return to Outside Circle Collective - OCC ( an art collective ) home    community log    discussions    jomas    jowai    newsletters    login    

2008 - Can you hear me. Can you hear me?


On ebay, a touch past 4am, I found a "Hillary in '08" t-shirt. I bought it, I had to.

Let's discuss.

Point 1.
I'm extremely pessimistic about the likelihood of any successful run for her in 2008. First, because of people like me, democrats are going to be hesitant to support her in the primaries. People "like me" don't think she, or any other woman without unprecedented bi-partisan support, will win the election. She is at a major disadvantage becaues she doesn't even have a large percentage of women's votes. I know liberal women who do not like her; either for her platform, her actions, or they just don't like her personally. I, as with every politician, do not agree with her 100% of the time, and why should I be so arrogant as to expect a candidate with whom I'm in perfect harmony? At any rate, I find her speeches, while written by others, to be inspiring and delivered with a passion that makes me actually believe she cares. For now, that is enough for me. However, many liberal women will not vote for her - call it competition between women, call it a quest for perfection in a platform on women's issues, call it disgust by her standing by her man thoughout an affair (which was, and still is, none of our business and in no way affects her great potential as leader of this nation.) Call it whatever you like, as long as liberal women won't vote for her, how are we going to get swing voters, conservative women, *gasp* conservative or moderate men! to vote for her? Which brings me to:

Point 2.
Even if she wins the primary by a long-shot and a long list of lifeless Democratic candidates, she'll get killed by John McCain, if he runs. Guliani might split the New York vote and leave that state a strange color purple, or, worse yet, fuschia. Not to mention the large population of sexists in this nation, who constantly surprise me with their pride in misogyny. Skeletons will be flying this way and that, her being a female will drag in issues relating to her femininity that do not bear on her platform or abilities, and her clear and strong voice for equality and empathy will be drowned by the nay-sayers. She will get destroyed, and it will be a terrible blow for both dems and women, not to mention the indigent, subordinated or marginalized populations. However, she has already been campaigning for 4 years, and I can't say that she's not ahead of the game - I just doubt American's ability to view her as a candidate instead of as a woman, or Bill's wife.

Point 3.
Running a woman for president (I'm not talking primaries, I'm talking the race) has been my dream for as long as I can remember, but there are negative aspects to running Hillary before the nation is ready for a female AND a liberal. The attacks on her character will be brutal, and they will be feminized in a way that I fear the next generation of future women leaders will be chilled into submission as they are told, in no discreet manner, that a woman cannot be an effective president. While this is surely not true, the undercurrent of the media attacks will be shouting that message from the antennas. I worry if we do this before our nation is ready, the consequences will be catastrophic.

Point 4.
But why wait for "our" nation to be "ready?" Why not fly in their face with a flawless platform, a campaign of integrity, respect and community and a candidate with more ability in her headbands than Bush ever had in his cowboy boots? If we throw Edwards or Obama on as Veep for the one-two punch, revitalize the Bill Clinton base, show this nation what we can do when we care for each other and focus on people instead of stocks and bonds, and rise up the largest grassroots movement in years, if we do all of this and manage to get our message out clearly, we have more than a fighting chance.

Thus, I'm torn. Anything she says gets ripped to shreds by the conservative media. Everything she does gets critiqued by liberal and conservative feminists alike. The pro-choice movement is pulling back instead of supporting Hillary in her quest to prevent abortions and find a middle ground, and the pro-lifers have blinders on, unable to see any truth in her messages. Mothers secretly want their daughters to become president one day, yet they treat Hillary like the slutty neighbor down the way, instead of respecting her for the candidate (not woman) she is and will be. Her candidacy will divide the nation.

But who are the other options?

Dean - not happening, especially after he said publicly that he "hates republicans and everything they stand for." Nice unifying message, eh?
Edwards - possible. His poverty campaign seems incredibly optimistic and deeply supported. If he can mature as a candidate and show his individual colors, he has a shot. I like him.
There is word of the IL and IA governors running - no opinion.
Barack Obama - whispers here and there, but I don't believe he'd be ready by 08. Well, that's not true. I think he's ready now, but I think the nation percieves him still as too young, despite his actual age. I think he has potential to be the next John F. Kennedy. If he ran, he'd be my second pick after Hillary, and it's likely I'll change my mind and switch them up. Perhaps a vice presidential pick?
Gore - not going to happen, not in a million years. There is no way that he can renew and inspire the party to the great heights we need to reach to elect a dem.
Gephardt - same as Gore, I can't see him really reaching into the hearts of the American people and getting them to stand up, or even pay attention.
Bill Richardson, Robert suggested this to me, and noted his locale may be a bigger benefit than any other region in the States. More research. Daschle - He didn't run in 2004 to stay focused on the Senate. Now that he's, ahem, finished there for a while, perhaps this is the kick he might need. I just get a little nauseous when I think about him as president, I don't know why. Perhaps Daschle as veep?

Share your thoughts, especially if you are more conservative, I'd like to know how you all feel. In detail...

News, Events and Media   
In order to post a message, you must be logged in
message date / author
It will take a village...3/14/2005 1:57:24 AM
who do you all think has a greater chance of being elected president first- a white woman or a black man?3/17/2005 10:28:07 PM
definitely a white man.3/17/2005 11:49:26 PM
Being serious now...maybe a woman who ran on everything EXCEPT "women's issues" or a black man or woman who ran on everything EXCEPT "race issues." Is that even possible? Sadly, I'm pretty sure it would have to be a conservative of either group to be palatable to the "middle america/family values/moral minority/values voters" lot. So the first black/woman president is not, I believe, as crucial as the SECOND black/woman president. It's not enough to say, "well, we elected a minority -- now we can go back to business as usual." And speaking of minorities, one that is moving into a position of demographic power is hispanics...don't you think it would be wholly appropriate and progressive to elect a leader from our indigenous peoples?3/19/2005 10:20:30 AM
In order to post a message, you must be logged in