Do I Follow My Sex or My Heart?

Signe Wilkinson, Philadelphia Daily News

Of course, I never thought that it would matter. For the longest time, I didn't bother following much about the Presidential campaign, because Pennsylvania's primary is so late that the nominee would be picked long before our April primary. That lasted for a while. However, I am a political junkie after all, so I started reading about and listening to the candidates. And for once, the contestant pool wasn't more of anti-Republican choice, but was comprised of an interesting group of viable options to consider.

Of course, none are perfect (big surprise), but they each have positive attributes that outweigh (for me, anyway), their negatives. When all was said and done, in the end I decided that John Edwards was the best choice. After all, I took a test & it told me that Edwards was the man for me (after Kucinich dropped out). See Match-the-Candidate.com. Then, of course, Edwards had to go & leave me in a lurch.

But again, I didn't think it much mattered, since I'm a PA girl, with a vote that doesn't count. Ha! Now we may be the deciders, as Dick Polman of the American Debate notes, The Bill Murray primaries. Who woulda thunk! As the resident political junkie among my friends and family, I often get asked my opinion on various political matters. Now that we are in play, my brother called my the other day to ask if I was supporting Hillary Clinton. When I waffled, he blasted me. How could I, of all people, aging hippie that I am, as well as a liberal feminist, not support the first woman for President? If I don't vote for Hillary, he continued, he doesn't want to hear any more moaning & groaning about the fact that women are still treated as less than men.

I'm definitely of an age that sexism impacted my life and career in big and little ways. I come from a very traditional family and "the women" didn't work or have careers. I was raised to get married, stay home & have a family and be part of the ladies who lunch. Somehow, I veered off track. Although my mother denies it today, when I told her that I was planning to go to law school, she said if I liked the law, I should marry a lawyer. And that wasn't a joke. When I went to law school in the late 70's, my male classmates were vocal in complaining that women were taking up spots that men deserved. Early in my career, I saw blatant discrimination against women lawyers. For example, the head of the litigation department (which I was a member of) at my firm used to loudly declare that a woman couldn't be a litigator -- women simply weren't tough enough -- they didn't have what it took. (Of course, we still had it better than black lawyers -- there weren't any.) Not that it doesn't still exist today -- it's just more underground. So, I definitely want to see that (those) barrier(s) broken. It's way past due.

No rationale person could deny that some of those sexist feelings are what is fueling the anti-Clinton forces. I think Robin Morgan of the Women's Media Center best sums up those sentiments in her essay, Goodbye To All That (#2). She certainly makes a compelling case for supporting Clinton. As Rosemary Dempsey, president of NOW's Connecticut chapter noted in the Wall Street Journal, Democratic Race Causes Feminist Rift: 'It's revolutionary that a woman is a serious candidate for president,' she said. 'Anyone involved in women's rights organizations who says it isn't a factor would be disingenuous.' On the other hand, it only goes so far. As the piece observed:

Ann Friedman, one of the editors of the blog Feministing and a deputy editor at the liberal American Prospect magazine, replies that few feminists will cast votes for a woman simply because of her gender. If a conservative woman were running against a man with a strong record on women's issues, "we wouldn't be having this debate," she said.

Since this is the enjoyable part of politics -- having an exciting campaign with a few good choices (as compared to the deadly dudlies on the GOP side), I have the luxury of playing it out for some time before I decide. First off, I went back to Match the Candidate (and a few other) quizzes, and tried again. What say they?

Mike Gravel -- 86%
Barack Obama -- 84%
Hillary Clinton -- 76%

Glassbooth - Match-the-Candidate

Mike Gravel -- 69%
Barack Obama -- 67%
Hillary Clinton -- 62%

Select a Candidate 2008

Barack Obama -- 8/2
Hillary Clinton -- 6/4

VoteChooser.com

So, without Edwards in the mix, this time (discounting Gravel), Obama favors Clinton slightly. Truthfully, there's not much difference in their positions on the major issues that I'm most concerned about. So how to decide?

