Making "History" be damned

I'm an Edwards woman.  Recently, I got into it with a co-worker's relative that I met at dinner.  She's voting for Hillary by gum!  Because, she doesn't want to die before a woman becomes president.  I said, "But Edwards is the most progressive of the democratic candidates."  And she said, "It will be history making if Hillary is elected."

I was too stunned to really react at that moment.  I couldn't quite process the sheer triviality of her reasoning.  There were many things I could have said.  I could have talked about Margaret Thatcher and her "history making" and how it damaged her country.  But I didn't.  I could have mentioned that she would probably "die" sooner than expected if President Hillary doesn't address the healthcare crisis as she probably should and probably won't.  But I didn't do that either.  

I simply looked at her across the table as she smiled that same bright chipper smile that I saw on the faces of two University of California co-eds as they were interviewed on tv and they said they were voting for Arnold because then his signature would be on their diplomas and "WOW" that was gonna be soooo cool!

Here's the thing, as far as I am concerned if a white, middled-aged, affluent guy tells me that he is going to rid this country of insurance company driven health care and our political system of corporate corruption and instigate measures to save the middle class,and no other candidate addresses these issues, then I'm voting for HIM.  

I'm a feminist and I'm voting for Edwards in order to "make history" that benefits all of the citizens of this country and not just satisfy the need of some for a symbolic ego boost.

I just had to get that out.  Thanks.

•  And I'm gonna recc this diary

  for the same reason: it deserves it on its own merits.

  by NearlyNormal on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:09:29 PM PDT

•  You maybe shouldn't trivialize other peoples

  choices.  

  by masslib on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:11:28 PM PDT

  •  Yeah,

    It's not like she wants to have a beer with her.

    by Friend of the court on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:25:23 PM PDT

    •  Right, because electing the first Democratic

      woman to the highest office in the land, is just like choosing who you want to grab a beer with.

      by masslib on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:52:17 PM PDT

      •  I'm afraid that she will want to let BushCo

        off the hook.  Edwards has a record of going after the big fish.  I am a woman and a Democrat, but restoring the rule of law is job one.

        by Friend of the court on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:25:35 PM PDT

        •  Well, she's said she plans on restoring the rule

          of law.  On the question of Bush, Edwards isn't running on holding Bush criminally responsible or not.  But, even if he did, that may not be this woman's primary concern.  

          by masslib on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:28:19 PM PDT

        •  Though, clearly, I respect that for you

          it is, and you feel Edwards the strongest on this issue, and that you support him atleast in part for that.

          by masslib on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:29:17 PM PDT

        •  What kind of country are you hoping for, anyway?

          Since when is it the president's prerogative to "let people off the hook" in terms of criminal liability, by means other than a pardon?  Either you're suggesting that a President Clinton would proactively pardon Bush and cohorts (as Ford did with Nixon), or you're saying that she would pardon them in the event of an indictment, or you're saying that she fail to direct prosecutors to indict them.  I suspect that you mean #3, which is a little troubling because it's illegal and against our constitutional tradition for the president to direct prosecutions.

          If you think for a moment that John Edwards, or any other Democratic candidate, would take affirmative steps to secure indictments of anyone, you insult them more than the worst hit/troll diary on DK.

          by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:52:14 PM PDT

          •  The next President will appoint the next Attorney

            General.  Once Bush is out of office, will it still be up to Congress? Or will it be up to the DoJ?  I guess, after the last seven years, I have lost some confidence in constitutional tradition.  I am hoping that I am wrong.  I am hoping that the next President obeys the law, and enforces it.  (Bush 1/ Reagan and Iran Contra), sweep it under the rug and move on is my fear, not my hope.

            by Friend of the court on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 06:08:24 PM PDT

  •  Why noy

    if they deserve it.

    I mean if you can make fun of people who voted for Dubya because he seemed like the kind of guy you would like to have a beer you can make fun of this. I mean it is equally worthy of ridicule, it is sacrificing the cake to get the frosting.

    I would love to have both, but if I have to choose one, I'll take the cake.

    I am going to get alot of smart-assed remarks because of that last statement aren't I?

    by bam bam on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:42:46 PM PDT

    •  Voting "to make history" sounds irrational.

