Here's the NY Times article she references:
"I don't know about you, but I've been on the receiving end of a peer-pressure campaign by local hipsters in favor of Obama. So I emailed about 10 people and asked them why they are pro-O. Everybody agreed that on policies, Hillary and Barack share nearly identical positions. So the rationale comes down to "he's likeable, and thus more electable." Folks are afraid that it's going to be another nail-biter election, and they want the Dem candidate who can win. Me too! But I still wasn't sure who that candidate was.
Thanks to Missouri's swing position in the primaries I had the opportunity this weekend to see both candidates. Obama on Saturday, and Hillary on Sunday. They were both excellent, but in terms of forward-thinking progressive policies, mastery of nuances, warmth and charm and authenticity, there was no comparison: Hillary won hands-down.
Is that a shock? It was to me. Here was a woman - articulate and bright, interacting with warmth and candor, tackling questions from young black women, senior citizens, laid-off factory workers, gay couples undertaking adoptions, and more. She listened actively and handled all comers with natural grace, quick wit, real empathy, and above all, a thorough master of the issues.
The NY Times magazine ran a story today (see above link) -- It presented some depressing statistics about female political involvement, or rather, the lack thereof. When I was in 7th grade, I played the part of Geraldine Ferraro in a social studies skit about the election. My teacher, Sister Elaine, told us, "After this election, we'll have a woman president in no time." Well, 24 years later, here we are with the first-ever nationally viable female presidential candidate."
No comments:
Post a Comment