That’s not a typo in the title of this post, but let me assure you that I have NO interest in trying to persuade anyone to support one candidate over another in this year’s presidential election. Speaking only in terms of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I’ve heard compelling reasons why each one of them deserves the nomination and I’ve also heard compelling reasons why we should be wary and cautious about each one. But right now I don’t want to discuss policies, platforms, experience, rhetoric, or past mistakes, I just want to talk about one specious argument for not voting for Hillary Clinton that I’ve heard multiple times during the past week. I first heard it at a dinner party over the weekend from a liberal middle-aged woman who describes herself as a feminist, then from a younger woman having a heated discussion with her friends at Farmers Market, then from a call-in guest on a progressive radio talk show, and finally, from a woman’s comment on a very liberal-minded blog I read regularly. Here’s the argument:
Whatever we think about Hillary Clinton, it would be irresponsible to vote for her for President because tensions are so high in the Middle East right now and we’d lose all credibility with Arab and Islamic leaders who would never agree to sit down with a woman to work out the challenges between our countries. It’s unfortunate that those male leaders are so sexist, but darn it, they are, it’s a cultural thing, and this is just not the time to antagonize them further by electing a female Commander-in-Chief. It would be fantastic to have a woman as President some day, but at this critical time it would put us at a serious disadvantage in the world since a woman could never gain the respect of many world leaders and their constituents. After all, look what happened to Benazir Bhutto.
Of all the arguments against Hillary Clinton, and there are plenty of legitimate ones that could be raised, this line of reasoning is so appalling to me that I almost wonder if it was put out by the Clinton campaign itself since my first instinct is to cover my lawn with “Hillary for President” placards. Is such an argument only possible because of the continued dearth of female candidates on the national stage? Would people be espousing it if the majority of the candidates in this election were women (and why the hell aren’t more of them at this point)? While the response to Clinton’s campaign has in some ways been far less sexist than reactions to Geraldine Ferraro or Pat Schroeder’s runs, I find this current argument more outrageous than anything I ever heard about those two. People shouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman, but they sure as hell shouldn’t not vote for her because Islamic fundamentalists wouldn’t like it. I’m especially stunned that I’ve heard this argument mostly from liberal-minded women who viewed Ferraro’s place on the 1984 ticket as a watershed event for this country. What gives? And how is it different from saying that we should never elect a Jewish President since that would antagonize the leaders of the Arab world (as it surely would)? No doubt an African-American leader would offend some countries as well, and we better not consider electing anyone with an ethnic background that would bother the Chinese since we need to work closely with that important government.
I’m particularly disgusted at the way Benazir Bhutto’s name is brought into the discussion as “proof” that women should not try to lead during these troubled times. When did people in this country start using assassinations as reasons to cease and desist from their own beliefs? Is that how these people felt after the murders of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Bobby Kennedy? Maybe I’m just being hopelessly naïve. Maybe they’re right and we just can’t have women in high positions until things “calm down” over there. After all, we want to make sure that people all over the planet have the same unmitigated love and respect for our next President as they do for George W. Bush, right?
Amen, Danny. Very well said.
Posted by: Lenka | January 10, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Danny, I so totally agree with your post! (hence I should say I agree with you, I guess). Should I also mention that I have no interest whatsoever in telling who to vote (and not even being a voter in the US myself, should I mention I have no authority in this matter? but it does not preclude me from having ideas, opinions, likes and dislikes, and I would personnally root for Obama, but when I hear the type of reasons you describe in your post, I am appalled).
I am appalled that especially people would tentatively use a so-called rationale that it would be not considering the muslim dislikes of women in power, which also shows how much those people are trying to hide their OWN prejudice against women in power, and use their own ignorance or lack of knowledge and put it behind blatant prejudice and "cliches".
Always listen to what people say in the name of others: it generally tells what they are not prepared to admit in their own names.
Posted by: Otir | January 10, 2008 at 02:06 PM
I'm not the biggest Hilary supporter, but it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. I hadn't heard that argument before. But we were all surprise at how few Clinton supporters there were in our precincts during the caucuses.
Posted by: churlita | January 10, 2008 at 02:09 PM
I agree. And you make a good point!
There will always be some who are not satisfied with our politics. If some folks stepped outside of their little world and actually saw how the rest of the world views us (I'm abroad often and hear often an earful of disapproval, so I usually try to shy away from talking politics).....and how important our influence actually is on the entire world (especially ecocomically with the dollar, which is frighteningly low and effects more than just the U.S.), then they'd understand better and might even choose to vote for the right candidate. And not based on sex, religion, race, etc. The reasons can go on and on and these are just a few that I can think of, but your point on this hits the nail right on the head in my opinion!
Posted by: Amelia | January 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I am not in favor of either of the candidates because I believe we've had enough of corporate welfare, and want to get the person in who has the guts to fight against lobbyists of all stripes. I believe John Edwards can truly represent the best interests of citizens and not big business. I am hoping that the truth about Obama and the nuclear industry will come out. Hillary has also ties to coroporate world. I don't know how she helped us when she was on the board of Walmart, does anyone? So much for working for women and workers. No one asked her what she learned during her time on the Board of Walmart, why not? If i saw her, I would love to ask her that. If anyone does see her, please ask her for me.
Thanks.
Posted by: Judy | January 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Don't vote for Hillary because she has the political instincts and knee-jerk reliance on dirty tricks to make Nixon proud. Her gender has nothing to do with it. She's just rotten. That's enough.
Posted by: rankin' rob | January 12, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Not a typo, just a grammo.
"One reason *not to vote* for H"
Posted by: Jim | January 12, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Ignore what I said.
Posted by: Jim | January 12, 2008 at 03:03 PM
Brilliant post, Danny. I have heard the same line of illogical justifications from those opposed to both Obama and Clinton, and am amazed by the blatant sexism and racism that exists under the guise of prescient reasoning.
Posted by: Jane Devin | January 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Wow, are people really using this lame old tired excuse and able to look themselves in their so-called liberal mirrors? Thank you for the post Danny! Excellent as always.
Posted by: Melissa Balmer | January 14, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Danny,
I'm so pleased you voiced this opinion in the comments on my post about Hillary/Obama recently. The race/gender debate was bound to occur - for it simmers beneath the surface of our developing society. Each time we progress a tiny bit - backlash pulls us down and back into darkness.
What interesting times ...
Posted by: tamarika | January 14, 2008 at 03:48 AM
I couldn't agree more, Danny. Or is that, I couldn't not agree to not agree more? GREAT post.
Posted by: therapydoc | January 15, 2008 at 03:32 AM
Hillary is a ... a... Woman?
Nice try. You big kidder, you!
Posted by: Scott Egan | January 16, 2008 at 04:36 PM
Maybe I live a sheltered life, because this is the 1st time I've heard this particular lame reason "not" to vote for Hilary. I thought, when the topic was veering toward the Middle East, that you were going to (rightly) criticize her horrid Middle East politics - she is unplesantly unsympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians; she was the first to get on Bush's let's-nuke-Iran congo-line.
It's a good thing no one told Condalessa Rice about this problem! I have a gazillion problems with Clinton's trigger-happy tendencies, but it's things like this that make me think that I'll vote for her to spite the misogynists of whatever gender.
Sigh,
Sue
Posted by: Sue Katz | January 20, 2008 at 03:42 AM
Hillary was elected Senator from New York--she purposely "forgot" about downstate and worked with and for upstate NY
That was a good tactic---until 9/11. People have short memories. They don't remember the job fairs, the people out of work. They overlook how much costs have spiraled and how Manhattan is no longer affordable to most natives
I will vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate but she was never my Senator and we needed people with her clout pushing for us
I understand her claim that she wasn't really voting for war, but most New Yorkers were and are anti war--again she wasn't representing the interests of the masses
I used to think her wonderful. It's hard to when I have to leave the city of my birth as I just don't want to spend all money on living expenses.
Posted by: pia | January 20, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Is this woman that bad? I have read a lot of bad things about her, but I do not know what is true, or what is not.
Is she really a communist?
Posted by: Nickalopoulos | January 24, 2008 at 09:10 PM
I agree with you that's a pretty ridiculous argument you cited. Wondering as to your source, as this is the first I'm reading of it.
Posted by: TIV: The Individual Voice | January 28, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Hi, Danny! It's Angela Brown! I happened to find this post when doing a Google search to find out what percentage of Jews support Hillary Clinton. Thank you so much for writing this. I agree with you 100 percent, and I wish more men would speak out about the sexist treatment Hillary has endured during this campaign. Happy Passover to you and Kendall! xx, Angela
Posted by: Angela Brown | April 22, 2008 at 09:00 PM