For me, the worst aspect of a(nother) Clinton Presidency would be the return of the "Clintoncrats." My favorite philosopher, Steve Gimbel of Philosopher's Playground, provides the best discussion on this issue, in On Clintocracy. As he says:

The real question is what is the team, as a team, going to do for the country. In the case of the Clintons, we've already seen who the team is, how they work, and what happens when you let that team do what they do...and the results are not pretty.

Let me take you to a time far away. It was called the 90s. The Clinton team came into office and for the first part of their first year in office, they were Democrats. They did things like try to challenge institutions with histories of bigotry, like the military's explicit ban on gay and lesbian members. This was one of the last places where something like Jim Crow still existed, actual written rules designed to clearly and openly discriminate. They tried to tackle a health care system that was (and remains broken). And they got their heads handed to them.

As a result, they turned from Democrats into Clintoncrats. They decided that the key to all future action would be whatever served the interests of their team, not the interests of the Democratic party and not what served the interest of the American people.

See also, Hillary Clinton: The New Nixon?.

Obama favors Clinton as far as being able to inspire passion and enthusiasm, as noted in Can Do, which I think is an extremely important issue in this election. People have been so turned off of government that perhaps an Obama is what it takes to bring then back in to the process. Newsweek explored this emotional tug in When It’s Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins:

The fact that people have what is euphemistically called cognitive-processing limitations—most cannot or will not learn about and remember candidates' records or positions—means voters must substitute something else for that missing knowledge. What that something is has become a heated topic among scientists who study decision-making, and, of course, campaign strategists and pollsters. Some answers are clear, however. In general elections, a large fraction of voters use political party as that substitute, says psychologist Drew Westen of Emory University; some 60 percent typically choose a candidate solely or largely by party affiliation. The next criterion is candidates' positions on issues; single-issue voters in particular will never even consider a candidate they disagree with. In a primary, however, party affiliation is no help, since all of the choices belong to the same one. And parsing positions doesn't help much this year, especially in the Democratic race, where the policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are minute. "When voting your party doesn't apply, and when the candidates don't differ much on the issues, you have to choose on some other basis," says political scientist Richard Lau of Rutgers University, coauthor of the 2006 book "How Voters Decide." "That's when you get people voting by heuristics [cognitive shortcuts] and going with their gut, with who they most identify with, or with how the candidates make them feel." What has emerged from the volatile and unpredictable primary season so far is that the candidates who can make voters feel enthusiasm and empathy—and, perhaps paradoxically, anxiety—are going to make it to November and maybe beyond.

As I said after Edwards' departure in Good bye & Good Luck:

Of course, I do feel that both Clinton and Obama are more than qualified to be President and I could be happy supporting either one, so all is not lost. I attended an event several year's ago during which Hillary Clinton was the featured speaker and I must say that I was impressed by her poise and intelligence. Hillary gets pilloried more than she deserves. Also, Obama's inspirational message may be what the country needs at this low point, coming after the long reign of the Bush Administration. Yet, I still think that we may have missed out with losing Edwards.

In the end, I think Norm Jenson of Onegoodmove summed it up best, Onegoodmove Endorses:

There are good reasons to vote for Hillary, and there are good reasons to vote for Barack. I haven't decided who I'll vote for tomorrow and given my mixed feelings on the candidates I choose not to endorse either at this time. The campaign is still in its early stages and I don't think tomorrow will be decisive for either candidate. I may at a later date choose one or the other to officially endorse but not now. So flip your own damn coin tomorrow and make the choice you believe is the correct one. The real choice comes in November and that will be an easy one.

True, that.

UPDATE: OK, this post just wasn't long enough (my excuse is that I haven't written anything for almost a week). However, I wanted to include a reference to Michael Froomkin of Discourse.net, whose discussion on the notion the power to inspire is precisely the idea that I was trying to convey. That is, he explains that inspiring words are nice, but energizing people to action through those words is what counts. See Barack Obama, Ida Merriam, and the Power to Inspire.