Greenville's free alternative weekly

Opinion: Why neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will become the next president of the United States

Why Not Hillary?

Guest column by Jennifer Lynne Ziemann

The other day I had a most interesting conversation with a woman I met who was as Democrat as one can be. She was an intelligent, well-educated and independent woman. I couldn’t help but like her. I listened as she discussed politics, in particular Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. I left the conversation with one thing she said ringing through my head. In the course of our conversation she mentioned “how wonderful it would be if Hillary became the first woman president.” She concluded, “You know it’s a woman thing.”

As I reflected upon my conversation with this intelligent, likable woman something began to bother me. “It’s a woman thing” is precisely why Hillary Clinton cannot be the next president of the United States, let alone the first woman president.

I know we have all heard what Elizabeth Edwards said about Hillary Clinton: “She’s just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see.” Edwards stated she didn’t feel like Hillary’s stance on health care was affordable to everyone, especially women. She also mentioned that the subject of poverty in relation to single mothers is not thoroughly addressed by the Clinton campaign.

Both of these are notable. But Elizabeth Edwards does not have a fundamental understanding about the real reason why Hillary Clinton cannot be the first woman president. It is simply this: ending domestic violence is not a center point of her campaign.

You cannot represent women without acknowledging the continuing gender apartheid in the U.S. Hillary Clinton cannot escape the fact that as a woman she has a responsibility to represent a gender that makes up fifty percent of the population of the United States. As that representative it is her responsibility to recognize that her caste is adversely and violently affected by domestic violence.

For that matter, any man or woman candidate needs to recognize that gender apartheid is alive and a reality in the United States in order to be a serious contender for the presidency. In being a woman she is one of us who is directly affected by this male dominated violence in such a manner that she cannot ignore.

I visited her campaign Web site and what I found most disturbing is that she talks about equal pay for women in the work place, yet fails to bring up the violence perpetuated by men against women, both individually and systemically. How can you talk about equal pay when female victims of domestic violence often cannot show up for work due to injuries caused by their abuser or are not being allowed to work by their abuser?

Equal pay does not matter when you have not addressed the number one cause of why women fail in the work place: domestic violence. Equal pay does not matter when we women live in a white male dominated society that still views our proper place as incubators to continue the white male dominated ruling class. Equal pay does not matter when a man assaulting his wife is just a misdemeanor, whereas assaulting a stranger is a felony. Equal pay does not matter when domestic violence against women is not recognized for what it truly is: a violent crime driven by a male misogynist society, thus ultimately a hate crime.

According to her Web site she advocates for empowerment of lower-income women through tax break incentives, micro finance programs, family planning education, contraceptive healthcare, health insurance and education. There is not one mention of domestic violence prevention, stiffer penalties for abusers, or counseling services for victims and survivors. Domestic violence makes no distinction regarding income levels or race. It affects all women and their children. This should be the most vital issue on her site.

How can Hillary Clinton campaign in South Carolina and not talk about domestic violence? In 2001 we lead the nation in men killing their spouses, now we rank number six. Our state requires an abuser to be convicted, not just charged, but convicted three times of domestic violence before their next crime against their partner is considered felonious. Yet so far in her visits, she has failed to address domestic violence.

The first woman to run for president was Victoria Woodhull, an ardent woman activist, who ran in 1872. Her platform was based on equal rights for women. She talked about the right to vote, equal pay, the right to an abortion, the right to divorce, the right of women to participate in the governing of themselves and the right for women to own property. Yet the most important issue she addressed was the fact that women were considered property, that they could be beaten, murdered, raped, imprisoned, have their children taken away, or left as an outcast by their male counterparts at any time that the ruling male saw fit. She fought for the right of women to live free of abuse. She literally fought for the end of domestic violence.

Today, women are still being beaten, murdered, raped, imprisoned, having their children taken away by judges who do not understand domestic violence, and yes, still made into outcasts. This happens right here, in this country, in the good ole USA.

One of Hillary Clinton’s oft-quoted statements (from 1995) is “Women’s rights are human rights.” Well, apparently to her that is only if you live in a Third World country because she is not willing to challenge the status quo of male domination and violence towards women in the United States. Why is she not willing to do this? Is it her fear of being labeled a feminist by misogynist Republicans? Is it her fear of alienating her mostly male-run corporate sponsors?

I would love to see a strong female president who is willing to embrace the history of how far a woman has come yet realizes how far we still have to go. I do not want to see the first female president elected simply because “it’s a woman thing.”

Why not Obama?

Guest column by Al Kirk

It’s still roughly 10 months away, but I have the inside track on who will be the winner in the next presidential election. Well, maybe that’s not quite right - I have inside track on who will be the loser.

Barrack Obama is doing very well early on to say the least, having just won Iowa, and is running an articulate, intelligent campaign that highlights his moderate views and excellent résumé. To many, he seems like the kind of candidate that could unite Americans after eight disastrous years of George W. Bush. Yet Barrack Obama has one big impediment in becoming president of the United States that most commentators seem to have overlooked:

He’s Black.

Don’t kid yourself. In 2008, race will still play a big role in deciding who sits in the Oval Office.

The best example is what happened to Harold Ford Jr. in his run for a Tennessee Senate seat in 2006. Things looked rosy for Ford - a hard-working black Tennessee Congressman with excellent credentials - yet he had often been seen in the company of white women, and in the racially charged South, that was enough to start making folks feel wary of his candidacy.

It was easy for Republicans to get the ball rolling. The smears started with a few photos showing the bachelor Ford and his dates. Then came a manufactured scandal of Ford attending a Super Bowl party that was hosted by Playboy magazine. The party was held in a public place and there was no nudity - apparently a lot of celebrities attended, but that was enough to raise suspicions about Harold Ford Jr.’s suitability as a senator. The next step was for the Republicans to find women – white women – that had met Mr. Ford at the party. None of them made any allegations of impropriety but at this point the Republican campaign only needed to find white women saying that they had met a black man at a Playboy party and get them on the air. That was enough to twist the situation into an unspoken scandal. Political commentators started speculating on what all this would do to Ford’s campaign, which of course made the issue a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Republicans even ran a television ad with a blond woman asking Harold to ” call me sometime.” Republicans never had to directly accuse Mr. Ford of anything -just bring up the race issue through the back door.

Ford’s healthy lead shrank and he ended up losing that race by three points.

This doesn’t mean that all of the voters of Tennessee are racist. But it does mean that enough voters in Tennessee are uncomfortable with the issue of race. And the easiest way of making the problem go away is to just vote for someone else – a white someone else.

In a presidential election where winning at least some Southern states is critical, all the Republicans will need to do is inject the issue of race into the discussion of who should be president.

But Obama has other vulnerabilities – his middle name is Hussein. If he wins the Democratic nomination for president, expect his Republican rivals to often address Obama by his middle name. Of course being black or having an unWASPish sounding name won’t be the determining factor in who most Americans vote for… but it will sway some, probably enough voters to deter the outcome of a close race.

The fear mongers have already started. An Internet rumor said that Obama was a Muslim. He’s not. Then an online magazine reported that Obama had attended a radical Muslim religious school. Fox News picked up the story and reported that he had “spent at least four years in a so-called Madras, or Muslim seminary.” Fox News eventually and grudgingly admitted that the story was a total fabrication but not before a good solid base of smear was laid.

This all may sound absurd and insulting but the last two presidential elections were decided by the slimmest of margins in one or two key states. All the Republicans need to do is convince a thin wedge of voters that voting for another white man is the safest thing to do. It’s a system of subtle fear that has kept the status quo intact for over 200 years and it will still be alive and well in 2008.