|
and also as to the reasons why a disproportionate number of women support Clinton--that is, the real reason for the discrepancy. This is not scientific, just my gut feeling. But I think the men are recognizing that Obama is the better candidate--on issues of war, and corporate mis-rule--quicker than some of the women voters, who are coming at these issues from a different angle--women's equality. War and corporate mis-rule are the biggest oppressors of women--most particularly poor and middle class women (the vast majority). And Clinton is simply very bad on these issues. It's all fine and good to have the right to birth control and abortion, for instance, but if you can't afford either, what good is your right? And, if you can't afford to HAVE a child--can't support it--what good is your right to choose? Clinton has consistently sided with those who are pouring billions and billions and billions of our tax dollars--our government treasuries to the 7th generation--into A CORPORATE RESOURCE WAR that is impoverishing us all. She has consistently supported "free trade" policies that have impoverished billions of third world women, and that are now severely impacting women here--who have to work two and three shit-pay jobs to feed and clothe their children and keep a roof over their heads.
I think that a lot of women's votes for Clinton are based on the notion that, because she is woman, she will be a stronger protector of women's equality. It is also an historic candidacy--the first women with a serious chance at becoming president. I think a lot of women feel that fervor--that, at long last, we will be assured equality because "one of our own" will be President of the United States. But if you take social justice into consideration, the benefits of a Hillary Clinton presidency for women become very thin, and almost meaningless, in view of the cost of this war and continued global corporate predator rule, both of which she strongly supports. Obama is not great on these issues, but he is BETTER THAN CLINTON, and inspires more hope that the interests of the majority--including the majority of women--will be better served by an Obama administration.
Male voters likely don't feel the profound threat to women's rights and equality that the Bush Junta has presented, to the extent that women do--and which, in some women voters, results in a determination to have a woman as president. Period. But, to my mind, supporting Obama is the wiser choice. He is certainly supportive of women's rights and equality, but, more than this, champions change--a government that advocates for all us, and not for war profiteers and other corporate powers--a government that is beholden to the People, and not to "organized money" (as FDR put it), and that pursues policies of peace and cooperation with the rest of the world (--as opposed to Clinton, who mouths aggressive Bushite platitudes on Iran, on South America and other foreign policy issues). It could be argued that Obama has a more feminist outlook on things than Clinton does--if you grant that feminism is anti-war, pro-diplomacy, pro-cooperation and more wholistic in its view of both human life and the environment. And it is a strange irony, indeed, that men would be voting in greater numbers for that more peaceful and wholistic (and democratic) viewpoint, than women are. Maybe it's true, after all, that men are more objective!
Ha-ha! That's coming from a FEMINIST. (You better believe it!) Torn, yeah. A woman president would be a great event. But a Margaret Thatcher type? Not so great. A woman waving the flag and leading the military parade into the Falklands (or Iran, or Venezuela, or...)? A woman tightening the belts of the poor to make the rich richer? That's just corporatism, which has no sex, only fat bank accounts and POWER at the expense of the poor. Obama isn't a woman, but he HAS been poor. And, what is perhaps more important, identifies with poor. He may not be FDR ("Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred!"--FDR). But he is the best candidate for the interests of the majority, as I think more women voters will come to understand.
Bear in mind also that these are PRIMARIES. In 1968, I voted for Eugene McCarthy for president in the California primary--rather than Bobby Kennedy--not because I believed that Eugene McCarthy would have made a better president, but because McCarthy had a stronger position against the Vietnam War. I knew Bobby would win. I knew he was the best candidate. I wanted to "send him a message" to keep his word on ending the war. Primary voters are sometimes voting on ISSUES--and that looks to me to be the case with some Clinton voters in these primaries. Some women are still voting the women's equality issue, even though it's clear that Obama will be the candidate. They are not voting against Obama. They are "sending him a message." (--some women voters, not all--the ones who are creating this discrepancy.)
|