Politicalness.

[beccatoria]

Please don't feel obligated to respond to this; I'm aware it's a touchy topic and one where passions run high. But I feel that for myself, I should take some space to record how I'm feeling about this right now. It concerns Hillary Clinton and the Democractic nomination.

Firstly, I should be honest, I prefer Clinton. I like her position on healthcare more (the most major issue to me outside of restoration of civil liberties), I like her history of supporting women's rights and gay rights more (Obama's history of voting "present" on pro-life issues especially worries me), I like that she has experience, and I have an aunt and uncle who love their senator and they're from New York not Illinois.

So there you have my contradictory mess of objective and personal reasons for my preference.

Something in my gut says that Obama's going to win. And if that happens, I will vote for him readily. I will support him. I will hope every other damn Democrat and Independent does the same.

I think that he has the potential to be an excellent president. But I worry that currently his campaign is choosing to build up a cult of personality that I find a little creepy. I honestly believe that he does have some very good thoughts about the presidency, but I don't know what they are right now. Because everybody's too busy telling me that he stands for Change I Can Believe In, and nobody's told me what that change is.

So there you have my feelings - as briefly as I could explain them - though I will try to answer any questions anyone may have about the decision and I'm happy to be presented with new information.

The issue that really sparked this post though, is something entirely aside from my preference for Clinton's candidacy over Obama's (I just thought I ought to be upfront about that, and I ought to give my reasons why).

The real reason for this post has to do with the increasingly, ludicrously, insultingly sexist attacks levelled at Clinton and the fact that very few people are willing to stand up and say, "Look. This here is sexism. It's wrong. It ought to stop."

This article pretty much explains what I'm talking about and is a wonderful denouncement of sexism in our political arenas.

It's an endorsement for Clinton - I feel I have to make that clear at the outset, and that's also the reason I thought I should "come clean" about my own preference. But I think that it raises really important issues even if she is not your choice of candidate (a decision I very much respect).

Because while it may be a parallel issue - or while it may be impossible to extricate the sexist attacks on Clinton from the ongoing political race - it's also a very different issue. The fact that no matter how many people claim we're "post-feminist", it ain't true. And even if you think that Clinton will be the worst president that ever prezzed, the way to express that is not through attacks on her gender.

Comments

[asta77.livejournal.com]

I think I've made it clear with the little I've talked about the candidates that I don't like Hillary. I have issues with her being a package deal with Bill because there is no question in my mind that he won't just sit around and play the role of first husband. But I do, like you, wish Obama would be more clear as to how he would bring about change. I think he is passionate about bringing about change and making this country better not only for those who live here, but improving how we are perceived by those abroad. Yet he hasn't given specifics as to how he'll go about this besides stating that he is willing to sit down with foreign dictators to talk which, for the record, I support.

I said long before this began that male voters were going to find it very difficult to vote for a woman for president. It's unfortunate, but I try to take solace that what was also unthinkable in this country, a president who is not a white male, is still a very real possibility.

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

I think I've made it clear with the little I've talked about the candidates that I don't like Hillary. I have issues with her being a package deal with Bill because there is no question in my mind that he won't just sit around and play the role of first husband.

And while I wish it were otherwise, I do agree that there are issues surrounding her electability. I do also intensely dislike it when I hear Bill Clinton's influence named as a reason to elect her. I'm personally a little more confident in her ability to keep hold of the reigns, but I understand why people fear that and I have no evidence other than gut feeling that I'm right... :(

Yet he hasn't given specifics as to how he'll go about this besides stating that he is willing to sit down with foreign dictators to talk which, for the record, I support.

I support that too, under the correct circumstances. Though I think both candidates made more out of their varying responses than was really there. But yes - that's exactly what I mean. I want to know what his plans are. I don't want to be excited about the promise of them.

I said long before this began that male voters were going to find it very difficult to vote for a woman for president. It's unfortunate, but I try to take solace that what was also unthinkable in this country, a president who is not a white male, is still a very real possibility.

Yes. Me too, definitely. And that's a very good thing to point out.

I'm pretty excited about there currently being...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

both a fairly realistic chance of having the next president be female, or not white. Who would have thought that, thirty, or even fifteen years ago?! :-) I really hope one of the two wins. Even if they don't manage to effect even half as much actual change as people are currently hoping for it would still be absolutely worth it to have either of those barriers broken.

