Should women support Hillary Clinton?
As a progressive, a feminist, and a chick, my support for Clinton is
presumed. After all, I have a vagina. So does she. I want to see a
woman president. She’s a woman. I support choice, reproductive
services, expanded women’s health care, pay parity. She says she’ll
deliver all those things.
The thing is, though, so does John Edwards—someone I’ve
supported since well before he became John Kerry’s vice-presidential
pick in 2004. I like Edwards because he emphasizes poverty, social
justice, and ending corporate welfare. Of all the candidates, his
positions are most in line with my beliefs. His campaign
promises—ending corporate welfare, eliminating tax giveaways to
the wealthiest two percent of Americans, implementing a just system of
health care for all—are most in line with what I want.
But like almost everyone who is not a straight, white, Christian
male, I’ve dreamed of having someone in the White House who looks like
me. This is more than simplistic identity politics. Yes, it’s identity
politics, but it’s not simple.
We live in a country where identity still, to a huge extent, shapes
experience. A black person understands better than me what it’s like to
experience racism; a gay person understands what it’s like to be denied
basic rights because of your sexuality. And I feel that we need to put
someone in the White House who understands that eight years of George
W. Bush has devastated women’s status in this country—and who
will prioritize putting things right.
Clinton articulated this argument brilliantly October 22 during an
appearance in front of the Washington State Democrats at Benaroya Hall.
“There are two groups that inspire me to keep going,” Clinton said.
“One is women in their 90s who come to my events… They all say
something like, ‘I’m 95 years old. I was born before women could vote
in this country and I’m going to live long enough to see a woman in the
White House.’ The other group is the children who come… I see a
parent lean over to a daughter and say, ‘See, honey? In this country
you can be anything you want to be.'”
Cheesy? Trite? Sure. But compelling to many women, including Linda
Mitchell, board chair for the Washington State Women’s Political
Caucus. In a letter to WPC members, Mitchell said that while Clinton’s
positions on health care, the environment, and choice were appealing,
“I’m not going to lie: The reality is that for me, it’s time. For the
first time we have a strong, viable, qualified woman who CAN be
president, who is giving it her all, and who has a real shot at
winning. And it’s time for feminists to step up and make it
happen.”
Edie Gillis, political director for Progressive Majority of
Washington, has a similar take. She says she supports Clinton not for
her political platform—”I’m probably a little more
liberal”—but because Clinton is a woman. “All of the little
differences between the candidates are meaningless to me,” Gillis says.
“For me, it’s a precedent-setting thing. I just got married, I’m
thinking about starting a family, and if I have a daughter, I want to
be able to tell her that there’s a woman in the White House. It would
totally change the way we look at the presidency.”
But, again, so would a truly liberal president like John Edwards.
After decades of Republican rule, centrism, and triangulation, Edwards
promises a return to the progressive tradition on which the Democratic
Party was founded. It’s hard to turn my back on that possibility. With
Edwards trailing in the polls, Clinton is starting to seduce many who
are wary of her centrist politics and corporate
contributions—including many feminists.
* * *
But not all—and with good
reason.
Although both Clinton and Edwards voted for the Iraq war resolution
in 2002, only Edwards has fully recanted, saying bluntly in a
Washington Post op-ed: “I was wrong.” His emphasis on poverty
and improving the living conditions of all Americans would
disproportionately benefit women, who make up the bulk of those living
in poverty and earning the minimum wage. He has also been more explicit
about which taxes he would raise to keep the deficit under control: He
would eliminate Bush’s tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans,
those earning more than around $200,000 a year. And he would increase
taxes on capital gains and windfall profits taxes on oil companies.
Two prominent feminist bloggers—Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon
and Melissa
McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister—have been vocal
about their support for Edwards and lack of enthusiasm for Clinton.
Back in February, after the Edwards campaign hired both Marcotte and
McEwan, the pair came under fire by religious-right bigot Bill Donohue
for being “anti-Catholic.” After several days of indecision from the
Edwards campaign, both women resigned. However, both Marcotte and
McEwan have maintained their support for Edwards, asserting that he
better represents the interests of women and progressives.
McEwan argues that because Edwards has daughters and a wife,
Elizabeth, whose health-care needs are greater than most Americans’, he
“has nearly as much reason to be as keen on women’s issues as…
Hillary, who is also no doubt motivated by her daughter’s needs in the
future.” She points to a 2005 study by researchers at Yale University
that found that male politicians with daughters were actually more
likely to focus on “women’s issues” than female candidates. And, McEwan
continues, “I’m not going to support a female Democrat just because
she’s a woman. Hillary is an especially tough case for me, because I
really, really like her as a person… But some of her positions, and
particularly her corporatism, rub me completely the wrong way.”
* * *
Me, too—to the point that, until recently, I
said I’d only support Clinton if she got the nomination, and only
grudgingly. But my old childhood fantasy—the idea that, in my
lifetime, a woman could be president—is pushing me slowly in
Clinton’s direction.
Putting Hillary Clinton in the White House would change presidential
priorities. Yes, Edwards has a pro-choice platform—Barack Obama
too. Yes, both believe in expanding family and medical leave and
implementing policies that close the pay gap between men and women. In
fact, on most issues that matter to women in particular, the three
frontrunners hold virtually identical positions.
But although Edwards and Obama may agree with Clinton on many
things, I believe that—as a progressive woman—Clinton would
be far more likely to prioritize women and children than any candidate
who has never been a woman or a mother. No, a President Condoleezza
Rice or Elizabeth Dole wouldn’t prioritize women; in fact, they’d
probably roll back women’s rights to please the sexist, retrograde,
increasingly fundamentalist base of the party they belong to. But
Clinton’s a Democrat. Moreover, she’s made women’s issues the
cornerstone of her campaign. To say she’ll make them the cornerstone of
her presidency isn’t sexism; it’s pragmatism.
Women’s issues matter in this election—perhaps more than at
any other time in the last 30 years. During his years as president,
George W. Bush has dramatically eroded the rights of women and children
at home and abroad. On his first day in office, Bush signed the “global
gag rule,” denying U.S. aid to any organization that provides abortions
or information about abortions (responding to patients’
questions about their options, for example)—a decision that has
led to the dismantling of reproductive services around the world, and
to countless deaths worldwide. He supported the so-called Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban, and appointed two of the Supreme Court justices who
subsequently upheld it as the law of the land. He pressured the FDA to
bar the over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception, ignoring the
recommendations of two FDA panels. He supported legislation that would
redefine embryos as “individuals” with the same human rights as living
people. He promoted misleading and inaccurate abstinence-only education
programs whose only effect was to reduce the number of sexually active
teens who use birth control. He even appointed an anti-contraception
activist to head the federal family-planning office.
Because these are women’s issues, it makes sense that a woman
candidate would view them as her issues. And Clinton does. It’s why she
has spoken out against countries that ignore human trafficking and
forced prostitution. It’s why she sponsored legislation that would make
family-planning services, including emergency contraception, more
accessible to low-income women and require insurance companies to pay
for birth control. It’s why she supported allowing pharmacies to sell
EC over the counter (and blocked confirmation of the new FDA chief
until it was approved). It’s why she introduced a bill that would make
EC available to all women in America’s armed services. It’s why she
opposed the noxious “global gag rule.” It’s why she sponsored
legislation aimed at ending the pay gap between men and women. It’s why
she wants to implement a universal pre-kindergarten program. It’s why
she wants to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act and implement paid
maternity-leave programs in every state by 2016. It’s why she wants to
require all health-care companies to cover prescription birth control
in their plans. It’s why she wants to outlaw “maternal
profiling”—the practice in some companies of making pay and
promotion decisions based on the assumption that women will have
babies.
