I’d call it a triumph (and I know it is not over at this point so please don’t beat me up that badly for posting on this), even if I didn’t support her run.
But, from the stories the press are spinning out of late, there are a lot of women who see her potential defeat as a setback — as societal sexism, tolerated by the media, subtletly used by her opponents and left unchallenged by many of the powers-that-be in the party and elsewhere — are perceived to have brought down Hillary.
Here are some stories worth noting on the subject:
– In the NY Times today;
– In the Wash Post today; and
– From the AP here at Politico.com.
Each story hits the same theme about the gender (and age) gap opened in the party during the campaign, with many staunch female Clinton supporters ready to sit out the general or at best hold their nose in voting for Obama (if he is to become the nominee) – at least they are saying that now.
But I guess I feel differently about it and subscribe to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s view explained the NYTimes piece below:
When people look at the arc of the campaign, it will be seen that being a woman, in the end, was not a detriment and if anything it was a help to her. Ms. Clinton’s campaign is faltering, because of strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman.
From where I stand and my challenge to those who see sexism as Clinton’s downfall — the important thing about her candidacy in my book was that people saw her as someone who could do the job (no questions asked). That despite her gender they felt they could trust in her skills and ability. People always rated her competence and experience as her greatest assets and she made the most of those attributes on the trail. I certainly never questioned whether she was someone who could serve in the office. She’d make a very competent president in my book and has proved that in this race. So for me, all this says that while sexism of course exists, most people didn’t vote against Hillary because of her gender (in fact the opposite was true for many women). It says that a woman, this woman, could get there.
Now maybe that is a simplistic bar to set but I see it as important. Let’s remember, it was Hillary who set out the so-called commander-in-chief threshold in this race and while I disputed the notion of such a thing, never questioned whether or not she had met it – nor did Obama and others, even as they challenged the depth of the experience she claimed. I think that represents major progress in indicating whether a woman could reach the highest office in the land. Hillary’s campaign, warts and all, has forwarded the cause of women in this country, even if she comes up short.
Of course many don’t agree with that read on things. Tina Fey had it right in their book and that is all there is to it. But, while I may underestimate the depths of sexism and how it may have undermined Clinton’s candidacy, in part because many of the women I respect (especially my kick ass mom and wife) don’t buy the whole sexism-spelled-her-doom theory, I do blanche at attempts to color issues with no relationship to gender as in some ways related to it.
So that when Senator Leahy and others called for Clinton to get out of the race back in March (which I disagreed with) it was made into a case of the old-boys ganging up on poor Hillary. Or, that in some way because the dispute over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has not been settled to Clinton’s satisfaction (even after she had supported the rules early in the campaign), the male pols supporting Obama or those running the DNC were in some ways stacking the decks against her and women in general. Tell that to Nancy Pelosi, the highest serving woman in American elected office ever (second in line to succeed the president and chair of the party convention), or to Donna Brazile, a prominent member of the DNC credentials committee. They don’t see a Howard Dean-Ted K (God-bless him) led conspiracy to disenfranchise women in the party.
Campaign 2008 has been the most exciting and riveting race I’ve yet been a part of. Its a race that makes me proud of our party and country – that we were not held back by bias or fear of electability in making our two frontrunners an inexperienced African-American and a controversial woman. That’s huge folks and we should recognize it as such.
And yet, campaign 2008 also seems to be leaving many of us with a sense of emptiness and ugliness. I know there are days when it has got me down – particularly when I read about how whole parts of the party are threatening to sit out or vote for the GOP rather than support a nominee they do not favor. This has been a tough race and while its raised our aspirations and hopes it has also challenged the better angels inside all of us.
Ultimately, I can’t help but look on the bright side. Both Hillary and Obama believed they could overcome the odds to get where they are. I gotta believe we can overcome our divisions to get where we need to be. No one here has lost because of their gender or race. History has been made and boundaries breached. That should be real story of both Hillary’s run and campaign 2008 so far.
is correct. Clinton’s issues have less to do with her gender than with a poorly executed campaign combined with a crippling case of entitlement. The Clinton campaign had no game planned for post Super Tuesday; they were caught completely by surprise. At that point, recovery was nearly impossible given her campaign style, staff, and top-level advisors.
