For feminists, the US elections is more than the usual spectacle, as it surfaces the social categories, locations, histories and movements which have been eschewed in many governance processes, especially economic, social and foreign affairs policies. After all, this is only the ninth occasion when a woman has sought the presidency. In a sense, this elections is about taking stock out of the more than two centuries preaching of democracy.

Hillary Clinton would have been the ultimate choice for many who have gone ashamed and weary of the staggering loss in Iraq and the foreboding economic recession, until the entry of Barack Obama. Clinton still maintains the lead over Obama but this slight advantage signals the need for her to further reach out to various groups, especially to what is immediately perceived as her prospective constituency, women.

Hillary Clinton, the candidate

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton was initially known as the wife of former US president Bill Clinton.

A political science major in Wellesly College, Clinton took part in student activism which then supported the civil rights movement and called for the end to the Vietnam war. Later she enrolled at the Yale Law School which appears to be instrumental in Clinton's interest in children: As an intern, she worked on child custody cases while her first assignments as a lawyer include being a staff at the Children's Defense Fund and a consultant for the Carnegie Council for Children.

Since her husband stepped out of office, Clinton has kept her eyes focused on the political ladder. Her experience as a lawyer and stint as a First Lady as well as a “listening tour” or the series of trips around the country and meetings with different sectors have helped her decide in running for the senate and this time, vying for the Democrat nomination for the presidency.

In 2000, she won a Senate seat, representing New York and regained the same post in 2006. As a lawmaker, she introduced programmes which mostly deal on children and health. She also opposed measures which would have watered down the gains of Roe vs. Wade, the historic court decision that legalised abortion as well as the Federal Marriage Amendment which seeks to prohibit same sex unions.

Choosing between gender and race

Feminists are indeed divided on making the choice. Gloria Steinem, a co-founder of the Women's Media Center, has rallied for Clinton, citing Clinton's community-organising experience and implying that gender defines the underdog in politics. In her oft-quoted article “Women are Never Front-Runners” in the New York Times, she writes, “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life.” Meanwhile, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton professor on African-American studies has written an equally evocative piece, urging the African-American community to support Obama, whom she describes as the “most viable black candidate in American history.” Although the National Organisation of Women, which claims to have around 500,000 members endorsed Clinton, some of its more known members have decided to cross the line.

The LGBT community likewise admits difficulty in making the choice. In January the Gay City News endorsed Obama, noting that there is also a “great deal we admire about Hillary Clinton and our conclusion about the direction of her campaign is arrived at with a heavy heart.” Clinton is the only First Lady to join the gay pride march and as a senator supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; Domestic Partnership Benefits Act; and funding for the Lesbian and Gay Community Services Centre, among others.

The US elections have also elicited interests among feminists outside the US. Asked whether the two Democratic candidates are playing the gender and race cards, Ana Nemenzo, president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition (Philippines) is keen to say no. “Not one of them is focused on either gender or race in order to achieve a broader appeal.” Subtlety is also applied as the two speak of their proposed programmes for women, particularly on reproductive rights.

Besides the two candidates are said to have made a deal not to capitalise on their belonging to these social categories. But during the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, Clinton claimed to be more pro-choice than her rival. Some pro-choice groups immediately came to Obama's defense, citing that his low-key support was part of a legislative strategy conceptualised by reproductive rights advocates themselves. Lorna Brett, president of NOW's Chicago chapter asserts, “Barack's leadership on this issue went above and beyond the call of duty.”

Obama's proposed programmes for women encompass health (HIV, cancer, mercury pollution); “reproductive choice” which includes a commitment to preserve the Roe vs. Wade decision and expanded services for unwanted pregnancy prevention; violence against women; labour (pay equity as well as subsidies for women owned small enterprises); social security including services for the women, who served in Iraq and World War II and their families; and education, among others. Obama has also supported same-sex marriage, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislations against hate crimes; and the repeal of the “don't ask, don't tell” policy which prohibits homosexual acts in the military.

Feminist academician Kimberle Crenshaw and Vagina Monologues author Eve Ensler made a statement against the use of feminism in the whole political exercise. In their article, “Feminist Ultimatums: Not in our Name,” the women assert: “It is not about the woman candidate vs. the Black male candidate. It is about the candidate who works to dismantle the bomb, rather than drop it; the candidate who works to abolish the old paradigm of power, rather than covet and rise to its highest point; the candidate who seeks solutions and dialogue rather than retaliation and punishment.”

Different directions, identical ideologies

The platforms of Clinton and Obama are quite identical that much of the difference only lies in the candidates' respective campaign strategies or in choice of highlighting their milestones and strengths while downplaying their weaknesses and some portions of their past.

The strength of the Clinton campaign mainly rests on the substance and specificity of Clinton's proposed programmes. Take for example, her proposal on universal health coverage. The Clinton plan provides mandates, requiring all Americans to avail of insurance packages partly through tax credits. Meanwhile, the Obama plan shares the goal of lowering the cost of insurance but it makes its availment a choice. An MIT study indicates that the latter plan could cover 23 million of those currently insured for $102 billion a year while the former plan would cover 45 million for $124 billion a year.i

However Clinton carries baggages which can drag down her campaign. She may be advocating the withdrawing US troops in Iraq. But does not diminish her culpability in this military and diplomatic faus pax. Unlike Obama who opposed the US' aggression in Iraq right from the start, Clinton voted for it. Despite her descent track record as a First Lady (remember her “Women's Rights are Human Rights” speech at the Beijing conference in defiance of the Secretary of State's orders) and senator, her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky affair and her silence on the issue have not been forgotten. Voters are reminded of these every now and them through anti-woman jokes. Her husband's welfare policy which aggravated the poor especially single mothers has also backlashed, however unfairly, on her.

Besides the amount of criticism thrown against Clinton is also caused by the fact that Obama is a newcomer, that there are relatively few things to say about him. Indeed he represents change yet the question remains: “change for what?”

[THIS CONCLUDES THE FIRST PART OF A 2-PART ARTICLE ON THE US ELECTIONS. THE 2ND PART WILL BE RELEASED IN THE NEXT ISSUE OF WE, FEBRUARY 2008]

Sources

Barack Obama campaign website <http://www.barackobama.com>

Centre for American Women and Politics. “Women Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates: A Selected List” Retrieved from Centre for American Women and Politics – Rutgers University on 13 February 2008 <http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts3.html#history>

“Disharmony in the Spheres” in The Economist (January 19, 2008).

Flanders, Laura. “Which Womanhood Does Clinton Defend?” Retrieved from Alternet (February 5, 2008) on February 7, 2008 <http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/76020/ >

Filipovic, Jill. “How will Feminists Vote?” in Alternet (February 5, 2008) <http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/76017/>

Harris-Lacewell, Melissa. “Rally for Him Now!.” Retrieved from Slate (January 9, 2008) on February 7, 2008 <http://www.slate.com/id/2181782/>

Hillary Clinton campaign website, <http://www.hillaryclinton.org>

Krugman, Paul. “Clinton, Obama, Insurance,” Retrieved from the New York Times (February 4, 2008) on February 6, 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>

Kahn, Jeremy. “Leaders for a New Age” in Newsweek (January 21, 2008).

Meacham, Jon. “Letting Hillary Be Hillary” in Newsweek (January 21, 2008).

Tumulty, Karen. “It's Not Over Yet” in Time (February 18, 2008).

Williams Crenshaw, Kimberly and Eve Ensler. “Feminist Ultimatums: Not in Our Name.” Retrieved from Alternet (February 5, 2008) on February 7, 2008 <http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/76107/>

Interview with Ana Maria Nemenzo, February 11, 2008, Quezon City, Philippines