Moira Manion: Why I Won't Vote for Hillary

I was a weird little kid. My tastes weren't "normal" for a girl in 1960s Mid-America. "Normal" kids liked Peanuts (I got tired of waiting for Charlie Brown to develop a backbone), dolls (Barbie was only good for burying in the mud or running over with a lawn mower, though digging Barbie shrapnel out of the grass was a pain), Superhero comics (who can identify with perfect people?), and "kids' games" (the creator of Dodge Ball was a sick S.O.B., who I hope was pummeled to death by a pack of Fifth Graders, using large rubber balls.)

No, I spent my tender years laughing at Gerald C. Gardner’s Who’s In Charge Here? photo-caption books.

Starting in the early 60s, Gerald C. Gardner added word balloons to photographs of leading politicians and public figures. I haven’t a book of his at hand from which I can scan an example, so here are two photo-toons from Harvey Kurtzman’s 1967 book, Beat It Kid, You Can’t Vote, which is almost identical in style and humor to Gardner’s work.

I'm the only kid I knew who thought that was hilarious. I also adored the political satire of The Smothers Brothers Show and Mark Russell on PBS.

I don’t know why I was interested in politicians. Some kids are obsessed with dinosaurs, because they were huge, roaring, larger than life creatures, who stomped across the landscape, crushing smaller, weaker creatures, and kids wanted to be them. To me, politicians were huge, roaring, larger than life creatures, who stomped across the landscape, crushing smaller, weaker creatures, and alive. They did things. I didn’t want to be a politician. But I sure loved observing them, the way Jane Goodall observed chimps.

My true political awakening was in 1976, at age fifteen, with America’s Bicentennial. I went on a road trip with my best friend, Carol Skillings, her sister Laura, and her mother Dorothy. We visited Monticello, Colonial Williamsburg, Jamestown, Mount Vernon, and Washington D.C. I fell head over heels for the American Revolution. I developed a patriotic fervor. I saw the movie musical 1776 on TV. John Adams, as portrayed by William Daniels, was my hero, because he was obnoxious and disliked, but his heart was in the right place, and he fought for his ideals, even in the face of being declared a traitor and knowing he’d be hanged if captured by the British.

My fervor was also whetted by the aftermath of Watergate. I considered Watergate to be the triumph of a Free Press over those who would shred the Constitution in their greed for power. After Nixon's resignation, my adolescent idealism wanted a President of whom I could be proud, who rose above his personal desires, whose ambition was solely to dedicate himself to serving The People.

For me, Jimmy Carter fit the bill. Here was a soft-spoken man who was not afraid to stand his ground. He was kind, gentle, and intelligent: Mr. Rogers as President. During the Energy Crisis, to set an example for conserving energy in the home, he turned down the White House thermostat and put on a cardigan when he asked us to do the same. To this day, I can’t leave a room without turning out the lights, because President Jimmy Carter asked me to. (Not me, personally, but I felt as if he were talking to me.) Because of him, solar panels popped up on houses in my neighborhood. Carter was a dedicated Baptist, but he didn’t flaunt his religion or act superior because of it. That the man brought about a peace agreement between Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin made me admire and adore him forever.

I was too young to pay attention to the debates about Carter's policies, and I didn't understand the fuss about his brother, Billy. Jimmy Carter was a man whose hand I would have been honored to shake. I would still be honored to.

Age and experience haven't dulled my idealism for a President of whom I can be proud. Quite the opposite, the decades have intensified it. William Jefferson Clinton was the first president I ever voted for. Like so many voters, I thought he would finally be the Democrat who would lead America out of the Dark Ages of the Reagan years and George the First. (We didn't know he was the First then. I don't recall his mentioning he even had children. I knew he had a dog.)

But then Clinton... Well. How ironic, that Jimmy Carter was condemned for admitting to lusting in his heart.

Now Hillary Clinton is running. Hillary Clinton would be terrible as the first woman President of the United States. I'm a Liberal Democrat Feminist saying this.

I want the first female president to be of such self-respect, dignity, confidence, and strength of character that she would never tolerate having done to her, by anyone, what Hillary tolerated from her husband. Hillary's example to young women is to stick with a lying, philandering heel. I heard a woman voter on NPR say that she liked Hillary because "she's loyal to her husband." Why is it that we expect wives to be loyal to husbands, but not husbands to be loyal to their wives?

Of course, it's the age-old double standard. Wives were "created" to stay by men's sides, faithful and true. It's the nature of men to be lying and faithless. They can't control themselves.

Please, men, will some of you dispute this already? Will some man please say, "Excuse me, I'm not an animal. I'm perfectly capable of controlling myself. I don't have to act on my impulses. I have the human impulse to kill too, y'know. But as much as I liked watching Clive Owen destroy the jerk driver who cut him off in Shoot 'Em Up, I would never do it."

The country would benefit from men who state that they are sincerely happy to defy the stereotype of "boys will be boys." There may be two or three in the world. If they do exist, they're far too quiet.

Yes, presidents have cheated on their wives, and still done good in office. But too often the public, and the press, have looked the other way, because they liked the guy.

And political wives continue to stand by their men, time and time and time again. At this point, one wonders why there's any rules against adultery at all. Apparently it doesn't bother the wives, or the voters. "It's their business, leave 'em alone." If we don't care that our politicians won't keep their promises to their spouses, we have no right to be upset when they don't keep their promises to us.

