you go, girl.

This primaries thing just gets more and more interesting. Given my own leftist politics, I find the Democratic front-runners (meaning Clinton and Obama, natch - Edwards doesn't have the appeal or the dazzle to make it a real three-way race) fairly equally palatable and the Republicans equally eerie and over-zealous to get their grabby hands on my civil rights (though I might like John McCain, if he weren't so firmly for the war, or Giuliani, if he weren't a bit cracked). Today is the New Hampshire primary, and of course we've already got the early results in from Digg's Notch and Hart's Location. The frustrating thing about primaries (and the Republican caucus in Iowa) is that it takes so long to count the votes. Polls open at 8 and close whenever they do, and after that you still have to wait. At least caucus is instant gratification.

Obama's got the early lead, apparently: the media's portrait of Clinton as desperate and flagging is working, which I think is a pity. As Gloria Steinem points out in today's New York Times, Hillary gets a bad rap if she's stern (too cold! too reserved! possibly a robot!) and a worse one if she shows any emotion (isn't it just like a woman to be all emotional right now! women are too weak and ruled by their hormones! what if she cried in the White House?). There's absolutely no way she can win that war. Meanwhile, Obama goes on with his highly emotional pontification and appeals to our deeper sorrows. He's a good speaker and a moving one, but that kind of speech isn't available to Clinton.

Steinem has several other good points: why can Obama use his race in a way that Clinton can't use her gender? Why is he "allowed" to talk about civil rights struggles and Clinton has to shy away from sexism for fear of being accused of playing the gender card? She is a woman. That's an incontrovertible fact, despite snide comments. Why shouldn't she talk about being a woman? More than half the country's population is women; perhaps it's time for a candidate who truly understands women's issues. Clinton and Obama are equally progressive; Obama's voting record during his most of a term in the Senate has been almost identical to Clinton's. It's hard to say who's got more at stake in terms of a fight for their rights - both are wealthy, well-educated, and privileged.

Perhaps the problem is that Obama is viewed as a man of the people (aha) and Clinton is seen as someone who's more independently motivated, less receptive to the voices of her constituents. Clinton's aggressiveness and reserve would be praised if she were a man. Don't we want a President who will fight for their country? Admittedly, getting elected isn't the most poignant struggle in the world, but it is a challenge that requires dedication and passion. Each candidate has their own reasons for wanting the position, but I believe that the greater good of the nation is among Clinton's motives. So she wants another chance to effect change. Who can blame her for that? The First Lady is a nice title, but the position doesn't come with much authority, and it's clear she's always had ideas of her own about policy. The number one reason I heard for voting for Bush when I was calling voters in Iowa before the 2004 elections was that people wanted to give him another chance to fix his mistakes. The mistakes of the Clintons were much less heinous; a failed health care plan is hardly a quagmire of a war or a shambles of an education policy. So give Hillary a chance to restructure her own plans gone awry and I believe she'll fix Bush's errors as well. She'll surround herself with good people and she'll behave like a president ought to: strong, motivated, and broad-minded.

That doesn't even touch on the whole "Iron My Shirt" debacle. Can you imagine if some redneck idiot stood up and made a racist comment to Obama? Aside from Fox News commentators, of course. The uproar would be instantaneous and furious. Tell people about this and I guarantee that a good percentage of them will be hiding a smile or a titter. There's an idea that this is the kind of commentary Clinton should deserve or expect. Who's asking Obama or Edwards or the Republicans how much effort they put into caring for their children or doing the housekeeping? Most of them are rich enough to pay for housekeepers and nannies if they feel that they need them, but that wouldn't be seen as a cop-out for them; meanwhile, Clinton is expected to talk about her family life and her domestic abilities. Rather sickening.

Personally, I'd be happy with either of them as a candidate. Look at America, feeling good about itself when the two most viable candidates are a white woman and an African-American man. That's progress, at least.

Maybe people are just tired of political dynasties. Admittedly, Bill Clinton's fine legacy of policy making, peace-keeping, and governmental competence is overshadowed by the ridiculous impeachment and the way Bush spent the surplus into the ground, took us straight into a war, and underfunded things like No Child Left Behind, which might have worked. Maybe that's why Obama seems fresh and hip enough to appeal to young voters and charm the jaded middle-aged. It is impressive that he managed to draw out the overwhelmingly white population of Iowa on an icy January evening. But if you really want to overturn the status quo, why not vote for a woman? Women are still underpaid, still expected to hold down a job and raise a family, still at a political and a social disadvantage. Not to belittle the continuing influences of racism, but it must be remarked that Obama isn't quite the disadvantaged wunderkind, here to unite black and white, conservative and liberal (and how would he be doing if he didn't have a white mother from Kansas, I wonder?), man and woman. Sure, he listens to his wife, but you can't yet vote for Michelle Obama.

Hillary's always going to be a polarizing figure. She's always going to stir up resentment for one reason or another: she stood by Bill, she didn't stand by him enough, she's too New York, she's a carpetbagger trying to build on her husband's Southern charm, she plays the gender card, she's not womanly enough, she implies a return to the feel-good Clinton era, she has her own policies and agendas to implement. There's never not going to be people with strong opinions about her and I value that. At least she inspires. Nobody's ever going to have all good press or all agreement. That wouldn't be rough and tumble American politics, and frankly, I like it this way. All the drama! Less of the bloodshed! Nice work, America. It's time for the apathy to end.

If Obama is the nominee, I'll throw my support behind him. Anything to get Bush out of the White House and this country out of its slump, and besides that, I genuinely like him. I'm all for the politics of hope and actually looking forward to the State of the Union. But you know what? I'm not giving up hope for Hillary Clinton breaking that glass ceiling.