<
p>I have always been one of those who thought either candidate would be fine. Both candidates are bright, competent, and capable of steering this nation out of the ditch. I am, too, one of those “educated females” who comprise one of Clinton’s core constituencies. I do detect a festering misogyny, though, that I think has more to do with Hillary Clinton than with women in general. Certainly the over-the-top antipathy certain people–both male and female–express when it comes to anything associated with Hillary Clinton has been longstanding in nature. Indeed, many of the Obama true believers originally lurched towards Obama in what I think is a rather reflexive reaction against a Clinton candidacy. Unfortunately, their innate discomfort with Clinton has only been exacerbated by a campaign that at times exemplifies everything that people despise about the Clintons.
<
p>Personally, I think Clinton has successfully blazed the trail for a female president. Her resilience and courage have demonstrated that a woman who exhibits similar qualities can be a serious presidential candidate. There’s certainly a part of me that feels guilty about not supporting her strongly, but when I compare the two candidates, the two campaigns, the past against the future, I sway towards Obama. Have I reservations about Obama’s conciliatory nature? His overt religiosity? Yes. But I think this nation needs to break from the past and move into a new era. The Clintons represent the past. But if nothing else, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy represents the future for women.
<
p>Hillary Clinton represents the past? So, because Hillary is married to a former President, that relegates her to the past? Personally, I see her as having her own persona and identity, and I don’t think of her as representing the past at all.
<
p>As far as President Clinton goes, after eight long years of George W. Bush, I pine for the days of the not-so-distant past of 1992-2000, when this country was experiencing relative peace, prosperity, and respect from our neighbors around the world.
Clinton’s early primary win appearances showed her on stage with an entourage behind her representing the who’s-who of the Clinton administrations. I can’t tell you how many democrats on my town committee commented how disheartening they found that. Echoes of the past are not necessarily what people are looking for in a metamorphosed world.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong. There is much to admire about the Clinton administrations and the individuals who served with distinction. All I’m saying is that I agree with those who see the familiar faces of the Clinton administrations as possessing a nostalgic quality versus a vanguard quality. I’m afraid I agree it’s time for new and fresh faces.
…frankly, there are a lot of folks from Bill Clinton’s administration backing Barack Obama as well…are the Democrats on your town committee disheartened by that as well?
<
p>All I’m saying is that Hillary Clinton is her own woman and should not be judged by the successes and failures of her husband.
Madeleine Albright? Harold Ickes? James Carville? Lanny Davis? Front and center.
<
p>Not a good idea.
<
p>And for the record, she stopped trotting these people out early on when the buzz went bad. Tin ear.
<
p>
I was raised by a single mom and have been together with my wife for 20 years and two girls, 15 & 10.
<
p>But, what do I know?
<
p>I’m a feminist, and that’s why I don’t support Hillary.
by Queen Alice
I agree with these posts. It wasn’t sexism that held Hillary back from the nomination. Someone has to win and Hillary knew this getting into the race. It could have been Hillary, it just wasn’t. I think the fact that she beat 7 of the eight men in the race shows to some extent that it wasn’t sexism holding her back. It could simply be that she was up against a formidable opponent who ran a slightly better campaign. But it is easy to use sexism as a scapegoat. If Obama lost you can bet there would be a lot folks who would blame racism. If McCain loses the general there will be people blaming Ageism. I’m not so daft as to believe that there aren’t sexists, racists, and ageists voting but I’m also not so narrow-minded as to think that’s all there is.
Hillary Clinton received anywhere from 45-51% of the votes cast in the presidential nomination process of a major political party. This is an enormous advance.
<
p>The recent move by NARAL also shows that women can earn their keep and play by the same rules — as soon as Hillary was no longer in NARAL’s political interests, they shafted her with no thought to ‘sisterhood’. Hillary was just another candidate, and being a women clearly didn’t make her special in their eyes.
<
p>It was a setback only for those who let themselves lull into ignorance of the real price and the real extent of modern American sexism. This race made clear — to anyone who could bother to listen — the hostility of the media toward accomplished women. Her cleavage, her wardrobe, her laugh, her hair, her nose were all fair game, in a way they never were for the other umpteen presidential candidates on either side of the aisle.