Re: I'm pretty excited about there currently being...

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

I don't know where I'll be living when the election rolls around, but there's no way I'm passing up my chance to participate in this election. My postal vote will be submitted and ain't nothing going to stop me from being part of this historic election!

Regarding what Obama actually stands for

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I found this post here helpful:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

Doesn't sound too bad.

(Link found here: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009905.html#009905)

- Yes, I'm not an American, but firstly, the whole world cares about American politics, and secondly, well, I am a student of American studies. So I try to keep up to date on your elections. *g*

Re: Regarding what Obama actually stands for

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link! I've skimmed it I will read it in detail later. I certainly agree there's a lot of really great stuff there. Some of it I was aware of, some I was not, all of it interesting.

But it doesn't change my basic worry. I was always pretty certain that he had a lot of strong positions of issues. In fact, I even knew a few of them because I looked into them while trying to make a decision about who I preferred and who I thought was better on healthcare, etc., (see post).

I don't like that even though he has all these great, strong ideas, his campaign seems to focus, instead, on his cult of personality. It's not that I think that's all there is to him. I know that's not all there is to him. I'm worried about what it says about us as a nation - and to a degree what it says about his campaign strategy - that we'd rather scream his name like he's in a boyband, than hear about this stuff.

- Yes, I'm not an American, but firstly, the whole world cares about American politics, and secondly, well, I am a student of American studies. So I try to keep up to date on your elections. *g*

Hey, it's not like I'm living there right now or that this'll affect me technically except in the way it'll affect us all. I understand your interest and am grateful for yet another person to discuss this with.

Thanks again for the link. :)

This may sound a bid weird, but...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I think politics can't do entirely without the personality cult thing, occasionally. At least not in this non-ideal world we have. Basically, you have to find a way to motivate people who don't usually 'think politically', who aren't very informed on actual policies and who in some cases may not even be *able* to grasp complex situations etc., to care, at least for a little while, if you want to move something. This is still easiest to do if you can make them care about a person, who can serve as an embodiment of goals/ideas/values, because those alone are usually too abstract for a lot of people to get really enthusiastic about them.

Of course, charismatic leaders *are* problematic. They may lead in the wrong direction; they may be all charisma and no substance; and most important of all, they make it easier for people to switch off their own brains and well, just 'follow their leader' (though from what I've read, with Obama's record of aiming for more transparency, he seems to have at least the *intention* of actually making it easier for people to make their own minds up about political decisions and processes). Anyway, the thing is... I'm not sure we're 'evolved'/enlightened enough yet to do without them. It seems to me that most successful political/social movements had their charismatic figures. Not that I see a real 'movement' of that type in America at the moment - but I think that this need for the occasional charismatic figure may extend to politics as a whole.

Re: This may sound a bid weird, but...

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

And American politics has always been a lot more about personal charisma than British politics (I have no idea about Germany).

I'm aware that we need people who inspire. Actually, when I first heard Obama's speeches, they sent shivers down my spine. I think it's incredibly important to be able to connect and motivate a too-often disaffected electorate.

But there's a difference between massive charisma and electric delivery - as I saw early in Obama's campaign - and the way his campaign now seems to mimic the behaviour of superstar rockshows or, more worryingly for me given Obama's attempts to appeal to "people of faith" (a term I hate because I find it implicitly insulting to me), megachurch fundraisers?

To put it another way, it's not that he has this cult of personality that is implicitly worrying to me; it's the fact that he seems more interested in growing that following than explaining his points? (I say "him", I mean "campaign decision").

I mean, seriously. People keep talking about "the feeling they get in his presence," and stuff. Campaigners who focus on the experience of meeting him when trying to convert people rather than talking about his policies.

I think the thing that really TERRIFIES me is if he loses, in some ways. Because there are so many people who are so invested in him, they're threatening that they won't bother to vote if Clinton wins. This is not how democracy is supposed to work - a hissy fit, like, if I can't have the guy I want, I'm going to sulk. When Michelle Obama responds to questions like, "If Clinton won the nomination, would you vote for her," with "I'd have to think about that," before launching into the need for party unity. (Note: I have no trouble with Obama's wife considering whether or not she'd support Clinton, but not when she's trying to suggest that party unity is paramount, and it's worth noting that her husband's campaign claims not to be one of attack politics, but he says things like, "All of Clinton's supporters will vote for me, but not all of my supporters will vote for her," in some unilateral, sweeping statement. Heck, it may be true, but I don't want the fact that I'm politically minded, not cult-minded, to be construed as some sort of flaw.)

