For various reasons, the defeat of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination is being cast as a defeat for women: an Oval Office glass ceiling. Indeed there may have been voters who could not have supported a woman for president but I imagine her gender was more of an asset than a liability–not to mention her Clinton brand prior to its tarnish. Her defeat for the presidential nomination was due to her policies, racism and utter lack of ethical compass, not to mention an amateurish bunch of campaign managers who ignored caucus states as the pledged delegate pool mounted for Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois.
I have voted for several women for president over the years from Angela Davis to Shirley Chisholm and rooted for Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder. Hillary Clinton, however, is the least qualified of any woman candidate I have seen campaign for the presidency. She is a warmonger which means she relishes and enjoys sending young Americans to die for the hyperpower and kill innocents abroad. Her cynical vote for the Iraq War and threat to wipe Iran off the map through a nuclear exchange are beneath contempt. This is emblematic of a violent woman whose hatred of Muslims and those who dare resist Isreali apartheid and extermination is out of control. To think that the Democratic Party would nominate its second prowar candidate since the inception of the Iraq War would utterly eviscerate the party and render it as indistinguishable from its duopolistic Republican brethren (sisters too).
The racism of Hillary Clinton is similar to the racist motif of Harry Dent’s Southern Strategy and its refinement with Lee Atwater during the Reagan Era appeal to lower income, rural white voters. Senator Clinton’s appeal to superdelegates to vote for her because she appeals to working-class whites is racist and abominable. To claim, through her husband, that Senator Obama’s victory in South Carolina was due only to race and that his candidacy was racially focused as that of Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson was racist. The constant gratuitous repetition in the debates that Senator Obama was the “African-American candidate” and she was the “woman” candidate I think was a trick to highlight his blackness to drive white voters away. It was not a celebration of diversity but a ruse to sharpen the fact that a white-establishment conservative woman as president could protect children at 3:00 in the morning but a young, humanistic, Afro-American male could not. I think the 3:00 A.M. politcial advertisement that ran in Texas and elsewhere was racist. She deserves not our sympathy for her defeat but this unscrupulous multi-millionaire merits our condemnation for her anything-to-get-elected strategy.
Her foreign policy is identical to Senator John McCain, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee: narrow nationalism over international peace and security; mass murder through American nuclear bombast and not denuclearisation; a vote for the Iraq War; the preference to use American military power over diplomacy and constructive engagement.
My only hope is that Senator Obama will not invite this failed, cyncial, amoral and imperialistic senator to run as vice president. I simply could not vote for an individual who has never apologised much less conceded the outrage of having voted “with conviction” in October 2002 to destroy and desiccate a little country in the Middle East–Iraq. Shame on her and may the New York senator finally disappear from the nation’s headlines and news and perhaps atone for her immorality and lack of respect for non-white peoples from presidential candidates to Muslim people striving to be free from the yoke of Western colonialism and apartheid.
Nota bene: Even N.A.R.A.L. Pro-Choice America , the leading women’s organisation in the country, that is not blinded by narrow gender politics (pace N.O.W.), endorsed Senator Obama because of his consistent support for women’s reproductive freedoms including the right not to have children. One could hardly claim that N.A.R.A.L. is sexist or anti-woman.