<
p>In ’92, I watched the NH Dem debate. Although it was stunningly clear that Paul Tsongas was the superior candidate, it was clear that Bill would be the nom.
<
p>I could elaborate, but I don’t want to be hurtful of Paul. Suffice to say, my animal instincts knew who America would pick. Wonks didn’t become the fashion until Gore.
<
p>Point, men are brutal to other men. No quarter!
I’ve been frustrated with HRC for years now, mostly because I find her too hawkish. I can’t point to a particular press release, policy, or vote; it just seems to me she’s too quick to encourage the use of force for my tastes. For that reason alone, I’ve never preferred HRC to other 2008 candidates, although I’d certainly support her in a general election over JSMcCIII.
<
p>I wonder though: is she that way intentionally/unintentionally as a reaction to fighting the stereotype that women are weak?
She seemed to be overcompensating, trying too hard to appear comfortable “pushing the button”. If memory serves me right from my Reagan-era youth, “pushing the button” is a bad thing.
Clinton overcompensated and ended up creating a shrill & hawkish persona that is at odds with what many looking for in their next president.
<
p>How many male politicians do you refer to as “shrill”?
Male politicians are acerbic.
He’s not a politician, but he is referred to in the blog world as “The Shrill One.” FWIW.
Shrill x2.
Listen, don’t even try to lecture me on connnotation and semantics. You’d lose. I assure you.
<
p>My diction is rarely thoughtless; I choose my words with care.
<
p>Your emotional over-investment is evident. Plenty of men are shrill, and if you don’t understand the connotative qualities of the word shrill I urge you to spend a little time doing some research. Here, I’ll help you out: shrill describes stridently emotional content, tone, or attitude that is often exaggerated, antagonistic, and/or defensive. Gender neutral.
<
p>Now that the vocab lesson is over, let me just say you are shifting a complicated conversation into one that is facile and self-serving. Not cool.
…I am not shifting this “complicated conversation” at all…this post and discussion is all about sexism and gender as it impacts the Clinton campaign.
<
p>And while I appreciate the vocabulary lesson from someone as grammatically enlightened as you say you are, I find the use of the word “shrill” in describing Hillary Clinton to be, shall we say, curious. I can’t remember the last time I heard a male candidate being referred to as “shrill”. That was my point.
<
p>Oh, and by the way, I really don’t appreciate the patronizing and condescension. Not cool.
Wow, good thing Hillary doesn’t talk like that or she’d be double-promoted from “shrill” to “condescending b*tch.” Another word you won’t hear ascribed to a man.
though I’ve heard plenty of male politicians endeared with that term.
<
p>So what?
So, I gather “too hawkish” is code for “voted for the Iraq war resolution.”
<
p>These rationalizations of every cynical thing Hillary Clinton said and did while positioning herself to run for president and during the campaign are nauseating. Stop making excuses. Her vote on Iraq was based on nothing but political calculation, plain and simple. Like John Kerry, Clinton understood the Bush administration was at best overstating the case against Iraq, and probably much worse. Like Kerry, Clinton believed anyone who voted against the resolution could kiss their White House hopes goodbye.
<
p>And Hillary really, really, really wanted to be president.
<
p>They were wrong. Trusting the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz turned out to be not such a smart idea. Now that all’s over but the shouting for the Democratic nomination and HRC has lost to the guy who was never afraid to oppose this stupid, disastrous war, her apologists wonder, “Did sexism push her to be more ‘hawkish”?”
<
p>This would all be really funny if it weren’t so tragic. Tell me, what else has sexism made Hillary do?
If it’s all about the Iraq vote…how do you feel about Obama’s vote for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act? How about the war funding votes to the tune of $300 billion bucks? Does that sound “antiwar” to you? His votes since he arrives in the Senate mirror Hillary Clinton’s!
<
p>The reason that I ask is due to a very good article about Bobby Kennedy that was in this month’s Vanity Fair. In the months prior to deciding to run for President, Bobby Kennedy struggled greatly with the morality of the war. All his friends and advisors were telling him not to do it, the time wasn’t right, McCarthy was in the race, it was late in the game, the Party leaders would be with Johnson…but he felt that getting behind Johnson was a tacit endorsement of an immoral war.
<
p>
<
p>So…how does voting to fund something you’re against …honorable?
