Eight Belles, Macho Politics, and the Misuse of Feminism

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton voiced her support for the Kentucky Derby entrant Eight Belles, because "she's the only filly in the race." Today, May 3, 2008, Eight Belles fought her way to a second-place finish, broke both ankles moments later, and moments after that was dead, euthanized to avoid a a painful and doubtful battle with recovery.

I don't know why Eight Belles was injured; perhaps she was overmatched in this grueling, 1 1/4 mile race. Perhaps she was not in the best of shape. Or perhaps it was just one of those things, a mishap that couldn't be anticipated or prevented. But this beautiful horse's untimely and tragic death resonates with me and, perhaps because Hillary Clinton chose to insert herself into the race with her "I am woman" feminist opinion, brings up a frustration I've had with the 2008 election for some time.

Eight Belles wasn't a feminist symbol; she was one of God's creatures, one who may or may not have been ridden beyond her endurance and her capabilities. And Hillary Clinton isn't the answer to the woes of women in this country simply because of her gender. I don't believe in voting for, or against, someone because of the individual's gender, race, ethnicity, or other factors. And I worry about the macho politics that Clinton is waging: bragging about her exploits with guns, tossing down whiskey shots with beer chasers, constantly striving to prove how tough she is.

One of my biggest fears in voting for a woman for president has been that she would be pushed into an ill-considered war to prove that she's "just as tough as the guys"; and after Clinton's recent statements about "massive retaliation against Iran" for an attack against Israel--forgetting that Iran is a nation of 63 million men, women, and children who have little or no say in the policies of its leaders--should give any sane and compassionate American citizen pause. If we are ready for a woman president, do we really want someone in office determined to promote the kind of macho politics that has caused centuries of warfare, or do we want someone with the courage to defy the male-dominated, aggressive policies that have gotten the human race into so much trouble, and instead work for the kind of humane, peaceful world that we all desire?

As we mourn the death of that beautiful three-year-old filly Eight Belles, let's reflect on what feminism truly means. Does it mean scoring points and proving ourselves as tough as men, or does it mean allowing ourselves to find our true places in the world, based on our capabilities, our intelligence, and yes, perhaps our love, compassion, and kindness? If we are going to insist on our place in the White House, shouldn't it be with someone who embraces the best of what women represent, rather than some whiskey and beer-drinking, macho broad? If we as women are going to attain the White House, does it have to be with someone determined to prove how much of a man she can be?

Yes, it's time for a change in Washington. And maybe that change starts with rejecting macho, aggressive, war-mongering politics--whoever decides to promote it.

I've Changed My Mind About Hillary Clinton

Prior to the New Hampshire presidential primary, I was leaning heavily toward Bill Richardson, and when I answered the many phone calls from pollsters and Clinton supporters, I told them all that I was thinking of voting for Richardson, but that if Hillary Clinton became the Democratic presidential nominee, I'd vote for her. And even though I was in Richardson's camp, I secretly rooted for her, and was at times upset at some media critics who mentioned issues about Clinton that never would have been brought up about a male candidate. I definitely had one foot in Richardson's camp and at least a toe in Clinton's.

I've changed my mind. Her petty, insensitive and at times unfair attacks on Barack Obama and her willingness to game the system, manipulating the electorate with bigoted statements and scare tactics, and her determination to change the rules whenever they don't suit her shows her to be mean-spirited, conniving, and cynical.

Perhaps the worst problem is that in trying to game the system, to talk about snaking committed caucus delegates away from Obama, to attempt to sue in order to challenge the rules set down by various states, to rely on unelected superdelegates in spite of a popular vote that is going against her, shows that she has no real respect for the democractic process or for the wishes of the people. She is determined to gain the Democratic nomination by whatever means necessary—and if that means ignoring the wishes of the American people, so be it. She has also shown no shame in her attempts to control media access to her campaign as she constantly threatens to deny access to members of the press and mass media who do not toe the Clinton line.

If Hillary Clinton gets into office she will be carrying an already extensive enemies list tucked into the pocket of her pantsuit, and we can look forward to four or even eight years of cynical, adversarial, and manipulative tactics—a truly Nixonian reign.

I've changed my mind about Hillary Clinton, and I will never, ever vote for her.

I'm Ready for a Smart President

Pundits keep asking whether the American public is ready for a black president. I just don't think of Barack Obama in those terms. Yes, I realize he is black; yes, I realize that he self-identifies as black and relates to black culture; and it would definitely be a benefit that little black kids all over the country would grow about two inches the moment he becomes president. But that isn't why I'm supporting him.

Obama is about as intelligent as anyone who has ever run for the office. A graduate of Harvard, the editor of the Law Review, a college professor versed in Constitutional law, and a successful civil rights lawyer, he has used his intelligence and his inherent wisdom about human nature not to enrich himself, but to advocate for the rights of the poor and the dispossessed of all races and ethnic backgrounds.

His policies may not seem to differ greatly from Hillary Clinton's, but the differences that do exist show him to be a thoughtful and compassionate man. When he looks at Hillary Clinton's mandate that everyone purchase health care insurance, he asks, how is this going to affect people who still can't afford health care? When he advocates for easing payroll taxes, he is looking at people at the low end of the economic scale and recognizing that payroll taxes and self-employment taxes, which are assessed on the first penny people earn and are not lowered by Clinton's proposed tax credits, are an enormous burden on the poor. In other words, when he ponders economic issues and possible solutions, he asks himself, "How is this action going to affect the little guy?"

Obama's calm demeanor in the face of persistent and sometimes bizarre attacks from the Clinton campaign, at times from Clinton herself, give me confidence that Obama's steady hand on the ship of state can steer us, peacefully and rationally, through some very difficult times ahead. Not so Clinton, who has proved herself to be erratic, manipulative, and underhanded.

Black? I don't care whether Obama is black, blue, or a kangaroo. I care that he is intelligent, wise, and kind.

I'm ready for a smart president.

Bush Administration Complicit in Israel’s Attack on Lebanon?

While the world is expressing its dismay at Israel’s attack on Lebanon in retaliation for the militant Hezbollah’s kidnappings and missile strikes, the Bush administration is strangely silent about the issue.

Maybe the reason is that the Bush administration is in on the whole deal. This “overreaction” by the Israelis may not be what it appears to be, but in reality could be action calculated to goad Iran and Syria into a response that will give Israel and the U.S. a pretext for major strikes on those two countries.

Unfortunately, innocent civilians in Lebanon are being terrorized, and in many instances are ending up dead or maimed. Roads, bridges, and buildings are being destroyed, which will seriously, negatively impact the economy of that tiny country.

Nobody questions that Israel has a right and an obligation to protect its citizens from factions that would harm them. But to attack an entire country and its people for the actions of a relative few is reprehensible.

There have to be ways to neutralize terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and others without the massive destruction currently going on in Lebanon and Iraq. The same country that tracked down Adolf Eichmann in the sixties in South America and spirited him off to Israel, to be tried, convicted, and executed, should be able to send special units into the south of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip to quietly snag the perpetrators and imprison them without killing innocent bystanders. As it is, the current aggressive actions, far from defeating terrorism, will recruit more angry young men into the ranks of extremist organizations and make everyone less safe.

A Gesture of Peace Lost in the Violence

Israel’s attacks on Gaza and Lebanon came on the heels of an announcement that the Fatah and Hamas parties of Palestine had come to an agreement to recognize Israel and enter into negotiations. That announcement ended up not even being a blip on the screen of world politics, due to Israel’s aggressive actions, first into Gaza and then into Lebanon. The fact that Israel ignored the announcement in favor of a major military offensive is suspect in itself. While it is impossible to know if this announcement was a serious gesture on the part of the Palestinians, a more measured response to the most recent series of attacks on Israel might have set the Israelis on the road to peace, and one has to wonder why they would choose not to explore the possibility.

There is something not being said in this whole debacle; there’s a hidden agenda here. This situation has the same feel as the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and I suspect that George W. Bush and his corrupt administration have their sticky little fingers all over this mess.

Fixing FEMA: Turn It Over to Wal-Mart!

The bumbling performance of FEMA during and after Katrina showed not only a lack of planning but an inability to come up with creative solutions when faced with a disaster of epic proportions. People sat in the sun or in sweltering buildings for days at a time with no food, no water, and no chance for escape from the horrific conditions. Elderly people and infants died of dehydration while FEMA fiddled around with the question of who was responsible for what duties.

Meanwhile, hours after the disaster, Wal-Mart had truckloads of bottled water on its way to New Orleans. These trucks with their lifesaving cargo were stopped and then turned back -- by FEMA.

I'm no fan of privatization; I feel that sometimes the government puts corporate profit ahead of the services it is supposed to provide. But maybe we need to take a second look at Wal-Mart. The company has the most efficient distribution system in the world, able to move vast quanities of goods long distances at top speed. It also has expertise at negotiating the lowest wholesale prices with its vendors. While that has gotten it in trouble with critics, being able to supply essential goods at low prices after Katrina could have saved the government millions, if not billions, of dollars.

Just imagine if Wal-Mart, after watching the TV news -- something apparently no one at FEMA bothered to do -- and finding out about the people stranded at the Astrodome and the Convention Center, had been able to immediately dispatch water, food, medical supplies, and other necessities to New Orleans as well as to other parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, to arrive within hours instead of days. Imagine Wal-Mart setting up emergency shelter, and providng fast transportation out of the area where necessary. Imagine Wal-Mart setting up efficient systems of dispensing financial aid not vulnerable to abuse.

FEMA continues to fumble the aftermath of the natural disasters of last summer, and is changing with the clumsy slowness of many bloated government agencies. It's time for a big change at FEMA.

It's time for Wal-Mart to take over.