In some ways, I think perhaps it was an inevitable result of someone so charismatic, handsome, intelligent and groundbreaking appearing on the political scene. But the fact remains that for all Obama's claims at unity, if he loses he'll prove massively divisive. Even if Obama is very good at criticising his opponent gracefully (and I think that he's genuinely committed to that), his supporters are desperate to slander Clinton as a lying cheater at every turn; the reverse seems to be less true.

It's not Obama and what he stands for that worries me, or that he's trying to appeal to people personally. I have issues with some of his actions and policies, but nothing that would stop me from voting for him or believing he's capable. It's the turn some aspects of his supporters have taken that leaves me...worried.

It's just...more of a cult of personality than I'm entirely comfortable with?

Re: This may sound a bid weird, but...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

>it's the fact that he seems more interested in growing that following than explaining his points?

Fair enough. I can't say I'm following the elections closely enough to have noticed this - I mainly just read a couple of blogs and news websites, and they haven't tended to focus on this aspect yet.

>Because there are so many people who are so invested in him, they're threatening that they won't bother to vote if Clinton wins.

Are there really that many? If so, those people are profoundly stupid, and I'm a bit baffled... I was - again, just from my few blogs etc. - under the impression that a great number of people are basically happy (or, in some cases, distressed) because they 'like' *both* of the main candidates! And frankly, I can't imagine any sane Democrat wanting to enable the Republicans to win this election!

[madenglishbloke.livejournal.com]

when asked what their policies are, all candidates, on both sides opf the divide, all say the same thing - change!, usually without going into anything resembling tangible details.
a lot of people on this side of the pond are getting increasingly annoyed with the slavish devotion being given by the news networks to this subject, though - lets face it, most people in the UK ahave no interest in british politics, they sure as hell dont give a rats arse about politics in the colonies...

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

when asked what their policies are, all candidates, on both sides opf the divide, all say the same thing - change!, usually without going into anything resembling tangible details.

True. Though with Clinton - even with McCain (though I refuse to EVER vote for that man!) - I end up with, somehow, a stronger sense of what they'll be doing, and what their ideas are. I'm willing to concede, at least on Obama vs Clinton that could be because I pay more attention to her. Though I think that my observations also have some objective basis in how the media chooses to cover the different candidates. i.e. the preference is to see Obama as a superstar rather than a political candidate?

a lot of people on this side of the pond are getting increasingly annoyed with the slavish devotion being given by the news networks to this subject, though - lets face it, most people in the UK ahave no interest in british politics, they sure as hell dont give a rats arse about politics in the colonies...

Well, you know that I'm in the UK too so yeah, I've seen our coverage. (I think you know I'm half welsh half american, right?). But your point about disinterest in politics is depressingly true. That's another good thing about this fight for the democratic nomination (aside from the fact that we really do have two good choices, and both represent a willingness to attempt to move beyond traditional stereotypes), that people are actually getting motivated to participate in the political process. There are record voter turnouts. And that's how it should be.

I'm a hypocrit really. I want people to get passionate and involved and feel strongly about their candidates and issues, but then I complain that they're DOING IT THE WRONG WAY, DAMMIT! ;)

[madenglishbloke.livejournal.com]

Well, you know that I'm in the UK too

yeah, i figured that when i sent you that RAM - the address in wales sorta gave it away...

(I think you know I'm half welsh half american, right?

yeah, sorta figured that as well.
i are smart!! :D

But your point about disinterest in politics is depressingly true.

AAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!
i never know what to do when people keep agreeing with me!!!
STOP ITelevent-yone!! :D

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

AAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!
i never know what to do when people keep agreeing with me!!!
STOP ITelevent-yone!! :D

NO!!!elevnety!1!!

[nomoreanonymous.livejournal.com]

I always feel a little bit guilty when people ask me who i would like to see win because part of me feels i would be very happy to see either a women or a black man in the white house and part of me feels bad for reducing them to such simple catagories.

