What Alberto Gonzales Can Teach Us about Hillary Clinton
Back in 2004, I was part of a small but active non-profit organization called Latinos for America. Our mission was to push for greater participation by Hispanics in the public sphere. We organized activist and candidate trainings around the country, and put out bilingual public service announcements encouraging Latinos to exercise their right to vote.
All was well until November of that year, when Alberto Gonzales was nominated by President Bush to serve as Attorney General. Yes, the same Alberto Gonzales, who as White House Counsel had given the president carte blanche to torture terrorism suspects. As an organization devoted to increasing Latino participation in the public sphere, we had to think long and hard about whether to oppose the candidacy of a Hispanic American seeking such a high-level post.
Groups like the widely respected League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) urged us to support Gonzales. After all, LULAC argued, if we were truly devoted to the advancement of Latinos, we shouldn't be passing up a historic opportunity to speak out on behalf of Gonzales.
LULAC is an incredible organization, and we were honored to be discussing the issue with them. Yet Alberto Gonzales gave me and my colleagues reason to pause. Not only did we hold human rights in the highest of regards, but we also had to ask ourselves whether someone like Gonzales, whom we thought to be of questionable character, could ultimately hurt the interests of Latino public officials. If the name "Gonzales" became synonymous with incompetence and corruption, how would we be helping our community by pushing this appointee on the American people?
In the end, we consulted our membership and our conscience, and decided to speak out against Alberto Gonzales. Not because we didn't want to see a Latino serve as Attorney General, but because we didn't want that particular person as the highest law enforcement official in the nation.
These days, I see an unfortunate parallel between the drive by Hispanic organizations to have Alberto Gonzales serve as Attorney General, and the honest, but misguided push by feminists today to elect a woman president of the United States, no matter who she is.
Jennifer Baumgardner, who co-wrote one of my favorite books on feminism, has softly scolded women for not sticking to Hillary Clinton. In a recent Huffington Post blog, she writes: "Here we are: several generations raised with the mantra that a 'woman' could be president, and learning that we don't mean any woman who actually exists."
An activist of incredible depth and courage, Gloria Feldt promotes collective action by all women in support of Clinton at the voting booth: "[We] feminists... might decide to squander this Moment and justify in a thousand ways why it's our right to decide as individuals when we choose our candidate." She doesn't seem to think that choosing a candidate on his or her merits is necessary when that candidate is a woman.
I don't support Hillary Clinton's candidacy, but she is no Alberto Gonzales. She has been a fighter, taking a lot of undeserved hits by misogynists for being an outspoken first lady in the 1990s. But the picture of a gender war, in which women have to support women (and by that logic, men should have to support men), is utterly distasteful and un-American.
I invite fellow feminists to consider the long-lasting impact of supporting a female candidate who is running on her husband's record, and not her own; who has run a questionable campaign at best, pitting herself against concepts like "hope" and "inspiration," and dismissing victories by Senator Barack Obama in South Carolina and Louisiana as merely consequences of race. Most Americans, African American or otherwise, are not that shallow. We know this because prior to the ugly race baiting, many African Americans were supporting Hillary Clinton, and proudly so.
I am glad that I turned my back on Alberto Gonzales back in 2004. I am not a traitor to Latinos, or a blind partisan. I believe in judging a person by the content of his or her character, and Alberto Gonzales was someone I could simply not support.
In this election, I encourage people to continue voting their conscience, rather than their gender or race. There will be many more African Americans, women, and Hispanics reaching for the highest office of the land. But healing our country of the ugly partisan politics of the last 20 years? That's a historic chance we cannot afford to pass up.
Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama has a lot in common with Alberto Gonzalez. They both say, "I don't recall," when they're questioned about their dubious actions.
Responding to questions about Rezko and the home sale last month, the Obama campaign repeatedly cited the candidate's on-the-record statements: "I don't recall exactly" conversations about the house with Rezko; "I am not clear" how Rezko decided to join in the purchase; and "I may have mentioned to him the name of a [developer] and he may at that point have contacted that person."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4315880&page=1
Great article Nathan! It is great to see someone with the depth of character you have take on the racist and sexist issues of today. The idea that we should vote for someone due to race or sex is exactly what we are striving to overcome.
Keep in mind there is no one person that can be an expert in economic issues, personally direct the military, understand constitutional law, be the perfect diplomat, etc....
