Is Hillary Clinton set to quit? Misogyny is stronger than racism?

[Sifjar]

Is Hillary Clinton set to quit? Misogyny is stronger than racism?

Last night’s Drudge Report included a breaking newsflash that seems to indicate that Hillary Clinton, for so long the favourite to take the Democratic nomination for president of the United States, may well be on the verge of dropping out of the race for the White House.
The general mood in the media seems to be that Hillary is close to cracking under the strain.
An incredible surge of support behind Barack Obama has led to a division in the Clinton camp over how much further she should go before calling it a day (having seen the results at Polokwane, nothing surprises me any more).
Is this a case, as suggested by David Aaronovitch in today’s Times of London, of misogyny being stronger than racism? Or is it something far more enlightened?
Dare I suggest that it’s the latter and that we are we seeing the emergence of “vertical” or “post-partisan politics” in the US? The electorate, sick of choosing the wrapping, now wants to see what’s in the gift before giving it the stamp of approval; the wrapping being the party and each gift represented by a candidate made up of the aggregate of his or her views.
In the Republican race we saw Mike Huckabee edge the Iowa caucus — Huck, being the most “indigent” of the candidates, has rocked the GOPs with what he has styled “vertical politics”.
Perry Bacon Jnr in the Washington Post quotes him as follows:

“People are tired of horizontal politics, left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrats-Republicans, screaming, yelling,” former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee told a crowd in Ames, Iowa this week. “Most people in America are not looking for a horizontal candidate but a vertical one.”
“Ultimately, people don’t care whether an issue comes from the left or the right,” Huckabee writes on his website. “What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It’s what I call vertical politics.”

While I seriously doubt that Huckabee can sustain his drive all the way to a GOP nomination at the primary, his refreshing approach is having an impact — and therein lies a lesson for the candidates: endless spinning of the party line can be dangerous to your political health.
Far more telling, in real terms, is the arrival of Barack Obama and his post-partisan politics.
While there is no doubting that his boyish charm, sincerity and fresh approach has struck a chord among Democratic voters, his appeal to independent and even Republican voters may well be sending the first African-American (yeah, yeah, I know — don’t split hairs about his parentage) to the White House.
Critical is the fact that the lines between left and right, which have been blurring for a while, now appear to be breaking down.
Where in the past we saw Republicans as interventionist, anti-abortion and anti-gay rights, now we see Rudi Giuliani who is openly pro-abortion and pro-gay rights being endorsed by, of all people, evangelist Pat Robertson. Expedience? Maybe, but it does make him far more acceptable to Democratic voters.
When Democrats were isolationists we saw them voting in droves to invade Iraq — caught up in 9/11, as they were, it is understandable, but it also indicates that the times dictate that it is no longer possible simply to follow the standard party line. Democrats may become interventionists and Republicans deny that they wanted to invade Iraq, as instant polls demand shifts in policy to suit the manic mood swings of the American electorate.
Politicians are having to break from conventional party lines to select policies, from a smorgasbord of issues, that best suit them individually. Thus we may find a Republican with many Democratic views or, as Huckabee puts it, vertical politics.
The result is that there is a confluence between left- and right-wing politics, leaving voters to lean towards personalities rather than following the party.
In Britain this is even more marked — New Labour looks more like the Conservatives than the Tories. David Cameron has now gone about trying to New Labour the Tories into power — if you can make any sense of that.
Yet something vertical is starting to emerge there as well. Where Tony Blair of the boyish charm walked water, Gordon Brown of the aloof, moody disposition is alienating friends fast. With left and right so close together right now, it is the personality of the individual rather than the party that is holding sway.
Perhaps this is why Jacob Zuma, ostensibly from the left, overcame a more centrist yet aloof President Mbeki at Polokwane. People want to feel their leader and hug him close rather than be advised that he has our best interests at heart.
You might want to keep an eye out for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats who are starting to make their presence felt — his confirmation that he does not believe in God has been a resounding success and seems to be a break with tradition.
While Tony Blair admitted that if you mentioned religion in politics people thought you were a nutter, it seemed to be an unwritten law that you did believe in God even if you never mentioned it.
No more.
Are we seeing the move towards the centre or a crossing of party lines heralding a paradigm shift in politics, with personality and individual policy preferences trumping party loyalties?
Perhaps — or maybe the emergence of China and Russia, along with the credit crunch, terrorism and the fight for vital resources, could force the hand of any occupant of the White House simply to follow (give or take a comma here and there) the path of his predecessor, in which case it’s back to the spinning board.
Whichever way it goes, we won’t be bored.
Related Posts

• No, Mr Zuma, the media are not out of touch with reality ...
• Bizarro world and the problem of the parallel universes
• What do you mean you don\'t \'get\' South African politics?
• Mine\'s bigger than yours -- for now, anyway
• The spectre of militarisation that haunts the US

This entry was posted on Monday, January 7th, 2008 at 9:25 pm and is filed under News & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 Responses to “Is Hillary Clinton set to quit? Misogyny is stronger than racism?”

America has been running on ’star quality’ or wrapping for decades. It is why they are where they are now. Chickens come home to roost and all that.
Obama is perhaps more than a wrapper but has to wrap to be elected. It has become the American way. But the commentators will wrap and wrap and wrap and the confusion they create will be bloody dangerous for Obama if he is the former. If he is the latter then he is bloody dangerous for us. Bloody is clearly not a swear word in this post so we must watch him critically and recognise that most American commentators do not know the difference between propaganda and journalism.
America is losing its innocence while those who have looked towards it are feeling foolish. The era of the champion is gone.
Good!


MidaFo on January 8th, 2008 at 11:01 am


Obama has reconstructed himself to fit the persona of what the American public perceives to be the ideal ‘african’ leader…the question of identity is very much at the heart of American politics and the political drama that oozes from the machinations of the various lobbies is a reflection more of power politics than policy…body language counts for most of it - how do they propose war? through the financial system of the military? blah blah etc etc
in other news:
be like mike
be like mike
be like mike


Khadija Sharife on January 8th, 2008 at 12:51 pm


You might be interested in reading Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore (MichaelMoore.com : Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore) where he looks at the various candidates and discusses his love affair gone sour with Hillary.


Bev Clark on January 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm


Hi Michael,
The last time i posted on your blog about Obama (your very first blog about him), I was mentioning how he is a remarkable individual who is set on making history in American politics. Back then he was behind Hillary in Iowa polls, other early states and badly behind on national polls. Well now things are so different that I believe he will go all the way to win the nomination, after his Iowa victory and assured win in New Hampshire today.
The media back then, had no clue of what was happening on the ground. One could tell just from his blogs in his website (barackobama.com) that a huge change was on its way. He is genuine and his message cuts across the race and class spectrum. You can help but be moved by his character and message. The last time I remember feeling good about a politician like this, was during Mandela’s presidency. Older people who lived to see JF Kennedy and ML King, feel that he is very comparable to them.
I feel sorry for Hillary, she is going against a man with a formidable character and message. I started off rooting for her but now I am BARACKED!


Kendy on January 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm


[…] Is Hillary Clinton on the way out - Misogyny stronger than racism?. With Hillary seemingly in big trouble we looked at a number of issues : Is Misogyny stronger than racism (suggested in the Times of London) or is it something else? We believe that the "vertical politics" of Mike Huckabee or the "post-partisan-politics" of Barack may be playing a big part in what is unfolding. Because left and right are not as clear as they once were the personalities of the candidates are playing a far bigger role than they once did. Circumstances may well negate this for the future but in 2008 they are playing a big part. Thought Leader


Is Hillary Clinton on the way out - Misogyny stronger than racism?. - World Affairs Board on January 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm


If there’s one thing you need to know about both Clintons it is that neither of them are phonies.
Neither of them are shallow.
Bill Clinton was arguably the best President the United States has had in recent history.
Clinton is a veteran. If she’s taking strain, it’s not unexpected. She won’t crack and just bow out. To even think that she would, shows that you, Trapido, have a shallow understanding of American politics.
As much as Obama is stirring things up, he lacks the political depth to be elected POTUS (President Of The United States).
Even if he were to serve as Vice President to Clinton, I am unsure that would be sufficient to secure him the Presidency in 8 years time.
He’s too young, and too black to be elected by white America.
If there’s one thing that white people fear the most, the world over, it is being ruled by a black person.


Richard Catto on January 9th, 2008 at 3:36 am


Clinton defies polls to win New Hampshire :
Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire, defying polls - Times Online


Michael Trapido on January 9th, 2008 at 7:38 am


Who do analysts always have to over-complicate a simple matter. However, now that Clinton has won, i don’t even think the ‘real’ analysts will be having a viable answer. Even i’m scratching my head, and i’m freakin brilliant.


Liansky on January 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm


When I joined our post-apartheid government as a public servant, I discovered that women - white women, obviously - had never progressed in the old Nat government beyond Deputy Director level, ie they never became part of ’senior management’. With the advent of democratic government and the appointment of blacks and women to senior positions, we picked up a strong feeling from the old white male guard that they preferred to be ruled by a male of any colour rather than by a woman of any colour. So, misogyny ruled. Whether they still feel that way (those that are left), I don’t know. But here’s a thing too. One of my subordinates, a black male clerk, told me with a straight face, that he found it very difficult taking instructions from a woman (his immediate supervisor was a black woman). Misogyny rules again. I would guess that the same might well apply in the States. In other words, having a woman president might be a much greater breakthrough than having one who was black and male. We’ll see. Whoever wins for the Democrats still has to beat the Republicans. And they’re all white males.

She's a shallow and bloody crap and just want to win the elections

[Weltschmerz]

Would you trust Hillary Clinton?

[Galaico]

I'm quite sure most Americans would prefer to vote to a woman than to a black man.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Galaico

I'm quite sure most Americans would prefer to vote to a woman than to a black man.

I don't know, American women can be pretty awful, especially politicized women of Hillary Clinton's age. They cannot escape the schoolyard "boys versus girls" mentality they've been living for forty years.

