A Road Trip to Texas, and Questions to Ponder in 2008

This is a critical week for the democratic presidential nomination. I am very nervous about the end results. Last Friday, I sent out an email to some of my friends that went something like this "Okay girls, how about a road trip to Texas?" (Think Thelma and Louise with a little bit of Brad Pitt sprinkled in.) "I bring a camera, we drive, we laugh and we help Hillary SURGE to victory. " C'mon," I said. "This is a once in a lifetime Opportunity."

One of my friends emailed back and said "Sorry, I would love to go, but I am supporting, Obama." I said that's okay. If you can drive all the way to TEXAS with a car full of Senator Clinton supporters and not change your mind, then we promise to drop you off at Senator Obama headquarters. She quickly responded, "Are you going to drop me off dead or alive? " (giggle)

Another friend replied, "Thanks for thinking of me. I hope you'll still be my friend when you find out I'm a Republican."

Of course, I will. And to me, their responses are at the very heart and soul of a Democratic society. CHOICE. As we get closer to the election each of us will have our own definition of what makes a good president and who we think is most qualified for that post. As we move towards the finish line for the Democratic nomination, I have a couple of questions for us to ponder together?

Question #1: What is it about a woman in power that strikes with a pointed stake at the very heart of terror for some people?

Oh I know that I am going to get bombarded with comments. Perhaps right now you are aching to send me a little love note, but don't. Valentines Day is over. Just take a moment and read the next few paragraphs before you respond. Please.

There are so many people, men and women uncomfortable with a female in power. No matter what you think of Senator Hillary Clinton personally she has dedicated her life to public service. Period. Why are so many discussions about her focused on her "Personality?" The ice queen, the Feminist, the thick-ankled "Wo-man. What? She has taken on issues that no one else has dared to touch-because she passionately cares about this country. Who cares how warm she comes across, and how nurturing she is and frankly all of us have bad hair days. Do we use the same analysis for male candidates? Can you imagine, a conversation around the water cool discussing, how "bitchy" President Bush seemed at the last national address? Or when he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, "he didn't seem nurturing enough". You'd be laughed right back to your cubicle.

Many people talk about her failed health care plans when she was the first lady. No one talks about how she had the courage to take health care on, when no one else dared to.

She has taken many issues and brought them into the forefront of national debate with courage and tenacity. This would be a critical part of any definition of Commander-in-Chief. How can we solve a problem if we cannot create awareness? Do we continue to fan ourselves with the feathers of an ostrich nation? It is obvious; the next president is going to have to quickly deal with the economy, the wars, the pollution. There are serious issues to leap into and resolve. We have our global reputation in tatters. There is the potential of a looming recession at home. Why do people want this job?

The worse part of the argument against Hillary is the woman is not electable because her husband had an affair. The Republicans are going to go after Bill in the press. (They already have.) The anti-Clinton groups will say that Bill is such a liability that we can't hire this w-o-m-a-n. Her ambition is so enormous that she stayed with her husband so that she could run for further office? Is the American Public truly that stupid?

Frankly the woman has had the blasted courage to stay with him. It takes far more courage to stay when your partner has an affair then leave. And every detail of his dalliance was broadcast around the globe. The state of marriage in this country is abysmal, so why is her resilience and courage denigrated? She forgave him and moved on. What a tough, strong woman.

The article written by Stanley Fish for the New York Times "all you need is Hate"...is right on target.

He compares the Hillary hating as "The closely analogy is to anti-Semitism." He makes a very strong argument that so much of the anti-Hillary negativity comes from nowhere. She couldn't possibly be all those things.

Hillary is an amazing candidate for president of the United States or any job to represent our country. Her candidacy brings a great deal of knowledge, experience and intellect to the job. Being a woman has not much to do with it, although so many see it as an impediment. I prefer to look at being a woman as an asset-particularly at a time in our history that a lot of healing needs to happen. Hillary is risk-taker. She knows and understands the repercussion of her actions. So why do we focus on the size of her ankles?

What makes me so angry are groups like Roger Stones Hillary-Hating 527 "Citizens United Not timid." There is nothing timid about the acronym for Senator Clinton. The acronym for this group is a discriminatory word. A word that all people should be angry about. It's like the word nigger. I don't see anyone calling Senator Obama a nigger. (Nor should they) Why should it be anyone different for Senator Clinton? Don't these people have children that look up to them? If so, they should be embarrassed. If not, they should still be embarrassed for showing their maturity level, and to me it's pretty close to pre-kindergarten.

