Young female democrats are having a tough time figuring out whether they favor Obama or Clinton. I originally supported Clinton but changed to Obama, and recently have been swinging back and forth.
As a feminist, the possibility that a woman could be the next president is exciting. Who knows how many years it could take for another candidate, with a real shot at winning, to emerge?
Despite that fact, I don't want to throw my vote to Clinton just because she's a woman, especially when Obama seems like the truly radical choice because of the amount of change he promises. I get confused further, however, because while I think this country need big change in a big way, I'm not as clear on where Obama stands on individual issues. So who do I vote for?
This dilemma young women are facing is more eloquently described in this article.
And, in case I haven't said it yet, one of the things I love about this election is that I will be happy with whichever democrat gets the nomination, as well as with many of the republicans who are up for it. So far in my life, I have never felt that way.
2 comments:
I'm glad you wrote this because for a long time I've been meaning to ask you what, if any, influence Hillary's gender has on your feelings about her. I would imagine it would be similar to the complex pride I have in Providence's openly gay mayor (despite the fact that he's a rather slimy individual). I'm inclined to be drawn to Hillary because of her gender in the same way that I'm drawn to black politicians because of their race -- their election is evidence of the progress I need to believe is possible.
I'd be more for Hillary if she were not with Bill, or if Bill were not so prominent in her campaign. Lately they've been running unabashedly together as a couple (lately it's "The Clintons for President"), and that seems almost unconstitutional in light of term limits. And as much as I'd love to see a Madame President introduced at the State of the Union, the transformative aspect of "Madame" would be trumped by a symbolic return to the 1990s, and a return to the Clinton White House, and that backwardness alone seems the opposite of "progressive."
Barack would be transformative not so much because of his race but because of his name. The idea that America could elect a president who shares a name with the enemy we launched a war to depose is a staggering world-wide advertisement for our Goodness, I think. Also I think he has a shot at building a real majority that will actually get stuff done. He's willing to compromise in a way I think the Clintons are not. Independents and Republicans vote for him. But Hillary galvanizes the Republicans (for reasons I don't understand). I can't stomach another 51-49 election.
Their policies are very similar, thankfully. The difference is the package. Barack is a human olive branch.
You're right about that: he would be a human olive branch (and what a lovely phrase!) in many different scenarios. I too am worried that Hillary, like Bill during the 90's, would end up spending a lot of time defending herself and arguing with republicans instead of getting things done.
I guess one thing keeping me from settling on Barack is that I have liked Hillary for a long time. I don't like a lot of what she's doing as part of this election process, so I'm trying to remember her as she was five-plus years ago. If I can convince myself that she hasn't changed and is only playing the game harder now, then I may end up voting for her simply because I feel like I know her better.
Of course, that in itself can be a problem, and makes me think that I should give someone I don't know -Barack - a try and see if they can do it better.
One thing I know for sure, which we've discussed but I feel so strongly that I want to say it again, is that I'll be happy with anyone but Romney (especially now that Guiliani clearly has no shot left). I'm worried about what all the recent economy talk might do to bolster Romney's chances, since he's the "business guy."
Post a Comment