Democrats should not nominate Hillary Clinton, because she can’t be trusted and because she’s a woman.
There–I finally said it. For some time I’ve kept quiet about my conflicting inner dialogues about Hillary Clinton. But my desires to see anybody but Hillary get the Democratic nomination are not subsiding, thus I must now profess to my blogging friends (with whom I usually agree) that I believe Hillary wouldn’t be any better at the helm than somebody like John McCain. Several times I’ve contemplated coming out of the closet as an adamant Hillary-nonsupporter, but lately its been abundantly clear that my heart simply will not be in it, if I’m asked in 2008 to pose as someone who trusts Clinton.
But the statement I want to make is even more controversial than that, and I know it may infuriate the feminists in my discipline–many of whom would nominate Aileen Wuornos for President based on vagina points, serial-killer status not withstanding. I’m not speaking out against Hillary solely because I dislike and distrust her immensely and believe she’d make a hideous president; even if I didn’t perceive Clinton as a power-hungry phony, I still would hesitate to vote for her (in the Democratic primaries) because she’s a woman. That’s right, I said it–flip out feminism! Call me pejorative names if it helps you simplify the situation. The country is not ready for a woman president and thus I see it as futile and dangerous to give Hillary the nomination–regardless of her margin of victory in the primaries.
I know: you’ve been taught to throw blankets over people who make these statements, whisk them away in the night to rot away in that well-guarded, impenetrable part of your skull, a cell into which no intelligent thought–no matter how rational or well-reasoned–can gain admittance without first being severely pummeled by the gatekeeper/bouncer. But I don’t care; I’ll say it anyhow, because I’m petrified of tangential issues like gay marriage and abortion deciding another election.
I am neither proud of nor content with my opinion, much less the social epiphanies which led me to it. But sooner or later someone does need to point out the big picture.
I’ll even go one further. The men in the party need to decide who’s running against Hillary. STEP 1: If Gore is still playing manipulative games, the time to stop is now. If you’re waiting for the ideal, perfect moment to enter the race, it has arrived. You have your Nobel Peace Prize, and Sean Hannity hasn’t mentioned your son’s fuck-ups for several days now. If you’re not running, then say so–make a definitive statement and cut out the wishy washy bullshit, tell those of us who are holding their breath on your behalf to exhale, so we can finally pick a team and play for it. STEP 2: If Gore’s out, then decide who’s in. It should be one guy and the rest should graciously endorse that candidate. Their obsession with power is detrimental to the country, and I say this as a Mike Gravel of Dennis Kucinich supporter.
The longer Obama and Edwards slug it out, splitting the anti-Hillary vote, and the more time Gore spends mulling things over, the greater the likelihood that we’ll see Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney sworn into office in ’08. And make no mistake, Romney would destroy our reputation on the world stage.
The Democratic party is not talking about this, because there really is no PC way to say it. But that doesn’t change the fact that many Independents who would support Obama or Edwards or Gore, are simply unwilling to take the important step of electing a woman president. And in a political climate that lives and dies by the swing vote, politicians need to begin looking more than one move ahead. The polls show that most voters on the Left are ready for a woman president, as evidenced by Clinton’s overwhelming lead over Obama and the boys. Not so on the Right, where the polls also show that, among the top three Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton stacks up poorly against any one of the top four Republican candidates. Both Edwards and Obama have commanding leads over all of the top Republican contenders, whereas Clinton remains either neck and neck with them, or trailing.
So even though Democrats may favor Clinton, I’d guess most of them would prefer Edwards or Obama to any of the abovementioned Republicans. So their votes are not in jeopardy. But in an era where elections are decided by people on the fence, Hillary’s womanhood will cripple her. Let’s face it, swing voters are total meatheads–they look for trivial reasons to vote for or against a candidate, and they’ll find it in Hillary’s gender. That may mean that nominating a woman will ultimately concede the election to the Republicans. Let’s be tactical for a change.