Maureen Dowd puts her finger on the “why-are-you-so-opposed-to-HRC?” question that bounces into my inbox multiple times a day from well-meaning Democratic friends of mine.
“It’s not that she’s too old,” Ms. Dowd writes in her column today, “It’s that she’s too old-think, thrusting herself forward as a hawk at a time when hawks — in the season of Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul — aren’t so cool.”
And it’s not just when it comes to foreign policy that HRC is too old-think. Her political strategies, her positions on social issues, her understanding of the New Social Fabric of social media and a dozen other aspects of her “thought” are all too old.
Just about the only thing she has going for her candidacy is her gender. American women are a force to be dealt with and they have a strong sense that their turn has come, that it the country can support and twice elect a man of color, then it is time a woman gained the highest office in the land. Just because she’s a woman.
But, as a feminist, I’d a lot rather see a truly progressive man at the head of the party’s ballot in 2016 than a stuck woman. Come to that, I could enthusiastically and easily support a truly progressive woman candidate (can you say Elizabeth Warren?), but I doubt that will happen. For a woman to oppose HRC in 2016 would be political suicide. It might well be for a man as well but anyone gutsy enough to force a split in the ranks of the females of the Party would find herself on the outside looking in if Ms. Clinton were to win the Presidency.
So I’ll say it again. If Hillary Clinton is the party’s nominee, she’ll get my vote. But not one stitch of additional support of any kind. Not my time. Not my enthusiasm. Not my money. And I’ll hope she wins because any Democrat — no matter how old his or her thinking — will be infinitely better than any Republican candidate on the current political horizon.