The Tears Of The Anti-Feminist

The second bout of public tears just before a crucial primary vote – after no evidence that Senator Hillary Clinton has a history of tearing up in front of the cameras – provokes the unavoidable question: should feminists actively vote against Clinton to defend the cause of female equality?

She is, it should be conceded, the most viable female candidate for the presidency in history. But feminism isn’t just about women wielding power. Female monarchs and despots have ruled throughout history – and it was no thanks to feminism. Few would see Elizabeth I or a dynast like Eva Peron as feminist role models. What matters is not that they came to such prominence; but how they did it. Inheriting office is no achievement. In some ways, inheriting it, when you could have won it alone, is a rebuke to feminism. What marks a true feminist is a woman who gains democratic office through strictly Clintonstanhondaafpgetty meritocratic means. Think of Margaret Thatcher: a woman who came from lowly beginnings to master a chemistry degree and a legal career in the 1940s and 1950s, who won a seat in parliament single-handedly and eventually became a three-term prime minister for the Conservative party. Yes: the Conservative party. You think she didn’t have to deal with prejudice and chauvinism? More than Hillary Clinton will ever know. But she never engaged for a second in the gender politics and nepotistic shenanigans that Clinton has. Thatcher had a rich husband but he was not a stepping stone to politics. She had two children, but never used them for public attention or photo-ops. She did it all – indisputably – on her own merits.

Hillary Clinton could have done the same. She is an extremely intelligent woman, with a strong work ethic, an attention to detail, a passion for helping children, and a fascination with politics. She remains one of the leading lights in her generation. If she’d wanted to, she could have forged a political career on her own, and done splendidly. She chose not to. She chose to form a long-standing alliance with the man she married, to fuse her own political persona with a man’s, and to win her first national power – as First Lady, with authority to remake American healthcare – without ever being directly elected to anything.

Yes, she subsequently sought election in her own right to the Senate.

And her career there shows what a trail blazer she could have been for feminism. A skilled, cautious, pragmatic and constituent-focused legislator, she began to build a Senate career admired by many. But it became clear pretty soon that the Senate was indeed merely a stepping stone back to the White House. It also became clear that she had absolutely no qualms about using her husband’s former office, unrivaled party clout and acute political skills to advance her current, long-planned campaign. Bill was wielded as an attack-dog, in an unprecedented abuse of the prestige and honor of the Oval Office in the service of a campaign proudly dealing in blatant nepotism. It was an act of corruption by a corrupt dynasty fearful they couldn’t win re-election without pulling every lever they had.

There were also, of course, the now famous New Hampshire tears – to evoke sympathy. And the blunt appeal on gender grounds alone. And the refusal to disavow the use of her husband for her own political purposes, even as he told lies and cast racist aspersions about her opponent. And, on the eve of Super Tuesday, the tears again. Can you imagine a male politician breaking down in public the day before a crucial vote – and expecting it to help?

It’s time feminists realized that Clinton is a dream gone sour. If you believe in women in politics, in female leaders who lead by themselves, on their own merits, with no strings to pull and husband-presidents to rely on, do yourself a favor and vote for Obama.

One day, there will be a woman worth electing to the White House. But not this one.

(Photo: Stan Honda/AFP/Getty.)

Expectations

David Plouffe tries to lower them:

Our path to the nomination never factored in a big day for us on February 5. Rather, we always planned to stay close enough in the delegate count so that we could proceed to individually focus on the states in the next set of contests. We fully expect Senator Clinton to earn more delegates on February 5th and also to win more states.

If we were to be within 100 delegates on that day and win a number of states, we will have met our threshold for success and will be best positioned to win the nomination in the coming months.

Jason Zengerle evaluates the memo’s significance:

So, unless the Obama campaign has dreadfully wrong internal polls or is just incredibly stupid (the former more plausible than the latter), look for him to finish well within 100 delegates of Hillary tomorrow. Otherwise, even by Obama’s own terms, he will have lost Super Tuesday.

Marc makes a similar point:

Unless every Obama adviser I’ve spoken to over the past year has out and out lied to me, a big day on Feb. 5 has always been a big part of Obama’s nomination strategy. That doesn’t mean they always expected to win it…just that, for months, the campaign devoted unusual amounts of resources to building robust organizations in the states…and claims 75,000 active volunteers.

Seems like the Obama campaign is setting expectations way low so they can beat them as easily as the Giants front four beat through the line to Tom Brady.

Obama And California

A reader writes:

Regarding your recent expectations-setting post about Clinton’s lead in absentee ballots: the recent California Field Poll (considered the best in the state by many), Obama is now running dead even with Hillary Clinton on mail-in voters– which they assert as 43% of all votes cast–32% to 31% in Obama’s favor. According to their poll however,  Hillary leads precinct voters (57% of all votes cast, according to Field Poll) 40% to 31%. I think this is spurious, however, as I believe  DTS (commonly known as "independent") voter turnout may be higher than than expected (13% of all voters, according to them). And, funny thing, Obama is beating Hillary in this category by a whopping 54% to 32%.

This is also a race between two Californias, the familiar North/South dynamic. Hillary wins LA (29% of the state) 42% to 34%, while the SF Bay Area (26% of the state) goes Obama 41% to 31%.

I’m a precinct captain in San Francisco.

The energy on our side here is fantastic; the volunteers I see everyday and voters I’ve spoken with represent an incredible microcosm of the population as a whole. I cannot give you much more than a limited sampling based on my own data, but expect Obama to win the Bay big, perhaps bigger than even the above poll shows. We may not be able to eke a win out of California, but it’s going to be closer than anyone imagined even 3-4 days ago. We may even pull this one out, doing what was, until recently, widely regarded as close to impossible.