Why this white, middle-aged woman feminist voted for Obama in our primary.

Honeycombe8

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Mar-23-08 12:45 PM
Original message

Why this white, middle-aged woman feminist voted for Obama in our primary.

Edited on Sun Mar-23-08 12:48 PM by indie_ana_500

I've heard the ridicule, the accusations that Obama supporters have inhaled the stupid dust, drunk the Jim Jones Kool-Aid. I've heard the pundits explain that Clinton has the white, middle-aged, working woman vote sewn up.

And yet, here I am. White, middle-aged, feminist by any standards, mid-level working woman who has purchased everything she owns through the sweat of her own brow (with a little sacrificial blood thrown in). Me. An Obama supporter. Oh, and I am also a left-leaning Independent who voted for Kerry and Gore.

So, why? people wonder. Why. Good question. My white friends, all Dems., are all supporting Clinton. So why is it Obama for me?

I am somewhat amazed myself, that I'm not voting for the first woman who has a clear shot at the Presidency. I have often been critical of women for not block-voting for their own interests, for not supporting other women in their businesses or careers. For choosing to support the boys, as usual (as if they need more support than they already have!). And yet, here I am not voting for the female candidate. I wish I could, but I cannot.

First, let me say that I decided my main criteria for a candidate early on, before the candidates announced. And my MAIN criteria was....change. I got fed up years ago with all that's going on with our government, and by the time I voted a straight Dem. ticket in '06, I was ready for change. Vote 'em all out of office, with a few exceptions, no matter what party they belonged to, and get a whole batch of fresh faces in.

Second, I was walking through my den, not looking at the TV, several years ago, when I heard someone speaking on TV. I don't recall now what he was saying, but I was impressed enough to stop what I was doing, turn to the TV, and say aloud...."Who the heck is THAT?" I was bowled over by his speech. The clarity of thought, the eloquence, the common sense. I found out shortly it was this guy with a funny name....Obama. I never forgot that. Note that I mention he was speaking COMMON SENSE; it wasn't JUST that he was eloquent.

Third, I decided that, besides change, I also wanted to vote for someone that I felt had integrity. Not perfect. Not saintly. I'm not naiive; I know that the political game requires some shady maneuvering sometimes. But someone fairly uncorrupt would be nice. After the candidates announced, and I took a look at those I didn't already know, I decided Obama came out on top in this category. Although I thought Clinton had many admirable traits for a presidential election, integrity wasn't one of them. Just my opinion (which I think is borne out by facts).

Fourth, I wanted someone intelligent, of course, but also intellectually curious. The flip side of Bush. Not perfect. Not asking all the right questions all the time, but asking pointed, thought-out questions. Someone who at least gives serious matters serious thought, backed by research. I thought Biden and Obama both came out on top in this category. I thought that Clinton's vote for the Iraq War, while excusable maybe for some purposes, was a clear indication that she did NOT ask questions and did NOT give that matter the serious thought it required (and that's if you look at it in a light most kind to her; the other way to look at it is that she merely voted for political reasons, and didn't care whether it was right or wrong; another way to look at it is that she stupidly thought Bush could be trusted, when everyone w/a brain knew he could not be).

So I decided I would support Obama, for the above reasons. What about experience? Judgment? The win-at-all-costs attitude that would be necessary?

Well, my answer is that I did and do care about experience. But that was not one of my top criteria. As Obama says, you can hardly find two people with more experience that Cheney and Rumsfeld, and look where that got us. Besides, I don't really know that there is any specific experience that prepares a person for the Presidency.

As for judgment, I thought that the people that Obama chose to run his campaign, as compared with Clinton's choices, made him the winner in this category, hands down. And to the extent that the candidate makes the ultimate decisions, he did that better, apparently. As for handling money, there again he showed more judgment than she did. And most importantly, he knew from the start that the resolution for the Iraq War was a bad idea, and said so on many occasions.

As for political savvyness, I thought Clinton had that one in the bag. So I gave her the winning ribbon in this category. But that is only one category that she wins in, and it's not one of my top criteria. I think that the other traits, combined, can more than out-perform this savvyness trait. And it's not like Obama was a schmuck in this category. He has proven to be cool as a cucumber, under fire, someone who thinks fast on his feet, humorous, and downright savvy in his own right. True, he doesn't go as far as she has in some areas, but I view that as a good thing that hearkens back to the ethical advantage he has over the Clintons.

I hate that this Rev. Wright matter has surfaced. That whole deal has tarnished his candidacy somewhat, to me. It tarnishes my image of his judgment, for one thing. I reconsidered my support, even. I mulled it over for days. But even before his now famous speech on the matter, I decided that I would stick with him. Why? Because even with this distasteful episode, he still is the best candidate, IMO. He still has the traits he had before...only now it is evident that he is not perfect. He still has good judgment, is the best candidate for change, is intellectually curious and very intelligent, and handles himself with aplomb and professionally as I would expect a President to do. He also still is heads above the other two, as far as integrity (yes, even WITH the Rezko rumors).

Obama is not where he is because he is black, despite G. Ferraro's opinion. He is where he is because he has gifts and is unique among others. His race plays a part of it in the sense that everything about him conjoins to make him what he is today. And part of what he is, is black. Also part of his past that made him what he is, is that he is white, is educated, lived outside the continental U.S. for a few years, is married to Michele, has oratory skills, had to learn to get along with different races, has big ears, and everything else that happened to him or that he did in his youth. He is the sum total of everything he has experienced, including being half black.

I have a sense that he would be an outstanding President. That he would do great things for our reputation abroad, our economy, our foreign policy. That he would do great things for our young people, many of whom seem disillusioned. If America has this gifted individual waiting to become our President, and doesn't have the smarts to elect him, I wonder about our future. Maybe we deserve only who we elect.