Monday, February 04, 2008

Since I've been away for two weeks and didn't have time to volunteer before the New York primary, I wrote another Huffington Post piece about the race. The HP will be inundated by posts on the day before Super Tuesday, but maybe a few people will read it.

It is here.


Kati S said...

On the flip side of all that, I've been getting the feeling lately that any woman who DOES vote for Hillary is going to get the "oh, you just voted for her because she's a woman" backlash, something that is never brought up about Obama. I agree with what you said about her being the least likely of the two to win an election, so does that mean, once again, we're going to pick our president based on likability? That's just screwed up... though I'll probably just go with the flow this time instead of fighting it. Bad vibes, man. Bad vibes.

Nick said...

"Likability" isn't quite what we're talking about here. GWB and Jimmy Carter were "likable." It's not generally not the first word you reach for to describe MLK and JFK--"poetic" and "profound" are closer to hand. And you know, I think I like my presidential candidates to be steeped in poetry and profundity.

Regarding the issue women voters face--truly, it's difficult for me not to believe that a significant number of the female votes Hillary receives will be due to gender allegiance. And, actually, Obama does get the reverse. We frequently hear that many black voters are drawn to Obama primarily because of his race. And do you doubt that? I feel like more women are being publicly guilted (by other women) into voting for Hillary than is true of black people with regard to Obama, though. The bizarre NOW press release I linked to is one example of that. Another is Gloria Steinem's NY Times editorial.

Kati S said...

Wait, did you read Gloria Steinem's editorial? There are some good points in it. Steinem wasn't delusional about there being a double-standard. Obama's allowed to be a proud African-American candidate; Hillary's not allowed to be a proud female candidate -- to talk about being both a woman and a candidate seems to be a problem for a lot of people, both female and male. And while I will vote for either Democratic candidate against the untrustworthy and self-serving Republican ones, I have my reservations about the rock god image Obama has conjured up, and the animosity I've seen expressed towards Clinton by liberals really pushes my buttons (it's like the Democrats who constantly talked about how Gore had no personality). "I believe" that a good leader care less about poetry (a dangerous thing) and more about educating his or herself and the public, about follow-through. And I think we would be lucky to have either candidate, and we have to remember that. If the Democrats lose this election, it's not going to be the Republicans' fault.

... and now I'll stop bugging you.

Nick said...

Fair points and reasonable. The only issue I take with the above is that Obama's *not* allowed to be an African-American candidate--he knows it would be political suicide to go around constantly expressing pride in being black. He's trying very hard to be *not* be Jesse Jackson. And of course, Bill Clinton understands that and that's exactly why he tried to frame him as Jesse Jackson.