| Posted: 23 April 2008 at 8:18am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Has anyone else here noticed that Mrs. Clinton has been trying to "hitch her waggon" to Obama's brilliant "More Perfect Union" speech? She is repeatedly stating that the framers of the constitution excluded "her" (and by this she is obviously refering to women) from the "More Perfect" union as they did Mr. Obama (meaning blacks).
This is brilliant political smoke and mirrors. Historically speaking, she is right. Originally voting rights in the constitution were left to the states and consequently tended to be restricted to property owners -- the vast majority of whom were white men. In many states women were treated as chattel (of course blacks were chattel). As American history progressed amendments to the constitution mandated that race and gender could not be used as a basis for the denial to vote. So historically she is accurate -- yet her position that "she," as a white woman, has been excluded as being similar to the "exclusion" of blacks is patently absurd.
That women have faced a "glass ceiling" in the workplace is incontrovertible. That sexism is pervasive is also, I submit, incontrovertible. But I also submit Hillary Clinton has had more access and inclusion to the American Dream than any Black American, including Barak Obama. At no point in her life has Mrs. Clinton been stopped on the highway because she is a woman in nice car. When she has walked into a store it is uncommon for the shopkeeper to follow her around because he or she fears Mrs. Clinton will steal from him. These are daily events that happen to black americans (of both genders). The inequities that she has faced, while very real, are not the same as those faced by blacks in America.
In spite of this pertinet difference in actual treatment Mrs. Clinton has been attempting to parallel her experience as a white woman with that of a black man. Why? Because her demographic and "base" -- much of it baby boom women like herself -- buys it. She has done an exceptional job of hiding the ball by equating racism with sexism. Understand -- I am not defending sexism. It is pervasive and we must be on guard against it, but I believe racism is even more pervasive and, ultimately, more dangerous.
By making this comparison Mrs. Clinton is creating yet another "face" for the public. She is a Senator from New York, but only for eight years, prior to that she was First Lady. She actually has less legislative experience than Senator Obama. Among the ways she has supported her position that she has greater "experience" included misremembering an "incident" in Bosnia. She has told the world that her father taught her to shoot -- telling voters that she is a hunter and doesn't criticize Pennsylvanians for wanting their guns. Of course she has been a strong proponent of Gun Control in the Senate. She is pro-Union and "supports American Workers" -- but she sat on the Wal-Mart Board and has been an ardent and vocal supporter of NAFTA (which she should be because it is a necessary policy for an economy such as ours). Now she is a victim of America's discriminatory past.
By her act of self "victimization," Senator Clinton does not dispute the issue of racial exclusion raised by Senator Obama's speech -- but her comparision is intended to neutralize it and to forestall the challenge made by Senator Obama's speech. Sadly, for someone like Senator Clinton, who has a real and admirable record on race relations, this is Faustian bargain she is prepared to make to attain her parties nomination.
The sad irony is that she should be celebrated for her actual accomplishments! She was a rock star lawyer. While First Lady, she worked hard on a health plan to have it politically killed by her husband. She has been a well informed and responsible senator for New York. But she has never had a public persona that resonates with Americans in the way her husband did or Mr. Obama does. In this way I think she sells herself short. One of the great pities of this race between herself and Mr. Obama is that for all her talk of trusting the voters she does not. Unlike either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama, Senator Clinton is defining herself not by her own accomplishments, but how she wants the electorate to perceive her. In this way she is hitting a glass ceiling of her own construction.
|
Topic Closed)
