The Tribune

POLITICOLE

By NICOLE BURROWS

OVER the weekend, Hillary Clinton officially tossed her hat into the ring, to join the 2016 race for US President. In her very first, very plain campaign television advertisement she says: “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.”

What is an ‘everyday’/‘ordinary’ American? Does that translate into ‘any’ American? And does that, in turn, translate into ‘every’ American?

Clinton’s ad portrays women and men, younger and older, straight and homosexual, multiple ethnicities and varying professions. There’s not much missing, other than Americans with disabilities, as pointed out by former Democratic National Congress (DNC) spokesperson Jennifer Mizrahi, who, in fact, believes it to be a gross oversight (agreed) of a swing group (uncertain).

Given that the vast majority of Americans are “everyday”, what is Clinton really saying? “Hey, Everybody, vote for me”? If her campaign is trying to reach everybody, will it reach anybody?

I look at Mrs Clinton and I think “nice lady”. Definitely, “committed lady”. I mean you’d have to be committed to stick by your president husband whose affair with a White House intern became a very public affair that almost cost him his presidency.

I’m sure many women (married or divorced) will be able to identify with that situation, never mind the fact that the men they are/were married to were never presidents. That population of women whose husbands have had affairs could be a voting bloc on its own. Oddly, because of this one thing in her past, Clinton may in fact be – of all the announced presidential hopefuls – the one among them who can identify with “everyday” Americans.

Beyond this, though, can Hillary Clinton really identify with the “everyday” American?

Brad Todd, republican strategist, says “her personality has always been as stale as an old cracker.” And “her ethics has always been situational.” In addition to that, Mrs Clinton has also been quite privileged. According to Todd, she represents “the staple of a broken, elitist political machine.” Her effort is “synthetic, cynical and calculating” and “there’s nothing authentic about her … it’s all contrived.”

Is politics ever authentic?

Seriously speaking, if you’ve had no moments of struggle in your life, and the best you can muster for a life challenge is your husband’s love affair, how else can you identify with the “everyday” American in a significant enough way that wins you the presidency? The people will want to know.

Can you force the ability to identify with ordinary people? You’ve never had to go without food. You’ve never had to go without money. You’ve never had to go without education. You’ve never had to go without work. How could you possibly know what that is like?

While she can’t truly identify with “everyday” people on a basic level, of all the possible presidential candidates (thus far), Hillary Clinton may be the one most able to identify with the common woman or man.

Her inability to identify, coupled with the fact that she is a woman, works against her. Even in progressive America, where women are less likely to be treated like chattel, the political society is still misogynistic. It is programmed into populations the world over that women are not meant to lead, not meant to be in charge, not meant to be in control. And often it is women, who after centuries of brainwashing, believe this. And in the female demographic where Mrs Clinton thinks she has many allies she may have few.

If she can’t identify with the average American, could she still win the race? Are the days of middle-aged white men in the White House over and done with? Did Barack Obama break the glass ceiling, not by platform or policy, but merely by what he represented? A mixed race man, from ordinary beginnings who worked his way up in politics and eventually government? If the American people chose Obama in 2008 – a president of multiple ethnicities, and from a working class family – are they ready now for another change? They’ve already proven that the minority can be a majority voice.

Are they ready for a woman to lead them? If for no other reasons but that 1) she can, and 2) she’s not another middle-aged white man? Will her connection to another middle-aged white man, though one beloved as he is by the Democrats, help or hurt her campaign, even before you factor in his notorious affair?

Could Hillary, though silver-spooned, be considered an underdog, and earn that “real people” vote because of what she endured with Bill Clinton?

Who else among the potential US presidential candidates could possibly identify with the ordinary American?

Marco Rubio is a young Republican candidate, who, if he runs a good campaign, despite the fact that he is virtually unknown right now to many voters on a national level, could take away a good chunk of votes from his opponent(s) for the Republican nomination and the White House bid.

Minority groups vote mostly for minority candidates. Why? Because they can identify most with them. And with all the voters of recent immigrant origin within America’s borders, there’d be more than enough votes for Rubio to be an irritation to the shoo-in.

Hacked for my opinions

If it’s my view, by definition, shouldn’t it be biased? It’s my view; not your view.

My view, being that it is mine, is based in my perspective; not yours.

There is no rightness or wrongness of my view, as compared to any others, only difference. Though a certain view may at times appear smarter or safer, that is entirely based on circumstance, which is again dictated by perspective – mine or yours.

If our perspectives differ, or if we don’t agree, does that mean we should both keep quiet? Or should we try to sabotage one another because we disagree?

Last week, my column on the tribune242.com website was hijacked by a rabid anti-Free National Movement commenter, who, in addition, hacked two news stories that spoke in opposition to various aspects of Progressive Liberal Party governance. Alas, I’m no fan of the PLP government or the FNM opposition.

I guess on some level I should be flattered that 1) people are paying such close attention to what I say, and 2) my column goes neck-and-neck with news stories. I don’t know. Honestly, I couldn’t care less, because I don’t write to be liked. I don’t do anything to be liked. That’s the best lesson I ever learnt from my hard-heeled, George Town, Exuma-born grandmother: how not to give a s*.

But, I won’t give my “fan” - or “fans” as the case may be - whose identity is known, the glory of being discussed, and my only reason for raising the issue is to emphasise for the benefit of those who are unaware or do not believe that, in 2015, you still can’t express any anti-government sentiment without someone wanting to shut your voice, meanwhile having theirs heard, or rather blasted as though through a megaphone for anyone and everyone to hear. It is an obvious threat to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is also cybercrime.

I wanted to mention this hacking also to say that one good thing to come out of it was the number of email messages I got from people in The Bahamas – and also from places beyond the Bahamas, places where there are people who I didn’t have a clue were paying attention to little me on the tiny piece of limestone where there’s too much bad going on you can hardly see the good.

I thank those readers for their messages, and for following so closely along that they knew the moment the column was hacked, and exactly how it was done and alerted me the minute they realised what had happened. Some even went so far as to ask others to log in from elsewhere and check the site to see if they got the same hacker garbage screen. Many thanks to them all.

The question of immigration

On Sunday alone, Italian maritime authorities intercepted 22 vessels attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea between North Africa and Italy. They rescued 4,000 people in four days; 1,000 people, per day, trying to get to one little Italian island.

And because I live on a tiny island, too, I want to know from the illegal immigrant apologists: when do humanitarian efforts become detrimental to the inheritors of vast numbers of illegal immigrants?

Do you continue to let others who find themselves destitute, economically depraved and desperate, into your society, unending? How do you measure when there are too many? Even tree-huggers have limits.

When do you stop carrying the weight of other country’s problems? What’s the magic number? 50 per cent illegal immigrants, 50 per cent natives?

Do you stop when eight of ten births in your only public hospital are to illegal immigrants, most of which cannot afford to pay for healthcare?

If my uncle fell down and hit his head, went to the ER of the same one public hospital, was told he should have a CT scan, is a senior citizen (yes, citizen), but is told he has to pay hundreds for the scan because he has no insurance, and an illegal immigrant from anywhere with no lawful status, no insurance and no money, can get maternity and paediatric care from the same one public hospital, should that make me happy?

Do you welcome unlimited numbers of illegal immigrants to your country so maybe they can have a chance at a better life, they can eat and have jobs (hopefully), but be resented and discriminated against forever because they burdened the society’s healthcare, education and law enforcement resources, and diminished the rights and privileges of actual citizens?

What quality of life do you think they’ll have then? What quality of life should they have? What quality of life should a citizen have? How much of one country should be sacrificed for the survival of another?