The best president is one who can nominate qualified individuals with experience and knowledge in these areas of government. Of equal importance is a Senate that will do their homework and check these people out before giving them the position.
The President does not hire these folks or sign their paychecks. We do, through our representatives in Congress.
I was a Clinton supporter and donor until Bill's divisive remarks in South Carolina. Hillary's use of the ex-president for her partisan gain, her willingness to go negative on a fellow Dem, and her willingness to manipulate the party rules have turned this voter off.
The nail in the coffin of my support for Hillary was listening to her surrogates, first Lanny Davis then Sidney Blumenthal, both of whom I had previously respected. Their parsing legalistic defenses of Hillary and her going negative reminded me of nothing so much as the testimony of all the Gonzales' state AGs and deputy AG testifying before congress. Enough of the parsing legalisms already.
I can't say how happy I am to see a post that says exactly what I've been saying about those who would tell me that my feminist credentials are all a lie because I don't support Senator Clinton. It's been extremely frustrating and discouraging that so many so-called feminist leaders and commentators are just as sexist, arrogant, and controlling as the patriarchy we've all fought against so long.
I'm an intelligent woman with just as many years under my belt as they are. And with every word they utter these days about those of us who support Obama, they seek to diminish, marginalize, and condescend to me. Perhaps because I've spent my career working with young people, I have been aware for many years that young adults have moved beyond the old fights of the 60s and 70s. I've felt this excitement to change our political landscape happening over the past 2 years. And it has caught an old liberal warrior like me in its wake. It is a new way of looking at the issues that is not about tearing people down or continually fighting the old battles the same old ways or always seeing things as us vs. them. I just wish that my old allies would face that reality and, once again, have something relevant to say to those who see them as bitter, out of touch, and more concerned with past injuries than with creating concensus for future and mutual goals.
Great article! Hillary Clinton is not even the most qualified Democratic female senator. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have much more experience than Hillary and would be far better choices.
as mush as i dislike hillary clinton and i dislike her plenty.............barbara boxer running for president...please................. the woman is a total loon along the lines of jim mcdermott and kooky kicinich.......boxer would never get to first base running for potus...hillary's positions are TAME compared to babs ............
Dianne "voted-for-telecom-immunity Feinstein? I'm not so sure she'd be a better choice...
Dianne "voted-for-telecom-immunity" Feinstein? I'm not so sure she'd be a better choice...
This is exactly what I have been saying to a lot of my fellow feminists.
Furthermore, to elect a woman president simply because she is a woman is a betrayal to the ideals of feminism. IMHO
I hope to see a woman as President of the US in my life time, but I do not think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate now.
sr
This is one of the most intelligent and insightful articles I've read here. Thank you.
Your article made me realize something.
The transformational racial aspect of Obama for America isn't that black folk finally get in the White House, it's that white people put him there.
Same with a woman, if _men_ don't demand that she be there the transformation hasn't really happened.
The transformation required isn't in the position of the discriminated but in the attitudes of the discriminating.
I thought to myself the other day, tho I don't want _Hillary_ to be President, I would walk barefoot across glass to have Benazir Bhutto as my President.
The transformational racial aspect of Obama for America isn't that black folk finally get in the White House, it's that white people put him there.
Outstanding insight! Thank you for posting this realization and providing an "aha".
There's a petition going public tomorrow with 1200 feminists backing Obama for exactly the same reasons
“Feminists for Peace and Obama” is being supported by a remarkable array of distinguished women, including writers Katha Pollitt, Barbara Ehrenreich, Mary Gordon, and Arlie Hochschild, poet Margaret Randall, academicians Evelyn Fox Keller, Ruth Hubbard, Adele Simmons and activists Francis Kissling and Ellen Bravo.
For full text of statement and list of signatories, go to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsforpeace/
Intelligent feminists know that the best candidate on women's issues isn't the woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
Things to keep in mind when deciding between Clinton and Obama -
Clinton voted for the war in Iraq
Clinton voted to declare the Iranian Guards a Terrorist organization
Clinton uses fear of terrorism to get what she wants
Clinton is trying to break the rules to garner votes in Florida (and Michigan)
Clinton will not take this pledge:
"We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President."
-white, over-fifty, feminist for Obama
Yes, Nathan, a woman president someday, but not THIS woman, Hillary Clinton. Why not?
