What Makes a Feminist Support Obama?

I’ve seen editorials and talked to people who seem to think that women who support Obama, particularly women who brand themselves as Feminists, aren’t doing their duty to feminism. Last I checked, we were going for equality, not superiority – and that means supporting the best human for any job regardless of gender. I’m tired of feeling like I need to defend my right to vote for a man when there’s a competent woman also running.

Hillary Clinton is nothing if not competent. I do like her as a candidate, and I’ve been saying for months that if she does secure the party nomination, I will be thrilled to vote for her and see a woman hold the highest position of power in our country.

For almost everything, Clinton’s politics are very similar to the stances taken by Obama, so I’m not terribly worried that she wouldn’t represent my point of view. Both candidates support health care initiatives, negative stances on Iraq and other similar views on all of “The Issues” that the media has chosen to make important this year. Nothing either candidate does on any of these issues will be a carbon copy of their campaign promises once they go through all of the hurdles involved in passing actual legislation, so I don’t think that making a choice based on minute differences is terribly valid. Both candidates have viewpoints that leave me comfortable with them making decisions on all of these issues without swaying too far from the beliefs I share, so the issues are less of a concern to me than they might have been with different candidates.

I have gotten a bit wary of Clinton in the past month or so, as she begins throwing out attacks and subtly threatens to start a fight over delegates in Michigan and Florida that could eventually be damaging to our party, but that’s not why I chose to vote for Obama. The following is a list of reasons why I ultimately decided to vote “change” over “experience.” Some of the reasons are perhaps better than others, but no one reason was THE deciding factor.

1. Obama says things like his statement in last weeks debate, “Now we’re getting into the silly season of politics.” Not only does the phrase “silly season” make me laugh, it also brings to light a very important part of the Obama campaign that I was interested to see: he’s not afraid to point out that some of the things that go on in politics are just. plain. stupid. At this point in elections, the real mud slinging starts, the “gloves come off.” And most of the arguments made are just, well, silly. Having a candidate who’s willing to say, “Yeah the things that go on at this point are just silly” rather than trying to justify them as valid campaigning is refreshing.
2. Our country is becoming stagnant. Four years of a Bush, followed by eight years of a Clinton, then eight years with the Bushes again…do we really want to let two political family dynasties control our government for at least 24 years by electing another Clinton? I think it’s time to bring some new faces into the picture. Yes, that’s somewhat unfair to Hillary, the concept of not voting for her because she happens to be part of a family that’s been in political control recently. But it’s not terribly fair to the citizens to let a small number of political viewpoints take over the government for decades, either. Thank god we don’t have Jeb Bush potentially running against Hillary; we’d never escape.
3. I see Obama’s youth and new-ness to politics as an asset. It’s not as if Obama is going to chose an equally inexperienced panel of advisers, so he’ll be surrounded by some of the top minds and levels of experience in the country (the people I think are likely to fill an Obama cabinet is a topic for another post). Other than that, the power of what can be accomplished when you haven’t spent decades hearing people say “It can’t be done” is a pretty amazing thing. Generally, things CAN be done if you’re willing to work on them rather than sitting around griping that they can’t be. The giant political machines haven’t had the chance to roll him up and beat him down – which is something we need right now. A leader who isn’t afraid to stand up and say that he believes the corrupted political system can be changed, despite what long-standing politicians entrenched in that system have to say. A likable, inspiring leader who is both smart and backed by a talented and knowledgeable team is not a bad thing!

   In contrast, while I respect and like Clinton, a lot of people do not. I think that her presidency would be characterized by many people and politicians trying to roadblock her, prove that she is a terrible president by not allowing her to accomplish anything, or just plain refusing to “play” with her. While she may have many of the same goals and ideals as Obama, I think it will be much, much more difficult for her to accomplish them because of her history in Washington.

4. My reasons aren’t all based on character. Obama also seems to have what it takes to get things accomplished. This blog post that examines the senate careers of both candidates saves me the effort of researching and writing it all out, but when it comes down to talking about substance vs. rhetoric I think Obama’s got Clinton on both counts. Clinton’s bills are mostly geared towards children and health – both important topics, but the presidency requires a bit more scope than that. Not only has Obama written more bills on a larger variety of subjects, he’s gotten more cosponsors from both sides of the senate, and he’s gotten more bills passed. Obama’s not just claiming he can get people to work together; he’s worked together with other senators on much of the legislation he’s proposed since entering the senate. Most of Clinton’s bills during her equally-long tenure as a senator have not had cosponsors, and have not been passed. Further, the bills that Obama has written seem to have attacked his goals with more straightforward solutions that I think stand a better chance of accomplishing something. As an example, a direct quote from the blog post I’ve linked above:
   

   Her bill dealing with the crisis in foreclosure is actually S.2114 : “A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers, and for other purposes.” Again, no co-sponsors. Obama also introduced a bill in the face of the mortgage foreclosure crisis: S.1222 : “A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes.” Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007), co-sponsored by Dick Durbin.

   In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she’s fighting to stop foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually, Clinton is calling for “enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation”, while Obama’s bill will “stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development.” After looking at the two bills, Obama’s appears to be tougher, more directly addressing the problem.

