Clinton versus Obama
Maybe neither one is getting the nod for the right reasons
By MARY CLANCY
Why is Hillary Clinton losing to Barack Obama? There may be as many answers to that question as there are pundits on CNN. That six months ago, it appeared to be all over but the shouting is now unthinkable.
The primaries would unfold and Hillary would be duly crowned the Democratic party’s choice for presidential candidate in 2008. Given the state of the U.S. economy, the overall dissatisfaction regarding the war in Iraq and the general opinion that, yes indeed, George W. Bush is a sock puppet for Dick Cheney and the Haliburton corporation, she would then slide into the White House with the able assistance of her greatest asset, husband Bill.
Yeah, well, as they say, a week is a year in politics, and it must seem like an eon to Clinton’s supporters.
So, just what are the problems? Well, first, there is Hillary herself. She is smart, well-educated, passionate about her policies, and has a work ethic that would put a Clydesdale to shame. She is attractive, articulate, a regular church-goer (that counts in the U.S.A., God help us), and obviously committed to her family, come hell, high water or Monica Lewinsky.
So, what’s the problem? Sadly, with all these sterling qualities, she just isn’t very likable. That same icy control that got her through the earthquakes of Bill’s two terms seems to turn people off.
She won New Hampshire after she let down her guard and teared up about her own feelings. It was, unfortunately, an hour late and a dollar short.
Don’t get me wrong. I think that teary response was utterly genuine, mainly because I don’t believe she is really capable of major subterfuge. When things are bad, she tends to take her own legal advice and shuts up. The woman in New Hampshire clearly caught her off guard and we all saw a Hillary that was never visible before.
Maybe, just maybe, if she had shown more vulnerability, she wouldn’t be facing the end of all her hopes. The difficulty is that showing vulnerability goes against a lifetime of steeling herself against such displays.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that a similar display by Edmund Muskie, the Democrats’ candidate for VP in 1968, put paid to the already flagging campaign.
For those who don’t remember, or weren’t born, Richard Nixon’s dirty-tricks people circulated a scurrilous letter about Mrs. Muskie. Her husband, a senator and former Maine governor, held a press conference in the snowbanks of his home state and, quite understandably, wept at the attack on his blameless wife. The sobs sent Muskie and presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey into a tailspin from which they never recovered.
OK, OK, it was 40 years ago and they both lived to see Nixon get the biggest come-uppance in the history of American politics; but neither one of them made it to the Oval Office.
There’s a pattern developing here, and it’s not good. Boys shouldn’t cry and girls should? Clearly, that’s too simplistic; but in the United States of America, something is beginning to emerge that isn’t very pretty.
In many ways, the contest between Clinton and Obama is a small-l liberal’s nightmare. The black man or the white woman? In 2008, these things should not matter; but it is clear that in this race, they do.
No one should vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Neither should anyone choose Barack because of his race. However, many have, do and will. Given the bloody history of both racism and sexism, the irony of the contest would almost be amusing – if it weren’t, at base, tragic.
For my money, either one would be a good president. And, again for my money, either one would be (you should excuse the expression) donkeys/years ahead of W. and the clowns who stole the election in 2000 and set the U.S. on its current destructive path.
I have a number of good friends involved at various levels in the Clinton campaign. A slew of people I admire support Obama. And I admit my feminism longs to see a woman at the helm, while at the same time my disgust at the treatment of African Americans and Canadians tells me how truly transforming a black president could be.
My fear is that neither one is getting the nod for the right reasons. That in this day and age, race trumps gender. An American visitor said recently, "Well, I could vote for Obama; he’s not really black. Whereas, no matter how you slice it, Hillary really is a woman." I wasn’t present when the comment was made, and thus am not in jail pending a trial for criminal assault.
At a conference in Boston a few years ago, an African American woman said to me, "Sexism annoys me; racism enrages me." My reply was that I supposed it depended on whose ox was getting gored.
Maybe it is the destiny of the United States to have these two long disadvantaged groups go head to head. I just wish that it didn’t have to be this choice, right now. The fear that keeps niggling at me is that while electing Obama will go a long way in the battle to eliminate racism, it is somehow happening at the expense of the battle to eliminate sexism. It should not be, but sadly it is.
Mary Clancy is a former Liberal Halifax MP and a former Canadian consul general in Boston.
© 2008 The Halifax Herald Limited |
