Raising Hill

By Deborah Siegel and Rebecca Wallace-Segall

It started like this: "I was torn, but I finally decided. How 'bout you?

"Oh, I'm not torn."

"You're for Obama then, right?" said resignedly. We're young, progressive, possibly subversive...It seemed like the current predictable choice.

"You're kidding? Didn't you get my email?" said disbelievingly.

"What email?"

"The spiel on why I 'm voting for Hillary...I assumed you didn't respond out polite discomfort.

"No - no! I never got it! Didn't you read my blog?"

Squeals and joy erupted through the phone lines across the boroughs. And there it was: we had come out to each other as two of the only young Hillary supporters in our social circle. It was a relief to know that each of us was not alone. There's been an explosion of fervor for Barack Obama, a very strong candidate as well, in our progressive enclaves as of late. So much so that when we out ourselves as Hillary fans, we're often met by bafflement followed by suggestions that our position is galvanized purely by emotions, especially when we dare to admit that the fact that she is a woman inspires us.

It's not the charge that is completely off-base. Rather, it's the assumption that voting is ever an emotion-free act. Drew Westen, a psychologist and author, suggests that voters are more driven by emotions than informed interests. Interestingly, the subjects of his studies were all men.

Consider America's present collective emotional state: George W. Bush poisoned our trust in our government to such an extent that many of us progressives now feel suspicious of legacy of any kind. Some of our friends and family say they don't like Hillary because they distrust establishment altogether. Others are focused on her 2002 vote in favor of invading Iraq, a war that was instigated on the basis of government-fabricated evidence. And then there are other emotions: the belief that she is riding on her husband's coattails; the fear that she is unelectable because she is a woman; or, as one of our progressive (and beloved) fathers puts it, "I just don't like that woman."

Popular talk stigmatizes women who vote their gender, but men clearly vote their gender too. In fact, in Iowa, more men voted their gender than women did, noted quantitatively-oriented sociologist Virginia Rutter. While we believe that gender plays an inspirational role, sometimes invisible, for both men and women, we also believe that Hillary is the more qualified and electable of the two talented, exciting candidates. We believe in Hillary, and we believe that, based on her experience, she has the ability to get the job done more efficiently than her opponent.

But in overwhelming numbers, our progressive friends and some family members are inspired by Obama's clean slate, bold moralism, outsider status, audacity and hope. We also think these things sound great, but untested, they are mere phrases gracefully turned by a particularly winsome wonderboy whose actions will inevitably disappoint as he is forced to contend with political machinery designed to limit his powers.

Hillary herself once said she's a Rorschach test, as people tend to project on her their hopes and fears. We think Obama is a Rorscharch too.

We are voting for the most qualified candidate who is also, momentously, a woman. She is the most qualified whether her husband was president or not. She is the most qualified candidate whether she voted in favor of war or not. She has made the forward-looking pledge to end the war as president. And we believe she is the most qualified candidate to do so. To say she is unelectable seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. We envision Hillary at the helm. We both believe that her experience will hold up better against McCain.

While we fear that Hillary-hate may be more powerful, in the end, than our desire for her to win, we have the audacity to hope that public statements of support have the power to tip the balance. It did for one of us.

And we hope it might for you.

Rebecca Wallace-Segall is a freelance writer in New York City and the Director of WritopiaLab.

Comments

[RoseAndrews]

Rebecca and Deborah, you both have courage to stand up for what you truly see to be correct and to withstand peer and family pressure. Great going, keep up the good fight.

Hillary Clinton is a terrifically strong person: to withstand the amount of hate poured on her by the right-wing and by some of the left-wing...the new buddies on some issues.

I could understand this anger/hate if aimed at our present government. They have earned this treatment much more than Hillary Clinton has. They have abrogated the US Constitution, been completely inept on many issues and wrecked our economy and country's respect around the world. And people waste their time hating Hillary Clinton???

And all because she is a strong woman. This is her time to be elected.

[outtathebox]

1. I appreciate you both so much for coming out. Reading your blogs, I know you're well informed and have made this decision very very carefully. 2. you're getting the rest of us to think. No, not all those who've already decided by their emotions or are stuck voting their gender or who can't pass their own Rorscharch test. So, 3. your post here makes me like John Edwards more a) for bowing out gracefully, b) for letting us decide even though he seems much closer to one candidate (the other "change" person Obama), and c) for saying the Dems (whether Hillary or Barack) are making our history (whether raising hell as a woman or as a young African American). Personally, I'm with the young very public woman who recently announced: "I'm voting for Obama not because he's black but because he's brilliant."

[msilen]

IT IS TIME AND MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT TO NOW HAVE A WOMAN PRESIDENT.
Hillary go after the Brownies, Campfire Girls the Girl Scouts Not Just The Older Women but the Young Girls and Women that could really have a Fair Playing field in their Future. The experience Hillary has is exactly what will allow for change, you can talk all day and all night about HOPE , CHANGE, DREAMS, etc.but if you have to take the first two to three years learning enough about what it takes to be President all the Would Be Hopes and All The New Change Sounds Good, BUT IS NOT REALISTIC, especially when you also have to be dealing with world crises, from day one.
ONLY EXPERIENCE can make the wheels turn in the right direction for the Real Change we need in America as well as the World Stage. Its Idealistic and Naïve to think otherwise (Obama helping put youth groups together in Chicago is fine, But it isn’t what we need to bring countries together

[Clinton]

'We're young, progressive, possibly subversive..'

Come on, subversive? You must be joking. HRC subversive? If only.

[AnninCA]

Interesting perspective...and it really will be interesting to see how the actual voting turns out. I have found, too, that a lot of people who are voting for Hillary just keep quiet.

The Obamamania is uncomfortable, and the nasty remarks about someone we deeply admire is really offensive. Who needs that grief in real life?

[StephenDedalus82]

I'm just glad I graduated before this election season began. No amount of peer pressure would ever have convinced me to switch to the flavor of the month, Obama, over Clinton. The choice, to me, is quite obvious. College students who are gaga over Obama don't seem to appreciate exactly what job we're electing him to do. He may inspire, but does that inspiration translate to competence in managing the federal government, including the armed forces? We don't know. Nobody knows. He hasn't a single aspect to his record to give me confidence in his ability to lead. If I were still in college I fear I would be rolling my eyes often at the cult of personality that seems to have sprung to life on campuses.

[lgillooly]

Clinton/Obama is the best ticket in 08'.Let him go for 2016

[blueraven]

You didn't do your research if you honestly think she's the one with more experience that counts and has better policies for the US. Her health care plans would hurt middle-class Americans. Her attitude toward Iran and Iraq has been far more bellicose than she's willing to admit in debates. And a truthful attack on her health care plans led to such strident and offensive remarks from her camp that I shudder to think how she'd react in the run to November. The kicker is that if Clinton gets the nod, the Republicans will unite behind their guy (McCain from the looks of things) to make sure she doesn't win. If Obama gets the nod, they won't be as easily motivated.

[HowardRoarke]

Hello Deborah and Rebecca.

Are you voting for Hillary the personality?

Hillary the woman?

Hillary the resume?

Or Hillary the myth?

I was about your age when I voted for Bill Clinton, the inexperienced candidate running against the "experienced" Bush Sr. The papers and pundits all told me I should stick with experience. After all, former CIA head and 8 yr VP is a lot of DC experience. I voted my heart for Bill, and I wouldn't begrudge either of you for doing the same. Aside from agreeing with his Democratic campaign platform, and wanting to unroll the Republican nightmare of the previous 12 years, I really just liked the guy. It was his personality that made me want him over the other more "experienced" Democratic candidates as well.

I figure a lot of the Obama supporters feel that same way now.

The reason I ask about Hillary the myth is I wonder what you really remember about Hillary's time in the White House (aside from the impeachment witchhunt). As the only Democratic president in your lifetime, a lot of what is good about being a Democrat has been projected onto the Clinton presidency. There was another blog here yesterday about a younger voter who grew up in a pro-Clinton household and assumed that is how they'd vote in the primary -- until it was revealed that they were only pro-Clinton because he was better than the other alternatives at the time.

But I'm not here to crush any dreams. I think its time for both candidates and their supporters to emphasize what is positive about being a Democrat, and their candidates, and not try to "turn-off" supporters of the other guy. That's a silly strategy. If a Democrat can turn off another Democratic voter in the primary/caucus, what makes anyone think we can turn them back on in the general? Talk about a cynical strategy!

[mommadona]

My dear - educate yourself.

THIS woman will not represent YOUR interests - economically or morally.

If you really researched her various positions, you would soon see that Ms. Hill is:

Lobbyist friendly to the max.

Military/Industrial Complex Corporate Queen.

Family Finances tied up with Bush Family Finances in such a way that the two "Dynasties" are covering each other's backs.

SHE IS A DLC CHICK.

She's a K-Street Chick.

She's a Yalie spouse.

She ain't DNC in the least.

This is from an old chick who does her homework.

I would LOVE to vote the first woman in.

Just not THIS woman.

[Countess]

The Clintons think they have with their robo calls and email smears scared most women into voting for them but their are many intelligent women who resent gross gender and racial politics. The clintons are not progressive and I hope they overdose on their poison.

[HaroldB]

35 years op experiance makes you vote for war in Iraq??. after 35 years of experiance you find your voice in NH age 60?? Fighting for whta on the board of walmart?? husband is having fun in the oval office whithout her knowing about is not the experiance a president needs.

if being a first lady is giving you experiance to be president than i say why no voting for barbara bush & nancy reagan.

The USA needs a woman president but not hillary clinton.

[CornellRedneck]

Just look at all the other blogs here at Huffpo. Hillary is sinking faster by the minute, like a tired old battered battleship.