I've not read either of the Clintons' autobiographies, so I don't know what reason they give for staying together. Chelsea Clinton has stated, brusquely, "It’s none of your business….That is something that is personal to my family. I'm sure there are things that are personal to your family that you don't think are anyone else's business either.’’ She added, "I don't think you should be voting for or against my mother because of my father."

As an American citizen, the character of the President of the United States is my business. When Bill Clinton shook his self-righteous finger and stated, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski," he lied to me. If his wife accepted being mistreated, and she wants to be my leader, it is indeed my business to inquire about her judgment. Why should I accept a president who endures behavior that I wouldn’t? When Hillary learned the truth about Lewinski, who was only one affair in a long line of many, why didn’t Hillary leave, and begin anew on her own?

Why does she love a man who treated her so badly? Or is she so ambitious that she’ll endure anything, so long as it gets her into the White House? Why would I want a woman who repeatedly forgives such contempt to be the leader of the United States of America?

I want my president to be human. But, idealist that I am, I want more. This is why people choose a leader. When the president-elect takes the Oath of Office, she or he should fully understand that it is meant to be, it should be, a transformative ritual. That person is stepping from the sphere of normal life, into a role of a greater being. Americans want, we need, someone who will rise to a higher standard of responsibility, sacrifice, nobility, and courage. As much as we say we want a president who’s just one of us, in our American hearts we want someone who is stronger than we are, wiser than we are, and more honorable than we are. Otherwise, truly, what’s the point? If the job is to be had by anyone with enough money and political clout, then, as the saying goes, we get the government we deserve. Case in point, a president who’s barely literate, and who wasn’t altogether honest about "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We brought him upon ourselves.

We need to trust our president’s judgment. Because if the most powerful leader in our nation, perhaps in the world, has bad judgement and a flimsy character, it can lead to disaster. Our president should, as our first President, a man of impeccable character, said,

Hillary's judgment is already being revealed as quite bad. She made the assumption that the American people and the press are fools. (She should have known better about the press.) Why did she believe that no one would double-check her story of being under sniper attack during her visit to Bosnia? I was personally insulted that she said, with condescending irritation, "So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation." She told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke."

No matter how tired you are, how can you mistake being peacefully greeted by a little girl with you and your daughter running for cover from gunshots?

Here is a picture of a sniper attack, and a picture that is not a sniper attack. Can you tell the difference?

Evidently Mrs. Clinton can't. If Hillary had really been under sniper fire, she would never forget it. I hear gunshots outside my apartment building, and I assure you, I don't forget it. I've become blase' about it, but I don't forget it.

OUTSIDE APARTMENT BULDING: Blam, blam, blamblam blam
ME (rolling over in bed, dialing 911)
911 (tired voice; they’re used to my number): What is your emergency?
ME (tired): Gunfire.
911 (tired): How many this time?
ME: Five, quick succession.
911: See anything?
ME: Nope.
911: ‘Kay. Sending a squad car.
ME: All righty then. (hangs up, goes back to sleep)

What if Hillary is "mistaken" about things when she’s President?

If Hillary wins, Bill Clinton will once again live in the White House. I'm certain he won't limit his involvement with his wife's administration to serving tea and scones to visiting dignitaries. If Bill Clinton wouldn't control his behavior when he was President, what would make him control it as First Husband? Has he been in therapy? Is he in a Twelve Steps Sex Addicts program? What if yet another Clinton Administration is derailed due to a sex scandal? (Of course the media would constantly be sniffing around, desperately hoping for one.) How long would it be before Americans trusted the Democratic Party again? Why should we risk it, when there is a fresh, new candidate for the Democratic nomination, lugging no such baggage?

Should Hillary win the nomination, McCain has plenty ammunition to use against her. Don’t doubt he’ll use it all. Nothing from the Clintons’ past will be off limits.

McCain can gut Hillary, and what ammunition can she use in return? That he’s old? We know that. That he’s Conservative? We know that. That he’s not offering anything new? Neither is she.

But if Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate, McCain has little to fling at him, at least for now. No doubt McCain's people, as well as Clinton's, are frantically digging through Obama's past, hoping to unearth bodies, or diaries, or tapes, or even third-hand anecdotes, of horrible doings

and offensive acts. So far, all they've come up with is a bigoted pastor. And Obama didn't even have sex with him. They flung that dirt and it didn't stick. If there are skeletons in Obama's closet, no one's found them yet. They haven't even found the closet. Or the house the closet's in.

While I'm a Feminst, I'm also a woman of multi-color. The only problem I had with the Old School Feminists of the early 70s was their seperating themselves from the Civil Rights Movement, for fear that it would split the Women’s Liberation Movement. As much as I want to see a woman become president in my lifetime, I believe it would be an even greater achievement for a man of multi-colors to be president. As someone who grew up during the violence of the 60s, I long to see all Americans claiming, and I believe proudly, a black man as the person they’ve chosen to sit in the seat once occupied by Washington and Jefferson, great men but slave-owners as well. And, I also believe, a man who, more than any other candidate, will understand that, when taking the Oath of Office, he is in a transformative ritual.

I have to add that I want my president to have a sense of humor. Because without it, she or he will crack under the strain of being a huge, roaring, larger than life creature, stomping across the landscape, crushing smaller, weaker creatures...only for the good of democracy, of course.

The candidates I really want to vote for this election have great senses of humor, but they aren’t in the running. And until Geeks stop snarking at cheesy movies and debating whether they’ll see the new Star Trek prequel (god help us all), the Scify/Fantasy/Anime "Geek Party" will never get off the couch and onto the ballot. Which may be just as well. Running for President is an adventure, but actually winning seems to ruin the fun.