I feel more in favour of Clinton. Her proven track record and stance on issues. Im also rather fond of Mr Clinton so dont see his influence as a bad thing plus America aint exactly short on political dynasties.

[nightxade.livejournal.com]

I'll just make my answers in point form, because I really have to go pee.

1. It's interesting that people more easily get away with sexist comments about Hilary, but any comments that could be considered racist are quickly pounced on.

2. On the sexism thing: I find it intriguing that countries we'd consider backwards/sexist/blahblahblah have had female leaders, yet we in the free world are still making barefoot and pregnant jokes. (Canada has had one female PM actually, but we tend not to think too highly of her -- but at least she was up there).

3. US elections all seem to come down to who has the best slogan and celebrity endorsements. Extra points if the candidate themself is a celebrity. Certainly their are campaign promises and goals, but you have to hunt for them to understand what they are. Here in Canada, it's all about your campaign and your promises. One candidate for Ontario Premier lost not only the premier position, but his riding because of a particular aspect of his campaign. Certainly there are people loyal to one party over the other, but ultimately, we vote on their campaigns more than who they are.

4. Someone on my flist has expressed her fear in Obama's idealism, which I feel as well. I like him, but I'm worried that he's too idealistic and too green. But chumm reminds me that he's not going to be president alone. He has the people behind him that will make him work, including an experienced foreign policy advisor. That makes me feel much better about him and his campaign of CHANGE! As long as he doesn't get assassinated, all is well.

Link/disclaimer/remark

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

Hi,

first, the disclaimer: I'm not American, nor do I know *particularly* much about American politics, nor do I know who I would vote for if I *were* American (for one thing, I'm far, far more on the left than any of the 'available' candidates *g*). But I've seen the 'Obama's too inexperienced' concern floating around the net and find it interesting, because I've read at least one article that makes a very good point for him actually having a fairly impressive track record of political achievements that, apparently, isn't mentioned all that much in the campaign or in the media. (I don't follow the American mainstream media enough to be able to tell if it's true that this has been so 'under-reported', but it seems likely.) So, just because I found that article/blog post rather enlightening, here's the link again - or rather, a link to a post containing the link: click here.

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

I'll just make my answers in point form, because I really have to go pee.

Yes, this is always an acceptable reason for brevity. *nods sagely*

2. On the sexism thing: I find it intriguing that countries we'd consider backwards/sexist/blahblahblah have had female leaders, yet we in the free world are still making barefoot and pregnant jokes. (Canada has had one female PM actually, but we tend not to think too highly of her -- but at least she was up there).

Yeah, it's weird. I think it's because sexism is a very quiet "ism" a lot of the time. We just...think it's "how things are"? Also I know that a lot of the female leaders in other nations are - sort of like Clinton - almost dynastic, in that they came to be political figures because their husbands/fathers/relatives were. It's one of the few ways women actually manage to enter the political arena on a world level. It's...definitely interesting.

We had a female prime minister once to. She was eeeeeeevil...*shudder*

US elections all seem to come down to who has the best slogan and celebrity endorsements. Extra points if the candidate themself is a celebrity.

Yeah, it's something I notice too. In britain I think we're generally more similar to Canada in that the policies (or the bite-sized versions of the policies fed to the public!) are paramount. But...in the last decade some of that personal cult charisma thing started slipping in with Tony Blair (though by the end everyone hated him!) It was so weird. Kind of disconcerting.

Someone on my flist has expressed her fear in Obama's idealism, which I feel as well. I like him, but I'm worried that he's too idealistic and too green. But chumm reminds me that he's not going to be president alone.

I absolutely agree that the way to go about it is to get a really good advisor for stuff like that. It boosts my confidence to hear he has one.

I don't think that I necessarily believe his inexperience is a point against him so much as I think Clinton's experience is a point in favour of her? I believe he has the intelligence and the guts to pull this thing off, but I'm not going to immediately believe he can do so better than he could if he did have experience. I hope that makes sense?

Like, I don't think his greenness disqualifies him, especially since your friend has a great point about him not being president alone. But it's something I can't add in the "Pro Obama" column, and it is in the "Pro Clinton" column.