I'll give you one guess who the title refers to. That's right: John Edwards.
Just kidding. The other day, I heard a radio piece on Hillary Clinton that I found rather interesting. They were discussing, of all things, her campaigning wardrobe. On the one hand, it's an utterly frivolous subject; on the other hand it raises some intriguing questions.
As a pre-candidacy senator, Clinton favored power pantsuits and no make-up. Now that she's courting America's favor, she's had a serious makeover and she's wearing skirts and dresses, some of them in shades of pink. The radio folk drew the conclusion that she's trying to appeal to American's traditional, subconscious ideas of womanhood, even if our conscious expectations of women are somewhat different these days.
I'm still trying to figure out what I think about that. Part of me is kind of amused at the disconnect between what we say a woman can be and what we really feel comfortable with. On the other hand, part of me is a little irked that a female candidate has to look and act like something she's not in order to court public opinion. But then, I suppose that's the nature of politics - they're all trying to become what we want, rather than convince us to want what they already are.
I probably won't vote for Hillary Clinton (pink dress notwithstanding, we don't see eye to eye on most things), but I'm still excited to live in a time when she can make a strong run for the presidency. In the past the question has always been, "Could a woman be president?" Now the question just seems to be what title they'll give Bill if she wins. I love that our country has reached a point when a woman, an African-American, and a Mormon all have a decent shot at the presidency, and no one seems particularly fazed about it. 'Bout time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't ever listen to the news. Shame on me I know. I don't have good reception where I live and if I listen to music it's on my own cds anymore. I know I need to stop living in a bubble. So my question is who's the Mormon guy running for president?
Hillary has been a politician so long it is hard to say who she really is. Were the dark colored pants suits a symbol of her trying to be tough and fit into a man's world? Were the tweedy dress suits and pearls she wore as first lady trying to show that she was a tow the line wife?
I haven't totally ruled out voting for her. It depends entirely who shes running against. If it is Rudy Guliani then I would probably do it. Most presidents move toward center, and although she has been a divisive character in recent history, she knows the political game. She may not have her husband's (oily) charm, but I think she has more character. Between her and Mitt, I'd probably vote for Mitt. Between Mitt and Barack Obama, I'd probably vote Obama. In fact, Obama is my favorite all around.
And looks are important when it comes to who gets elected. Nixon was whomping Kennedy in the polls until they competed in the first televised debate. Nixon looked just awful and Kennedy was the poster boy for Polident. The voting public did a 180 after that.
It is a sad fact that politics has been reduced to wardrobe and sound bytes (remember Howard Dean). The deciding factors for me are stances in abortion and gay marriage. Both of these are extremely divisive issues, but they are of upmost importance to me. I really agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say. I feel that when I am voting I am choosing between the lesser of two evils. I don't think most politicians are good people and whether that is accurate or not, I can't say. I feel that it is foolish to vote for Mitt Romney simply because he is Mormon. I feel that members aren't doing their homework and simply joining the bandwagon in voting for him. I get the proof sent to me in cheesy e-mails from people in my ward. Don't get me wrong, he is probably a wonderful and worthy man, he was a Bishop and Stake President after all. It isn't a question of voting a Mormon into the White House, for me it is based upon his political agenda. After all, it was Mitt who said that his religious beliefs and his politics were completely separate. Maybe I am skeptical because he is LDS and so I hold him to a higher standard or maybe because he was voted governor in Kennedy territory, I am not sure. Plus I hate that he is representing our religion in the media. That is a heavy burden that shouldn't be placed on any man, but it seems to be the case. I am not perfect and if all that I did and said was being scrutinized and applied to all members of the church, I am sure I would crack, or at least say something really stupid. I just don't like seeing the things that are so dear to me being picked apart on MSNBC.
I guess only time will tell and as usual, both parties will pick someone who they think will win instead of who best represents the values of the party. In closing, I am glad that our country is moving towards diversity in our presidency. I just wish it would be more about quality.
PS If my Elder's Q. President is somehow reading this, I respect your choice on heading up the Orange County chapter of Romney's campaign. I am not knocking him, only looking at what he has to say as a candidate, not as a Mormon.
At this point Obama and Romney are the most intriguing candidates to me. Obama seems refreshingly genuine (as politicians go), but I wonder whether he has enough experience. Cases in point: I respect the fact that he is upfront about the possibility of attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan if that country is unwilling or unable to do so, but I'm not sure it was wise to speak openly about disregarding the government of yet another Middle Eastern country.
In a world that already views us as a big, anti-Muslim bully, I don't think a potential president should casually talk about an Arab nation (and one of our few allies in that region, no less) as a weakling we're free to invade in the name of national security. Even if we ultimately decide such action is both necessary and justified, a president shouldn't be chatting with the press about it unless the government has already reached that decision, and the troops were deployed yesterday.
As for Romney, I think he has potential. I once asked a friend from Mass. how a Republican Mormon got elected governor of the most liberal state in the Union. She said he is a practical person who is able to work with both parties to get things done. I think that could be a good thing for our country, if it's true and he can translate that ability to the national stage.
As for the religion factor, on the one hand I like the idea of a candidate who presumably has the same basic values that I do. On the other hand, I keep reminding myself that he is a politician, and therefore suspect no matter what religion he is or claims to be. What's more, even if we espouse the same principles we may not agree on how they should be applied.
All that being said, I am still not sure who of all the candidates I would vote for. I want to study them more, and in the end a lot will depend on who survives the primaries, and what my choices are. As Caitlin says, it will probably be a choice between two evils, who may be more safely "electable" than inspiring. Still, we can hope.
Good point about Obama, but Mitt said in one of the televised debates something that clearly indicated he was linking the Iraq invasion to 9-11. Even the Bush administration isn't crazy enough to do this any more.
Are you sure he wasn't misquoted? I can't imagine any remotely informed individual saying that, much less someone trying to get elected next year.
Post a Comment