And it’s why she’s said things like, “I suppose I could have stayed
home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was
fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public
life.”
* * *
Republicans lambasted Clinton for her cookie
comment in 1992.
In the 15 years since, they’ve elevated Clinton to a sort of
superstar villain, a malevolent bogeywoman who personifies all their
darkest fears. At a recent Republican debate in Florida, the Republican
presidential hopefuls couldn’t stop talking about Clinton—to the
point that they hardly spent any time at all talking about their own
campaigns. Mitt Romney said Clinton “hasn’t even run a corner store.”
Rudy Giuliani said America “can’t afford” a Clinton presidency. And
John McCain made a crack about her proposal to fund a Woodstock museum,
saying, “I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event.”
In attacking Clinton, her critics on the right reveal how ugly,
sexist, and antiwoman they really are. When she speaks in support of
expanded civil rights, including adoption rights, for gays and
lesbians, they insinuate that she’s gay. When she fails to dress in
Armani, à la Nancy Pelosi, they attack her for being “dowdy.”
When she doesn’t act appropriately feminine, they call her a “man.” (In
fairness, they also call Obama and Edwards women.) When Michelle Obama
makes an aside that “if you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the
White House,” the right-wing noise machine turns it into a manufactured
“catfight.”
When Clinton campaigns aggressively, they compare her to a “hellish
housewife” who “just won’t stop nagging you.” When she doesn’t come
down hard enough on an issue, they insist that she isn’t aggressive
enough to be president. They accuse her of trotting out a manufactured
“maternal” side. They even try to make her look like an ice queen for
giving away her cat. And finally, when they have nothing else to say,
they criticize her laugh—sorry, make that “cackle.” Anyone who
inspires this much hysteria among Republicans is all right with me.
On the other hand, some women argue that the very reason I like
Clinton is reason enough to ditch her. Many women (and men) describe
her as “divisive,” and call her (despite polls that show her with a
solid lead among Democrats and some support among Republican women)
“the only Democrat who could lose this election.” Sue Evans, media
relations coordinator for Pyramid Communications and a Democrat, says
that while she doesn’t “think anybody questions Hillary’s ability to do
the job, it’s the fear of not getting the White House back after what
this country has been through that’s the concern. I want the White
House.”
And many smart, liberal women who support candidates other than
Clinton make a good point: She isn’t as progressive as some of her
fellow frontrunners. She supported the Defense of Marriage Act. She
cosponsored the flag-burning amendment. And she supported legislation
that some say opens the door for military action in Iran.
Like many liberals, I’m disturbed by all those votes, but here’s
where I run into a big “But.” Democrats of late could not be accused of
making the perfect the enemy of the good. We nominated John Kerry, for
fuck’s sake, and supported him wholeheartedly. So are we holding
Clinton to a higher standard, and if so, can we see beyond her gender
to her electability and fitness to govern? And are we, as women,
holding Clinton to an unattainable standard? As Clinton supporter
Mitchell puts it, “If not now, then when? If we’re waiting for the
perfect woman candidate, we’re never going to get a woman president.”
City Council Member Sally Clark, a recent Clinton convert, thinks
Clinton may “get called ‘shrill,’ a ‘shrew,’ and a ‘bitch’ because
she’s aggressive and knows what she wants and is really focused. It’s
not like she gets up on the platform and rages.”
Feminist writers and political activists have debated themselves to
death about whether being a woman means supporting Clinton. I don’t
think it does. As a woman, however, I believe Clinton will do right by
me on issues that matter to women—which is an entirely different
thing than supporting a candidate because of her gender.
I’ll still support Edwards if he gets the nomination—an
outcome that seems less and less likely in light of the Clinton
juggernaut. But if it’s Clinton, I’ll support her enthusiastically. As
a feminist and a woman, I’m ready to see someone who shares my values
and my gender in the White House. It’s about time. 