The current spiel around some Hillary Clinton supporters (perhaps it was there all along) is that anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary is a sexist misogynist. Blogs have been posted from women who write that they experienced tears of joy when they found themselves in a voting booth with a real opportunity to vote for a woman to be a candidate for president of the United States.
I heard Carol Gilligan, a gender studies scholar and professor of psychology at New York University, on National Public Radio say that Hillary hate is part and parcel of a paternalistic society where women are encouraged to tear each other down. She likened it to 7th grade girls who ostracize any girl who stands out from the pack, dresses unconventionally, is smarter, or otherwise different in some way. She said that we're doing this now to Hillary.
To me, there's no contest between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton as to who is the stronger candidate. My choice is not Hillary Clinton, but I find myself agonizing over whether I'm putting women and the women's movement back by not voting for Hillary. And while I agonize I find myself moving towards outright Hillary hate and wonder whether I could even support her in the general election should she be nominated.
Everyone I've spoken to extols her legislative virtues as New York's senator. I don't doubt that she's competent, but I see her as a sell-out to the right. I started to doubt her in 2005 when she introduced a bill along with Republican Senator Bennett of Utah to criminalize flag burning. She was pandering. I was told she didn't personally believe in this bill, but introduced it to appeal to those who wanted her to toughen up her credentials for a run for president. Her later vote to support President Bush's use of force in Iraq was similarly cast with an eye toward her presidential bid. It was something she personally didn't believe in, but which she considered necessary if she wanted to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate who could command the military.
I'm told that I should be a realist and understand that politics requires compromise, positioning, and yes even pandering, and that everyone holds their nose when they vote. It's politics as usual. You pick the best candidate, hold your nose, and hope for the best. I'm told that a female candidate for president is probably required to pander even more than a male candidate before they can be taken seriously. As a feminist I should understand this and vote for Hillary.
My problem is that I don't think she'll stop pandering while in office. I expect everything she does as Commander in Chief to be calculated to appease her financial backers so as to not upset the status quo. Her husband chief legislative successes were similarly tainted: NAFTA, "Don't Ask Don't Tell", welfare reform. What progressive reforms did the Clinton presidency enact? This when President Clinton was blessed with Democrats as the majority party in Congress at the start of his presidency.
My vote is for Barack Obama because he carefully gets everyone behind his bills to get the best deal that he can. Even those who ought to be his critics admire his careful work.
Although I'm mighty pleased to have a serious female candidate running for president and consider it a very good sign of movement towards gender equality, I'm interested in discussing why a progressive feminist should vote for Hillary.
Cross posted on Feminist International's message board.
Update: Edited my diary to make it clear that it was not the Clinton campaign itself that called those not voting for Hillary sexist misogynists but supporters.