Yes, while I think Bill Clinton may be just the answer (as chairman of the Democratic National Committee) to get the national party back on track, I am not as fond of his wife running for national office... and I'm not the only one.
First off, let me make it perfectly clear -- I think Hillary Clinton would make a great President (and that's not just in comparison to the one we're currently saddled with). She's obviously a compassionate intellectual who has plenty of governmental experience, and it wouldn't be a stretch for someone with her credentials to make a run for the Democratic nomination.
However, being qualified for the job of President and actually getting it are two entirely different animals (need I give you any examples?).
As an unfortunate citizen of a red state, I can tell you that Clinton is a highly polarizing figure. I've heard Republicans wish aloud that she would run, because they know they'd trounce her in the South.
Why is she such a polarizing figure? Well, for those of you who don't understand the dynamic here in the South, strong women are viewed nervously, and not just by men. I once remember my own mother telling me when I was quite young that she didn't think a woman could handle the job of President.
It's easy to see why men would be uneasy with Clinton; she's an independent, strong woman, and that's often feared by those full of testosterone. You'd have to assume she could do no better than the 44 percent of the male vote Kerry got. But you can't assume she would automatically get 75 percent of the female vote. Frankly, among Southern women, I believe the lines would break about like they did for the last election; as many who would be lured to vote for her because she's a female would be turned off by something else.
It's hard for those of us who admire Hillary Clinton to see what problem a female could have with her, but there are a few (counter-intuitive) reasons. Let's face the facts: in evangilical Christian teachings, women clearly have a place, and it's not as President. Females aren't pastors at the evangelical churches whose members drove this past election; do you really think they're going to anoint one President? On some level -- not always a conscious one -- women believe women have a place, and it's not as an outspoken politician.
When it comes right down to it, if the next election is another "values"-based referendum and the Democrats don't manage to level the values playing field, then women are likely to go vote in the same numbers as 2004 for that person they've been told is more moral. Just like blood is thicker than water, morals are thicker than allegiance to your gender.
Although Clinton is thought of as being from Arkansas, she actually grew up in the blue state of Illinois and now is a senator in another blue state. She would certainly be branded a "Northeastern liberal." Whether we like it or not, that label stirs hatred in some.
Not that I'm starting the primary campaign of John Edwards this early, but he's my early favorite for the 2008 nominee. I heard several conservative types comment that they wished he had been the nominee, and not the second man on the ticket. Some will point out that the ticket didn't even carry his home state this year, but with him as the nominee in 2008, there's a chance the Democrats could again make inroads into the South. If just a state or two in the South became competitive, it could change the dynamic of the race.
However, if Clinton decides she wants to run for the nomination, she's likely to get it, what with the connections she has inside the party. I just fear that a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton would be just one more Democratic sacrificial lamb on the national stage. At some point, we need more than a moral victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment