Hillary Clinton's Defeat: A Historic Triumph
A front page story in today's New York Times wonders whether Hillary Clinton's flagging run for the presidency is "a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few [women] pursue high office in the first place."
Let me quickly weigh in with an unequivocal vote for "historic if incomplete triumph." And the only thing I find depressing is that the answer is even in doubt.
I have regularly criticized Clinton over the course of her campaign (and long before it, starting with her vote to authorize the war), but there is no question that she has forever altered the way women running for president will be viewed from here on out. In the words of the Times, Clinton has established "a new marker for what a woman can accomplish in a campaign -- raising over $170 million, frequently winning more favorable reviews on debate performances than her male rivals, rallying older women, and persuading white male voters who were never expected to support her."
She has also forever demolished the question mark hovering over the issue many (wrongly, in my opinion) have felt would be a woman candidate's biggest weakness: the ability to be seen as a plausible commander-in-chief.
It is to her great credit that very shortly into the '08 race, when you saw Clinton on television, you didn't think, "Oh, there's the woman running for president." That is no small feat for a woman trying to break into a male-dominated arena. So the next time a woman -- or two or three -- runs for president, it won't be seen as a novelty act. Because Hillary certainly wasn't.
But the greatest triumph of Clinton's campaign -- a complete triumph -- is the example she has set for the next generation. And not just for young women; her dedication, perseverance, and indefatigable drive make her a role model for young men as well.
Much has been made of the generational divide in the Clinton-Obama battle, with older women rallying to Clinton and younger women drawn to Obama. But the impact of her candidacy transcends this division. I've seen this very clearly in the reaction of my oldest daughter.
She voted for the first time in this year's California primary, casting her ballot for Obama. Yet hardly a day passes without her speaking with admiration, almost awe, about Hillary Clinton -- how she manages to get up every morning, no matter how hard things get for her, and keep following her dream.
I've written a lot about fear and fearlessness, and how fearlessness is not the absence of fear -- it's the mastery of fear. It's all about getting up one more time than we fall down. Has any public figure embodied this more powerfully and compellingly than Hillary Clinton?
Last week I was in a hotel room in Las Vegas preparing to give a speech. Checking in for a political update, I turned on CNN and saw Wolf Blitzer interviewing Hillary. But instead of a debate on who is more electable in Appalachia, or a Talmudic discussion about Michigan and Florida, there was this incredibly human moment.
Blitzer asked Clinton about what it's been like having Chelsea on the trail campaigning with her. Clinton, choking up, replied: "Well, it's one of the most incredibly gratifying experiences of my life, as a person and as a mother. I get very emotional. She is an exceptional person, and she's worked so hard, and she's done such a good job that I'm just filled with pride every time I look at her."
And just as Hillary started tearing up, I realized I was too. This has been an election where, even more than usual, the personal and the political have been constantly overlapping. And my feelings as I watched that interview were no exception.
It was clear that the 17-month campaign had taken a toll on Clinton, but at the same time has been incredibly transformative. She famously announced after winning New Hampshire that she'd found her own voice. But, in fact, she has kept finding it and refinding it -- until now, finally, she seems to be more in touch with her own message, instead of the message Mark Penn's poll numbers told her to adopt.
And in doing so, she has redefined and taken over the Clinton brand. Forget welfare reform, free-trade uber alles, and third-way DLC-economics. Since hitting her stride in Ohio, Hillary has transformed the Clinton brand into one that represents working-class Americans. Because of this, she is the Clinton who will now be most relevant to the country's future.
I see Hillary returning to the Senate with a newfound sense of purpose -- and power. With the presidency no longer in her sights -- at least for now -- she could become a commanding progressive force in the Senate.
Campaigning in Pennsylvania in early April, Clinton compared herself to Philadelphia icon Rocky Balboa. "Let me tell you something," she said. "When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up."
The comparison was meant to reinforce her image as a tireless warrior -- but it was more accurate and prescient than she intended. Because Rocky actually lost his initial fight with Apollo Creed. After 15 punishing and bloody rounds, he was satisfied just to have gone the distance.
"Ain't gonna be no rematch," says Creed amidst the post-fight pandemonium. To which Rocky replies: "Don't want one."
Even though Rocky didn't win, he was ultimately seen as a triumphant figure. And that's how Hillary will be seen too. Once the disappointment fades and the cuts and bruises heal, the lasting impression will be one of glory, accomplishment, and profound impact.
Hers will have been a game-changing defeat.
If you are in San Francisco today, I will be speaking about Right is Wrong at 7pm at Book Passage (51 Tamal Vista in Corte Madera), and if you are in Seattle on Tuesday I'll be speaking at 7:30pm at the Town Hall Center for Civic Life (on 8th Avenue).
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It might have been a triumph had she behaved with some dignity and grace. But she seems incapable of thinking of anything other than her self and her ambitions at any cost. It is a sad spectacle to have to watch as a woman and a fellow human being.
I'm sorry, but you cannot claim yourself as a champion of working class people when you've got millions of dollars in your personal bank account. The fact is that Bill and Hill's credibility took a real nosedive when he chose to go after the outrageous sums he gets paid as a consultant and speaker. As opposed to someone like Jimmy Carter who has been model of what ex-president's should be, not using their former positions to make millions of dollars in cash.
Yes, Bill has also done lots of good with his fundraising for various causes, but that doesn't negate the fact that they've turned into money whores, offering their services to the highest bidder. They should leave that kind of behavior to the Republicans.
The fact is that Hillary showed her true colors back when she was first lady and had those members of the WH travel office fired so that she could replace them with the company owned by her Hollywood friends (Linda Bloodworth-Thomases). And then lied about it of course.
That more than anything shows her true character (or lack of it). It may have happened so long ago, that people have forgotten about it. But I for one haven't.
Like many others, I disagree that Hillary Clinton has served as any kind of role model for women. The reasons are the same as those repeated on Huffington Post a few thousand times or more.
But the comment about Chelsea Clinton caught my eye. I do not doubt Hillary Clinton loves her daughter. That's pretty basic to the human condition. What I cannot understand is why anyone would applaud the role her daughter has played in this campaign,
Certainly, other adult children of candidates have spoken out in support of their parents' campaigns--the Gore daughters come to mind, Kerry's children, even Dick Cheney's daughter. But none has been recruited to work the campaign as a surrogate, wading into deep political waters day in and day out -- and with so many rules and restrictions guarding her that one can only assume there are many aspects of this that frighten or disturb her.
And the coup de grace was the sight of her standing silently as her mother described their experience in Bosnia. That made me shudder.
While I certainly would like to see the day when a woman candidate is a "non-issue" (along with a black candidate), Hillary being praised, simply for BEING a woman candidate, is empty praise indeed! Her composure and tactics during this campaign have been a shameful example, to other women and Americans as a whole. In my opinion, she has only succeeded in adding fuel to the nay-sayers' pyre.
Bravo! Barack is running as a PERSON. Anyone needing to view his rise within the contexts of demographic groups he may be a member of technically.. does not get it is the dearth of categorical anything underlying his rise.....will continue seeking some model for another WOMAN running. Which means that person will inadvertantly be supporting an already, thankfulyy outdated paradigm. It also reflects a lack of faith in the electorate I believe is being justified more than ever.
Remarkably....and most optimism-fostering, my take is both these candidates generate far more responses NOT based either gender or race than the opposite.
Yes, Hillary, Obama is on his way to being proclaimed the party nominee... It is about time you wake up and accept the truth...many women voted for Obama and will keep on voting for him.. it is not a question of gender...neither is it a question of color.. many white men and women, young and old, workers and farmers, college-bred or home-schooled, white collar or blue collar (and even pink collar)...they will all vote for OBAMA as the next president of the United States of America. And yes, he wrote that "silly" speech that touched our hearts about a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
You wrote this post on May 19. Hope you will rethink calling Hillary a role model after her remarks re: RFK's assassination. She is amoral and unfit for elected office.
She was just saying what a lot of people were thinking, myself included, and of course it was blown way out of proportion to her intent.
What a lot of people were thinking? What, that yeah, good idea she stay in the race just in case he's assassinated ala RFK; I mean we're only just heading into June!
Yes, perhaps many have been harboring concerns about BO's safety, considering the historic nature of the race, the highly charged atmosphere of the race, the nut cases out there, but WHAT on earth does Bobby's assassination have to do with her decision to stay in it? What!?! She could have said often times there have years when the primary season continued on well into June, and cite the years, even '68 if she cared to. But again I ask, why even bring up the fact that he was assassinated if not to imply that hey, "anything can happen." What a bunch of baloney she's force feeding us, AGAIN!
So it's a legitimate sentiment and not to be criticized because you were thinking it too?
And that kind of low-brow reasoning and poor judgment is somehow above reproach? To not understand that a comment like that WOULD be blown out of proprotion - that very lack of insight and foresight - is one of the reasons Hillary is losing the vote.
If saying these things will make this nightmare go away....
I'm sorry but that is way more praise than Hillary deserves. For starters the notion that she deserves some special credit for being seen as a plausible commander in chief is unfounded. If more women ran for president this wouldn’t seem so ground breaking, but the biggest barrier to more women doing so is their own mentality. Just because a bunch of naysayer’s who run the political machines say a woman can’t win doesn’t make it so, that is for the voters to decide.
Just because Hillary gets up and keeps fighting isn’t all that special either, we could all say the same thing about Mike Huckabee. All the presidential candidates woke up each morning, put on their best face, played their best game, and held on until it was not reasonable to do so. If women want to be able to do everything a man can do, then do it, but don’t look for some kind of special pat on the back for playing with or keeping up with the boys. We men know you can do it, why don't you?
Christopher Wilde
Social Commentary @
www.futureosophy.com
Amen to that.
- From a woman who won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman.
I disagree with all the praise and adulation about Hilary. I remember when She was in the White House trying to put together the healthcare bill and how she went behind closed doors and alienated Republican and Democracts alike. TShe has not changed except that now she has a bigger stage. There is something admirable about putting up a good fight but when that fight deteriorates into an ego war there is nothing salvageable to be taught as a lesson to our children .
Hilary has lied, insinuated racial divides, been a comfort to McCain, acted Rove-like in her campaign and yesterday the worst , the "assasination" imagery. Ariana, I am a fan, but really I do not want my children learning from Hilary Clinton's repertoire of tricks and deceptions. I dont want them learning that it is OK to obstruct an urgent and critical election of ego, power and greed . Excuse me but HRC should work her political savvy, solutions and experience underground and let the more noble patriots and leaders be the examples to our children, not her no way!!!.
Beautifully written, Ariana, except...
I understand that I may not view events and character in the same manner as others, since I viewed Hillary as a qualified candidate years before she announced her intent to run. I just wish Hillary had campaigned with truth and dignity. Wouldn't that have been a better historical testament for American women? Is the historical text going to omit that Hillary ran a desperate, divisive campaign built on moral corruption, managerial ineptitude, and baiting falsehoods?
I disagree. Her campaign has been divisive and insulting to anyone who didn't serve her immediate political purpose. I don't want my daughters to think a strong woman has to be callous.
I understand she and many of her supporters feel they have to act a certain way to get ahead because they came of age at a time when sexism was a daily reality and struggle, but there's something pathological in the way they're taking the party hostage. It's not unlike victims of other types of injustice, such as racism and domestic abuse. We feel sorry, but that does not make their behavior acceptable. They need therapy. Subverting the democratic process in retribution is not the answer. What's worse is that her "fighting" posture, rather than coming off as masculine, has so crossed the line that it now embodies the worst stereotypes about women: we're illogical, unable to accept reality and mathematical certainty, but instead cling to what we perceive is "entitled" to us; we gripe about the fight not being "fair" and are willing to change the rules to suit us (because we're not strong or capable enough to win strictly by the rules.)
Hillary is, in my opinion, damaging the perception of women the longer keeps "fighting" a losing battle. She's willing to sacrifice her dignity, integrity, and humanity to look tough, but ironically, her strongest male opponent, Obama, has maintained his.
Great post. I agree with everything you said. Hillary's behavior has demonstrated many traits that I abhor in women. We don't need to act like men to be successful, but we need to stop playing the "chick" cards, such as being overly emotional, playing dumb, and conniving. Hillary's inability to take responsibility for her own actions, while obviously not just a female trait, was teeth-gnashing to me. I cannot consider her a role model for women, other than what NOT to do. Now she's tilting at windmills, and her latest "mauvais mot" about RFK, followed by a non-apologetic apology, has me frantically waving my wand and chanting "Expelliarmus!". Don't go away mad, Hillary (though I'd see a shrink if I were you), just go away. Please.
I couldn't agree more. This is an embarrassment to women who have succeeded in life based on their own achievements and merits. To blindly follow and support a woman just because she's a woman is shameful. (Let's just be thankful that Ann Coulter didn't run).
And to suddenly abandon the ideals of the democratic party - to abandon the hope of ending a war where men and women are DYING - just because you didn't get your own way, just because YOU failed? You no longer care about health care? You know longer care about education?
It's that lack of integrity that's preventing your candidate from advancing. Has nothing to do with being a woman, sorry to burst your bubbles.
Amen!
I don't think HRC is offering a good example of fearlessness. You can't confuse fearlessness with stubborness. W is stubborn and this quality has given America more heartache than anyone can tolerate. War, poverty, intolerance, loss of civil liberities, HRC's voting supported W's stubborn agendat.
