I'm kind of shocked that my posts about Hillary Clinton have started a bit of a tiff among local bloggers...except really I'm not.
So we'll start with
Ken:
Anna commits a small sin against logic. Thinking that the Clintons are sleazy, and voting for one or the other, are not mutually exclusive categories.
I'm not sure I ever said that, exactly, but I would say that some decent proportion of the forty-something percent of Democrats in the United States who want to vote for her don't find her sleazy, which would mean that "nearly everyone" does not find her sleazy. I don't consider Hillary Clinton sleazy. A lot of Republicans like Ken think she is.
You accuse me, Anna, of some measure of glee over Ms. Clinton's troubles. I confessed. But you are surely subject to the corresponding dismay over the apparent collapse of the first woman to have a realistic shot at the White House. I do not say this as an accusation. It is perfectly reasonable. But both of us will have to make do with things as they are.
I am actually not particularly dismayed about Hillary Clinton doing badly, because I like Barack Obama almost as much. I support Clinton mostly based upon her better health care plan, and the fact that, while she and Obama often have fairly similar opinions on issues that matter to me, her support (as well as her policy goals) are much more straightforward than Obama's. Though Ken assumed that I support her based upon her gender, he would be incorrect. I am also wary of personality campaigns - for example, I was never a Deaniac.
What bothers me is random hate directed at Clinton (which I see a lot of at SDP). I think it's fair to disagree with her policies or the way she's run her campaign, but SDP has gone far beyond fair criticism of Clinton as a candidate and as a person.
I have noted more than once that Hilliary Clinton did a lot of the good hard work that earned her a shot at history. But she attached herself early to a very flawed man, and the truth is that she has ridden his success all the way to the present. She would not be Senator from New York, let alone presidential contender, without his presidency. As I showed in my recent post, she herself just doesn't seem to have the character and genius that Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama or John McCain have demonstrated.
First of all, a number of female leaders, both in the United States and abroad, have been members of political families. It's really not that unusual, it doesn't bother me, and it shouldn't take away from the success those women have achieved in their own rights. She's obviously her own woman and her own politician, and it's unfortunate that Ken is only able to part-way respect that. I think Clinton's "character and genius" (whatever that means) surpasses those of her opponents. I guess we get to have our own opinions on that matter, and most people might not agree with me, which is fine.
Our friend
Todd posted recently about Clinton's likability, and mostly I just want to take issue with two things, because likability is in the eye of the beholder.
He starts with:
Now, women please don’t start throwing things at me for being a sexist pig, let me explain.
First, I think I can like or dislike a woman just as I can like or dislike a man.
which, you know, fine. And then offers these reasons for Clinton's lack of likability:
But she also comes across as crabby old librarian who’s always shushing you. She’s the know-it-all in class who always has her hand up with the answer. And when she laughs, it is not a hearty laugh but a forced laugh that seems to come through clinched teeth...I have a colleague who went to law school at the University of Arkansas when HRC was teaching there. He had her for a professor. The exclusive women’s college and Ivy League graduate told the assembled masses that they “Are not legally educable.” In other words, she told a bunch of freshmen law students they were too stupid to be lawyers.
I'm sorry, Todd, but if this isn't loaded, sexist language, I'm not sure what is. I mean, heaven forbid a woman (much less a candidate for president) know all the answers. And I'm not even going to touch the librarian thing, which is so loaded and so only mentioned because she's a woman.
You know, I told my students that most of them wouldn't get As in my class. Which is absolutely true. Those of us women who teach at the college level (and probably at the graduate level), particularly in areas like history (my field) or law - which are full of men, have to constantly find ways to assert our authority in the classroom, or male (and female) students will walk all over us. I know this from personal experience. A comment like the anecdotal one Todd shares above is not so much arrogance as an attempt to bully the students into some kind of respect. Because I guarantee none of them - including Todd's friend - were predisposed to respect her in the classroom, no matter where she got her legal education.
Basically, Todd says Hillary is mean and too smart and not fun, while Barack is awesome and cool and super-great. Which, again, is SO based on their gender. Obama is the hip, fun, young guy, while Hillary is smarter than you and knows it. This isn't sexist? Honestly?