If I were American I'd prefer Obama to Hillary.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Errigal

I don't know, American women can be pretty awful, especially politicized women of Hillary Clinton's age. They cannot escape the schoolyard "boys versus girls" mentality they've been living for forty years.

And let's think that she is convinced to be the "future"! Western democracies have had enough with feminists.

Originally Posted by Errigal

If I were American I'd prefer Obama to Hillary.

So do I.

[Marcus Marulus]

False dilemma. They are both scum.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Marulus

False dilemma.

Right. If you don't vote Hillary Clinton, you are misogenous. If you don't vote Obama, you are a racist.

They are both scum.

It should go without saying that it bears no relation with one being a woman and the other being Black.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Right. If you don't vote Hillary Clinton, you are misogenous. If you don't vote Obama, you are a racist.
It should go without saying that it bears no relation with one being a woman and the other being Black.

The ridiculous thing, of course, is that her femininity and his part African-ness are the real reason they were pushed to the top of their party's list of candidates. Over the last twenty years or so the Democratic Party has built itself almost exclusively around feminism and advocacy for racial minorities. Obama versus Hillary is the result.

Obama seems to be more popular with White "liberals" (the American term for social democrats and socialists) than with politically active Blacks. For Blacks he is a cultural outsider while to White "liberals" he is the Mocha Messiah they have been awaiting for more than one hundred years. Finally, they have the "Magic Negro" who matches their image of what a Black man should be, rather than what Black men generally are in reality.

The White Democrats are not so much voting for Obama himself, as voting in favour of other Black men in America becoming more like Obama. They are voting for hope over experience, as the saying goes.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Errigal

The ridiculous thing, of course, is that her femininity

Hillary is a woman?

Originally Posted by Errigal

and his part African-ness are the real reason they were pushed to the top of their party's list of candidates. Over the last twenty years or so the Democratic Party has built itself almost exclusively around feminism and advocacy for racial minorities. Obama versus Hillary is the result.

You mean quotas and such...

Originally Posted by Errigal

Obama seems to be more popular with White "liberals" (the American term for social democrats and socialists) than with politically active Blacks. For Blacks he is a cultural outsider while to White "liberals" he is the Mocha Messiah they have been awaiting for more than one hundred years. Finally, they have the "Magic Negro" who matches their image of what a Black man should be, rather than what Black men generally are in reality.

Maybe his being a mulatto plays some role here too? Uniting (finally) the White and the Black America? The first step having been Condoleezza.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Hillary is a woman?

Well if Obama being half-African is all it takes, then Hillary being half-feminine should work too.

Originally Posted by Marulus

You mean quotas and such...

Yes, the Democrats have degenerated into almost exclusively that when it comes to domestic policy. In the days of Carter, Johnson and Kennedy they had a much broader social democratic agenda and a stronger alliance with trade unions (which were themselves much more powerful twenty years ago).

Originally Posted by Marulus

Maybe his being a mulatto plays some role here too? Uniting (finally) the White and the Black America? The first step having been Condoleezza.

They do seem to like for the first "Black" person to hold an important job to have a lot of cream in their coffee. Colin Powell is another example:



And the first Black Supreme Court Justice. Thurgood Marshall

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Errigal

The ridiculous thing, of course, is that her femininity and his part African-ness are the real reason they were pushed to the top of their party's list of candidates. Over the last twenty years or so the Democratic Party has built itself almost exclusively around feminism and advocacy for racial minorities. Obama versus Hillary is the result.

And yet I bet there are plenty of people out there arguing: "What do you mean? Why can't a woman or a black be president?" When it comes down to so much more than that. Americans have been complaining for long now about affirmative action, so people who don't get the symbolism of the democrat candidature just won't see it.

Originally Posted by Errigal

Obama seems to be more popular with White "liberals" (the American term for social democrats and socialists) than with politically active Blacks. For Blacks he is a cultural outsider while to White "liberals" he is the Mocha Messiah they have been awaiting for more than one hundred years. Finally, they have the "Magic Negro" who matches their image of what a Black man should be, rather than what Black men generally are in reality.

The White Democrats are not so much voting for Obama himself, as voting in favour of other Black men in America becoming more like Obama. They are voting for hope over experience, as the saying goes.

Yeah, exactly. His father is black while his mother is white. It's even possible (probable or obvious?) that they think a mulatto is better suited because people would be more reluctant with a respectable black gentleman.

EDIT: Errigal just posted pictures of previous almost black hot shots: Colin Powell and Thurgood Marshall

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Seekers

And yet I bet there are plenty of people out there arguing: "What do you mean? Why can't a woman or a black be president?" When it comes down to so much more than that. Americans have been complaining for long now about affirmative action, so people who don't get the symbolism of the democrat candidature just won't see it.
...

It is a kind of doublethink. Liberal Democrats in America are so entranced by Obama's race and Clinton's gender that they cannot see the two candidates almost total lack of qualifications to be president. The doublethink comes into play when these advocates then turn around to the rest of us and demand we judge Obama and Clinton on their qualifications and not on their race or gender.