Her demeanor as someone who was OWED the nomination was the first thing to turn me off.
Her vote FOR Bush's war.
Her wanting to be more macho than Bush on "Commander-in-Chief" issues.
Her support for more disastrous trade deals a la NAFTA (yes, she's now singing a different tune, but too late).
Her not wanting to come out, even now, for single-payer universal health care (yes, she was brave in uttering health care reform way back then, but caved when attacked).
Her pandering to ugly and clumsy "attack ads" purveyors without regards to how it hurts the Democratic cause.
I just don't trust HER, even though I voted for Bill, twice.
Her demeanor as someone who was OWED the nomination was the first thing to turn me off.
I'm glad someone else caught that! Talk about entitlement!
Aside from that, these 'women-first' feminists must be cold-blooded if they put their agenda ahead of the death and displacement we are responsible for in Iraq - this should be the #1 issue!
Issues like illegal war, crushing the Bill of Rights, etc. take precedence (BIG-TIME) over whether the candidate is black or a woman!
Put in the person with the best track record, and Obama's voting record beats Hillary. For example:
even though Hillary was in DC, she didn't think it was important enough to cast a vote on Telecom immunity for spying - but Obama voted against it!
Look at the candidates voting record - and follow the money - look at who is contributing to their campains.
Part of her record is her contributions to the white house so I don't see why you must reduce it to her husban'ds record. I don't see how that is a bad thing since she was the first, first lady with a professional degree and her own accomplishments and who had a policy office within the white house. Isn't she pitting herself against false hopes and towards solutions for America's issues. You draw a lot of false distinctions in trying to discredit Senator Clinton and if people were voting their conscience in terms of looking at real issues insteads of the wonder and awe of a candidate's gender or race maybe Obama and maybe Clinton too wouldn't be the top democratic candidates right now. Why is it only Hillary that stands for Bush when Obama and Hillary's voting record has has basically been the same since they were in the Senate together and based on on most of her votes she has been a liberal senator.
But she is running on the record of her husband's administration and not on her Senate record.Time and again,she speaks about what Bill Clinton did as if his accomplishments are hers.
While claiming no responsibilities for his failures (see: NAFTA, those 11th hour pardons, etc.)...
Well, she's selective about taking credit for her husband's accomplishments. When she's in an area where NAFTA is not well-received, she positions herself as not as "for" NAFTA as her husband. She's the contradiction candidate, pointing at Obama votes while not showing up for the FISA vote (event though she was there), pointing at phrases Obama has repeated while using Obama's as her own, against Iraq even though she voted for it, for Nevada's casino caucus sites until she lost the endorsement, pushing for MI when she was the only one on the ballot, it goes on and on. You can imagine, if she was ahead in the popular vote, how much she and Bill would be screaming that the popular vote should be the determining factor.
You're right--maybe neither of them is perfect. Maybe no one is perfect.
But what is totally FLAWED is voting for someone simply on the basis of their race or gender.
Obama has his flaws, no doubt about it. He's not my perfect candidate (a clone of Obama and Ron Paul would, though, although I'm not sure how that would manifest itself). But Hillary has many more flaws, the worst of which is that she's out of tune of the zeitgeist of her own constituency.
I'm am disappointed in ways I have yet still to fathom that all these femininsts that for long I held in such high esteem would now step up and announce that I need to vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman.
Do they presume I'm a white woman? Would they assert themselves diffently if they were talking to black women?
And that's the other disappointment. They're all white and they're all, apparently, racist.
It's funny how the worm sometimes turns when you least expected it.
Remember this, they are running for the office of President and not King or Queen. This means that regardless of what they believe in and stand for, their role is somewhat limited.
Certainly W expanded that role beyond the level allowed by the constitution, but I hope that either of these two will return to a more normal role.
So what are the ways a President affects change? We have two possibilities here: The insider in the smoke filled room trying to push an agenda and making sacrifices and selling the soul of America or a Populist who inspires and raises the bar and invokes to public to push congress into passing the laws and making the changes that the public feels need to be made.
I'm not sure which one will work, but I'm choosing hope over fear.
Well said, Nathan. What I find interesting isn't the number of women who will vote for Hillary out of gender loyalty, but the number of women who won't vote for Hillary. Her "charisma" problem seems to be much more an issue among women than among men. In the end, I'll vote for anyone not named McCain in November.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
