> My wife has been complaining for months about how so many otherwise
> progressive women -- even those who consider themselves closet
> radicals -- are supporting Hillary simply because she's a woman. I've
> heard this off and on, but my wife says she hears it all the time.
> What sheer, inexcusable idiocy!
>
> In March, I was speaking to one of my good friends from college (a
> former rad student activist who appeared in Liza's Students Against
> Sweatshops book) at a wedding. She's been working for Hillary in
> Iowa. Why? First, "because I'm totally psyched about the idea of
> having a woman president." Second, "because they offered to give me
> more responsibility than [some of the other mainstream Dem.
> candidates]." To be polite, I told her that it sounded like a good
> professional move. But really! To call oneself a "progressive
> woman," much less a "radical woman" and support Hillary because she's
> also a woman? Lamest. Knee-jerk. Identity. Politics. Ever.
It is pretty idiotic. That's what we need right now, the American version of Margaret Thatcher.
But this is how most people think about politics. Do you challenge these beliefs? Ridicule them? Figure out a way to radicalize people who believe this bullshit?
I picked Clinton to win a few months ago. I don't think a scandal can even dislodge her at this point. The economic situation will be much worse a year from now and people will be disposed towards a change. If Giuliani gets nominated and focuses on terrorism, this will cinch the win for Hillary. A Bush attack on Iran will also cinch a win for Hillary. People out here in the Midwest are really pissed off about the war.
Chuck