I'm not voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, but...
Whenever someone starts with "I'm not just..." and follows that clause with "but," you know they are lying.
Today, my colleague, RA, uttered the blog post title during a conversation with me today. She's politically aware and says she supports Hillary. I asked her why and she wasn't able to articulate Hillary's position on anything (other than she's married to Bill Clinton and he's the smartest and best advisor a president could ask for - to which I agree).
So I kept pushing her and trying to see where she agreed with Hillary because this woman is rabidly anti-war and Hillary isn't.
At a moment of frustration that ended the conversation, my colleague blurted out, "I'm not voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, but it's just that I look out over the political landscape and there is no other woman on the horizon. If she isn't elected, it will be a generation before another woman gets a chance." With that, she broke eye contact, turned on her heels and walked out of the lunch room.
The weird part is that I understand if she did JUST support Hillary because she was a woman. I don't think it would be a stretch for a woman to believe that men have made a mess of politics and a woman's touch is exactly what is needed.
However, her answer was beyond absurd. First, I bet Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) and Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) would be shocked to hear that they couldn't possibly be a presidential contender, even though they are successful executives at the state level. Are not Barbara Boxer (D-CA) or Patty Murray (D-WA) successful and more accomplished senators than even Mrs. Clinton herself?
Second, RA doesn't share the same policy positions as Hillary. RA is for ending the war immediately. She's for universal health care. She's in favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Hillary is not for any of those.
Third, to think that Hillary would be a good candidate for the Democrats is both naive and foolish. Sure, Bill Clinton is the smartest man in whatever room he's in, but he also has a bit of a zipper problem. Any Democrat that thinks there won't be a "bimbo eruption" during the general election is fooling themselves. They are especially fooling themselves if they don't think that will effect the outcome of the election. However, in her own right, Hillary's a known quantity. He unfavorable ratings are in the mid-40s. That means the Republicans only have to convince 5% or so of the voting population that she isn't the right person for the presidency and America is stuck with another Republican administration. In addition to the popular vote, does anyone see how the electoral map changes from 2004?
Hillary would be an excellent president. She's very intelligent. She's smart enough to surround herself with intelligent people with divergent opinions. She'd be competent and an infinite improvement over the current administration. It's just a shame she'll never work in the Oval Office.
Maybe I'm being cynical and just need a shot of this:
Technorati Tags: 
"I bet Kathleen Sebelius
"I bet Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) and Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) would be shocked to hear that they couldn't possibly be a presidential contender, even though they are successful executives at the state level."
I think they would be shocked. I'll bet less than 5% of the US voting population has ever heard of either of them. The reason they wouldn't be presidential contenders unfortunately has nothing to do with their ability and has everything to do with their name recognition, or lack thereof.
"Are not Barbara Boxer (D-CA) or Patty Murray (D-WA) successful and more accomplished senators than even Mrs. Clinton herself?"
This is even funnier...yes, they may be more "accomplished". But does the fact that they are way out of the mainstream not seem a problem?
Sexism or poor analysis?
Will,
I'm totally shocked. You are a kind and decent man. What's with the sexism and double-standard?
In response to my putting forward Sebelius and Napolitano as presidential candidates, you said, "I think they would be shocked. I'll bet less than 5% of the US voting population has ever heard of either of them. The reason they wouldn't be presidential contenders unfortunately has nothing to do with their ability and has everything to do with their name recognition, or lack thereof."
And Mitt Romney was a household name prior to 2007? Huckabee still isn't a well known figure, but his campaign for the White House is gaining speed. They are both considered top tier candidates for the Republicans this cycle. Who had heard of a guy name Bill Clinton prior to 1991?
So being an unknown male doesn't seem to be a problem, but being an unknown female means you can't be a contender? What exactly about having a penis allows someone to overcome being unknown? (In the case of Senator Craig, it was actually offering said penis, but...)
