sex trouble: clinton or obama?

Music: Between Interval: Autumn Continent (2006)

Because I don't get cable, I am protected from the obsessions of the news apparatus somewhat. I am mostly clobbered by political fanfare these days on facebook, as my friends announce which candidate they are behind by joining this or that fan-group. (As an aside: there is something to be said about the role of facebook in this election; real time polls are conducted on the debates, which one or two of the networks subsequently report, in real time!) Needless to say, my friends are choosing socialist groups, Clinton groups, or Obama groups. No one has strutted a Nader-joining (and did anyone see Meet the Press yesterday? Sheesh). Last week I had planned to attend a debate watch party, but decided in the end that all of us Left-leaning types crowded into a bar drinking beer and watching banter about heated issues might lead to some tension and discomfort. I came home and streamed alone (I mean the debates, James, the debates).

I remain ambivalent about the two candidates for the nomination, and I suspect a lot of y'all do too (tell me if I get the ambivalence wrongly). I appreciate Clinton is a very good, technical politician who will get things done. She has a track record of progressive legislation in some cases. She is an obsessive policy-wonk and has unquestionably dedicated her life to public service. "Hating Hillary," as a wise mentor put it, is born of misogyny and Clinton is unquestionably in a gendered double bind: you can be a woman president, but ya can't be womanly. She is strong. Very strong, if not a downright jaw-dropping, awe-inspiring rock who can withstand pressures that would explode most of us into tiny, bloody bits. She is, however, too embedded for me in the sense that the "change" she represents is nothing more than neoliberalism re-hoisted on another stick, basically Clinton II with less southern-fried soul. Some of the first Clinton's policies were terrible (especially trade stuff and media convergence stuff) and I think she'd pick up where Bill left off, turning every social issue into an economic one. I see real differences between her and McCain, but in wider focus they appear just slightly on either side of the politically conservative. It's the social issues that are a matter of difference, and at least Hillary and McCain aren't making comments about how the rule of law answers to a Higher Power that only they alone can channel (e.g., prophecy).

Obama is the type of leader who inspires, obviously, and a motivating presidency would be great. He tempts prophecy, but thus far he's kept his prophetic talk in the deliberative zone of civil religion. In terms of policy, I reckon we just don't have much of a record to look at. He is very bright, though, and likely to surround himself with the kind of experienced advisors who can get things accomplished in the technical sense; his inexperience doesn't trouble me. So far he seems pretty much indistinguishable from Clinton to me except for some key issues (which, watching the debates and reading their websites, seem more about the means and not the ends they both share).

Yet Obama has become a condensation symbol for a "do-right," deliberative "America," and his monotonous insistence on reestablishing relationships in the global theatre are what I find most compelling. Yes, his appeal to me is largely a symbolic one---I admit that freely without shame, and that's because I find the symbolic very important. That is, I realize Obama is not a policy wonk, but he has distinguished himself from Clinton---for me---with his recent statements about amping-up the diplomatic function of the presidency. Frankly, the ability of Obama to establish goodwill with other countries based on certain intangibles---demeanor, gentleness, a kind of hard-to-describe male European femininity---may do more to stave off terrorist attacks than any official policies, treaties, and so forth that can be drawn up. In this respect, Obama has something that both the first Clinton and Regan had, a certain interpersonal charm that inspires loving feelings toward them.

I worry, however, if my own thinking about this is sexist: is the charm of which I speak a penis? I mean this question literally. Clinton has a certain phallic appeal and, in fact, her incredible resolve and strength may be why she is perceived as threatening to some politicians and voters (viz., the castrating woman), in addition to the subtly sexist ways in which she is denigrated in the press. What I'm talking about here are the cultural assumptions made about women in issues of diplomacy on the world stage, particularly in more orthodox Islamic countries. Would it be easier for Obama to navigate the complexities of Middle East politics because he is male? Gender is not the issue here, as I think many of Obama's personal characteristics are feminine in a way. I have to admit to myself that I do think it would be easier; based on the way the man talks, looks, and carries himself it seems to me Obama would have an easier time reestablishing relations with the world, and much of this does center on the fact he is a man.

These conclusions bother me and trouble my conscience.