The Patriot Act votes and the war funding votes have all been pretty well covered but I’ll be happy to dig up the relevant links for you in a bit. For now, I’ll just say I’m comfortable with his votes on both.
Here’s a Globe article on the war spending issue that quotes Obama extensively. I think he sums up his position pretty clearly and I don’t have much to add, other than I support what he says.
<
p>Here are Obama’s remarks on the Senate floor regarding the Patriot Act. Chronology and background are here.
<
p>The Clinton campaign has of course attempted to present both issues as major gotchas.
I call it phony.
Senator Obama is grappling here with complex pieces of legislaton regarding messes he didn’t create. I’m comfortable with his positions.
If you want to see a really simple, straigtforward, yes-or-no piece of legislation, here it is.
Phony is claiming you have superior foreign policy credentials over your opponent’s on the basis of having been First Lady.
<
p>Phony is twisiting a senator’s votes on a complex series of appropreciations bills into a simplistic and deceptive abstract.
<
p>Phony is claiming you flew into the middle of a civil war under sniper fire when the only threat at the airport was a little girl with flowers and a poem.
<
p>Phony is repeating the lie about the sniper fire thing after you’ve been completely busted on youtube.
<
p>Phony is saying you’re staying in the race in the best interests of the Democratic party, and because, hey, you never know, those pledged delegates could flip. Oh, and because you really think John McCain would be better than your party’s presumptive nominee.
<
p>Phony is changing into the outfit your staff picked up for you at Target, then downing shots of whiskey and beers with the locals in Ohio right before the primary.
<
p>Phony is pledging to abide by the DNC’s ruling on the Florida and Michigan primaries, then demanding the delegations be seated. Without compromise. Even though your opponent wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.
<
p>Phony is claiming to be a champion of civil rights, then using race-baiting tactics against your opponent.
<
p>Phony is claiming all those things you and Bill and Geraldine said about race weren’t really part of a strategy of race-baiting.
<
p>Phony is whining how the whole thing has been stacked against you when you’re a rich white former First Lady who started out with the party establishment in your corner, and and your opponent is a black guy named Barack Obama.
and it’s pegging. You know what phony is? It’s how the hope, change and unity campaign hasn’t changed so much as a comma in this national campaign. You can swill the Koolaid all you want but it’s just like everybody else’s campaign – it’s no different. People with a BS meter understand that. This is why he’s losing big in WV and KY. And it’s why he lost in IN, PA, RI, TX, OH, CA, AZ, NM, NY, AR, MA, NJ, OK, TN, NV, NH, and most notably, the land of the bluest of blue states -MA. It’s not race. It’s the BS meter.
<
p>So, keep ringing the “those (fill in the blank) people don’t like my candidate because they’re (fill in the blank)” bell, the “don’t pick on my wife” bell even though she’s a public speaker and my candidate gets to bait Bill….and the “don’t call me an appeaser” bell, even when his name isn’t used. And don’t forget the “never mind that man behind the curtain” bell, because he sat in his church for 20 years and had no idea what an angry, divisive idealogue he was until he dissed “the man” himself.
<
p>Self righteous indignation is starting to look like his M-O. Really. Campaigns based on self-righteous indignation (really, what’s up with THAT?) always win.
<
p>Yeah. It’s all good.
The “Kool-Aid” thing is getting old.
<
p>But since you bring it up – I assume you recall the genesis of the expression, “drinking the Kool-Aid”? The late cult leader Jim Jones instructed his brainwashed followers to commit mass-suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid when he realized he was defeated and the end of his cult was at hand.
<
p>If the shoe fits . . .
if it’s on your own foot.
What’s the emoticon for blowing a raspberry?
Phony is saying you didn’t think you were voting for war when you voted for this.
She ran one of the closest Democratic primaries ever. She raised more money than any Democrat during a primary not named Barack Obama. She has strong followers all across the country and won many states. This is clearly not a ‘setback’ for women.
<
p>That said, I do think Hillary’s campaign exposed some difficulties facing women when they run for President. Anywhere from the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t fashion critiques to the male-dominated media being sadly predictable. Those problems do exist, but I suspect both the media and future female Presidents have learned something from it, so this will only make it more advantageous for women who run in the future.
