This appeared in the New York Times a few days ago.
I'm supporting Clinton because like Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule.
I'm not opposing Obama; if he's the nominee, I'll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President George W. Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that Obama is seen as unifying by his race while Clinton is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Obama's dependence on the old - for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy - while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo. . . .
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees.
It's time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman."
No comments:
Post a Comment