As far as Boxer and Murray being "out of the mainstream." What does that mean exactly? Care to show me what positions they hold or what statements they have said to prove your assertion? Boxer got over 5% of the entire US voting population's votes in her last reelection. Anyone that can gather that kind of voting percentage should be on any short list for the presidency.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
Dude, you don't even know
Dude, you don't even know what sexism is. How is it sexist to say that most people don't know who Kathleen Sebelius is? I didn't say anything about Sebelius' or Napolitano's ability or qualifications.
Romney was far better known prior to 2007 than Sebelius or Napolitano combined. Why? Romney made a name for himself because of his work for the Salt Lake City Olympics.
I agree that Huckabee isn't well known...that is one of the reasons he doesn't have any chance of even placing third for the Republican nomination.
I find it rather ridiculous that you immediately decide that our disagreement is because I am sexist. That is quite insulting and patently false.
Of course, you are still deluded into thinking that Richardson has any chance at all so I suppose I'm not surprised.
looking for a reason
Wow, Expat. Though I usually disagree with your politics, I like to read your posts as they are usually well written and based in logic. This comment of sexism, however, is beyond the bounds of reason. You seem to just be looking for a reason to be offended. Will said absolutely nothing about sex in his reply, yet you jumped to the conclusion that he was being sexist. That hyper-sensitivity speaks volumes to why it is so difficult to have honest, open dialogue about difficult issues in our country. Someone speaks about the disgusting things that Michael Vick did and they're labeled a racist simply because Vick is black. Someone else mentions that two governors don't have much of a chance to be elected president, and he is immediately labeled sexist simply because the subjects of the comment are female. What a sad state of affairs.
Did you even consider Will's intent? His prior writings that you have read? Have you ever seen him make a statement that was even slightly sexist? If no, why on earth would you make such a baseless claim? How discouraging. I expect inflammatory accusations elsewhere, but not on this site, and most certainly not from you.
4 woman saw it as I did...
I know Will isn't sexist, but I thought his comment contained sexism.
After getting slammed here, I asked my wife and 3 female colleagues to read the post and the response. They all thought the first comment was sexist, but in varying degrees from "I can see how that might be sexist" to "who the f*ck is this guy?"
However, Will's clarification further down does make it clear he just doesn't believe there are very many people, male or female, that can be serious presidential candidates.
So I'm withdrawing the sexism comments, but still disagree with him on the substance. I'll do that in a comment below...
Romney was at 5% nationally on December 14, 2006
Ok, sexism is discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women. Which is exactly what you did when dismissing the female candidates.
You asserted that "I'll bet less than 5% of the US voting population has ever heard of either of [either female governor]" and thus they have no chance of ever winning the presidency.
However, a poll from December 14, 2006 has Mitt Romney at 5% nationally. Does he have no chance of winning the presidency? He's in first place in Iowa by 10% and New Hampshire by 4% today.
This idea that only the "well-knowns" can win the presidency is plain wrong. It doesn't hold historical water. Just ask Joe Lieberman, Mario Cuomo, or Ted Kennedy.
We have campaigns designed for voters to get to know the candidates. They do their job. Voters in the early states see the candidates and vet them accordingly.
I'm not saying Sebelius, Napolitano, Boxer or Murray would win the presidency, but if they run, they should be taken seriously. However, Will and my colleague, RA, seem to have dismissed them out of hand because they are female. If that's not sexism, then I'm reading the definition wrong.
Once again, RIDICULOUS! You
Once again, RIDICULOUS! You are conflating coincidence with correlation. I would say the same thing about Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue or Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons. It has nothing to do with gender. It is sounding to me that you are the one with the sexist issue here since you keep bringing it up.
My point is that rarely if ever has someone been elected president that was an unknown at the beginning of the campaign season. Romney is NOT going to be elected. Count on it.
This idea that only the "well-knowns" can win the presidency is plain wrong. It doesn't hold historical water.
