Sunday, May 14, 2006

About Hillary Clinton

I've never been a Hillary Clinton fan. I used to consider her a pathetic example of an intelligent ambitious, woman repressing her own personal potential to propel her husband into prominence. She kept reminding me of a less domestic and maternal Eleanor McGovern. In some ways I'm glad that she has finally established her own career, but it has always bothered me that she did it as a "New Yorker."

A number of years ago, when those plans were just rumors, I began writing an op-ed, which I was supposed to try to get published in "The New York Times," but I chickened out of sending it. I also didn't do what I threatened at that time. I've still never taken advantage of my rights to an absentee ballot.

I found that "article" in my computer memory, and decided to publish it here, since as her presidential candidacy is getting closer to reality, her "enemies," I think that's the best word rather than opponents since they aren't running against her, are getting more vociferous.

Here it is:

A Real New Yorker

by Batya Medad

I am fifty years old, and even though a life-long U.S. citizen, born in New York City, IÂ’ve never voted in American elections. Just after coming of age, I moved abroad and believe that although the law permits it, non-resident U.S. citizens shouldnÂ’t vote. But if Hillary Clinton runs for the Senate from New York, I will vote against her!

My New York chauvinism can’t understand why in a state as vast and rich in talented and dynamic resident-citizens, the Democratic Party is pushing a “foreigner!” No amount of position papers and baseball caps, whether The Mets or The Yankees can make Hillary Clinton an authentic representative of New York’s citizens.

The alleged precedent of Bobby Kennedy is not accurate. He actually spent his formative years in New York; though the family always kept a home in Massachusetts and their distinctive Bostonian accents. Hillary Clinton was never more than just a tourist in New York.

Those who wrote the American constitution and decided on the responsibilities of the two legislatures wanted to avoid the abuses of the English system, wherein a small homogeneous “elite” can govern. In England, even today, people who wish to be elected to Parliament check around the country for what they think will be an easy race and enter it, even if they had never been in the area before. If they mount a successful campaign, they are elected and get to know their constituents. The House of Lords doesn’t even make a pretense to represent the ordinary citizen; its membership is either inherited or awarded. Our American Senate is a representative version; therefore each state, regardless of size, gets the same number, two senators. It’s ironic that Mrs. Clinton, the First Lady is interested in a Senate seat.

I would prefer not to mention what I think of her as a woman and role model, but unfortunately, it seems like the same weaknesses and insecurities that have kept her chained to a consistently unfaithful husband have contributed to her agreeing to run for the Senate from New York. If sheÂ’s really as intelligent and talented as her supporters say, why is she so afraid to let go, live independently and build her own career?

After many years of political activism, I know how difficult it is for women to succeed in politics. I am firmly and sincerely in favor of increasing the amount of women in government, but this is not the way. Mrs. Clinton is a parody of the “modern woman.” Her candidacy is a regression, a generation or more backwards, she’s playing the dependent “bimbo” role. Her “stand by my man” line and “first lady fluff” are like silicon implants. Barbie and Ken, the “perfect” couple. Although the truth is that Bill and Hillary Clinton, as a couple, are the butts of jokes all over the world. Would she want her daughter to end up in a marriage like hers?

Mrs. Clinton did not come up through the ranks of party workers and activists. She’s a “gimmick,” somebody’s desperate brain storm after Senator Moynihan announced his upcoming retirement. I was amazed to hear that the women most active in the New York Democratic party are backing her, just so that a woman will be elected. She is being “packaged” by experienced staff to appear to be in favor of what New Yorkers want and expect from a Democratic senator, including opinions that strongly conflict with her previous statements.

Do the citizens of New York State want a senator so dependent on party hacks? I donÂ’t; therefore if Hillary Clinton runs for the Senate from New York, IÂ’ll be one of the first on line at my local U.S. Consulate to get my ballot, and IÂ’ll vote for her strongest opponent.

New York deserves an advocate of its own, from its own.

4 comments:

Anon said...

If I remember correctly she had her own career and earned more than Bill for years. She supported him during his first forays into politics as governor.

Batya said...

But there was "trouble" with some scandal and her law practice. Didn't someone commit suicide?

Anon said...

If you don't know any more details than there was "trouble" you're hardly in a position to criticize.

Batya said...

easy to check
and (bli neder) I will