Ditz

Issue date: 12/6/07 Section: Outside the Bubble

Media Credit: www.smh.com

Media Credit: abc.com

As I prepared to write an article covering Hillary Clinton's campaign, I did what any self-respecting aspiring journalist would do-I looked her up on Facebook.

Although I was aware of the swell of anti-Hillary sentiment among our age group, I was not prepared for the overt sexism and ignorance I would find on this popular social networking site. A look at the groups dedicated to Senator Clinton revealed a cruel and mocking attitude aimed mostly at her gender and personal life rather than her candidacy. Groups with such articulate and "clever" titles such as "Life's a Bitch, Why Vote for One," "Hillary Shouldn't Run the Country She Should Just Run the Dishes," and "Hillary Clinton is a Man and I Won't Vote for Him," left me appalled. Clinton is criticized for qualities that would never even be mentioned in a male counterpart: a hard outer shell, an intellectual and logic dominated worldview, and the ability to make difficult, perhaps unpopular decisions. A male candidate with a similar history and voting record would almost certainly never be deemed "frigid," or called a "bitch" or a "fascist."

Of course I respect the Fifth Amendment right to support or dislike any candidate in any election and speak one's views in a public forum. What bothers me is the focus on Clinton's gender, personal life, and other nebulous attributes instead of looking at her actual issue positions.

Naturally, I had to compare her Facebook results to those of her opponents. Would I find racist groups against Senator Obama? Anti-Christian coalitions denouncing Senator Edwards? A group instructing youth not to vote for Mike Gravell simply because he's from Alaska? Nope, not one. The Obama groups were overwhelmingly positive, celebrating his charisma and good looks. Not one single group dedicated to Obama commented on his race. Even the groups against Barack had simple titles such as "Anti-Obama '08."

So what's the problem with Clinton? Is it her views on the issues that concern the American people the most or is it something else? Comparing her views to those of Senator Obama gives an example of her position relative to one of her strongest opponents.

Here are the candidates' positions on issues as stated on their respective websites.

Ending the War
CLINTON: Will start withdrawing troops within the first 60 days in office. Plans to create security in Iraq as troops are brought home as well as making a long-term plan for stability in the region.
OBAMA: Will start withdrawing troops immediately at a rate of one or two brigades per month. Would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq and a surge of diplomacy.

Health Care
CLINTON:Would provide affordable health care for all Americans with a menu of options similar to that available to members of Congress.
OBAMA:Would create a new national healthcare plan that would allow individuals without insurance to buy coverage similar to that available to members of Congress.

Global Warming
CLINTON:Would implement a cap
and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards, and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
OBAMA:Would implement a cap and trade program, make the US a global leader on climate change, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 35 percent.

Education
CLINTON:Would reform the No Child Left Behind Act, expand early childhood education, and pay teachers more.
OBAMA:Would improve quality of teachers, reform No Child Left Behind, and expand early childhood education.

Some may take issue with Senator Clinton's politics and record, but if they disagree with her policies, then they should also disagree with those of Senator Obama. As highlighted by their popularity on Facebook, youth seem more inclined to support Obama or Edwards. People in the Facebook groups say that they "don't trust" Clinton or that she's a "bitch." Some of the online forums said that a female president would not be taken seriously or could not help us recover our standing in the world. Ah, yes, that must be it. Female leaders have never been taken seriously and no country with any power has ever been run by a woman. They must have been forgetting Indira Ghandi who served as the prime minister of India for 14 years. Then there's Golda Meir, who lead Israel from 1969 to 1974. Margaret Thatcher was the first female prime minister of Great Britian and the longest serving. Vigdis Finnbogadottir, the first elected female president in history who defeated three men to become president of Iceland in 1980. And Mary MacAleese who currently serves as the president of Ireland.

The rampant anti-Hillary sentiment had yet to make complete sense to me. Yes, she's more moderate than left-wing on many issues. Perhaps she doesn't have the abundant warmth and soft-spoken charisma of her husband. However, what makes her less qualified to be president then any man who has ever governed the United States of America? Is it perhaps as simple as (gasp) the fact that a country that considers itself progressive is recoiling at the thought of having an intelligent, tough woman in power?

Hillary's qualifications are indisputable. She graduated from Yale Law School and was named one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991. She was an active first lady, serving as the chair of the National Task Force on Health Care. She has been a senator for New York since 2000, and is the first New Yorker to serve on the Armed Services committee. Many cite her vote in Congress to give Bush executive power to invade Iraq as a reason to distrust her. However, especially after 9/11, the American people preferred leaders strong on national security.

A recent New York Magazine article said, "National security is the toughest test for a Democrat, particularly for a woman and especially for a woman so associated with feminine causes like child care and education." Perhaps this is the problem with Senator Clinton. We expect our first female president to be the polar opposite of past male presidents-a soft, nurturing presence that would view the world in a "female" way. Since when is masculinity a necessary trait for presidency? I'm not suggesting that one should support or endorse Clinton simply because she is a woman, or because American is overdue to be led by one. The only thing that interests me is looking at Senator Clinton through the lens of her candidacy-the same lens used to view her opponents- not her gender. If one chooses to support her or dislike her, it should be based purely on the facts of her political history and policies-not her personal life, who her husband is, or that she happens to have two X chromosomes.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools