A few weeks back, Jill of Feministe asked for feminist thoughts on Hillary for Prez in ‘08:

Like many feminists, I’m conflicted about the whole Hillary-for-President thing. I think a lot of us had pinned our hopes on her, and we feel like she failed us. Her support of the Iraq war is one of the biggest issues for me; her support of welfare reform was a sad reminder that for all her talk about women’s rights, she’s willing to sell certain groups of women down the river for political gain; and her recent attempts to be a moderate just make her look spineless. But I’m still clinging to the hope that if she was elected, she’d be good. She’d not only be a female president, but a feminist president. And at the end of the day, she’s a politician — her primary interest is getting re-elected, so she’s never going to be my ideal representative. But compared to a lot of other politicians — and a lot of other Democrats — she’s pretty good.

Jill referenced two recent articles on the topic, I Won’t Support Hillary Just Because She’s a Woman by Allison Hantschel of Sirens Magazine and Hillary is us by Salon’s Rebecca Traister. I only skimmed the first piece, since it reflects my sentiments almost verbatim:

If I were to support Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008, it would only be out of hope that this would be the thing that would finally make Rush Limbaugh’s fat head just explode. […]

But aside from its potential entertainment appeal in that vein, I’m unexcited by a Hillary candidacy. I’m uninspired. I’m … indifferent. […]

I don’t think it’s the height of feminism to have a woman president. I think it’s the height of feminism to be able to look at presidential candidates as people who will or will not meet our needs and serve our interests. Regardless of whether those candidates are men or women, black or white, Hispanic or Asian.

And looking solely at Mrs. Clinton’s political credentials, she’s not the candidate for me.

Would a vote for Clinton’s opponent be a vote against feminism? Am I “bad” feminist for refusing to support a female Democrat?

That’s some kind of bullshit question, now, isn’t it?

Why should I support Hillary’s candidacy? Just because she’s a woman? In that case, I’d have to support Condi over, say, Barack, right? After all, Condi’s got the female bits. Sadly, though, the possession of a vagina doesn’t guarantee that the owner will hold pro-woman, feminist beliefs. (Exhibit #1: “Feminists” for Life.) To vote for a conservative female candidate just because she’s a woman would be counterproductive; a female without a feminist agenda could hardly help the cause.

But Hillary is a feminist and a Democrat, you protest. That she is - which is why I’d vote for her over Condi, over Romney, over McCain. If it came to that. Luckily, though, there are parties other than the Dems and Rethugs. Parties whose candidates sometimes usually more accurately reflect my beliefs and values than the increasingly right-wing Democrats. So I’d probably support Hillary over a Republican, but she’d lose out to Nader most every time. (Yeah, that’s right. I’m one of the assholes who voted for Nader in 2000. And I did it again (*gasp*) in ‘04. Imagine that - voting your conscience. How novel.)

Hillary may be a woman and a Democrat, but her values are not my values. Rather, I should say, the values that she’s currently espousing (in her mad scramble towards the center) are not my values. In fact, I find many of them rather repugnant - and not just from a feminist perspective.

Which brings me to another point: I don’t define myself solely by my feminism. I’m also an atheist, an environmentalist, an animal rights advocate, a humanist, a child-free adult, and a supporter of gay rights. And Hillary, like many Dems, falls flat on many of these liberal issues.

Reading through the Traister article, I was reminded of all the bullshit that has added to Hillary’s moderate stink.

* Her youthful work on behalf of migrant workers was replaced by a 2003 radio assertion that she is “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

* Where she once advocated passionately on behalf of children’s rights, she now pressed the Family Entertainment Protection Act, protecting hapless kids from the dangerous effects of video games.

* As senator, Clinton proposed flag-burning legislation — flag-burning legislation — to appease conservatives.

* Calling abortion a “sad, even tragic choice” for some, Clinton told an Albany audience of women’s rights activists in January 2005, “I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.”

* Clinton has refused to condemn George Bush and the war in Iraq. She voted for the war; she voted for the Patriot Act, a bill that stripped away the very civil liberties she was so keen to protect as a law school student.

* According to the Atlantic Monthly, she participates in an elite prayer breakfast, during which antiabortion, anti-gay, anti-evolution Kansas Republican Sam Brownback recently asked her forgiveness for having hated her in the past.

* Last week, she appeased those disgusted by her refusal to support gay marriage by lending her support to a bill that would provide insurance benefits for same-sex partnerships.

Let’s see: Xenophobia? Check. Censorship? Check. Respect for misogynists? Check. Chickenhawkishness? Check. Blatant disregard for civil liberties? Check. Homophobia? Check. Consorting with the Bible-beating, woman-hating, anti-science fundies? Check and a star.

