The more I read, the more Clinton supporters I see bringing out the “gender card” — as if Obama’s momentum is just another win for the “patriarchy”, and is entirely due to people not wanting a woman as president.
If anything, I see it as a step forward — that people are willing to turn their backs on an unlikeable establishment-planned candidate with a padded resume, in spite of the fact that she’s a woman. That, in other words, her gender isn’t buying her any special consideration.
I would love to see a woman as president. It’s a crying shame that the woman in the best position to run right now is somebody so singularly wrong for the job.
I’m reminded of a quip from Dennis Miller, back in the days when he anchored SNL’s Weekend Update (before he lost his mind and decided to become the world’s first NeoCon commedian). During the hullaballo over 2Live Crew’s “Me So Horny”, he said — “I understand that this is a critically-important fight over free speech…..but if we were going to have to ‘go to the wall’ on this issue, couldn’t it have been for a better album?”
Anyway — when Clinton loses New Hampshire (which I expect will happen–Obama’s got a double-digit lead, according to the latest CNN poll), expect her to more blatantly play the gender and victim tactic, as her campaign gets more desperate.
7 Replies to “Election Observation”
What’s worse is she has it backwards. NPR did a story on this a month ago (when corporate news was still in “Once And Future Queen” mode). Her rise and slow descent has mirrored how female candidates fair in general. This a big surge of support because “She’s a woman! She’ll make a difference!” which then shifts as the novelty wears off and people start paying attention to the actual issues they care about instead of who does or does not have a pair of testicles.
So Hillary is right, the drop in support is because she’s a woman, but she’s wrong to claim she’s losing because she’s a woman.
NPR said it best last week. (I paraphrase here) “Clinton lost in Iowa because she no longer represents change. She has become the establishment she is trying to overthrow.”
Its an over simplification, but it’s true. Clinton cannot truly be for change without herself being outed.
…It’s a crying shame that the woman in the best position to run right now is somebody so singularly wrong for the job.
*nods* Yep, that’s precisely where I am as well. Obama is breaking a bigger barrier than he’s aware; he’s the only candidate on whom my hubby and I have ever agreed to vote!
Or, as she jaw-droppingly claimed in the most recent debate: “I’m running on 35 years of change.”
As I’ve heard from many sources (paraphrased): America is ready for a woman president. Just not THAT one.
The minority is losing to a minority because she’s a minority, right?
Or maybe the American people are sick of having seen her campaign for the last eight years, jeeze!
‘…couldn’t it have been for a better album?” So, your stance on gender politics is less important than personal distaste? ridiculous!
If Her gender is irrelevant to national issues, then her mention of it, in card form or no, is irrelevant as well. If I, you, the country or anyone, is ready for a woman President, she’s the candidate we have, filled with whatever real world imperfections she(or we) is (are) saddled with. Obama is imperfect to. We don’t get to manufacture hypothetically perfect candidates, we get to vote for the ones we have. You like Obama? That’s great. Vote. Tell the world how awesome he is. Throwing Vitriol at candidates of essentially the same stripe benefits their opponents (republicans). If either one of them loses because of internal complaints of “card playing” it will be a great shame ,and irony. It must not become a zero sum game amongst the democrats, they must play to win, not to feel self satisfied, or . Hillary hatred my bump Obama up a notch, but it bumps the cause down a notch. I do not believe this is a good strategy.