Before struggling with a bad night of sleep - I blame coffee, my mom blames the web - I caught this post from Sir Charles over at Cogitamus, and it got me thinking about the reaction to Mrs. Clinton, and how much of it is couched in terms of... well, endearment.
Or lack thereof. It's odd to me that the same people who complain, bitterly of the "I'd like to have a beer with him" nature of George W. Bush's appeal in not one, but at least two elections (it probably could also be applied to his victories in Texas), have somehow resorted to similar notions of how to differentiate between Clinton and Obama. Democrats complain, rightly I think, that this is no way to pick a President. And while I freely admit that these intangibles - the surface appeal, the tangential impressions of who you trust or identify with - are used to make decisions... at the very least, I expect better from people who write, in this blogosphere, about their supposedly deep-thinking concerns for issues and policies. Apparently even Wonk World is a popularity contest... and high school never ends.
Look, I say this all the time, and no one seems to care - most of us, really, don't know these people. As I said to Sir Charles, I'm pretty sure both Obama and Clinton are nice people, kind to animals... all the good stuff. But I don't know them, nor does he. "Like" really is a poor word choice, and lots of us fall back on it, whoever we prefer. I don't "dislike" Barack Obama. I have concerns about the things he may do as President. I don't hate George Bush, I think he's been a lousy President. And I think it's important to separate this stuff about feelings from the criteria we use about picking a President (or other elective office). As a Pisces, the most emotion based of the Zodiac signs, I know how easy it is to live a life built on emotional upheavals and passions. It's taught me to think harder, be more objective, look beyond feelings.
It's not a question of whether I "like" Hillary Clinton. I don't know her, I've never met her. What I "like" is her positions on issues, the way she talks about what she'll do as President. I want her to be the Democratic nominee because I think she'll be a good President. And while I think sexism here, as elsewhere plays a key part - making it somehow okay to decide about her on the basis of "feelings" over facts - I think the deeper truth is simply that though we say we want a thoughtful examination of issues and policies... in many ways, we let our language fall back on saying how we feel, not what we think. I'd like it if we tried harder.
Hey Weboy,
I've come to meet you on your turf -- my reaction to Clinton's comments and tactics are not based on "feelings" and I dare say are not the product of sexism, but reflect a genuine frustration with what I see as deeply disingenuous and counterproductive tactics with respect to Obama's remarks.
As I am sure you know, I have frequently called to task those who have engaged in misogynistic attacks on Clinton despite the fact that she has not been my candidate of choice.
Interestingly, with respect to the would you want to have a beer with him/her test, I have always found George W. to be a repellant little bastard who I would only have wanted to have had a beer with if it would have led to a brawl in which I might have had the choice to kick his smug ass.
Just sayin'.
Carry on sir.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM