|
strategy to put a woman--Hillary--out front on their agenda of impoverishing us all, and looting our treasury, and dragging us into corporate resource wars and making us pay for it. And I'm very glad that people are seeing through it. A pro-corporate, pro-war woman candidate may mouth support for women's issues, but will ignore, and do us in on, almost all the issues that matter. Poverty is by far the biggest oppressor of women.
It's interesting you mention Geraldine Ferraro. I was very excited by her candidacy as well, and had to make special arrangements to see her debate with VP opponent Bush I, on TV (because of my circumstances at the time). I felt it was an historic moment that I couldn't miss, and I was avid to see how the first women candidate for VP would address the issues.
All I remember now of that debate is Ferraro making cutesy jokes with Bush I about their accountants, and both of them laughing. She was a millionaire and would-be billionaire, and wanted to join the Boys Club at the Top. A Democrat, a woman--but in no way representative of me or my interests, nor those of most women in the country. It was nauseating. I was hugely disappointed.
And it immunized me against Hillary, in a way. We mustn't yield to reverse sexism, and presume that a pro-corporate, pro-war woman candidate would somehow be better for women, just because she's a woman, than a truly progressive, enlightened male candidate. Women's issues are not strictly women's issues--they affect everyone. And they are by no means limited merely to abortion rights, or the right to birth control. They are much more comprehensive than this, and include, for instance, health care, child care, education, access to good jobs, pregnancy rights (keeping your job, your seniority, your career), and much else. Women who have good jobs, secure incomes, good benefits, and who are empowered in the political/legal system, WILL PROTECT their own rights over their bodies. Women who are poor, in ill health, under constant stress, and who have been disenfranchised, along with other poverty groups, cannot protect their rights.
Right now, restoration of decent, lawful, constitutional government, restoration of progressive values in government, and a huge reform effort to throw these global corporate predators and war profiteers off our backs, and to re-set the nation's course, is far more important that specific fights over rights such as abortion. It is the corporate predators' unholy alliance with rightwing 'christian' nutballs that has put that particular right in jeopardy. We need the power of an overwhelming CHANGE in government, for instance, to deal with this rotten-to-the-core, fascist Supreme Court. We need a president who will be very bold in tackling that problem, and who is NOT beholden to corporate interests and not afraid to smack them head on, in the legal/political system (for instance, with threats of impeachment of the Justices, or FDR's strategy of "packing the Supreme Court"). Hillary, I would guess, would mount a cosmetic effort on women's rights, and "lament" that it's "out of her hands," when this fascist Supreme Court deep-sixes Roe v. Wade. She will not attack the Court, because what this Court is really about is protecting Corporate Ruler profit and lawlessness.
It will be fabulous when a truly progressive women presidential candidate arises, and I'm sure that will happen. But I think your process of recognizing that Hillary is not the one--she is too corporatist and warmongering--is absolutely the best thing for your granddaughters and for all those who will inherent the consequences of what we do now. I don't think it's sad. I think it's great. It shows mature judgement and wisdom. I think Edwards will defend women's rights far better than Hillary ever could, if he gets the chance. Obama I'm not sure of. He seems better than Hillary, but still...my word is squishy. I'm not sure who he is, or what he will fight for. Edwards, I think, has turned a corner, and--a lot like Bobby Kennedy--has matured into a true peoples' advocate. And I hope I'm right. You never really know with politicians. (I voted for "peace candidate" LBJ in 1964--my first vote for president--and got the Vietnam War, and 2 million people slaughtered before it was over--a voting lesson I'll never forget.)
And you never know what will happen with this very insecure, riggable vote counting system all over the country--even in New Hampshire (NH has optical scans--they, too, are run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations). The political system is extremely manipulated, and now, directly manipulable in the actual vote counting. A lot of good people have been fighting for restoration of transparent vote counting, but the system is still highly riggable. So we'll see what happens. Transparent vote counting should be our first priority as citizens. We need to think long term, beyond the next election--as well as short term, the immediate political situation and what is possible within it.
|