Can I Have A Dream?: Endorsing Clinton

Was there a press blackout on mentioning that Hillary Clinton made history in New Hampshire? The first woman to win a major presidential primary.

I like Obama. A lot. I like Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech." A lot. It's nice that Obama can talk about realizing Dr. King's hope of an African American having a genuine shot at the U.S. presidency. I have a dream, too. It's about a woman having a genuine shot at the U.S. presidency. Why is it not politically correct to talk about it?

As unfairly as the U.S. has treated African Americans, black men got the right to vote 50 years before women -- of any color. And crazed injustice? I am looking at an Associated Press news clipping about a pardon of the long-dead Grace Sherwood who was "tried by water" and found guilty of being a witch by a Virginia court [using the sink or float standard]. "With 300 years of hindsight, we all certainly can agree that trial by water is an injustice," Gov. Timothy Kaine wrote. "We also can celebrate the fact that a woman's equality is constitutionally protected today, and women have the freedom to pursue their hopes and dreams." Promise?

Are my fellow journalists aware of this news? Has someone taken away their freedom of speech? Sorry, I'm prickly today. A month ago Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire was deemed a fait accompli. The day of the Iowa primary, she was washed up -- so that five days later she could make "news" as the comeback kid. Maybe there was no change at all in Hillary Clinton in the five days leading up to New Hampshire. Maybe we just had five days of really bad reporting.

I have a dream not only of being able to speak freely of a woman president but also of suggesting that being a woman may be an asset in the job. For the years since Hillary Clinton's surprising election to the U.S. Senate, I have watched her. What I saw, what I remember, is the image of a woman working hard. Every picture, every outing, every year.

Meanwhile, images of my president screamed "not-doing-my-homework," "playing Monopoly with your life," "Enron presidency."

Following Al Gore's defeat in 2000, I genuinely thought this is America, how much difference is one man going to make? I was wrong.

And that's when I started wanting Hillary Clinton for president. She reminded me of what I knew of Harry Truman. I was sick of charisma, likability, misguided family values, mission accomplished, and men who had been in the Deke fraternity in college. I wanted smart, plain-speaking, dedicated, earnest, curious, experienced, ready for physical labor if necessary. I wanted not just any woman, I wanted this exceptional woman.

The mess that President George W. Bush leaves behind feels peculiarly like a mess made by a child. I think the clean-up job calls for my dream -- the dream that dare not speak its name.

Suzanne O'Malley is a lecturer at Yale University, the author of Are You There Alone?: The Unspeakable Crime of Andrea Yates, and producer of the documentary Unborn in the USA: Inside the War on Abortion.

Comments

[OtayPanky]

The deeper issue is: is it morally right and/or philosophically mature to support someone because of their gender, their race or their religion?

Of course, people do it all the time - not just in the US - but around the world (where they actually CAN vote).

But that kind of thinking is VESTIGAL - a leftover from our mammalian brain, where us monkeys over here fight in perpetuity with those monkeys on the other side of the river (See Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odessey).

If you support Hillary should support her for one reason only: because you think she's the best PERSON for the job...and will lead the country (and the world) most ably.

Ditto if you're a supporter of Obama...or Edwards...or any of the repub candidates.

These other motivations - fueled by an affirmative action mentality - are absolutely inappropriate in this context. We're not trying to give a disenfranchised kid a break here, but trying to elect the most powerful person in the entire world.

[GoodbyeKitty]

of course you can have a dream. but fair warning; Sometimes dreams turn into nightmares. just ask most Bush supporters!

[yankeezog]

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think Suzanne makes a good point. When Obama won Iowa, the papers were ablaze with the news that he was the first black man to win a major caucus/primary. But when Hillary won New Hampshire, I didn't hear anything about her being the first woman to win a major primary. We may have different dreams, but kudos to Suzanne for pointing this out.

[kellygrrrl]

I have a dream.
I dare to dream that in every future election We the People will have a wide variety of excellent HUMANS from which to choose our President.
I have a dream that Race, Gender and Religion will be a non-issue by the time my grandchildren enter the voting booth.

[OtayPanky]

I too dream that we can elect a black person or a woman POTUS.

But that never made me a fan of Al Sharpton. And it doesn't make me a fan of Hillary Clinton, either.

I'm holding out for a black person - and a woman - who displays CHARACTER first, and then COMPETENCE - and also has my kinds of positions on the big issues of the day.

Right now, I deem Hillary a failure on the CHARACTER count - for reasons that have been enumerated MANY times, by MANY people.

There is a legitimate question about Barack Obama's COMPETENCE, because of his brief stint in national politics.

But I'd much rather roll the dice with someone who's character is proven, and who's competence is still questionable - a Lincolnesque decision - than go with someone who's character is less than sterling, and claims a level of competence that isn't matched by her record as an executive or a legislator.

[Inkognegro]

I need someone to Call up the family of Medgar Evers and tell him that he died in vain because Black men had the right to vote way back in 1870.

And after that, you can call the families of Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney.

It is really hard to take seriously people who don't have even a casual grasp of American History.

[not one of the sheep]

Hello! That was the Clinton Machine that investigated (and is still spinning) every nook and cranny of Obama. If Clinton wants to be president, do it on where she stands on the issues. Problem is, since everyone is playing softball with her and keeping her honest, you really don't know where she stands on any issue. Depends on the day and how the political winds are blowing. Sound like someone else we know?

[Ides]

When the media swooned at a woman Speaker of the House, it brought pride. When the media recited the predestined Democratic front-runnership of Hillary Clinton, it brought expectations. When the media turned on Hillary Clinton, it probably shattered that growing sense of entitlement.

The trick is, that entitlement never existed. It was only a "sense." Being black or a woman in no way means it's your turn, and simply being a "good enough" president not to screw up as much as the last guy does not make you the right president for the time.

Consistently Hillary has pilloried Bush's competence but not his policy. Bush is not wrong-headed, he's simply dull-witted, she says. William Kristol is an exceedingly intelligent man, and a neocon, so would he be a better choice for president than George W. Bush, or is the problem perhaps not in capacity but in direction? Driving a Ferrari can get you somewhere fast, but if you drive it off a cliff you might as well have a bicycle.

Harry Truman was a man who got down to work and that makes him your kind of president. Hillary Clinton reminds you quite a bit of Harry Truman. That's nice. Harry Truman firebombed Japan into the ground and, when Japan offered terms of surrender, he told them to go jump, dropped two atomic bombs on their heads, and then allowed them to surrender. All because he wanted to scare Stalin.

The echoing legacy of Truman's cold-blooded calculation and anti-humanist methods rang in the minds of men like Dwight D. Eisenhower and Robert McNamara, who weren't exactly the nicest guys in the world but recognized a bastard when they saw one.

Come to think of it, Hillary Clinton reminds me a lot of Truman. And that scares the hell out of me and a lot of other Progressives.

[LeeFromVA]

I have a dream too, Suzanne. My dream is not that a black man becomes president. My dream is that Barack Obama becomes president. I was encouraged that this primary seemed to transcend race and gender, but people like you want to make it about gender (or others about race). Hillary can't win without the gender-card, but Obama never plays the race-card.

[Bulbul]

Hope your dream comes true. I also have a dream of a President someone, who works very hard, strengh to fight and is smart among other things. To me Race, Gender or Ethnicity is a non issue. So I hope both of our dreams comes true ! I believe in Hillary R. Clinton.

[RAVEN13]

Oh, excuse me, if Sen. Clinton had used her
position once elected as one from which just to
"profile herself and profit" and been an all
around screw up would she have been re-elected
to the senate? Both Democrats and Republicans
have acknowledged her hard work in the senate
across partylines. It is unfortunate that those
who support Sen. Obama would feel comfortable
resorting to divisive tactics to gain an"edge."
Jessie Jackson Jr. commented on Hardball: "she
didn't cry over Katrina...". Is this what we
need? The MSM refusing to acknowledge for the
millions of young women, including my own
daughter and granddaughters that yes they too
could dream and overcome great odds, that Sen.
Clinton' NH victory represents in our nation's
historical context. Yes, we still have a long
way to go and we can disagree with one another
without being direspectful.

[beckmart]

Great post! This is exactly what I was hoping someone would write. Historically women come second to men (enfranchisement, civil rights/women's liberation movement) and I want this pattern to change. Thanks.

[LeeFromVA]

Suzanne, if you want to cast your vote in favor of your gender, I see nothing wrong with that. But your position seems to be that you somehow are not allowed to feel that way and that Barack Obama has been going around claiming that he'll fulfill MLK's dream. From my experience, I've never heard him say anything like that. He never plays the race card. On the other hand, Hillary takes great pleasure in playing the gender-card. Most recently in the debate where she blatantly said that electing a woman would be real change in itself. She's clearly making an appeal for her gender to support her as the first woman president. You are trying to change the dialog into "if Hillary loses it's because men won't let her be president." Her strategy is to win by saying she can't win because of sexism. There seems to be a pattern with Hillary, beyond the fact that she reinvents herself constantly and will say anything to win, she also likes to play the role of victim. Whenever things don't go her way it's because the boys are picking on me, or caucauses are unfair, or the vast right wing conspiracy is out to get me. It's hard for me to swallow the contridictions. Sexism is against her, but she uses it to her advantage. She slings mud like nobody's business, but everyone is piling up on her. She's tough as nails, but not above showing emotions when it seems to gain sympathy. I have a dream too, Suzanne. My dream is not that a black man becomes president. My dream is that Barack Obama becomes president. I was encouraged that this race seemed to transcend race and gender, but people like you want to make it about gender (or others about race). Obama is a breath of fresh air, and he is above all this mess. He will win because he has the right message. The same one he started with. He doesn't need a poll to tell him what to say.

[urbanrevolt]

Strange... When 2000 happened, you were moved for Hillary? 'Cause Gore and Hillary are so linked?

I imagne you'll be interested in Gore's Endorsement... Do you think it's be Clinton?

[Lon]

This post is a bit puzzling. Who exactly is stopping you from talking about having the first woman president? It happens to be the case that Hilary Clinton is the frontrunner for the presidency because she is married to a fromer president and so brings with her most of the party apparatus from earlier runs. Because of this she is treated as the establishment candidate. But that is because she is the establishment candidate.

The CNN delegate count gives Clinton a huge lead, it just happens not to be in places in which people have voted. But the establishment gets a certain number of delegates outside of the actual primary results, and Clinton has a huge edge there.

So if you are objecting to Clinton being treated as the establishment candidate, that does not seem to be much of a complaint.