I’ve been supporting Obama. My mom, Blanche, is a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton. Since Obama supporters seem to be over-represented in the non-McCain blogosphere, I asked my mom to write a post about why she favors Clinton. Here is what I was sent:

She’s not the “ideal”candidate. Is any candidate perfect according to one’s personal belief system?

In fact, I have pinpointed many of Hillary’s flaws for myself. In spite of them, I’m waiting tensely for the outcomes of today’s Indiana and North Carolina primaries, because she’s the candidate whom I back and I want her to WIN.

So why do I prefer Hillary Clinton for president?

In my lifetime, I want to vote for America’s first female President. The arc of my personal history includes on-the-job experiences when I was paid less than a male colleague who was doing exactly the same work as I. He was put on a career track that would groom him for promotion. I was not. I also remember the year, during my teaching career, when I became pregnant and was ordered to leave after the fifth month, with the admonition,”You’re lucky we’ll take you back next year.” I returned the following September, to learn that I would be paid on the same step of the pay guide as I had been the preceding year, even though the teachers’ contract stated that any teacher who had taught for the entire first semester of an academic year (as I had) would be moved to the next higher step. When I protested, the Superintendent replied, “But you went out because of pregnancy.”

Not only has Senator Obama never experienced such moments, he couldn’t have.

In 1995, however, Hillary told the UN World Conference on Women, in Beijing,
“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence us. It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. … It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilied against their will. Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely — and the right to be heard.”

Her words angered her Chinese hosts, the Indian delegates in the audience, and the U. S. State Department. I was proud of her for putting those ideas on the record before a global audience.

Whatever her current entanglements with campaign donors, and despite what I consider her egregious mistake, namely, choosing the head of Burson Marsteller as her chief campaign strategist, I’m convinced that the Hillary who spoke out in 1995 is still an integral part of her psyche. That is the ethos I want in the White House.

I perceive a (possibly unconscious, though this may be a charitable interpretation) anti-Hillary bias in the media coverage of this campaign. My acquaintance with the blog world is scanty, so I have no feel for the trends in this vital new aspect of current culture. It’s clear to me, however, that an attitude of “ambition in Barack is laudable, whereas in Hillary it’s abominable (How dare she? Why doesn’t she know her place?)” pervades much of what has been said (Sunday morning talk shows) and written about the Democratic contest. Even a man whom I admired as one of the Senate’s shining liberal lights, Patrick Leahy, demeaned himself in my eyes by demanding that Hillary withdraw so that Barack could have a certain shot at the nomination. So much for pluck and grit and stick-to-it-iveness as admirable qualities. Who decided that they were gender specific?

The 44th president will face one gigantic temptation: holding on to not only the imperial powers that had accrued to the executive branch by January 21, 2001, but also the near-dictatorial power that the incumbent has gathered unto the presidency since his first inauguration. With a Democratic majority in both houses of the legislative branch and a woman in the White House, we are most likely to witness an equalization of power in our national government. Obviously I’m unhappy to make such a sardonic comment. Yet I believe it’s accurate.

[UPDATE: May 7th, 2008: my mom sent a follow up and asked if I could add tthe following:]

Judging from behavior exhibited during the primary campaign, would a Democratic-dominated Congress oppose a President Obama as vigorously as it would feel free to check a female President Clinton? Unlikely.

Which leads me to speculate how the Fourth Estate (I include the blogosphere in this category) would treat a President Clinton. Definitely not as deferentially as they handled #43. Rather, they’re likely to rediscover that it’s their mission to inform the public (Optimistically, I prefer to believe that most will also remember that this must be done truthfully).

My offspring favor Obama. So I’ve mulled what is, to me, a mystery: why? Perhaps it’s a case of projection. In this young man, whom I perceive as an amorphous collection of well-meaning words and good intentions, they see themselves, or the selves they would like to believe they are. Yes, he’s a nice person, with an appealing personality, and a patina of glamor. Certainly he’s a gifted orator. Even more advantageously, his wife is an admirably strong and determined woman. However, is he as skilled and well-informed as Hillary? Does he grasp the workings of the interlocking inside-the-Beltway networks that influence policy making with the sophistication she has acquired? How well does he understand developments on the rest of the planet? How many countries has he visited? Has he met many national leaders, held conversations with them, learned how they view the United States? I’m sure that Hillary is much better informed than Barack on international affairs. I’m convinced that Hillary has demonstrated a greater ability to master details, inform herself thoroughly about issues with which the next president must deal (witness their discussion about health care during one of their debates). Barack has occasionally frightened me when he seemed to imply that, like the man he wants to replace, he might be an “I’ll learn on the job” executive.

Which brings me to one of Hillary’s strategic decisions as Senator: her tenure on the Military Affairs Committee. Obviously, she wanted this assignment to strengthen her credibility as Commander-in-Chief. Nevertheless, this background may prove invaluable as President Clinton faces the moment when realism dictates that the Department of Defense budget must be drastically cut if America’s civilian standard of living is to be regained and then maintained. With a history of having studied the military’s needs and goals, she will be empowered to declare that we cannot continue to throw dollars at all the brass hats’ pet projects but must first decide what our basic strategy is, (as for example, do we now follow the Petraeus orthodoxy that ours is an insurgency-fighting army, do we retain field artillery capability for battlefield combat, have we the wealth to afford both, must the air force and navy always get a chunk of DOD’s dollars that’s equal to the army’s). I’m hopeful that when her Office of Management and Budget prepares the Federal Year 2011 budget (the first one that will be completely under her control) she will have the guts to stand up to the military-industrial complex and declare that their parasitical hold on the nation’s priorities is over. I’m not confident that Obama either understands, or is willing, to go that route.

Alas! One basic expense President 44 will inherit is unavoidable: we will still need to subsidize our military presence in Iraq for some years to come, though it should be smaller than our present commitment.

On a raft of issues that matter to me, I feel that Hillary’s policies will provide outcomes I want: reversing the Bush tax cuts; restoring the social safety net as part of a larger thrust to help the middle class hold on and re-establish itself; providing universal, (eventually single-payer) health care; bringing back the concept that the federal government exists to enforce the laws on the books, with regulation as one of its primary tools; restoring the EPA to the defender of the environment that it was intended to be; rebuilding our country’s physical infrastructure; and, symbolically vital, strengthening Title IX. Would Barack provide what I would consider satisfactory results on each of these issues? Possibly. But he hasn’t convinced that they’re either important to him, or that he has the skills to achieve the needed results.

I’ve voted for the Democratic candidate for president in every election. This year, I’m tempted to cast a write-in for Hillary if Barack is the nominee, in part because of the behavior of some of his supporters towards her. I also know, that if the Democrats do not appear to be a shoo-in on Election Day, I’ll grit my teeth and give him my vote. Then I’ll pray for my country’s future with all the fervor I can summon.

Tags: clinton, democratic primaries, obama