Triumph or setback? Hillary’s run is neither. What I do find encouraging is the extent to which gender appeared not to be a major issue. Fact is, Clinton lost the nomination to Obama on the merits.
<
p>All the more reason why the Clintons’ attempts to appeal to and manipulate racial bias in this campaign have been so sadly ironic.
<
p>I am so tired of hearing this kind of hogwash.
<
p>Let me see if I have this right: the Clintons masquerade for years as civil rights activists and advocates…Bill Clinton was so adored by African Americans that he was dubbed “the first black President”…yet, Bill and Hillary are so diabolical that they suddenly throw out their lifelong belief systems and become manipulators of racial bias so that she can win this election? You are full of it.
<
p>You can dislike either of the Clintons for a myriad of your own reasons, whatever they may be, but please stop these ridiculous accusations of them being racist or manipulators of racial bias. It is simply not true.
Q: “Let me see if I have this right: the Clintons masquerade for years as civil rights activists and advocates…”
<
p>A: I didn’t say any of that was a masquerade. I said they and their surrogates appealed to race in this campaign.
<
p>Q: “Bill Clinton was so adored by African Americans that he was dubbed “the first black President”…”
<
p>A: Toni Morrison dubbed him that. He’s not actually “Black” by the current societal standards, though. (Have you heard him play the sax, for instance? I have some Charlie Parker records you really need to hear.)
<
p>Q: “yet, Bill and Hillary are so diabolical that they suddenly throw out their lifelong belief systems and become manipulators of racial bias so that she can win this election?”
<
p>A: No, they wanted to win so badly they set them aside, ratioanlizing their appeals as concerns over “electability.” Hillary didn’t become a racist, she merely appealed to racists to vote for her.
<
p>Q: “You are full of it.”
<
p>A: I know you are, but what am I?
<
p>We,Democrats, have two fine contenders. However, this educated male suppports Hillary Clinton because she is the more experienced person! Hillary will be ready on day one. She wil also bring change.
<
p>Notwistanding what your minions say, I am for Hillary and she can still win!
<
p>Whatever happens though, a Democrat needs to sit in the Oval Office!
<
p>
Just for the record, your first and second points are fine with me, just as long as point #3 is there as well.
I love how Oregon counts bucketloads more than Kentucky because it has one more pledged delegate at stake tomorrow.
Try to focus. Obama has won more pledged delegates, more states, and more votes than Clinton. It’s not that Oregon counts more in the abstract than Kentucky. It’s that following the Oregon primary tomorrow, Obama may have enough pledged delegates to clinch.
<
p>That’s all.
I asked a question and got plenty of facts that have little to do with the question. However, you may want to double check your math…Obama’s a long ways from enough pledged to clinch.
Your “question” (actually a statement) was based on a false premise. I didn’t say Oregon “counts” more than Kentucky, or more than any other state.
Whether my math about tomorrow is wrong or not, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Even HRC seems to understand that.
Sorry, I see how I misstated it. After tomorrow, it’s very possible Obama will have clinched a majority of the pledged delegates. Of course, there are a bunch of uncommitted super-delegates, more of whom are declaring for Obama every day. I wonder how the remainder will react when he clinches the pledged column?
<
p>Rather a key milestone, at any rate.
but enough to clinch the pledged delegate majority (sans FL and MI, of course, but I doubt they will be counted until after the nomination has been virtually determined). It’s just another milestone, although a small number of superdelegates have pledged to support whoever wins the most pledged delegates, so it will bring some bonus delegates.
continue to trickle at a steady rate. It’s only a matter of time; they’ll fall in line by 6/3. What’s a couple more weeks, anyway.
instead of “after Kentucky” because Oregon results come in later, both (a) because of time zone differential and (b) because they have so many mail in votes.
<
p>So it’s not that Kentucky is or isn’t as important, it’s just that they’re sooner.
Wait, are those exclamations of approval,disapproval, or general amazement at the fact that Obama could very well have enough pledged delegates after tomorrow to clinch? I’m so out of my element in this crazy new cyber world.
Please see “Correction,” above.
is it you’re thinking he’ll clinch?
He will likely clinch a majority of pledged delegates tomorrow.
lanugo, I find you to be a very thoughtful poster. This post is no exception.
<
p>However, I do believe that gender/sexism has played a big role in this campaign…not the only role, but a significant one.