      The "Let's have a beer" thing was just as crazy.

      "Youll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."  -- Barnum's Law.

      by vets74 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:53:48 PM PDT

      •  vets74,

        why did you TR masslib's comment upthread?  Is it a mistake?

        Remember, we only TR comments that are so odious as to deserve to be hidden.  That comment doesn't come close to anything like that.

        A Happy Holidays to you and your loved ones.

        by ghost2 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:01:18 PM PDT

        •  Thank you. :)

          by masslib on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:01:54 PM PDT

          •  Completely disagreed with the comment

            but did not deserve a TR.

            I am sure I will have plenty of opportunities to TR Masslib, but today is not one of those times. :)

            by bam bam on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:46:48 PM PDT

            •  I really think

              that in the spirit of holidays, we should refrain from TR, unless the comment is SO odious that it MUST be hidden.  

              by ghost2 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:22:59 PM PDT

            •  You won't find plenty of opportunities, I assure

              you.

              by masslib on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 09:06:08 PM PDT

            •  The comment was an insult.

              Equivalent to "you're dumb."

              The folks who come on here, set up as supporters of one candidate, then insult everybody -- they're fakes.

              This one does it hundreds of times. Over and over.

              A Texas level of rudeness.

              by vets74 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 07:29:44 AM PDT

  •  The woman who said that

    didn't need any help trivializing the choice. She did just fine on her own.

    by bumblebums on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:49:04 PM PDT

    •  It's not a trivial choice. Lot's of people think

      these candidates are very close on the issues.  All things being equal, electing the first female Democratic president is very inspiring.  It's a fine choice, even if it is not yours or the diarists.

      by masslib on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:51:31 PM PDT

      •  exactly

        I think if pundette had challenged the co-workers relative with the Thatcher example and the person had said that they would vote for Thatcher as well, then pundette would be justified. But I suspect they probably would have backtracked and qualified their statement for the reasons you've stated. Hillary may not be as progressive as Edwards 2007, and frankly I think it helps her chances in the general election that she isn't. But she's a solid Democrat (the 21st, 22nd, 25th and 19.5th most liberal Senator in the 107th-110th Congresses according to ideological vote score expert Keith Poole).

        by Wufacta on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:04:56 PM PDT

        •  excellent comment! thanks.

          In a similar vein, may I add that it disgusts me and countless others on this site when we see the unfair trashing that Hillary get from Markos himself and others here everyday, as if Hillary is the second coming of Cheney himself??

          When we are stunned with the level of vitroil thrown at her from so-called progressive sites, we call some of them (justifiably, I may add) sexism, we are screamed at and are told that Hillary is playing the victim??

          BTW I wanted to directly challenge Markos for this, but it's too late in that FP thread, but you bet that if/when Hillary is the nominee, Markos, Like countless MSM pundits, would claim that he covered all candidates equally, had no bias against Hillary and said that he would support the nominee?? (i.e. we are equally stupid for reading bias in MSM coverage or Markos's coverage here.) You can bookmark this.

          by ghost2 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:09:07 PM PDT

        •  Well I can't comment on a

          conversation that never happened, ie: If I had challenged her with the Thatcher example and if she had responded one way or another.  I didn't and she didn't.  But she did have a chance to respond with something other than the whole wouldn't be great to have a woman president at last bit, when I said that Edward was more progressive.  She could have talked about something a little more substantive but she didn't.

          And as for it helping Ms Clinton in the general election that she is NOT as progressive as Edwards, how then do you explain that Edwards out polls in the general population every viable republican candidate by a greater percentage than both Obama and Clinton do?

          I want a woman president someday too, but I don't one who is going to not do what this country needs doing, in the health care arena particularly.  And I fear that Ms Clinton is not the right woman for the job.  I wish I could say otherwise.

          by pundette on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:50:48 PM PDT

          •  I actually think she is as progressive, and she

            has a long term record as such.  I think it's a matter of framing.  Hillary Clinton has been advocating for univeral health care for nearly 20 years.  She brought health care to rural arkansas.  She was a key advocate for SCHIP.  There's no indication at all that she is "one who is going to not do what this country needs doing, in the health care arena particularly."

            by masslib on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:55:42 PM PDT

            •  No, what needs doing in the

              health care arena is getting the insurance companies out of it.  She has not had such a good record of doing that.  In my opinion, she is a little too cozy with the corporate sector.