Question #2-What experience does Senator Obama have?

I am all for Senator Obama as president too, as long as there is the word VICE in front of it. I do see his charisma, his honest and direct approach but I am not willing to PROJECT ALL OF MY HOPES onto someone (man woman or animal frankly) without a track record. Our country is at a pivotal point in history and I am not about to get all dreamy eyed about the promise of Hope. Reality, people, I have seen many people project their hope on a candidate who was going to "save them" from another attack on our country. We screamed, "save us" to President Bush and look where all that hope was squandered.

Is the whole country acting out a first crush? I hope not. I have read the Emperor's New Clothes and I am scared that we are writing the sequel.

When Senator Obama's campaign began to get some initial momentum, it was through a scantily clad young girl dancing around in a bikini. Where was his staff or him to talk about how inappropriate that was for his campaign? Or any campaign. Look around in the media, we use the female body to sell everything from yogurt to automobile parts and no one seems to even acknowledge this. Or acknowledge what it does to our society as a whole.

Senator Obama will make a great president someday. I just don't want to go into premature labor. After the last debate, The View, showed some outtakes from debate-watchers that were brought together after the event. All these Obama supporters could not rattle off a single issue that he legislated. Scary. Remember the saying that came from Jim Jones and Jonestown, "Don't drink the Kool-aid?" Is it too late? I can see this great big red wagon stuffed with supporters. What if the wagon is heading over the cliff and no one has bothered to ask?

I am fearful we have a bit of the same type of enthusiastic hysteria about Senator Obama. He is handsome, charismatic and a great orator. Can we just allow him to gather some more experience before he swivels the chair in the oval office?

Question #3: Why do Women and Children's issues get relegated to the back of the bus?

Frankly, it is time for a woman. We have way too many issues that have long been labeled woman's concerns. Last Monday, I spoke and moderated a panel at the United Nations.

On the role and responsibility of men in stopping violence against women. Most people are oblivious to the crisis we have on this issue. It certainly doesn't make it to the top ten lists. Imagine how much the rape an abuse of women in this country affects our Gross National Product, our economic outlook, our health care costs and job placement efforts. We haven't even begun to understand how much this issue is costing our country and the world. We are too busy fighting over oil.

Around the world, 1 out of 3 women will be victimized in her lifetime. This includes, rape, assault, molestation, acid burnings, dowry deaths and spousal abuse. Isn't that a horrific statistic? Yet, it seems as travel along in our daily lives with our proverbial head in the sand. If the United States had an epidemic of measles or Avian Flu, every family in America would be donating time and resources to stop the spread of the disease. Why is this issue any different?

I am voting for Senator Clinton not only because she will tackle the economy, put us back on track and deal with Iraq; but because she will focus on issues that affect women and children, she will focus on global issues whether they affect our country or not and she will lead with one foot after the other. With this particular candidate swinging around in the main chair in the oval office, I feel a sense of hope. If Senator Clinton loses, I wonder "Will I ever see a woman as president" in my lifetime?" The sense of hope vanishes from my heart when I answer that question.

On a final note, whether you vote for Senator Clinton or not, use your mind and let your voice be heard. If you hear people disparage a candidate because of their body parts, speak up too. Let's not forget... if it wasn't for our mothers, none of us would be here. That includes you.

Follow Michealene Cristini Risley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@mcrisley

Comments

[FreedomsRoad]

Soft bigotry at its finest. It's fine for you to drop the N-bomb, but you pull short of the C-bomb. Enabling a man who is a serial philanderer isn't courageous. And it would've been a private family matter if she hadn't involved the party in the framing of his defense. Protecting women in subordinate positions (even when they are complicit in their exploitation (because you can't protect the ones who AREN'T complicit without a no-grey-areas approach to this issue)) should be paramount for any woman in a position to influence things.

That aside, I'm offended by the language here and think it fits in with some White feminist critiques of Hillary's candidacy and popular rejection of it. Stop chasing a cult of personality. Find a better, less polarizing candidate and rally behind her for the next go-round. Hillary can't get enough cross-over vote to win this thing and the way she's run this campaign risks polarizing the party against itself and lowering overall turnout in the fall. She's got an uphill battle to beat McCain which is all that matters.

[tiredofwaiting]

Finaly we are hearing some voices of reason and about time too! Senator Clinton is the better choice and it's not only because she's a woman or in spite of it. It is her intimate knowlege of the world she would enter as President, her connection to the global diplomatic community, her years out on the front lines of public service, her experience as a mother (yes it counts!) and her compassion for th working class and determination to find soltions for change. Over the past few days I've seen more and more women come out for her. Your piece made me smile, especially the bit about the VICE - I couldn't agree more and I believe she will be the 44th President of the US!

[Sloane7]

Oh yes, ignore all the bad decisions Hillary has made. Just vote for her because she is a woman. That really makes sense. As for Obama as VP? I don't see either one of them as the other's VP. Wanting it does not make it so and most wouldn't want it anyway. Hillary supporters so eager to have Obama as VP do so because they realize she would likely lose the election if nominated and they hope the energy Obama has brought to the Democratic Party would benefit her. The honest truth is if Obama were not running, this primary would be like any other. And IF she were elected, we would stay in Iraq and get stuck in Iran. She is a hawk, she is barely even a Dem and she for some reason wants to be liked by the GOP even though they dislike her. Her one term would be a huge disappointment. Look at the ads she's running. She's a warmonger just like Bush. She voted FOR every vote Bush has wanted. And she didn't show up for the FISA vote and she was right there in DC. Just couldn't be bothered or didn't want to displease the GOP.

[Sloane7]

I find posts like this to be supremely insulting. I am a woman and I support Obama. I am not impressed by Clinton's "experience". I'm not impressed by the decisions she's made. I've seen by her track record that she is more than willing to go with the flow rather than challenge the GOP and the consequences of her strong desire for GOP acceptance has resulted in what I deeply fear, will be a trumped up battle against Iran before Bush leaves office.

I do not dislike Clinton because she is a woman. I dislike Clinton because I think she has demonstrated herself to be a terrible choice for this country. This woman is not the right woman to be president. She wants to minimize Obama's political discourse and his strong positions against the war. But those postiions at the time were firmly against the tide. They were not popular. But they were right. He has been right on so many others as well. Voters who choose Obama are informed. They just don't agree with you.

[PhDiva]

I am a Black feminst, and I support Barack Obama. I used to admire Hillary Clinton, but her racism and narcissism turned me away from her.

I do not think it is a feminist position to support a woman simply because she was married to a powerful man (the most powerful man in the world, no less). In fact, it is an insult to women who had to fight for their own power without relying on their husbands. I don't think being married to the president qualifies you to BE president any more than being married to a surgeon qualifies you to perform surgery. Should the wife of a male surgeon be seen as having the same experience as a female surgeon? This position is an insult to all women.

I also find it interesting that Clinton and her team have said a number of racially offensive things about Obama and Black voters. Obama hasn't said one sexist thing about Clinton or women voters. He has ethical boundaries. She doesn't.

Clinton is NOT a feminist candidate. She is a super-wealthy white woman who belongs to a super-elite club of former first ladies. Hillary Clinton does not support women. Hillary Clinton supports Hillary Clinton. She supports women when it is expedient for Hillary Clinton. It is not feminist to vote for a war that has devastated Iraqi women. Is the validation of wealthy white women the only thing that qualifies one to be a feminist?

It is racist to say that Barack Obama should "wait until white folks decide he's ready" just as it is sexist to say that Hillary Clinton should "wait until men say she's ready."

This post reminds me of why I have so much trouble getting other women to identify as feminists; it is because the white middle-aged, middle-class feminists are so out of touch with the experiences and values of real women. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is as out of touch as her wealthy white sister Gloria Steinem.

Let's focus on REAL feminists issues, not the vain ambitions of a spoiled former first lady.

[Didi47]

PhDiva:

I've read your posts in the past where you accuse Hillary of racism. Tell me where has she been racist. You make all kinds of accusations against her with absolutely nothing to back you up and you ditz her for having been married to a president. Saying it's an insult to ALL women? Pray tell me, Why is that? Are you insinuating that women who are married to powerful men are riding on their husband's coattails if they hold a job outside the home? That they didn't acquire those jobs on their own merits and qualifications?

And you again say that Clinton and her team have said a number of racially offensive things about Obama and Black voters. This kind of defamation I would think had better be backed up with proof.. So given you keep repeating the same slurs... how about posting examples for a change?
I think Jesse Jackson's wife would be very interested in seeing proof of your accusations, given she supports Hillary; as does Maya Angelo and many many other Black American Women. Therefore in order, not to compromise YOUR ethics... let's see some proof to back up your disgusting accusations. Given you put a Ph in front of your name, you must have done your research, no... to back up your claims?

I think the racist is YOU... with your "..super wealthy white woman.." quote. Maybe you should go take a good long look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you 'hate' so much..

