Morning election thoughts

[theatokos]

I've not been reading much or following the primaries as closely as usual, since I've been taking a big ol' break from all things intellectual lately.

However, I have been thinking that Obama is going to get the Democratic nod, for several reasons. First, he is a breath of fresh air (at least on the surface) for a party that is getting stale. Second, he has a wide reach, involving youth and younger voters and the Democrats would have to be downright stupid to alienate this block of potential party loyalists. Third, he's a man. Yep. There it is. I'm not 100% convinced that Hillary is better than Obama. But I do know that while racism runs deep in this country, sexism runs deeper. I would not be surprised if we had a black male president long before we had a white female president.

I look at the basic history of voting rights. Only 5 years after slavery was abolished (1865) Congress passed the 15th amendment (1870) establishing that no one (man) can be denied a vote based on race. It took 50 years before women of ANY color were granted the right to vote. The 19th amendment was passed in 1920. It took hardly any time at all for people to grasp that black men were capable of self-determination and rational thought, where before black people were only useful as property and bipedal work horses. But fifty years had to pass before women were given any credit for their abilities to cast a vote.

Of course, if you follow the feminist blogs you'll see that there is a rift between the feminist establishment (Hillary all the way) and younger feminists (who prefer Obama). Obama supporters are accused of selling out the dream. My personal mindset is much more post-feminist than the world's, but I do not believe we live in a post-feminist world in the slightest. Because of this, I do struggle with the thought that maybe I should be behind Hillary more than I am. As I stand, I'm really ambivalent about the two.

What I'd like to see, if I had my way, is Hillary as president and Obama as VP. I'd like to see women break the ultimate glass ceiling. Their policies aren't that different. They are fighting for mostly the same things. I do think that Clinton has more experience, and as veep Obama would get more upclose exposure, as well as be an excellent face for diplomacy abroad. Since the veep doesn't have a very powerful role, Obama could create one that uses his charm and relationship building skills.

Honestly, any configuration of Clinton/Obama will be historic - if they can only they can get over their pride and agree to work together. Worse than 4 more years of red/blue vitriol would be 4 years of intraparty squabbling on the part of the Democrats. Especially when history will be made either way the party decides on this ticket.

Comments

[alizarin71.livejournal.com]

You know I have opinions about this election. Most everyone does. But, interestingly, you've raised the question not of who should win but who will.

It's true, black people got the right to vote long before women did. The Union came to identify with abolitionist radicals slowly over the course of the Civil War, and this was their issue. This wasn't the will of the country, however: The wording of the amendment specifically allowed the North to continue disenfranchising blacks, and its effect in the South was determined by the presence of the Union army. As soon as the military began to withdraw in 1877, blacks were disenfranchised in the South as well as the North, and remained so until 1965.

Notably, Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1869. However, despite a few other rash territories and states (like New York) who acted independently, it remains that nationwide suffrage did not pass until 1920. I was always shocked that France didn't give women the vote until 1945. Moreover, when I was researching this little comment, I found out that Ireland didn't repeal its divorce ban until 1996. (ah, and isn't it true, those good Catholic countries--like El Salvador--pass the most interesting laws....) At least the 1920 vote was not cast under occupation, and so must have reflected more of the will of the people than the 1870 vote, and with much less rioting than the 1965 Act.

Rather than all this, what compels me to consider that sexism may be more ingrained than racism are the outrageously misogynistic laws of El Salvador, Afghanistan, the Pope, et al.--a despicable, ubiquitous current. At the same time, there are names we all recognize: Thatcher, Bhutto, Aquino, Sukarnoputri, Merkel, Meir....

Anyway (anyway), all parenthetical asides aside, I too would like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. Even if he didn't get the nomination, it would be both difficult and unwise to exclude Obama from the national stage. Like you said, his effect on turnout, alone, is historic.

I wonder how acrimonious the race will continue to get. But I don't think it's just intraparty squabbling: Neither candidate has the delegates to win. Blame the Democratic policy of awarding proportional representation, instead of the Republicans' winner-take-all system. It drags out the process, but every vote gets a voice. Plus, if Hillary and Obama were to believe that this election is the decisive one, not the one in November, then I could understand why they're campaigning so hard--why they want to see the whole laborious process through.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the process is just horrible. And Hillary is sadly, coming across as a whiny poor loser. Obama is definitely winning in the manners category. I'm not a fan of dirty races, distracts from the real issues. I think on a personal level I'd much rather hang out with Obama than Clinton. But it's not a popularity contest.... oh wait.

I would like to see Obama and Clinton come to the realization that combining their amazing talents would be the best way for the Democrats to move forward.

I'm glad you listed other past and present female heads of state. Not that many of those countries don't also have appalling anti-woman attitudes, but those things don't seem to hinder women being able to lead.

[pwilk.livejournal.com]

I wonder if some of the way we see Hilary is colored a lot by the media's rather uncritical reporting on Obama. Since Bill and Hilary have had a longer career there is definitely a lot more material.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I'm sure this is true, but I do try to avoid anything sensational and get my news from a variety of sources. But as I've said before, I think sexism runs deeper than racism in this country, and Hillary is certainly at the mercy of sexist reporting.