Why This Woman Supports Obama

History is being made in the 2008 Presidential election. For the first time ever, a political party's two front-runners are minorities, a black man verses a white woman. While both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton share basically the same political views and stand side-by-side on many of the issues, this election is a test as to whether this nation is more racist than it is sexist, and vice versa. In the end, the Democratic nominee will be decided based on character. Obama has set forth a movement to unite this nation, prompting people to work together to achieve a common goal. His biography is incredible; it seems as though he is a test-tube politician, directed to the Presidency for the purpose of ending racism. Clinton has the opportunity to represent American women, to limit sexist ideals and to show the world just how powerful a woman can be. Unfortunately, Clinton's agenda has been poorly received, and many feminists who should be the first to jump on Clinton's ship are abandoning it. I am one of these women.

While Clinton is the female front-runner in this election, she is a bad example for the feminist movement, which is already attached to negative attitudes. Mention the word “feminism,” and scowls sprawl across faces. While many legislative advancements have been made for women through this movement, man-hating women and mixed agendas have made a bad impression. Clinton has more power than any woman in our country has ever had, and she has the opportunity to change these attitudes towards feminism, but she has failed to do so, and her campaign is suffering from it.

So, why is Clinton such a bad example for American women? First of all, she represents a set of older, more traditional attitudes that have maintained the oppression of women for years. She stayed with Bill despite the cheating, lying and manipulation he brought to their marriage, supporting a “stand by your man” tradition that modern women have abandoned.

I know it's rude to say, but Clinton is flaky. She cries if necessary, changes her political stance to align herself with electorate voters, and mocks her opponents, particularly Obama. On February 24, at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, she slammed Obama for tyring to inspire hope amongst the American people, making comments that embarrassed Democrats and Republicans alike. (“Clinton Mocking Obama”). Nothing about this attitude is positive, and she's only making herself look silly and desperate with such antics.

Clinton, during this campaign, has tried too hard to be macho, to hang with the tough guys, to such an extent that it's easy to forget that she's even a woman. If she does succeed in winning the Democratic nomination and faces off against Republican nominee John McCain in November, Americans will likely answer that they'd rather have the real thing than a wannabe.

Also, on my drive home from college one day, I noticed “Hillary” political signs in the yards of Chillicotheans, who seem to very much adore the candidate. What struck me as odd is that this is the first time a candidate (in any race, I presume) has ran on her first name alone. I understand that this may be her way of distinguishing herself from her husband, but George W. Bush faced the same challenge with distinguishing himself from his father. I think this campaign plot is supposed to be cute, but it's not. It's shallow and makes her look unprofessional. I understand that Americans today want a candidate they can relate to, but time and time again Hillary exhibits her superiority to her fellow countrymen, and Obama brings a much more down-to-earth attitude to the table.

Obama may be a man in this race, but his feminist agenda is far better outlined than Cinton's. She has shunned women so that she can pit herself against the capitalistic men who have run this country for so long. Obama's focus for women is driven by his two daughters. He seems to understand that most of the women's movement today is comprised of social attitudes, and that legislation alone will not change all of these ideals. Clinton's agenda, on the other hand, consists primarily of giving businesses benefits for promoting women's rights. She's consistently an advocate for big business, and that type of fascism doesn't fit into my political opinions.

Since Clinton has struggled with being a woman in this election, she's now turning the issue against Obama for being black. She's trying to make being black worse than being female. On March 4, news reports were released stating that a new advertisement released by the Clinton campaign was altered to make Obama's skin blacker, a tactic that had Time magazine in a world of trouble a few years back. (Troutnut).

It's disheartening to see how cut-throat and nasty this campaign has become. Clinton represents the traditional Democrat, and Obama represents the progression of the party; it's inevitable that they will have and publicize their differences.

The opportunity for women to gain equal rights today is immense with Clinton at the helm. However, she fails to remember the feminist agenda, and, in fact, has taken a step away from it. I would expect a woman in her position to encourage new attitudes on war, have more sympathy for issues affecting women, children and families, and to promote unity amongst American people. It seems that Obama represents these agendas far more clearly than Clinton has or is capable of. A vote for Clinton is a step in the wrong direction, and the feminists in this country recognize that.


Works Cited

Clinton, Hillary. “Women.” New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. 7 March 2008.

Clinton Mocking Obama in Rhode Island. 2008. Video. 7 March 2008.

Obama, Barack. Remarks at the National Women's Law Center. Washington, D.C. 10 Nov. 2005. Barack Obama U.S. Senator for Illinois. 7 March 2008.

Troutnut. “Hillary's ad: debate footage doctored to make Obama blacker.” Daily Kos. 4 March 2008. 7 March 2008.