From one woman to another, shame on you.

[sojournertruth]

Amen and amen, PhDiva! You hit the nail on the head when you said: "This post reminds me of why I have so much trouble getting other women to identify as feminists; it is because the white middle-aged, middle-class feminists are so out of touch with the experiences and values of real women. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is as out of touch as her wealthy white sister Gloria Steinem.

Let's focus on REAL feminists issues, not the vain ambitions of a spoiled former first lady."

I was becomning both angrier and sadder as i read Ms Cristini Risley's blog, wondering why it is that certain white, middle-aged, feminist females seem so incapable of understanding why some other women are so repulsed by the naked power play exhibited by hillary clionton and our consequent rejection and denunciation of her as a viable choice for president.

Cristini Risley, youre as out of touch with real women as hillary clinton. Buh bye!

[FreedomsRoad]

Speak on it, PHDiva. I'm appalled that she's making a feminist argument as a woman candidate that relies on her position as a missus. I can't even get underneath all the hypocrisy there. First Lady is NOT a job, it's a description.

[jp1949]

Boxer is NOT running for president, Hillary Clinton is.

[vcthree]

Right. But you're the one who suggested that candidates should get more experience. So, my solution is this: Barbara Boxer, with her experience in the Senate lapping both Obama and Clinton's, should be the nominee based on your logic. That's all I'm saying.

[SamThornton]

Everyone has a right to an opinion. All that can be fairly said before the fact is that, "you may be right."

On the other hand, one may be wrong.

The early indications are that Sen. Clinton comes in second with a match-up against Sen. McCain. I would go farther. My opinion is that a Clinton candidacy in the general election will prove a disaster for the Democratic party, reversing the 2006 congressional elections, sweeping both McCain and a Republican majority into power, ending the possibility of a meaningful Democratic input into national politics for at least the next sixteen years.

The major problem with a Clinton candidacy is the way in which she will have to achieve it, a frontal assault on Obama Democrats, as well as on the primary process, that will alienate Obama voters from the election process. In the event, most will either sit out the general election or vote for McCain.

Unfortunately, it appears that ego and hubris might well trump party and country in the coming election.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[vcthree]

I can name several women with more relevant experience to run for the Oval Office than Clinton.

HINT: They're all governors of states.

Don't tell me that this nation can't elect a woman president, when several states have either sitting Governors, Senators, or Congresswomen representing them--including my home state, Maryland (Sen. Mikulski) I'm sorry, but this needs to be said, once and for all: the appeal to pity for electing THIS particular woman to the highest office of the land fails the standard. If she fails, it will be on the merits (or lack thereof) of her record, not because she's simply a female.

It's her own fault that she couldn't sell herself better than she has, and that has nothing to do with blatant sexism either. Enough with the pity party. Like Kathleen Kennedy Towshend in 2002, Clinton is not that solid of a candidate all-around. That's not sexism's fault. That's hers. She might have done well to ask the eight sitting females in Governorship how they managed to get past that sexism, and end up where they are, instead of whining about sexism, and bullshit glass ceilings.

[jp1949]

SO WHAT. WHERE ARE THEY, WHY AREN'T THEY RUNNING. THEY AREN'T BUT HILLARY CLINTON IS. SHE STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE.

[vcthree]

And she's batting .305, with 2 HR, 11 RBI, and 31 K's . So what, indeed?

The long and short of it is this: America isn't--is NOT--afraid to elect any woman President. America just might not want Hillary Clinton, and no amount of guilt trips, ad hom attacks, and constant appeals to pity is going to change that. Why does anyone have to feel any guilt whatsoever for rejecting this particular candidate out of hand? As if everyone's supposed to feel sorry for themselves for NOT voting for Clinton? Geez.

[designgirl04103]

Thank you for writing this. Positive Hillary blogs are few and far between on HuffPo. I hope it's not too late!

[leftLibertarian]

As an Army veteran, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act. It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with her support of an illegal, unjust war and a blow to our liberty.

[Didi47]

leftLibertarian:

So you're going to vote for a lying blowhard instead who has completely misrepresented Hillary's vote on Iraq... and who stated loud and clear had he been in the Senate at that time, he would have voted the same way? Go look it up... it's on tape!

[Lis]

As an Army Aunt (with a 20-year-old nephew in Iraq), I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act. It has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with her support of an unjust war and a blow to our liberty. As a woman, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because there are many other women with more experience who will be running in four to eight years.