(BTW, thanks, Hill. After hubby threw teh gays to the homobigoted sharks with his traitorous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” BS, insurance benefits are the smallest bone you can throw ‘em. Literally.)

Traister quotes one feminist thusly:

Literary agent Sarah Burnes, who saw Clinton speak in 2003 and found her “masterful,” said hearing liberal women rip Clinton is disheartening. Burnes said she feels like “the days of believing in any leader with your whole heart are over,” but given that rather grim limitation, it is “a political responsibility” for left-leaning ladies to support Clinton. “That’s why I was so pissed off at Susan Sarandon,” said Burnes. “It doesn’t help.”

Which really pisses me off.

Hillary is not me. She may be an “inoffensive feminist,” and I’d most certainly take her brand of softcore feminism over the anti-feminism of most Rethug candidates, but ’scuse me for not wanting to settle for a less-than-hardcore feminist president. Doubly so if there’s a male candidate who more enthusiastically embraces feminist values. Sure, a female president would make for an inspiring symbol of how far women have come. But I’d rather have a president who will actually support us with a feminist policy than an ineffectual symbol.

And it’s very anti-feminist of anyone to snotilly inform me of my “responsibility” to keep my mouth shut and vote for their chosen candidate. Tsk, tsk, Ms. Burnes. Tsk, tsk.

——————-

Tagged: feminism feminist hillary+clinton hillary+rodham+clinton 2008+elections vote voting elections

What the hell happened?
 

What happened between the spring day almost two years ago when hundreds of thousands of men and women converged on Washington, bearing signs like “Keep Your Laws off My Body,” and today, when the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court judge who 20 years ago wrote that in his legal opinion, the Constitution does not protect women’s right to abortion? What happened between Jan. 9, when Smeal declared the left “in better shape to stop Alito,” and yesterday, when visions of future filibusters and assertions that we’re not going to lose our rights quietly were somehow supposed to qualify as good news? Why weren’t we storming the Capitol? Why weren’t there enormous marches? Why didn’t someone buy some national television time or actually burn a bra or something — anything — to snap people out of their “Skating With the Stars” lassitude and make them face the fact that the wolf that has so long been cried about was finally on the Supreme Court steps?

 
 
Good fucking question.

Planned Parenthood interim president Karen Pearl is dead-on when she says that “Elections matter.” Like, duh!

From now on, whenever I see a third party represented on the ticket, I’m voting for ‘em. Green, libertarian, Communist, independent (especially independent) - I don’t fucking care, as long as the party isn’t dominated by a sorry sack of women-hating Godbags. The Dems and Repubes are different incarnations of the same corrupt, bloated, paternalistic, homophobic, Bible-beatin’ beast. Seriously, when your choices are “bad” and “worse” - no matter where you turn - you know the system’s broken.

Time to clean house. Who’s with me?
 

Well, here’s an interesting turn of events:
 

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island today became the first Republican senator to oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. But the judge still seemed to have enough support for an all-important vote this afternoon.
 
“Judge Alito has outstanding legal credentials and an inspiring life story,” Mr. Chafee said, in a statement released by his office. “However, I am greatly concerned about his philosophy on some important constitutional issues.”
 
Mr. Chafee said he wanted to support President Bush’s choice. “The president did win the election,” the senator said. But he added, “I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican, and I will be voting against this nomination.”

 
You’ve got to hand it to him - the man’s got stones. We could use a few of him in the Democratic Party. All our reps are spineless douchebags.
 
Anyway, you’re probably all sick of hearing about this guy - I know I  am - but here are a few more Alito links. 
 
From the League of Conservation Voters, a sample letter to your senators;
 
From John Kerry, a pro-filibuster petition; and
 
From the Feminist Majority, a pro-filibuster letter to your senators.
 
 

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!

An op-ed in today’s The NY Times  has some harsh words for our esteemed jellyfish (errr, Senators) - grow a spine already. 
 

Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation’s basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
 
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public’s attention to the import of this nomination.

 
Here, here!
 
While most Dems seem reluctant to go the filibuster route, CNN reports that - surprise, surprise! - Kerry is trying to convince his party to filibuster. If only he had shown this much moxie in 2004 - maybe then I would have voted for the schmoe.
 
Kerry isn’t exactly known for his persuasiveness (or even animation), so let’s help him out. Below are yet another round of anti-Alito activist links. Previous roundups can be found here, here, here and here.
 
From Planned Parenthood’s Save Roe, a sample letter for your Senators;
 
From NOW, a request to call your senators and demand a filibuster;
 
From Move On, a call for letters to the editor; and
 
From DefCon, an invitation to attend their online Alito chat tomorrow at 2 PM eastern. Questions, submitted in advance, are welcome.