              But you bring up good points.  This is a better conversation than the one I described in my diary.  Maybe, it would do some good to talk to your fellow Clinton supporters and warn them about relying too heavily on the "making history" meme.

              by pundette on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:03:56 PM PDT

              •  Yes.

                But really making history IS a BIG deal.  Hillary cares for people, she cares for children and women. Her background proves that.  She cares for bringing health care.  She is careful not to promise too much, and already she has promised a great agenda.  

                It's great that she excites many people.  You bet that people like you who are greatly involved are supporting candidates based on conviction about their agenda and their character.  Maybe activist Hillary supporters are ALSO excited that she is a woman.  In addition, if by her being a woman, she succeeds in bringing lots and lots of women (especially single women who don't pay much attention to politics) to get involved, THAT'S A GREAT THING. Then, in future, they would say, 'umm, I started becoming involved the year Hillary was running.'

                by ghost2 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:31:28 PM PDT

                •  The history I would like

                  to see made, is the historical decision to provide universal health care that is not driven by the insurance industry.  I would like the historical decision to remove our troops from Iraq, so that my brother won't have to return there for a third or fourth time. He is already having to return for a second.

                  If it is a woman president who makes that kind of history that is icing on the cake as another poster has commented.  Ms Clinton may care about kids and women but she doesn't seem committed to doing what it takes to really secure their futures.  Families in this country face dire circumstances every time one of their members falls seriously ill and as far as I can see the only democratic candidate who has spoken strongly about the need to rein in insurance companies is John Edwards.  Someone here talks about Ms. Clinton wanting to avoid "promising too much."  Good grief, what is "inspiring" about that?

                  by pundette on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 09:46:37 PM PDT

                  •  tip'd for caring.

                    (in sincerity! around her it's hard to tell).  I did say that she has already promised a great agenda.  

                    John Edwards deserves a lot a credit for bringing attention to the issue of poverty to mainstream again.  And I really liked his Christmas message, which again emphasized the same.

                    Happy Holidays.

                    by ghost2 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 09:53:14 PM PDT

•  Good job

  Written with humor and is well reasoned!

  Merry X'mas to you!

  by Andy86 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:17:18 PM PDT

•  I Was Hoping

  there would be a woman president or a black president in my lifetime.

  I'm registered as an independent so I don't get to vote in the primaries anyway.

  I'd be sad to vote for Edwards, A White Guy, instead. But I would. May the best person win.

  by JG in MD on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:15:26 PM PDT

  •  Democracy depends on that reasoning.

    Sine qua non.

    by vets74 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:55:30 PM PDT

•  I have wanted a woman

  president forever but I cannot look at gender or race as the defining issue.  With such an abundance of riches as far as candidates goes, we still must be careful to make the best choice.  There is too much at stake to vote for superficial reasons.  BTW  I have been struck lately by the amazing lack of race (Obama) as an election issue in my Iowa community.  I haven't heard anyone even bring it up despite the constant yammering on TM about it.  People here are focused on issues which gives me some hope...

  by luckylizard on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:24:40 PM PDT

•  I think you are generalizing a bit too much

  Of course there are women who will vote for Hillary because she is a woman.  However, there are plenty of men, not honest enough, who say they will not vote for Hillary because she has fat legs, or should have left Bill years ago or a dozen such rationales. Deep down they will not vote for a woman, period. So give the "dumb broad" routine a rest.

  by hairspray on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:33:29 PM PDT

•  Why is it acceptable...

  ...to advocate Obama's election because "what he represents" would be inspiring to people, whereas it's superficial or otherwise foolish to suggest the same for Clinton?

  Riddle me that, riddlers!

  by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 05:53:51 PM PDT

•  I don't think anyone on this thread

  has even mentioned that with regard to Obama.  

  I don't know.  Do you want to discuss if it is any more reasonable to vote for Obama just because he is African American than it is to vote for Clinton just because she is a woman?  I for one can't say that it is any more reasonable.

  by pundette on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:54:56 PM PDT