Since my books are very popular in Italy, I was asked by Corriere della Sera to comment on the Iowa results for their front page tomorrow. Here is that Q&A, expanded:
1. The data show that the majority of women in Iowa didn't vote for Hillary? Why?
There is a strong desire for change in the USA as a result of the disasters of the Bush administration; unfortunately people associate Hillary with the old guard. I personally believe this is wrong and believe Hillary could be a great leader. But she is associated with the 90s, her husband's administration and her capitulation to the Iraq war. At this moment in American history those things are a big negative for her.
2. Why did women prefer Obama and (apparently) even Edwards?
The answer is the same. There is a passion for change. If Hillary were, let's say, Mrs. Obama or Oprah Winfrey she might command women voters, but to many she represents the past. This transcends the gender issue.
3. Is this the beginning of a trend that will be repeated in New Hampshire and in other states?
In fact nobody knows. Some people think that Iowa is meaningless; other people think it starts a trend. I am not sure that Iowa matters as much as the news media would indicate.
4. How representative are Iowa women voters of the rest of the country's women?
I don't think this is an election that will indicate how much women support women. This is an election in which USA voters want to throw out every trace of the Bush backlash and, unfortunately, Hillary is part of that. I believe that as President she would be independent and brilliant, but many voters cannot see it that way.
5. Are the gender and color factors going to be central in this election or will it be a color-blind and gender blind election?
We are more color and gender blind in America than people know. The main thing in the election of '08 will be a surge for change, a repudiation of Bush and Cheney and their neo-con flunkies, a desire for peace in the world, a repudiation of the military industrial complex, and a hope for America to regain its place as the country of habeas corpus, fairness and equality. The greening of America is also a big issue. After allowing a biased Supreme Court to throw the 2000 election to Bush and Cheney when Al Gore actually was the popular winner, Americans really want a green America. Gender and race are second to the desire for change.
6. Do certain women fear Hillary? More than men? What do they see in her?
Many many women, especially women in their 60s and 70s, are fighting hard for Hillary as a symbol of change they fought for all their lives. I have supported Hillary financially and intellectually; I think she would be a great President. Surely, there are women who fear her, and men who fear her, but the desire for change overrides all of this.
7. Which strategy should Hillary adopt to reverse this trend?
She should show that she can be anti-war and pro-peace. She should show she is not part of the establishment. She should show she is ready to make new history. She should disentangle herself from the past. She should stress environment, mothers' and childrens' rights (issues she has fought for all her life) and challenging the military industrial complex. We could be a great country if we didn't have the corporate war-mongers on our backs.
8. Is America more ready for a woman president or a black president?
This is a fascinating question. I always believed that America is such a sexist country that we would have a black or multi-racial President before we would ever have a woman President. I wanted to be proven wrong. I still want to be proven wrong. I believe Obama is a good man, very, very smart, a wonderful writer, a terrific intellectual, but inexperienced. I believe Hillary is far more progressive than she has shown. In the past it used to be good policy for American Presidential Candidates to move toward the Center in order to get elected. She has done this, she has attempted to "triangulate". Ten years ago this would have been a great policy. Today the desire for change overshadows everything, but don't count Hillary out yet. There is along way to go after Iowa. I think she should show her progressive side now more than ever.
You state, "She should stress . . . challenging the military industrial complex."
Members of the MIC don't allow it's employees to challenge them. Clinton receives more donations from the five largest defense contractors than anyone. Except for Obama, she receives far more than all of the other candidates combined.
She also depends heavily on lobbyists for staff. If she followed your advice, would she have to return the money? How much? Would the staffers leave? All of them?
You were successful at fiction. Stay with your strength.
and challenging the military industrial complex. We could be a great country if we didn't have the corporate war-mongers on our backs."
Uh, let's review:
Clinton IS NOT anti-war.
Clinton IS a part of the establishment (DLC)
Clinton CANNOT challenge the 'military/industrial complex' because THEY ARE HER SUPPORTERS....