<
p>The threshold is set so much higher for women running for public office. They have to walk so carefully on a tightrope that male candidates don’t even need to negotiate…be tough, but not bitchy; be sensitive, but don’t cry; and so on.
<
p>Female candidates are judged on so many things that male candidates don’t even give a second thought to (their clothing, the way they laugh, their hair, etc.).
<
p>And with Hillary, if I had a dollar for every person who told me that they wouldn’t vote for her because she didn’t leave her husband as a result of the Lewinsky nonsense, I’d certainly be able to walk into Starbucks and buy a latte for everyone who posts on this blog.
<
p>Women — and particularly those who are perceived as strong women — have a tough time in this country, as well as here in Massachusetts. Heck, here we are in the bastion of “liberalism” and we’ve never even had a female Governor. We’ve had plenty of smart, aggressive women try and move up the political ladder here (Evelyn Murphy, Shannon O’Brien, Lois Pines, Marjorie Clapprood to name a few), but they never win. They are either too strident, too outspoken, too bitchy, etc. For male candidates, it’s a badge of honor to be strong and tough…for women, it’s a liability.
<
p>So, is Hillary’s run (that’s right…it’s not over yet) a triumph or a setback for women? I’m not sure it is either…but her campaign has re-inforced for me the notion that it’s a lot more difficult for a woman to run for public office than a man.
…than a Black man with three arabic names (Hussein!) that once lived in a Muslim country?
<
p>I’m in no way discounting what you say. I agree about your statements on the difficulties women candidates face, and it’s frustrating. But in terms of this specific campaign, I think most if not all patriarchal advantage Obama has held was offset by people who “don’t trust the Blacks”, etc.
<
p>————
<
p>And for the record, I vote “triumph”.
A skinny black dude with big ears and the name Barack Obama held the advantage over someone who has been one of the most well-known Democrats, and one of the most famous people in the world by virtue of having been married to the president?
<
p>(Note, I don’t like to use the term “First Lady” because I think it’s sexist.)
<
p>This thing was Hillary’s to lose. She started out as the frontrunner. She had Bill’s legacy and the party establishmnent in her favor. Obama was the underdog. He simply won the hearts and minds of more voters in more places and has earned the nomination.
<
p>I can’t endorse Hillary’s run as a triumph for women. More like, just another important step in the right direction. Frankly, it would be far more impressive if her starting position in this race hadn’t been the result of who she’s married to. Just the feminist in me.
First, her husband would be irrelevant if she wasn’t the brilliant policy wonk, political savant, and driven and determined person that she is. She is in my view flawed (hawkishness), but she’s performed.
<
p>Second, it seems that Hillary is disproportionately attacked on the nepotism angle. Mmany of the greats stood on the shoulders of relatives to get ahead – Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Bayh, Daley, Chaffee, Adams, Dodd, Goldwater etc, etc. The tradition of the political family in which one or more member benefits has an advantage because of who the candidates father/brother is, etc is is long and storied.
<
p>It just so happens that Hillary doesn’t fit the mold of male heir, she’s using the same advantage as many of America’s best and brightest have used, but instead of sharing Bill’s genetic make-up, she married him. I’m sure Evan Bayh and Lincoln Chaffee have heard their fair share of “he’s lucky he’s so-and-so’s kid”, but it seems that the nepotism argument is used disproportionately to discredit Hillary. Don’t act like Hillary is the first person to use her familial relations to help gain access to political office. This shit has been around since the dawn of American and the dawn of time.
I didn’t “attack” Clinton over who she is married to. It’s fine with me that she ran for president. I simply pointed out that it gave her a distinct advantage.
…but you did put in bold print the phrase who she’s married to in your comment about her starting position as if to discredit and dismiss her legit and very real accomplishments.
Actually, I need to amend that. Her run in itself is not an important step in the right direction. It merely indicates that our society has evidently taken a step in the right direction re: gender equality.
<
p>I.e., Hillary isn’t blazing a trail.
This middle-aged white suburban woman has never been a supporter of HRC — never was, since I’ve never liked her politics of triangulation or her willingness to throw folks under the bus or her blatant opportunism. (C’mon… the moment she announced she was running for Senate and elbowed several long-standing NY reps out of her way, you all KNEW what she was really running for, right?) Between the brilliance of the Obama campaign, the way her own campaign assumed that they’d have the matter in the bag by mid-February, and assorted twists of fate, sexism was a relatively minor player in the scheme of things.
