It drives me crazy a little that people call Hillary Clinton "Hillary." I think this comes from being in the music world, and noticing that male composers are always (always) referred to by their last name, while female composers are always (always) referred to by their full name. Have to throw in that feminine first name, because otherwise we couldn't define them by their possession of a vagina. (Male composers are, of course, non-gendered, purely mental entities). But back to Clinton. Using her first name implies familiarity, which I guess could be kind of nice, if it wasn't patronizing and bought at the price of respect and inclusion. I mean we have called basically every presidential candidate ever by their last name (I base this on no real facts, let me know if I'm wrong), so by calling Clinton "Hillary," we're just inscribing a big floating sign that says "different" about her head. And it's not like people are going to get confused and think Bill Clinton decided to run for president again, so come on, vote for Clinton. (Or Obama, but you know what I mean.)
If you're really lucky, I'll respond to what you actually wrote later.
I'm not going to argue that Obama is a more electable candidate or would make a better president than Clinton. I think both of those are true, and if you want to debate it we will. But what I want to talk about is the logical problem with voting for Clinton because it would say something if she had to be VP to Obama.
First off, neither of these candidates is gonna veep for the other. They're both too competitive, and the loser will have aspirations that will be better served by other posts.
Secondly, it's just a serious problem to vote for someone because the President-VP relationship would be damaging to this country's gender politics. Now, I COMPLETELY agree that an Obama-Clinton ticket WOULD be patriarchy-affirming. But that's a lousy reason to vote for someone, even if the loser were to be VP. Vote for Clinton because she's a better candidate, or vote for Obama because he's a better candidate. What you're talking about is philosophically no different from voting for Clinton because she's a woman or voting for Obama because he's black. If two candidates have the same politics, sure, vote for the one who's symbolism would mean the most. But they are very different candidates, and you ought to support whomever you agree with most (which sounds like it's Clinton anyway). Political stances are significantly more important than the symbolism of having their minority occupy the presidency (as if women are statistically a minority, but you know).
This is hyperbole-tastic, but you don't vote for Maggie Thatcher because of what it means to women.
On the other hand, I do gotta say that while I think your point is NOT worth swinging your vote one way or another, it IS a really interesting one. Moot, but interesting. I think a female VP is a much worse idea than I originally thought.
P.S. Sorry that I argue so vehemently that I come off as a jerk sometimes. Friends?
I respect Hillary. For all her centrist pandering ways, she's had a wall of shit come down on her... more than ANY other candidate in this race. The sexism that has permeated the media regarding her candidacy is astounding.
And while I think Obama has a fantastic rhetoric, I have concerns with how his presidency would play out. His campaign has been based on making promises. And it's easy to talk about what you hope to do. It's easy to make promises. It's a lot harder to demonstrate how you've been successful in the past and how that is indicative of how you'll perform in the future.
Gosh - I thought I was supposed to cast my vote based on who I thought could be the most effective leader for America and have the best chance of healing the partisan divide that has been getting wider over the past 16 years.
Sorry, but this arguement about what "signals" we send society by who is first on the ticket is just plain silly in my humble opinion. I could care less what the sex or skin color is of the candidate.
Based on Obama's willingness to address LGBT issues in front of "unfriendly" crowds (as opposed to only when backed into a corner on a specific issue or addressing LGBT crowds), and his history of being able to work with both political parties to reach agreements on difficult issues, and his consistent position on what I think is THE most important policy decision in recent history (giving Bush authority to wage war in Iraq)... my vote is for Barack Obama.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that we should wholly base our vote on sex, gender, or race. But I also don't think it's entirely smart to completely discount identity politics when imagining what our country will be like in the years to come. Both the behaviors of our politicians (via their work as politicians) and "images" of individuals in power (white, black, gay, male, female, etc.) shape how people are socialized in this country whether we like it or not. I can tell you hands down that if Obama was president many years ago, Morrison's The Bluest Eye would need a different central theme. Again, I'm not saying that identity politics should outweigh what the candidates STAND for, but we have to at least TALK about these institutional realities. Life isn't always as black and white as we'd like it to be.
I also admit that my subject was misleading. The heaviest weight in my decision to vote for Hillary was my little binder with research about the candidates. I really just wanted to spend the majority of the post exploring the social space of P/VP while imagining the deliciously fantastic idea of the two teaming up (a reality I know would be a rare occurrence in either combiation).
My support for Hillary dissapeared when I found out the only statement she has ever made on transgender rights is: "I have not been told that [transgender issues] is a concern by my gay and lesbian friends."
Commenting by HaloScan