Um, who was elected president that was unknown by 95% of the population just before they announced that they were going to run for president? The only possible person that might be able to fit that description may have been Jimmy Carter. Your example of Lieberman, Cuomo, and Kennedy doesn't mean anything. If anything it proves my point. They wouldn't have even been in the race had it not been for their name recognition. Name recognition doesn't guarantee electoral success. But some level of name recognition is a basic requirement for even being in the game.
Being elected president versus being a serious candidate...
Will,
Ok, your clarification makes it clear that you just think it is small group of people that stand any realistic chance of being elected. That's not sexist, but it may be unAmerican. ;-)
I do disagree. If Sonny Perdue were to lay the groundwork for a presidential run, he'd be taken seriously. Gibbons wouldn't because he's got some serious corruption problems I believe. But to my bigger point, that men are taken seriously, but somehow powerful women aren't.
Sure Barbara Boxer or Patty Murray couldn't declare and win, but if they started with the preliminary stuff for the next cycle, I believe they should also be taken seriously as a candidate. Thus, Hillary isn't the only option on the horizon like RA seemed to imply.
You asked, "who was elected president that was unknown by 95% of the population just before they announced that they were going to run for president?"
I couldn't find a poll prior to Clinton's announcement, but I do have this National Polls from the year prior the 1992 election.
August 1991 national poll (for 1992 Dem nomination)
Mario Cuomo - 22%
Jesse Jackson - 18%
Bill Clinton - 5%
Clinton went on to win. So it does appear that in Carter and Clinton both run counter to your assertion. Also, I'd argue that John Kerry wasn't well known before being picked as the Democratic nominee. Of course, that didn't work out. It wasn't for a lack of name recognition, though. It was because he was a poor candidate.
In the 24/7 news media cycle a lack of name recognition isn't really a problem anymore, especially with a campaign season that runs for so long now.
Name recognition
A slight addition to your final statement there - name recognition isn't a problem IF the 24/7 media decides to give you air time. See Ron Paul for a prime example. There is no way he would be polling so low if more people had heard of him.
Brian: I actually think that
Brian: I actually think that Ron Paul would poll lower if more people knew about him.
RP
I have to agree with that. Ron Paul would not be well served by close media attention.
I'm with Will
I think Will's evaluation is pretty sound. I don't think Will is being sexist. I think he is acknowledging the role that sexism and many other factors play in limiting one's chances of being a viable candidate for president. I for one know nothing about Sebelius, Napolitano or Murray. I know plenty about Boxer and I am a big fan, but I don't see her presidential candidacy looming on the horizons.
I am more disturbed by your casual remark about Clinton that, "She'd be competent and an infinite improvement over the current administration. It's just a shame she'll never work in the Oval Office."
Why? Because Richardson has the lock on the nomination? Reality check please!
Dustin Kidd
Dustin, you said, "I am more
Dustin, you said, "I am more disturbed by your casual remark about Clinton that, "She'd be competent and an infinite improvement over the current administration. It's just a shame she'll never work in the Oval Office."
Why? Because Richardson has the lock on the nomination? Reality check please!"
For the record, I never mentioned Richardson. He has his own problems to secure the nomination and White House.
I think Hillary can't win for two clear reasons. People don't like her and she only wins states that Kerry won last time. If it gets down to the GOTV effort in Ohio again, I think, Republicans win, again.
With regards to favorable/unfavorable ratings: for a little background Presidents historically have a 40% unfavorability rating because the opposite party never likes what they are doing.
According to this chart in Wikipedia, GWB's unfavorable rating a year from the 2004 election was barely over 40%. Par for the course.
It did climb to over 50% for two months during the summer of 2004, but the average was much closer to the mid-40% mark for most of the campaign. On the other hand, Kerry's were in the upper 40s for most of the summer post-RNC convetion. The one with the lower unfavorables won.
Hillary is goint to start in the upper 40s. Do you think it will be easier to drive those numbers up or down?
HRC can't win the general election. Prove me wrong.
Post new comment