Hillary's Categorical Politics

1. Gender.
Hillary Clinton is a woman ergo women should vote for her if she is not acting like Michele Bachmann, right? That is what Hillary thinks. She has gone out of her way to talk about anti-choice Republicans, pay inequality etc. It is a good thing to discuss those issues, but gender is not determinative if your male opponent is also on the right side of those issues. Younger women in particular were offended by Madeleine Abright's comment that there is a special place in hell for women who do not support other women. They thought Ms. Albright's comment was condescending. I agree with them. I also agree with them when they say the ground breaking precedent we would set by electing Hillary as the first women President should not be determinative. Younger women refuse to base their vote on gender because there are too many other issues they care about. Older women who still bear the scars from their battles for gender equality feel differently. Those older women consider the precedent of electing a female President important enough to make it the deciding factor in regard to who they vote for.

I think the issue of gender, and I am not taking about what many people call gender issues, is a mixed bag for Hillary. While her gender will undoubtedly sway many older women in Hillary's favor, there will also be a backlash. I have to agree with women who say the backlash will come mainly from men frequently called “male chauvinist pigs” that tend to be Republicans anyhow, but we cannot rule out a backlash from independent male chauvinist pigs that are predominately blue collar workers. And, although I do not think we should pander in any way to male chauvinist pigs, I have to point out that blue collar workers in general are a group the Democratic Party is trying to woo. So in a general election, and probably in the primaries as well, some of the advantages Hillary might derive from her gender will be negated by an adverse reaction to her using gender as a political issue. I might add here that Republican women also detest Hillary Clinton. I don't know why, but it will hurt her in the general election if that election is close.

2. Race. 
The next categorical issue is race. Hillary and Bill Clinton have always been popular with African Americans and Hillary is playing that for all it is worth. The problem for her is that Bernie Sanders has a stellar civil rights record, and he is as committed as Hillary is to ending institutional racism. Many African Americans (particularly younger ones) are likely to swing over to Bernie's side as they get to know him better. Hillary is trying to counter that with the Obama card. Hillary Clinton has tied herself so closely to Barack Obama that one would think she took his mantle and had it form fitted to her. She has obviously appointed herself the militant guardian of his legacy, and she will use sharp barbs and hyperboles to defend his record from what she perceives to be the grave threat posed by any and all criticism. Indeed, she accused Bernie Sanders of trying to undo President Obama's accomplishments and thereby destroy his legacy. In this regard she is treating Obama's legacy with all the fervor of an orthodox fanatic!

The election of President Barack Obama set a very important precedent, and he has been one of our better presidents. I do not blame African Americans for taking pride in his accomplishments, but I am sure many of them agree that we should not canonize him. Many people, I am among them, were frustrated by the slow pace of the changes he was able to bring about, and there is still a lot of work that remains to be done. I do not claim to speak for African Americans but I am sure that many of them will see Hillary's idolatry of Obama as politically inspired pandering and therefore condescending.

3. Establishment. 
The last category is one Hillary has seized upon while trying to run away form it. It is “establishment,” and she is like the monkey who will not let go of the shiny object even though she cannot remove her hand from the bottle unless she does let of that object. The shiny object in the bottle is the package of things the establishment bestows on its chosen one. Some of the things in that package are endorsements from prominent citizens, Super Delegate Votes, and Money - lots and lots of money with which to buy an election. The money comes from Wall Street and Plutocrats who are hoping to buy what they want from Hillary. And thanks to the Democratic National Committee Wall Street and the Plutocrats can now spend a lot more money on getting Hillary Clinton elected. As the Washington Post reported:

 “The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees...

.

Reformers complain that the new rules have already changed Washington ethics. They provide opportunities for “influence-buying by Washington lobbyists with six-figure contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund,” said Wertheimer...”

Okay so it is easy to see why Hillary Clinton wants to discard the establishment label while hanging on to the establishment. The problem is that Citizens United, the corrupting influence of money and a Political Establishment that depends on that money are some of the things Bernie Sanders is running against! In that regard, Hillary cannot deny being a part of the establishment while she has that clearly labeled bottle with all of its goodies on her hand! Observant voters deeply recent the unfair advantage the establishment is trying to provide to Hillary. All reformers know our economic system is rigged to our disadvantage and so is our political system. Is it any wonder that we think it will take a political revolution to get this country moving in the right direction again?