breaking the electoral glass ceiling
I still haven’t decided who I will vote for on Tsunami Tuesday, though it increasingly appears that everyone else thinks Obama has already won.
Over the weekend I spent a bunch of time talking about the Iowa results and it struck me that as imperfect as Hillary’s politics are, there was something about the discourse about her “loss” that bothered me. Articles and pundits seemed to be relaying the message that voting for Hillary is just a vote for the status quo.
From a certain perspective I get it, she’s a Clinton, she’s a two-time Senator, she’s decades in DC. BUT hold on a second, Hillary is above and beyond the most electric and electable female candidate we’ve ever had for the Presidency. How could that possibly be just “more of the same”? I feel frustrated that for the first time we ever have a viable Black candidate that we also have the first viable Female candidate. Zooming back to see the bigger picture it speaks well to a shift in this country, but up close it’s way too personal. I can’t help but think that it forces voters who feel the historical weight of this primary to have to choose between minorities.
I repeated this sentiment a few times this weekend and overwhelmingly I heard back that my friends feel that they would rather vote for a black man than a woman. Not that they don’t want to vote for a woman, but that voting for a black man is more revolutionary. Fine. But don’t we hate that we have to choose?
Last week after Obama’s celebratory speech in Iowa I heard all sorts of comparisons to MLK. Why? Because it’s another black man who has national attention and is talking about people coming together. That’s amazing… but who do we compare Hillary too? Seriously, think about it. She has lots of flaws, and you can argue away her politics, but can’t we all take a moment to appreciate the ceiling she is breaking through?
Maybe her tears yesterday were staged. (While I don’t think they were “fake” she’s too much of a professional to just let go without giving herself the right to.) But let’s recognize that she is facing an uphill battle, shattering all sorts of conventions. I don’t want to rank minority statuses or argue which is worse, but as a good feminist I’ll be damned if I don’t stand up and talk about the importance of Hillary running.
It seems I’m not the only one who chewed over this during the weekend… this morning’s New York Times published an Editorial by Gloria Steinem where she lays it out there. Here’s an excerpt… but it’s worth the full read. Especially because she makes the case that if Obama were a woman he wouldn’t be a viable candidate with his experience. Argue away, but I think she makes a compelling case.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
UPDATE: Thanks to my current addiction to the Bryant Park Project for alerting me to the Steinem piece. Ohh Alison Stewart, you’ve been my hero since you’re Choose or Lose days. You deseve a whole blog entry just for you. It’s been forming in my head for months.
No Comments Yet