I finally got a chance to read Rebecca Traister's piece in Salon on Hillary Clinton and her "feminist" problem. It's really thought provoking and one that I think would be an excellent final exam in any women's studies & political science course. If I were teaching my students would find this article and one question: "What do you think?"

And here's what I think. I think that she's on to something. In today's political climate we may be unable to love a candidate with all of our heart. With the polarization that has occurred and the risk that is real, can we afford to NOT support a candidate because they don't support some key issues? Here are two examples:

1) Chicago is in Cook County and we have our county President up for election in November. A quick summary is this: 2 Dems ran in the primary. One (the incumbent Prez) had a stroke 1 week before the primary. His campaign & family led the public to believe he would be ok. The challenger was a pretty darn good progressive candidate with reform on the mind. The challenger lost, by a hair, and there were rumors about voter fraud. So after a few months of no one seeing the Prez, he resigns from his position & withdraws from the race. What happens next? His son is chosen by "The Party Machine" to fill his dad's spot on the ballot. This has angered many a voter, even those of us who are generally ok with the corruption that is Chicago politics. So what is a good progressive to do? Cindy Richards of the Sun-Times and who is an awesome feminist is voting for the anti-choice and anti-gay Republican candidate:

What would a Cook County government run by a Republican look like? It's hard to know. But it's possible it could employ far fewer people. And those it does employ might be there because they know how to run something other than a political machine.

I have voted for only a handful of Republicans, always on the state or national level, never on the local level. So this will be a first for me.

Am I troubled by Peraica's position on gays and abortion? Yes. Do I believe him when he says he won't mess with the status quo on either? I have to.

And, the sad reality is, even with a Democrat as board president, abortion was hardly big business at county hospitals. While pro-choice groups have endorsed Stroger because they fear what a county run by Peraica will mean for women's reproductive health, this is one time I have to say that abortion cannot be the only issue in this race. If the county doesn't get fixed, we may find ourselves living in a place that meets only the needs of the people who line their pockets with county cash.

Will I regret voting for Peraica? Again, it's impossible to know. Ask me again in four years when, I hope, I will have the option of voting for a qualified Democratic reformer to run this $3 billion county government in a way that serves the people rather than the political insiders.

<--snip-->

It's hard to believe that a Croatian immigrant who has served just one term as a county commissioner could do all that in so relatively little time. But, by all estimates, Peraica has proved to be smart, hardworking and attentive to details. In short, everything Stroger is not.

Stroger, whose only qualification for this office is that his daddy held the job before him, is running a dead heat against Peraica, according to the Tribune poll released Monday. Stroger polled 39 percent, Peraica polled 36 percent and Don't Know polled 22 percent. The margin of error of 5 percentage points makes it a virtual tie.

<--snip-->

We finally understand that we might have a choice and that it might a difference if someone other than the guy anointed in the back room deal is running the show.

Will I vote for Peraica? I doubt it. Will I vote for Stroger? I highly doubt it.

2) Next year Da Mayor & all of our aldermen (even the women are aldermen) are up for election. There's a pretty progressive woman running against a do-nothing alderman (yeah, hard to guess who specifically, huh?). I heard about her in maybe January. Went to one of her first meetings and thought that I might want to get involved. Then she went and backed a totally party-backed Congressional candidate against a real grassroots candidate. I was pissed. And hurt. And betrayed. How can a candidate say there are reformers and back a party anointed candidate? Well that goes to party politics and the need for the party if she's going to unseat an alderman whose been in that position forever.

Do I support this candidate? Yes. I totally understand why she made the decisions she made. When you're the David in a fight, you need all your friends. Do I worry about her not being reform enough due to having to scratch someone's back? Well, yes...Power corrupts and the path to power is full of corruption. But I think the good she can do for this city outweighs the bad she may do. I have to give her a chance. She can't be any worse than anyone else out there. And she's way better than anyone else out there.

And that brings us to Traister's conclusion:

Where women are now is a hell of a lot closer to political equity, or at least to the executive branch of government, than we've ever been before. That's good news. But it's painful, too. Fourteen years with Hillary Clinton has shown us exactly how much easier it is to hold fast to our politics when we're on the outside looking in. Get within striking distance of the center of power, we face a paralysis of political idealism: What do we give up to get inside? Do we have to bastardize our beliefs to do it? If Clinton is balancing her political ambitions with the principles that motivated her to enter politics in the first place, then perhaps she still does have something in common with feminists: We are balancing our ambitions for her, and ourselves, with the ideals that motivated us to first invest in her.

The reality is we are probably going to vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee, even if we have to hold our noses. Ephron told me she remains lukewarm on the former first lady, but added that "if she comes around on the war, I'm there. And if she gets the nomination, of course I'll vote for her. And I'll give her money. I'm a Democrat."

So maybe that's it. She's a Democrat. She's a woman. So she's not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.

Added: Allison Hantschel asks if she's a bad feminist for not supporting Hillary's run for President. I say no. But I do want to ask everyone who is pondering this question: Where were you when Carol Moseley Braun ran? Allison mentions Shirley Chisholm, but since then we've had Carol and Patricia run for President. We're not totally lacking, but Hillary's the best shot women have at taking the White House. I'm not saying I want her to be President ok? Just throwing out food for thought.

Labels: abortion, feminism, feministcard