Clinton CAN dismantle her shadow government of the Democratic "Leadership" Council (one big old oxymoron on THAT one) and join the rest of the United States of America....but she won't...
She built that empire, and dammit, she deserves it in her eyes.
"We" are NOT impressed with QueenBee Hill's need for dynastic power.
"We" don't do kings or queens.
Watching Hillary trying to take out the long knives on Obama, then get critized by Edwards, and finally start to boil publicly with anger, was like that.
Come to think of it, watching Bill lately has been like that as well.
The Clintons are driven, not by principle, but by narcissism. The makeup is off, and it's really starting to show.
Sorry Erica - having a vagina isn't enough of a qualification for POTUS. And being in public life for many years isn't either.
Right now the American people - waking up from a long national nightmare - are beginning to demand CHARACTER first, and then COMPETENCE as well.
That's a good thing.
Did you relay this back to Europeans?
The answer is the same. There is a passion for change. If Hillary were, let's say, Mrs. Obama or Oprah Winfrey she might command women voters, but to many she represents the past. This transcends the gender issue."
I support Edwards; I am female; I am in the Hillary demographic; I do not have "a passion for change". I have a passion for good economic strategies and universal healthcare and rebuilding the manufacturing infrastructure in the US and getting us the heck out of Iraq.
Erica, Hillary should have stuck to her original guns and didn't. She lost this one years ago.
The US Constitution was changed with amendment, requiring the two heads of the U.S. to be from the same party, where before, the founders, thought they should or could be from different parties. We focus so much on the top of the command rather than the team they should or could be, in my opinion. Maybe the candidates should announce "their" intentions in courting us! Let's hear who else is or would be next in line, no surprises.
Neoliberals paved the way for the neocons. You can be just as oppressive with money as you can with a gun. That's the effect of NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It's sexist and racist since third world people suffer the most. later it hits us at home.
Can Hillary reinvent herself? Wow! What about her marriage? Is that the role model of a liberated woman or that of an ambitious woman?
Let's get a woman without all that baggage, a Hispanic or Black even, not a privileged woman who has been around Washington via WalMart and the Rose Lawfirm.
We already had Maggie Thatcher and she set the clock back a century or more. Let's move on!
Hillary Clinton even did better by getting 72, 000 votes from the 80, 000 Democrats she expected.
The Republicans who voted for Barack Obama did so deliberately as part of their game plan to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the nomination, because all polls confirm her national leadership to win the presidential election and the only way to stop her is to checkmate her. Therefore, they are funding and supporting the naive Barack Obama to use him to defeat Senator Hillary Clinton.
The funny irony is, the major donors and sponsors of Barack Obama are the major beneficiaries of the war in Iraq. He is lying on Iraq.
Check the records to prove me right or wrong.
Her dreams do not reflect the dreams and hopes of the American nation, despite her words embracing change, she is not about change, she is for maintaining the status quo, putting the wishes and ambitions of the corporations before the the wishes and ambitions of the nation!
Her "mamma knows best" attitude is denying the spirit of change amongst the people, the people want an end to wars and conflict, compassion and caring for fellow Americans, many of whom are down on their knees stricken by poverty! The people want to see the wasted billions spent on Americans and not to support puppet dictators who feign democracy!
And now, predictably, she will attempt to claw back support by appealing to the base instincts of mankind, causing them to fear the future, lead by anyone other than herself, not having observed that particular old record has been played to death! The writing is on the proverbial wall, Hillary, time to put the nation before self!
I hope she rethinks this campaign since I want a woman in the White House during my lifetime.
No that Obama isn't statist, only he is a little less so than Hillary.
do really think voters are gullible enough to accept a COMPLETE 180 on virtually everything she stands for and has stood for!
she would single-handedly make the bush admin look open and honest!
CHANGE not MOTS!
As for why people would wish to avoid Hillary, I can only say that when this European sees her selling herself to the American electorate the two words that immediately spring to mind are "Amoral Opportunist".