Someone like Obama only happens once.

[Shantee]

Well, if it wasn't for our fathers we wouldn't be here either. Your points have been rehashed over and over again. As a woman over 40 I'm supporting Barack because for me he is the most compelling candidate. I believe he's more of a feminist than she is. Hillary's latest attacks and especially the 3AM TV ad is something out of the Nixon, Cheney, Rove playbook.....it's discpicable fear mongering. Her campaign has been in shambles and I believe she would run the White House in the same manner. I initially supported her, but Barack won me over. 'While hope is not a strategy, it can certainly get people working together to find one'. It's Barack that has been able to galvanize young people in a positive way.....and that's a huge feat in itself.

[wakupmagy]

"...she has dedicated her life to public service".

I'm sorry. I am trying to understand. What public service specifically are you referencing? For most of her adult life she was the wife of an officehold­er--govern­or and then president. Being First Lady is not public service any more than being a doctor's wife is OR experience. She ran for US Senate a scant 6 years ago. She had no political experience and it is disingenuous to suggest she won that seat on merit. Had she not had a well known name, massive publicity and the support of the elite in New York this never could have happened,.
I am not attacking the writer of this post. I am truly baffled and would love someone to explain this.

[boonagain]

I'm waiting for this answer as well.

I hope she isn't touting how her Campaign has been run as executive experience.

[jp1949]

If you really want to know all about Hillary Clinton and what experience she has go to her website

[Didi47]

wakeupmagy:

I suggest if you don't understand, re-read the article and then go do some research on all the great works Hillary has achieved to help the underprivileged, the sick, the poor and again, remember Hillary is the one that fought tooth and nail to get Universal Health Care on the table in the first place. The same Universal Health Care Obama is now trying to claim as his own. Also go to obama truth dot org and see how he deals with the sick and poor. It may be a good start.

[FreedomsRoad]

Hillary did not invent the notion of Universal Health Care, nor is she the first person to put it on the table. What history books do you read? I know they cover this stuff in Canada. This is a controversial idea in the US because of our historical fear of socialism and communism, the Republican rejection of governmental interference in personal choice, and the GOPs stated (but not practiced) hatred of expansion of the Federal government.

The reason Hillary wasn't able to push her proposal through in the 90s, nor would be able to push it through should she make it to 1600 Pennsylvania next year, is the conservative Republican rejection of the notion of government mandates at any level as a matter of party principle. In US politics all of these government mandated programs, especially universal health care (and expansions of programs like Medicare are a good bellweather for how Congress would respond to a universal health proposal) are referred to as the "third rail" because if you touch on them you die. Hillary earned permanent emnity among GOPers with this and other proposals.

I don't know why you are such an HRC booster since I doubt she'll do anything different than Obama in terms of relations with Canada, and you consistently fail to do anything other than spread Republican party and Clinton spin on events. But, whatever, I hope you are as active in commenting on Canadian politics as you are on the US Dem primaries.

[jp1949]

Dear Michealene: WOW!!! I love your piece. Thank God there is someone with a brain out there. I also feel like its some kind of mania when it comes to Senator Obama to say the least of all the money behind him (like Oprah). Hillary Clinton would be the best Presidential choice. She cares about the American people and would immediately help them get their lives back. She is more than qualified for the job. In no time she would begin mending our nation and the standing in the rest of the world. I can't stand to read some of the horrible things people write about her just because they are voting for Obama. They trash her and her family but you can't bring up one thing about Obama. To be excited about Senator Obama is great but to go overboard and disparage his opponent Hillary Clinton in such demeaning terms is deplorable. Reading some of the posts and pieces written, especially here, you would think he is God. He is not perfect and I don't know much about him. I do however know about Senator Clinton and I have followed everything about the Clintons from the time Bill was running for Arkansas governor. Let Senator Obama get some experience first and then run again.

[leftLibertarian]

Senator Clinton's experience is what? Voting for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act?

[vcthree]

Okay, by that logic, Hillary Clinton should wait, and let Barbara Boxer run for president.

[Countess]

There are things more important than bureaucratic details about health plans and one of them is being a decent person and having some ethical standards. Hillary Clinton fails this elementary test.

[jp1949]

That's your opinion and your entitled to it. However, you might want to clean up your back yard first, Senator Obama has been caught in several lies already. Of course, you won't admit it. It's everyone else.

[jp1949]

Hillary Clinton hasn't failed any tests.

[Didi47]

Countess:

From looking at all your posts... I don't believe you understand the definition of decency, my dear.