So I've been sitting here debating about whether to write about the coming elections in the U.S. or to write another blog about funny things that Germans do. I'm sure you're disappointed - the election won out. But don't worry. My photojournalist mother took pains to document German fashion while she was here, so for those of you who haven't seen them, I'm planning on posting them with commentary later.
In the meantime, here's my confession: I voted for Clinton in the primary. I can feel anaeromyxo's disapproval. There were several reasons for it. First was that, while she and Obama were virtually indistinguishable in their platforms, I did prefer her health care plan. Secondly, I have a hard time with abstractions and emotion, and Obama was big on both. What is "hope" or, for that matter "change?" I think it's a personal failing on my part that I can't get swept along by the emotion of a thing. And the final thing that really pushed me to Clinton's side was the intense, irrational hate that people seemed to feel for her. I mean, Citizens United Not Timid? This is not okay. It's not logical to vote for someone because she's a polarizing figure, but I was pissed.
But I like Obama, and I'm excited to get behind him now, and I'm going to take a moment to consider some recent news stories about Obama and McCain. Specifically - their take on reproductive issues. Now the problem with these issues in general is that they relate to the indecipherable world of women's anatomy - which is fine when it's displayed in "Playboy" but just discomforting when considered in the context of a woman's life. John McCain seems baffled and disgusted by these issues. Here, Bitch Ph.D. provides the YouTube clip - when asked about whether it was unfair that health insurance companies would cover Viagra but not birth contol, McCain sort of freezes. "I certainly do not want to discuss that issue" he says. In fact, he voted against legislation to require that insurance companies require contraceptives to be covered. Judith Warner (does anyone else read her columns? I've been enjoying them) has an essay in the NYT about the differences between supporting women's rights in theory and in practice.
Obama, though generally better, doesn't consider the mental health of a woman to be an adequate reason for an abortion. Because he clearly knows better than the woman in question whether she could have the child. Bitch Ph.D. has a nice essay on the subject.
As for the current administration - obviously Bush has never been a big fan of treating women like intelligent adults who can make their own decisions about their bodies. This adminstration would like to define abortion in a way that includes many types of birth control - and prevent women's clinics from firing or refusing to hire nurses who refuse to talk about birth control. Here's the NYT article, and here's a commentary from salon.com.
I'm not sure Clinton would have been better on reproductive issues (anybody have any links?), but it would perhaps be slightly less galling to be told by a woman that she doesn't think I'm capable of making a moral, intelligent decision. Then again, maybe not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
First, if you wanted to just reference something light about the election, you can refer people to this article from The Onion, "http://www.theonion.com/content/news/time_publishes_definitive_obama"
which I think captures the same humor that Saturday Night Live did with their debate sketches. The Onion captures satire more effectively than the New Yorker, probably because fewer people read it and they don't have to please so many audiences.
Second, as far as the health care issues, the way I like to frame women's health is 'do we have family values or not'? As long as pregnancy is treated like a disease for insurance purposes and family planning decisions are entirely politicized we've got some holes in our family values. Everything is really about sex and sexual morality and not children or families (potential and existing).
Third, with health care and everything else, its hard to have coherence between one's beliefs and voting behavior. There are so many positions people have (or even a few), so its like, do I care most about a), b), or c) or just say forget it an vote based on partisanship. I'm losing my train of thought so I'll finish this later.
So, one of the reasons you and I are such good friends is because we like people who don't just cave their opinions based on what other people think. So, rather than cringe, I feel that I've made a good choice in a friend in that you and I can discuss two sides of the same story. Maybe I was too pushy if you felt that we couldn't discuss these things before. It's just that i get loud when I'm excited. It's probably totally emotional but I am in love with Barack Obama. I feel that he is going to take us into a new era. I suspect that Hillary would have done the same. I felt convinced, somehow, that she was just more of the same, only wearing a skirt...but I think maybe I was wrong.
Sadly, it was after the opportunity for me to vote that I began wondering if my negative opinions about Hillary Clinton were based on the media portrayal of her as a polarizing and ...what's the word...that means that she focuses on criticizing her opponent instead of stressing her own platform? I'm concerned that my beliefs were shaped by the inability of our entire culture to accept a woman who acts like a politician. I'm also concerned that I have enough sexism in my soul to make me feel that one of the primary problems in our country is that the black community needs attention from the top, as opposed to women. But, media and culture-driven as it may have been, that was my rationale. I just felt that Hillary was a polarizing figure, where Obama was a unifying figure, and that so many issues can start to be resolved by putting a member of the black community in the white house (drug war=race war, anyone?). On the other hand, I'm constant baffled that insurance rules and medical research are so painfully sexist. I lobbied for an insurance mandate for birth control once. It failed but went further than we anticipated. We credited ourselves... Kim is, meanwhile, paying for all her ultrasounds out of pocket on our student "health insurance." It's pathetic.
One problem with writing (and perhaps drawing cartoons) is that it's often difficult to interpret a person's tone. I didn't mean that you would really disapprove of me - I was teasing because I know how enthusiastic you are about Obama. That might be why I think something is wrong with me. I have such a hard time believing that anyone is more than just another politician - or that we'd be able to sort through the media's portrayal of a candidate to tell if they were the real thing or not.
Katy - I agree with you about health care as family values. There's something inconsistent about not wanting BC to be mandatory in insurance but not supporting family friendly legislation.
That sucks that Kim is paying out of pocket. Hopefully it'll be covered under Tom's new job?
I think that the new health insurance is better but, because of various technical aspects of the GT health insurance, Kim will be totally un-insured for about a week. Hopefully nothing will go wrong during that time...bastards.
Post a Comment