[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: I just think it's great, more than great,

Hello Rod,

Thanks for the discussion!

With regard to authenticity in a candidate, I don't know if it's possible to have authenticity in a candidate, just as you say, regardless of hope. But is it possible to refrain from cynicism? Is cynicism an essential ingredient when acting as a voter in an election?

Because I prefer to refrain from cynicism, does that mean I must be slotted into a category judgment of naiveté? Or that it means I am blind to a candidate's flaws? Or that I am looking for a messiah to lead me to the promised land?

(I'm not implying that you are saying that, by the way).

Being a politician is a strange calling. For Hillary it seems to have begun at an early age, as it did for Bill. It's not a life I would pick, and by the numbers, few do. I suspect we do not know what it is like, but one thing that they seem to have in common is they came from hardscrabble lives, or their parents did. And they seem to share a desire to make the world a better place, they have the appearance to seek social justice. That seems quite rare these days.

I cannot say anything definitive about Hillary's actions in reference to Bill, in her defense. I suggest however that if she becomes president and then divorces him once she moves into the White House, it will likely mean she remained married to him out of convenience and a will to power, as you imply.

But if she doesn't divorce him, then what does that mean? it could mean that she takes her marriage vows seriously. She seems to be a religious person, so perhaps she believes in the marriage. That is possible too.

It could also mean she is an enabler, or all of the above. This is all speculation, right?

Sometimes when your opportunities are few and your opponents are many, making compromises to get to a place to get things done is your only opportunity. A woman frequently must make that kind of deal, and when she does, I find that it's considered a lot heavier a burden than its equivalent circumstance for a man. I feel there is a false sense of outrage displayed when women are caught making compromises, and this response goes over the top. It invokes the dichotomy of the saint/whore and the history that comes with it. Obviously that is my opinion and I have a strong bias, but perhaps the literature backs me up. It doesn't mean that I'm willing to give a badly-behaving person a pass just because she is a woman or to condemn a man because he is not a woman. I'm just making an observation of the measures of outrage and comparing them.

Last I checked, we live in a society that lives by the code "innocent until proven guilty." It is not "guilty because of numerous suspicions, sordid associations, and awful rumors and accusations posted on the internet."  Until Bill has been convicted of crimes it is difficult to measure the sagacity of Hillary to stick by him. I'm not saying that in defense of either of them, just from an observation that the problem is difficult to parse if I want to live by the credo "innocent until proven guilty."

Interestingly, it seems now possible today for a man to run for president and to make sarcastic comments to encourage a foreign power to influence his own election through leaking private discussions of the opposing party. I'm waiting for the outrage on that one. That seems to border an act of treason, especially if I might compare this with stories and accusations slogged about Edward Snowden.

Sometimes what people say about me in private is simply none of my business. People should have the right to think and speak privately, knowing that it is private. Imagine a world where that isn't allowed? That there is no privacy and no freedom of speaking candidly.

I'm waiting for the outrage expressed for a candidate to openly embrace a foreign power that has a past of being adversarial to western freedoms. Does it matter that it was a sarcastic remark?

Where is the outrage?

I believe that Hillary loves her country, I don't think that is fraudulent. I'm not so sure about the opponent.

The point I hope I have made is that I don't think we come to our analysis about people, particularly those in the public forum, without filtering through gendered expectations, among other expectations of course. All I'm requesting is that we examine those expectations and determine whether we are being fair about using them.

Kind regards,