<
p>However, a trail HAS been blazed. For the first time, national media treated a person who has two X chromosomes as a SERIOUS contender for the presidency. Thousands of young girls were told by their mothers and grandmothers that they never thought such a moment would happen–and yet, there she was, on TV. Don’t think for a moment that pictures of her up on the dias in the center of things haven’t made an impression on girls who will start running for selectmen or planning board in 15 or 20 or 25 years from now and start working their way up the political ladder from there. Those mental pictures will last long after the specific words fade into the history books. I thank HRC for that.
How about 1 or 2 or 3? I think we’ll see a bump in female candidates for local office immediately. I hope we’ll see a bump in black candidates as well.
<
p>Frankly, both BHO and HRC are damn inspiring, and I hope that Democrats — female or black or neither or both — are inspired by them to get more involved in political races, by contributing money, sweat, or even their own name as candidates.
<
p>I don’t think it’ll take another generation. I think BHO and HRC have inspired this generation of adults.
boy, it sure is a good thing the Democrats didn’t try such an expiriment in an election that they need to win in order to undo a lot of damage, isn’t it?
I think that JS seldom gets a mention because she wasn’t elected to the office. The end result may have been the same, but I think it’s generally considered to be an entirely different ball game.
Clinton’s campaign for president of the United States of America and the legacy it begets remains to be seen.
<
p>The legacy and ramifications will be shaped by a campaign the is not over and the events that unfold after the Democratic nomination is determined.
<
p>Sexism and misogyny are words that have been re-inserted in the American political and social justice dialog. That is not a triumph but a long overdue step. It would be a triumph to see a highly respected woman lead the country sometime before we pass the 100 year anniversary of allegedly giving women rights in this country.
<
p>Hillary Clinton’s actions over the next six months will shape and define whether her run was a triumph or a setback for women. My wager is that as the runner-up, she will assume (which is subtely different than “take”) her place as one of the most powerful woman in the Democratic party and Congress. She will shine and will find a route to influence the American political agenda. Hillary is very savvy and she will not squander an ounce of the work and resources she channeled into the campaign.
<
p>The media will reverse it’s course of destruction toward Senator Clinton when she is no longer the Democratic nominee and they will have the fight they always wanted…the young black man and the old white man fighting the epic battle of change vs. tradition, liberal vs. conservative.
<
p>We have a long way to go toward a concept of progress and equality in our society. Hopefully, the dialog will grow long after this chapter is over.
<
p>Was it a triumph? Hardly. Setback? Hardly.
Was it extraodinary? Absolutely.
<
p>It ain’t over.
Another is that Democrats won’t forget her dishonest, race-baiting tactics and that she’ll be remembered as someone who put personal ambition ahead of the party.
<
p>Forgive me, but just what are her wonderful accomplishments so far in the Senate? Other than the vote in favor of George Bush’s diastrous war, of course.
But your rating people’s posts as worthless (3) when they are respectful opinions does not lend to your credibility on BMG.
<
p>
<
p>You have your opinions and have expressed them freely. I have not once disrespected the Honorable Senator Obama yet you have thrown a worthless (3) on my post above and at least one other post that others have marked as excellent (6).
<
p>Have you even written one post or do you just argue your point and judge others? I did not see any original posts listed under your handle, but I see a number of harsh critiques by you that appear to have veered pretty far off the road.
<
p>It was extraordinary that a female candidate made it to this level of American politics. In historical and global context it is sad that it has taken this long for a female candidate to attain top tier status. There are real obstacles for women, people of color, homosexuals, physically, mentally and/or linguistically challenged individuals as well as those who are not in “main stream” cultural and religious groups in our society (to name but a few subsets of oppressed people).
<
p>Was it a triumph? Hardly. Setback? Hardly.
Was it extraodinary? Absolutely.
<
p>It ain’t over.
My ratings of certain other people’s posts is a humorous attempt at reacting to the fact that certain regulars here routinely rate my posts a “3” as soon as they go up, i.e., Obama supporters can select “3” just as easily as HRC supporters. So what?
