A new and slightly mind-boggling idea has emerged from the feminist community: support Obama over Hillary. Many prominent feminists like Kate Michelman, president for 20 years of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Ellen Bravo, former director of the National Association of Working Women have taken up this position. They claim, with the support of other feminists, that Obama's focus on domestic issues and unwaving thoughts on the Iraq War are more inline with what the feminist community desires. "Choosing to support Senator Obama was not an easy decision for us," they stated, "because electing a woman president would be a cause for celebration in itself," but they stress the importance of the issues being presented rather than the sex of the one presenting.
Marissa posted a rather scathing editorial of CNN's stories about black women having to choose between race and gender, so I wonder which is the best politician to support if we are to vote on issues rather than sex. Is Obama the better canidate for a feminist-minded voter?
5 comments:
Well you made your opinion rather obvious, by describing Michelman's support of Obama as "mind-boggling". In the end, feminism is all about women being empowered to vote for whomever they'd like without feeling that they're second class in terms of importance. Clinton and Obama are almost exactly the same policy-wise, so when choosing between the do it's important to focus on things that are sadly needed to focus upon. Clinton is, in my opinion, incapable of winning a general election against McCain, simply because of the baggage she carries as President Clinton's spouse. While her gender is unfortunately a barrier, the real problem is that people don't trust her. Therefore, I would say I support Obama because he can win against McCain and has a policy I support. A feminist minded voter must realize that Hillary would still be a longshot against McCain, and that voting for Obama allows for a Democratic president to take the White House.
Sometimes I wonder if feminists are just voting for Hillary because shes a woman. Whether or not if our future President is a man or a woman, does it really matter unless they either do well or poorly for our country?
just wondering.
I don't blame many feminists for wanting to vote for Hillary because although part of the reason is that she's a woman and obviously represents how far women's rights have come, most of them really do support her policies and experience.
I described it as "mind-boggling" because I was under the impression that most feminists would support Hillary as a general rule. That was probably just a stereotype on my part, but so it goes.
It's a shame that an election becomes a mere personality contest when two canidates have similar platforms. Is that ultimately the deciding factor?
(I had a long and well-thought-out post and then Google eated it. Sorry!)
I think Hillary's claims to executive experience-- which becames, on some level, a "vote for me because my husband was awesome" argument-- was problematic for a lot of feminists. And one of the breaking points for me was Clinton's willingness to paint Obama's 'present' votes-- part of a larger and successful pro-choice strategy-- as anti-choice. Sometimes it's felt like she wants to take women one step forward by moving two steps back.
Post a Comment