator from a state I don't live in, or presidential candidate, I found her intelligent, sympathetic and dryly funny, if somewhat unimaginative.
Her background is similar to my own, although she followed most of the rules that I did not, like doing her homework and graduating from college in four years instead of staying up late drinking, and attending a prestigious law school instead of working at a series of poorly paid jobs. Then again, she has to borrow anecdotes about employment and housing insecurity from others, while I have got plenty of good stories of my own. I'm not saying she doesn't know how it feels to be poor, but I bet she never had to decide whether to buy groceries, put gas in her car or pay for her daughter's school field trip.
Whether I like her or not, though, isn't the point. What I want to know is, how did Hillary Clinton become the standard-bearer for feminists? I'm sorry, but that is sort of like saying the two doubting Thomases -- Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas -- are the natural heroes of civil rights. After all, they are black. Excuse me, African-American.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a woman, and she may well espouse a genuinely feminist view of life. If so, she hasn't acted on that view. There is no point in her biography where she gave anything up in order to be true to her feminist ideals. Quite the contrary. She made the choice years ago to put her own aspirations on hold in order to marry a man she really loved and help him attain his hopes. There was nothing wrong with that choice. Feminists who came before her helped clear the way for it. Her husband's successes, in which she was clearly and closely involved, enabled her to pursue a career of her own. She never had to put a roof over her head or quit a job to be there for her daughter. That's all fine.
To be fair, I've never heard
I don't agree with her positions on the issues, and I don't think she has the mental and emotional flexibility to be a good president. There are woman out there who do possess the flexibility and imagination to be leaders of the free world, like Patricia Schroeder and Janet Napolitano, and there are men who do not, most notably George W. Bush. That's my choice; it's an informed choice and it has nothing to do with gender. I know all about painful choices, having voted for Al Gore in 2000, enthusiastically, and for John Kerry in 2004, reluctantly. Others are free to choose differently, and I will not accuse them of betraying any group they belong to by birth or by background.
One more thing. If Hillary Clinton's campaign had been based on a true and honest assessment of her life story, she might have lost the votes of the knee-jerk identity mongers. But we will never know how many eventual Obama supporters she could have won over if she'd said the following: "I stood to the side for years while ideologues and other unreasonable men made decisions that weren't good for the country. It's my turn now, and I'm finally getting the opportunity to implement the real solutions that the men never had the courage to try." Instead, she ran as a version of the woman-behind-the-man, on unverifiable stories of her experience as co-governor and co-president with her husband.
Where is the feminism in that story?
Labels: Hillary the anti-feminist