Photo by Flickr user figleaf (me for once!) Used under a Creative Commons license.
1) If I stop looking at Senator Hillary Clinton for a minute I see a lot of really wonderful, actually powerful women in politics. Including all but one of my major national, state, and local representatives, all of whom are very experienced and highly qualified, and one of whom is only two impeachments away from the Oval Office. To say that Clinton is the epitome of women in power does a disservice to everyone else.
2) Fantasies of ‘wingers, and fears of supporters notwithstanding, Senator Clinton’s increasingly disgraceful behavior disgraces only her. Any more than, say, Ralph Nader’s behavior in 2000 disgraced only him and not all men (despite his end-stage macho antics), nor all citizen activists, nor all government watchdogs, nor environmentalist, and so on.
3) And speaking of which! People keep dragging gender into Senator Clinton’s antics. Besides being kind of thuggish (update: see also Ann Bartow) it’s a distraction from the real problem: She’s transforming herself into the Ralph Nader of 2008 — a previously admirable, personally likable activist who’s become toxically self-centered and self-righteous and no longer seems to care who gets hurt.
4) And speaking of which again! Just like Ralph Nader in 2000, Senator Clinton seems to be developing a hard core of supporters bent on sticking to her to the bitter end. Possibly enough to, as in 2000, influence the outcome of the election.** And here’s the deal with that: the kind of progressives who stayed home in a self-righteous huff rather than support Ralph Nader’s rival in 2000 are exactly the same kind of people who’ll stay home rather than “betray” what Senator Clinton “stood for” in 2008.*** And while I’m sure no one’s polling for this I really, really wish there could be a way to break out those who followed Nader down in 2000 to those who say they’ll follow Clinton down in 2008. It’s certainly worth asking her supporters one on one.****
[** Forget the relative handful of people who actually voted for Ralph Nader in the general election and, arguably (they argue it especially) had no effect on the outcome. Consider instead the millions more who stayed home, demoralized, because a long-term, respected icon condemned the future Nobel Prize winner as undistinguishable from George W. Bush and therefore undeserving of progressive’s votes. —fl]
[*** Update: Slightly edited. The original referenced the subset of Clinton supporters in, say, West Virginia and Kentucky who told exit pollsters they’d vote for McCain in the general one way or the other but especially didn’t want Obama to get the nomination. Generally speaking they’re not the sort who voted for Nader in 2000. —fl]
[**** And given the average age of the Senator’s hard-core support is similar to mine it might be fair to ask how many of them helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 by protest-voting for independent candidate John Anderson as a protest against Jimmy Carter. I’m pretty sure there’ll be a lot of overlap there too. —fl]
Submitted by 2183 (not verified) on Fri, 2008-05-23 18:03.
It seems to me that a lot people generalize everyone who is not them. They generalize that one woman represents all women. They generalize activists. They generalize environmentalists. It is something that we need to work on in general not only regarding gender.
[And it's a big piece of "othering" since at no point do any men, as far as I know, worry that Nader's behavior, or Ted Bundy's, or Peewee Herman's, represents all men's. For better or worse. Thanks, Christina. --fl]
Submitted by 2183 (not verified) on Fri, 2008-05-23 20:01.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that *demographically* there's much overlap between Nader voters and those Clinton supporters who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstances. I hate to say it, but based on the exit polls in Kentucky (which showed what - something like 10% of Democrats would not vote for a black candidate, ever?) I'm afraid racism among the disenfranchised is helping swell Clinton's margins where I live (SE Ohio) and in lots of the surrounding states. But racist white Democrats really aren't a key Nader constituency.
The thing that bothers me most is how she and especially her surrogates have been baiting these voters with coded or overt racist messages. Honestly, how else are we to understand it when she says she's the only person who can represent the white working class?
There's been lots of overt sexism in this campaign season, too, and I don't doubt that there's a pool of Obama supporters who would never vote for a woman. But a Pew poll a few weeks ago showed that his supporters are generally much less prejudiced that hers - even less sexist! And he and his campaign have not deliberately trafficked in sexism, apart from Obama's recent stupid "sweetie" comment. It's been the media that's dished out the sexism.
But conceptually, yes, Clinton is filling the spoiler role in ways that McCain probably never imagined in his wettest dreams. So I think your overall parallel works very well, figleaf. Too well!
Also, let's not forget that Nader himself is running again, too. I wonder how much of a magnet he'll be for disgruntled Clintonites in the fall? I'm assuming Obama will get the nomination, but even there I'm not so sure. I don't think you've underestimated her ego in any way, and I'm afraid of a bloodbath at the convention.
[Oops! I didn't mean to put so much emphasis on those racist voters, Kittywampus. I've amended the post. As for actual Nader voters this year, I saw a poll not *too* long ago on Kos or TPM saying that *McCain* actually loses a couple of points depending on whether they include Nader and Bob Barr as well as Obama, vs just matching him with Obama. So I'm guessing Nader voters have a harder time with Obama (probably "green" over the Illinois coal stuff) than with McCain (who foghorns about greenhouse gasses without intending to do anything serious about it.) Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 2183 (not verified) on Fri, 2008-05-23 21:29.
Dunno. Even if every last Hillary supporter stays home, Obama will likely still beat McCain in my state, though it might be a close call. However, since I would expect at least some of them to vote Obama instead, it means I can consider myself free to vote for a third-party candidate if I can find one I like better. Probably not Nader, though, but for reasons which have nothing to do with his role in the 2000 election. Can't say what effect this'll have on the country as a whole, though.
recaptcha: with beard
[Thanks, Nightfall. --fl]
Submitted by 2183 (not verified) on Sat, 2008-05-24 09:58.
I never considered Sen. Clinton to be the "woman candidate" in the first place and don't understand why some women are entrenched in her candidacy as such. She isn't the first woman to run for president, like Sen. Obama isn't the first black man to run for president. I don't see them that differently in political philosophy that I cant see why people wouldn't vote for the other as a Democrat. Sexism and racism are going to come with the territory, even if both candidates were saints. I also think it comes both into play with feminist. I say that because women of my age didn't seem to give a crap when Shirley Chisholm ran. That was ground breaking not Sen. Clinton's. But I guess she was not their kind of folk.
[Heck no, check out, for instance, Shirley Chisholm who ran -- in the face of severe, nearly life-in-her-hands racism and sexism -- in 1972. She got 160-some delegates too. So while they're both great people and both have to deal with receiving *and* handing out sexism and racisim, neither Clinton *or* Obama are "firsts." Thanks, Five. --fl]
Submitted by 2183 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-05-26 09:26.
Nancy Pelosi is not "only two impeachments away from the Oval Office," she could end up being president a result of the upcoming election, http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/like-kissing-your-sister.html.
[Heh. Always possible, PWA, but the point remains she's Speaker of the House of Representatives! -Thanks. --fl]