Is HRC being fearless? Hardly. The fearlessness would have been to protect the great good, the unity of the Democratic party to insure victory over self interest.. Stuborness and self interest is when it is all about one individual and encouraging people to express a total disregard for the great good.
If HRC was truly fearless she would have understood that Democrats winning was important not HRC winning and standing up against W in the most difficult times. That would have been fearlessness.
Thank you for this comment. Right On.
Hillary is not a good example of ANYTHING! Arianna, you missed the boat on this one. Any example you point out can be better referenced by other women such as Geraldine Ferraro as presidential candidate. No other woman, to my knowledge, has been as ruthless, amoral, destructive, and corrupt as Hillary Clinton - bar none. For that reason, you give her way too much credit, and you dismiss her infamy.
excuse me - correction: VP candidate
As for president - the HRC presidential campaign will not go down in history as a good one. She presented nothing more than a blind lust for power, riding on her husband's career. That is not the feminist agenda we want to endorse.
"blind lust for power" -- I like that. May I use it in future posts?
"She has also forever demolished the question mark hovering over the issue many (wrongly, in my opinion) have felt would be a woman candidate's biggest weakness: the ability to be seen as a plausible commander-in-chief."
As an American who has lived in many countries over many years, I'm amazed at the naiveté of way too many of my fellow Americans over the issue of women in high office. I only have to mention 3 names that many across the Globe will recognize as tough and formidable Prime Ministers or Presidents of their respective countries: Indria Gandi, Maggie Thatcher and Goldie Meyer! End of story!
Absolutely! I'm embarrassed that some people are praising Hillary Clinton as someone that could be a role model for women and young women. If anything, Hillary may have validated those misogynists who believe that women do not make good leaders. I am angry and saddened by Hillary's RFK assassination comment. I cannot fathom how people can continue to ignore the disturbing pattern we've seen and continue to support her as presidential nominee.
Perhaps HRC's legacy was not suppose to be that she would be the first woman to take the role of President....maybe her destiny was to clear the path for those yet to come. Regardless, American's should recognize how immature we have appeared to the rest of the developed world. Women have ruled empires throughout HIStory. This country was discovered because a woman...a Spanish Queen... had ambition. A dirty word when used to describe the character fo a woman, but a noble attribute when applied to a man. What might have HRC helped us to discover as a result of her ambition? Like the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootise pop...the world may never know.
That is America!
Well Arianna, I didn't think you had it in you to at least give credit for the effort that HRC has made. Kudos on your editorial.
To the rest of the reading public: I understand all the opinions of dislike toward the Clintons...some warranted and some just too rediculous to address. In the end, we will get what we deserve and nothing less. Will other women of equal or greater capability ever desire to step up to the plate and attempt to win in a field designed for and by men...who can say? I for one am terribly disappointed by the way this entire preimary season has turned out. The "ABC" (Anyone But Clinton) tactic is lame and not the way we should decide who will lead this country.
If Obama can win and if HRC can convince her followers to support the party by supporting Obama in November, will she be held personally accountable if he fails as she has been personally accountable for the failure of anything else she has ever supported??? I for one am not stupid enough to believe that HRC supporters would turn their back on the party because they are afraid of the "Big Black Man". I am not afraid of his color, I am afraid of his inexperience.
Cont'd
What experience are people seeking? America is at its lowest point ever; who has taken it there other than our "experienced" politicians and the people who voted for them. We don't need any more experience like that. We need a new plan, before our working class people have to start living in cardboard communities.
As for legislative experience, Obama has a vast record of varied legislation that benefits people. Hillary's legislation often involves naming buildings after people or observing holidays.
As for leadership experience, Obama has led a successful campaign against a candidate who was touted as the "inevitable" next Dem. nominee. He showed capability in hiring dependable, even-tempered, campaign staff who made accurate decisions. He managed to dodge the "kitchen sink" that was thrown at him, at least well enough to stay on his feet, without stooping to throw the catalogue of Clinton scandals and lies back at them.
Obama truly is our best hope for improvement in this country. If we fail to elect him, then we choose to stay on the path of self-destruction.
E**X**A**C**T**L**Y!
I'm sot sure why there are many who often refer to "experience" or lack thereof...
After these past seven years, give me the "IN-experienced" ANYDAY!
The so-called "experienced" are poisoned by their experience in itself!
O in 08'!
He doesn't have enough experience? He's not a seasoned politician? So let's give him another 4 years to compromise his ideals and his integrity, cave in to lobbyists, cheat on his wife, get corrupted? Then he'll be just like McCain and Clinton and we can all cheer him on?
Wake up to the reality that America is through playing that game. That's what this primary is about - a rejection of the status quo and a determination to set a higher standard.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