<
p>Seriously. I am a feminist. Honestly. And I don’t think it’s all that extraordinary for a female to make it this far ca. 2007-2008. Noteworthy? Yes. Extraordinary? No. In my profession, I am surrounded by women who have broken barrier after barrier after barrier. They are true trailblazers in their profession. I just don’t think HRC is breaking new ground here.
<
p>I’m pleased that gender has not been an insurtmountable issue for her. However, I interpret that as an indication of the direction in which we as a society are already (slowly) moving. I can’t credit HRC for it. And I believe that being a “First Lady” (a term I loathe) to a very successful president has benefitted her far more than her most ardent supporters in this forum are willing to admit.
<
p>It’s not a triumph. We’re just finally starting to be ready to let women have some real authority, that’s all.
<
p>Next up: Black Folk. Coming soon.
I see the sexism more as symptom than cause. It was a reaction that Clinton represents more of a force at further left on the spectrum than a lot of people are willing to bear just yet.
<
p>My sense is that the primary has sorted out ideologically. Obama is the substantially more centrist/moderate, even if his supporters deny it now. Clinton has more breadth on the political spectrum, by choice and from effort, and that gets her votes from both ends of the range available to Democrats.
<
p>****
<
p>The past election best fit to the present one is imho 1976- the one that followed on Nixon’s implosion. Obama is very much in the vein of Jimmy Carter. McCain is an awful version of Gerry Ford. The atmosphere of 1976 was centrist, and the desire was for someone who would clean away Nixon’s messes.
<
p>But there wasn’t a decision about what to do long-term in the election result- Carter won 50.1:48.5 and thought there was much more of a mandate in his win than there proved to be.
<
p>The long term winner of the 1976 election was Ronald Reagan. He split Party insider loyalties and was one. He hung in there in the primaries and was mathematically eliminated very late, and he then made an absurd and widely ridiculed effort to win the nomination on the Convention floor by turning delegates. (He lost on the first ballot.) He was pilloried and decried as an up and coming fascist in mainstream media.
<
p>Whatever he was and did, he knew the country was trending his way. He won a lot of admiration and loyalty during his primary campaign. His opponents committed themselves to positions and points of view that reality was unkind to in the long run.
<
p>The national mood of centrism that elected Carter didn’t last very long and Carter got increasingly wrongfooted- even though most of what he did was eminently correct. He started doing things that alienated both the conservatives and the liberals that supported him. In 1979/80 the country made decisions it had put off earlier, was willing to get ideological again, and looked for a leader with a harder core and an agenda that matched theirs.
<
p>I think Clinton has likewise put herself in what should be winning position for 2012. In 2008 the country wants a centrist but is ashamed of it, that’s the explanation I see for the present state of affairs of making up all those bullshitty rationales for being against her and puffing up Obama as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The 60% of Democrats that persistently refuses to declare her eliminated or politically finished suggests to me that they want her to be and remain as an option. And/or for her to return as a candidate in the future. Which would explain why Democratic voters keep on allowing her campaign to revive when she’s down, and might end up giving her the claim to the popular vote win. While it seems the result will be to allow Obama to just squeak by on technicality of delegate count, he isn’t going to escape Clinton’s long shadow. The nomination might not be the decisive victory he and his following wished for, if he does get it.
<
p>Which in turn drives Obama true believers utterly hysterical, of course, because that says that most Democrats didn’t and don’t in their heart of hearts see him as the superior candidate overall- just as the temporarily better fit to the national mood. And that if things play out as predicted in ’08, in ’12 we’ll see them pitted against each other again on different political terrain- likely much more favorable to her than the present.
What’s so great about sliced bread?
<
p>If the “country wants a centrist,” why is it “ashamed of it”?
<
p>Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter? So who’s the 2012 Reagan HRC will save us from as soon as she convinces all those delegates to flip? What else do you see when you close your eyes?
In Susan Morrison’s book ‘Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary’, Leslie Bennetts’ “Beyond Gender” is the longest essay and also the last, so many will never get to it:
http://dealstudio.com/searchde…
But it is a scathing, funny, thoughtful review of Hillary’s career in the context of feminism’s failure. I do think Hillary win herself. Because it’s acceptable to attack a woman for being a woman, because sexism is still A-OKAY here in America.