Freedom Socialist • Vol. 28, No. 5 • October-November 2007

RADICAL WOMEN

Hillary Clinton: two X-chromosomes do not a feminist candidate make!

by Lois Danks

Stumping for union votes in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Aug. 18. Photo: Charlie Neibergall / AP

As the card-carrying Radical Woman in Port Angeles, Washington, I’m told I should be overjoyed that a woman might be nominated for president on a major party ticket. My response is actually the opposite: underwhelmed! After all these years since Geraldine Ferraro made history in the Democrat spot for vice prez, it’s more than way overdue. And then who do we get? Hillary Clinton!

Clinton’s nomination would be a milestone, it’s true, and I certainly defend her against all the idiotic sexist attacks she’s facing. (She’s too weak, too strong, wrong hairdo, stands by her cheatin’ man, etc.) But I have no tolerance for her conservative misleadership and opportunist sellouts. There is no excuse for her anti-union, anti-immigrant, and pro-war actions and her compromises with the religious right.

The media and the Democrats expect droves of women to vote Hillary — the female Anybody-but-Bush option. But if we can keep the truth from being Photoshopped out of the picture, I don’t think most of my sisters will be so gullible.

The transformation of Hillary Rodham. Born in 1947 and growing up a fervent Methodist and Midwestern Republican, Clinton worked as a teenager in 1964 on the presidential campaign of Barry Goldgranddaddy of the modern rightwing. During her freshman year at Wellesley College, she was president of the Young Republicans Club and did her best to stifle any student protests on campus.

But, as political winds shifted, the impact of the civil rights and peace movements led her to support anti-war liberal Eugene McCarthy as the Democratic presidential nominee during her junior year. However, she still disapproved of the disruption caused by student uprisings after the National Guard shot down anti-war protesters at Kent State University in 1970.

Following her heart, as she says, she set aside her first career, working in D.C. for the Children’s Defense Fund, to follow Bill Clinton to Arkansas after she failed to pass the Washington bar exam. She became an attorney at a Southern law firm that represented such corporations as the notoriously anti-union Tyson Foods.

Her Arkansas résumé includes six years on the board of Wal-Mart, engineering some shady Whitewater real estate deals, and making a fortune representing Coca-Cola against disabled workers and defeating a lawsuit for utility ratepayer relief. As chair of the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, she sold out the Arkansas teachers’ union to make a name for herself on “education reform.”

The legacy of the Bill Clinton presidency includes the death of welfare as we knew it and attacks on civil liberties under the guise of stopping terrorism — remember the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act? And don’t dismiss the First Lady’s role on these issues.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are the ultimate political insider couple, and she was an integral part of his presidency. Bill’s staff has said he would suddenly line up with her on major policy questions if he was trying to atone for sexual indiscretions. What keeps them together are their mutual political ambitions. According to Carl Bernstein’s biography of Hillary, their closest friends view them as passionate in their desire to fulfill a sort of messianic neoliberalism.

Not a feminist, not even a moderate. Seeking “common ground” with anti-abortion forces and waffling on the issue of late-term abortions are certainly enough to disqualify Clinton as a feminist. Yet NOW jumped on her bandwagon with an early endorsement. Apparently they have yet to learn that chromosomes do not a feminist make! Other female cogs in the Democratic Party machine have also signed on — the National Women’s Political Caucus, Dolores Huerta, and Ellen Malcolm, president of Emily’s List.

But Clinton only sounds feminist when it won’t harm her general election strategy, which is to appeal to religious independents and moderate Republicans while taking women’s votes for granted.

As First Lady, Clinton’s high-profile bid to usher in universal healthcare was an exercise in jump-starting her own political career. The plan was doomed to fail by her elitist refusal to collaborate with individuals already working on the issue, in order to corner the fanfare. Even more key was her unwillingness to launch the necessary fight with the healthcare profiteers. In the end, the woeful HMO system was only strengthened, and today the medical industry is donating more to her than to any other presidential contender.

In Congress, Senator Clinton sits on the Armed Services Committee, which oversees funding for the military. She voted for the original Iraq War resolution and five years later still justifies her action. A lot of her time is spent cozying up to generals and Republicans and attending weekly Senate Prayer Breakfasts. She defends Israel’s occupation of Palestine, wants to get tougher with Iran, and promotes a gradual redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to other “hot spots.” She chided rival Barack Obama for “naively” ruling out (sort of) the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The idea of H. Clinton in the White House horrifies me even more when I think about immigrant rights.

Clinton wants to bring the 12 million undocumented workers “out of the shadows and into the sunlight” — so she can see who they are. Then, after the supposed terrorists and undesirables are locked up, the rest can pay thousands of dollars in fines, be deported, and get in line for a visa to return to the U.S. Some pathway to citizenship!

How the senator can put forward such views and still portray herself as a history-making maverick is an act of artful dodging. She is very careful to consult her pollsters, minister, and small circle of devoted disciples before speaking on any crucial issue. With a canny knack of saying high-minded things in vague language to appeal to all sides, she describes herself as a “mind conservative and heart liberal” and a “moderate progressive” who believes in politicians “living out their faith in the public square.”

Clinton has been strategizing toward this moment from the day she moved into the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion. An outsider with the drive to unseat the old boys’ club? Give me a break!

Who gets my vote? The only candidate I’ll consider supporting would be a true outsider to the electoral system of one party with two faces.

I want a genuine advocate for working and poor women, people of color and immigrants; someone who stands for ending imperialist wars and occupations, opening the borders, guaranteeing reproductive and gay rights, and instituting 24-hour free childcare. Someone who would lead in building a movement to nationalize healthcare, transportation, communications, and energy under workers’ control. In short, someone who represents what feminists and other better-world activists have been fighting for all these years.

I’ll vote for the most feminist, anti-capitalist, anti-war candidate I can find, regardless of gender. And if nobody with those qualifications is running, I won’t vote — but will continue to hope and work for authentic electoral alternatives in the future. Because, really, what’s the point of prolonging the pain while increasing the profits for HalliburWal-Mart and Microsoft?

Lois Danks has spent 42 years as a technology worker in education, healthcare, prison, mental health and tribal settings. She welcomes feedback at lfdanks@yahoo.com.