I see the US Democrats once again appear to prefer Republican-lite to substantive change in a new poll that shows Hillary Clinton’s lead over the rest of the field of contenders increasing. She defends corporate lobbyists as “representing real America”, hasn’t apologized for voting to invade a WMD-free Iraq, and is promoting herself as a tough-on-terrorism Guiliani in drag. Is anyone going to be surprised in 2008 when the real Democratic vote sits on its hands again and once again gives a Republican the keys to the Whitehouse?
Are we witnessing Hillary Clinton undergoing gender modification or has she always been a guy? I was hoping that as women became more politically influential they would bring new ideas to the table that might change the system. Unfortunately the system itself seems too strong for that and instead we see women only becoming influential because their views align with pre-existing systemic views. There’s a direct parallel here – Democrats try to win by dressing up as Republicans and trading their souls for conservative ideals and women win by dressing up as men.
Shit. Perhaps by the time there is a second serious female candidate she will actually be able to be a woman in office, not a she-male.
Blevkog 
I am not an HRC fan, and I don’t believe she is truly the front runner. She’s the establishment Democratic candidate, so the party establishment is trying to homogenize her image. She’s a centrist by nature, as was Bill.
Should she apologize for voting to invade Iraq? She made a decision based on what she knew at the time. She was lied to like everyone else. Apologizing didn’t do anything for Kerry, people portrayed him as a flip-flopper.
Nobody can get elected president of the US who appears to be soft on terrorism. Fortunately for all candidates, Bush has made this an easy issue on which to be more sensible than the current president.
She’s had the androgynous label since Bill reached the world stage as a womanizer. Any female who catches Bubba’s eye is automatically more female/feminine than Hillary, e.g. Belinda Stronach.
She’s trying not to give her opponents any leverage, and actively portraying herself as a woman would be a lever. She’s proven to be pretty cool so far, although defending corporate lobbyists was pretty stupid. She’s noticeable enough without donning the Woman mantle. Her being a woman is not hurting her in the primaries. It will in the presidential campaign, because the Repugs will focus on whatever they can to make the American populace doubt the Democratic candidate.
If I were HRC, I’d have people working on a TV series of women leaders in history, Cleopatra, Elizabeth I, Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Corazon Aquino, people who have led a country, people who have made the tough decisions a leader must make. Let it sink in that a woman can be a good leader, and then let her be judged on her merits.
“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.” – Charlotte Whitton
“Especially if your predecessor is George W Bush.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton
“Show me a woman who doesn’t feel guilt and I’ll show you a man.” – Erica Jong
LikeLike
The blog Firedoglake has a counterpoint post up tonight:
Woman Enough to be President
LikeLike
My favourite comment regarding the superior abilities of women:
“Ginger Rogers had to do everything Fred Astaire did – only backwards, and in high heels”.
Not necessarily relevant, but I love that quote.
LikeLike
MRx,
My point is not that she’s being a stupid politician, rather that the way the game is played forces her to be the same kind of politician as the others. I suspect that the hope of feminists is that putting women in offices of power changes the game, rather than producing a status quo that dances “backwards and in high heels”.
LikeLike
Kevvyd
My point is she’s being Hillary. She will play the game according to the rules she thinks will get her elected.
Will she be a different type of politician than the men? She has to be, she’s a woman in a predominantly man’s game. Will the difference be noticeable to the ordinary citizen? Probably not. Will the difference be noticeable to political junkies? Probably, but maybe not. Does she think like a man? I doubt it.
Is her goal to be a president women will be proud of decades hence? Yes, I think so. This is the Ginger Rogers/Charlotte Whitton Phenomenon.
Will she be Gloria Steinem or Betty Freidan as president? No. Will she have more women in positions of power? I think that is likely. It’s also possible with John Edwards and a few other Democrats.
LikeLike