5. He’s committed to using technology to solve problems. This link will open a PDF containing a 9-page fact sheet that details Obama’s plans, including the diversification of media outlets and maintenance of open internet so that information can’t be quieted, reforming our patent law to be relevant in today’s world, using technology to solve problems from education to our environment to public health, boosting technology education, and opening government to citizen oversight and participation through the internet and other mediums.
6. Obama has a concrete plan for exposing government workings to citizens. It’s harder for corruption to flourish with sunlight streaming in, and one of Obama’s great goals is to bring an unprecedented transparency to our government. One way he plans to do this is by bringing our government up to date in the world of technology, as described above. Too long, our government has been operating behind closed doors and against the beliefs of many citizens. As the refrain goes, “We’ve got the power” but we need to use it. Not only does Obama speak loudly about getting citizens involved in the government, he has a detailed plan for doing so and both the history of working for bipartisan agreement in the senate as well as a drive to keep bringing people together. We’ve heard the “uniter, not a divider” line before but I think that Obama has a much better chance of moving us forward on a single path.
7. Leadership. One of the first things candidates must do when they run for office is assemble a team of advisers and strategists to run their campaigns. Once these people have been picked, the candidate herself remains their leader with a final say on how the campaign operates (and if they’re not pleased, they can do as Clinton has recently done and replace advisers who are no longer working out). How well that campaign runs is sort of a litmus test of leadership skills – how well is it organized? What decisions does the campaign make? Does it spend money wisely? Increasingly, it looks like Obama has been much more competent in managing and organizing his campaign – whether that means making the decisions himself, or picking to right people to act in his name. Who’s ready to lead on the first day? I think the candidate who has a well-run campaign is well on his or her way. The following two pieces in the New York Times explore the organization in both campaigns, and the differing leadership styles that have lead to Obama’s soaring overtake in the past 11 state primaries. One, an op-ed: The Audacity of Hopelessness. The other, a news piece; Knocked Off Balance, Clinton Campaign Tries to Regain Its Stride. Through the organization of his own campaign, I believe Obama has shown himself to be better at leading a team of staffers, better at diving in to work hard no matter how much of a lead he thinks he might have, better at anticipating the organization needed and better and moving quickly to change tactics if necessary. This shows that he has the power to lead.
8. Organization. Not only does Obama have a well-led campaign, he has the grassroots involvement that he’s claiming as an important part of his ideal political process. I’ve posted the following quote on this blog before, but I think it’s worth reiterating. Matthew Yglesias wrote in a blog post for The Atlantic:
   

   I think the manner of Barack Obama’s win is pretty impressive. I can’t be the only one who was a bit inclined toward a cynical roll of the eyes at the idea of winning on the back of unprecedented turnout, mobilizing new voters, brining (sic) in young people, etc. That sounds like the kind of thing that people say they’re going to do but never deliver on. But he did deliver. That’s impressive.

   Not only is Obama getting up on his stump and promising change through citizen involvement, he’s actually managed to get huge numbers of citizens involved. His support and campaigning is very much coming from volunteers and people who are involved that quite possibly wouldn’t have been if they didn’t believe in this campaign. We’re not a handful of idealistic and naive youth: we’re almost 1 million people* who have made individual contributions to the campaign raising more money for Obama than Clinton has managed. We’re people who are begging to be involved in our own governance, and who believe that with our help that can happen.

9. Inspiring inspiration. Obama actually started out as a legal representative for community organizers and voting rights, but decided to get involved in politics when he didn’t like what he saw. Many of us were introduced to Obama for the first time in 2004 when he made his landmark keynote address at the Democratic convention, but where was he before that? I found an interesting article profiling Obama back in 1995 when he decided to enter politics talking about what prompted him to get involved. It’s a long read, but I think an interesting perspective that speaks a lot to his goals and views. What Makes Obama Run?
10. Finally (you knew a list of reasons to support Obama was going to include this): hope. In many ways, like Michelle Obama mentioned in her now infamous speech last week, I don’t remember a time when I was unqualifiedly proud of our political system. I’ve seen people too discouraged to care about voting or getting their hopes up that something might change. I’ve talked to many people who believe that there’s a better way to do things, but we’d never be able to actually implement them. “There are a lot of things wrong, but I don’t see what I can do about them.” This is the American spirit? In Obama, and in his supporters, I do see a cry for something different. A belief in ourselves that we can make a difference. A leader who is willing to stand up and call for change while telling us that if there is to be change, it must come from the ground up. We must be involved in our own change. Then, to put the icing on the cake, he gets people up and mobilized in support of his campaign and the idea that “yes, WE can.” After so long of hearing that there’s nothing we can do about the government but grumble, it does seem audacious to believe otherwise. But the feeling is persistent. With someone who is as strong and devoted as the candidate I’ve described above…well, maybe there’s a bit more to hope for this time than “the lesser evil.” I’ll support that.

* adding a footnote: at the time of writing, we had less than 1 million unique donors to the Obama campaign. Later the same evening, we crossed the 1 million mark. More than 1 million individuals have spoken by donating their money to this campaign.