×
TALKING CLINTON. I think Garance's controversial post on Hillary is a valuable contribution to this debate, and I'm really glad she wrote it. I don't find it particularly useful to argue whether I'm a sexist or not, so I'll leave that aside and let readers make their own judgments (Brian makes a good point here, though). I will say that Garance's read of the polling data is somewhat problematic, as not only is Hillary in first place among males aged 18-49, but the candidate I've been more favorable towards, Edwards, is in fourth. Some demographic solidarity! But what I think Garance's post makes helpfully explicit is the importance Hillary's supporters place on gender discrimination being the primary argument against her candidacy. It is much easier, after all, to argue that men shouldn't be sexist than it is to argue that Hillary Clinton should be president. But what about the affirmative argument? Why should Hillary Clinton be the progressive choice for president in 2008? That's what I'm not hearing. She's not saying elect me, because I will heal this nation's politics, as Obama is, or because she will fight for a sharply progressive vision of economic justice, as Edwards is. She has not pegged her candidacy to poverty or opposition to the Iraq War. No, it's "I'm in it, and I'm in it to win it." And Garance's posts have been similarly thin on actual support for her candidacy. Indeed, after volunteering to pen the "pro" side of the Hillary debate, she talked about why women should be able to run for president. I agree! But that's different than agreeing that Hillary Clinton would make for a better president than her competitors, or even a good president at all. I disagree with her foreign policy instincts, think her uniquely incapable of overcoming her history and passing comprehensive health care reform, am uncomfortable with dynastic politics, dislike her willingness to engage in cultural panders (against video games, flag burning, etc), and believe her an incrementalist at a time when progressives can get away with more. Garance has been unresponsive to these arguments, preferring to frame this debate as a question of gender. That's certainly safer ground for Hillary supporters, but it's not a particularly strong argument for why progressives should work to elevate Hillary Rodham Clinton to the presidency of the United States. And so much as Garance and others would like to keep the argument on safer grounds, that's what's actually at issue, and what Hillary's supporters seem singularly unwilling to discuss.
