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
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The future, the destiny of this great nation relies in the hands of only one person, a person who is a fighter, a leader like none before, a President that will not only fight for the American people but will finally change the way this government is run. A change for the betterment of each American, the economy, healthcare, the war in Iraq, terrorism, foreign policy, the oil crisis, a global leader that is recognized and respected worldwide: we, the American people have the great pleasure of introducing to you, the next President of these United States, your President, Hillary Clinton!
The American people have spoken!
Right on Catherine56. We're all speaking out. Why isn't anyone listening? Do they really want to give this election and this country to McCain??????
I really don't like these sports analogies of one side against the other. A more accurate description would be F-1 formula racing where there are two drivers on the same team competing against other teams. That being said, I sure wouldn't want Hillary on my team! She'd run you into the wall halfway through the race. Then she would stop, stick it into reverse and run over what's left.
Certainly some nice points for Hillary, but as a 65 year old business women,I have not been as pleased with Hillary's behavior nor do I think she has helped women! When she got weepy and then lost it about Obama's flyer on health care,I cringed! We claim respect amoug men when we stand on equal ground. Imagine if Obama had gotten weepy or flew into a rage! She complains the media picks on her and this now sexiest stuff is a childesh ploy and does not show courage under fire but a petty weakness! Knowing how to lose is more admirable than knowing how to win! She also lied and when caught says she was sleep deprived! How sad and pathedic! As a women I take no pride in how she has represented women!
Also on this article I have noticed she has raised $170 Million. and on another article i read on MSNBC in cluding april funds Barack has only raised $167Million.
Now comes my question,Why is she in debt and barack on surplus and yet she keeps talking how Barack is out spending her?
I would have thought if you have raised more money and you are spending less,you should be having more surplus in comparison to someone who has raised less money in comparison and is spending more. Is it just me not having a clue about accounting or what?
First, your numbers are wrong, and second a big chunk of the money she raised can only be spent in a general election due to McCain/Feingold. She really raised less than that, but counted it anyway (Hillary "George W. Bush" Clinton can play the Orwell doublespeak game with the best of them).
As a Hillary supporter, I have asked myself this question. Below is site where you can see what both candidates raised and how the spent it:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019
I noticed that Hillary spent $16,000,000 on postage and shipping and direct mail
Barack spent about $4,000,000
Hillary voters are made up largely of poorer people and the elderly.. the kind of voters who don't have computers or don't use the internet and need to get things by mail.
Baracks voters are younger and more affluent and are much more internet savvy. Barack ran much of his campaign over the internet, hired bloggers to make his case where millions would see it and didn't use snail mail like Hillary did.
Just that alone accounts for over $10,000,000... not sure there was much she could do about it given the demographics of her voting base. Just my thoughts.
AMEN! A lot of good things can be said about Hillary that are true. But I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.
With all due respect, Arianna, you are counting your chickens before they hatch. Hillary is the choice of the people, no matter how the press spins it. She deserves the nomination. The math is there, she can win and she will win.
Let the people decide.
There is always a price for all the media bias against Hillary...
Yesterday on NPR, a segment on primary, there were several callers, i was shocked to find out what they had to say...
Very upset about the way Hillary was treated by the Media...Mathews etc..talking about her cleavage, pimping factor..and they either will sit out or vote for someone else..
So folks still time to correct..may be not...
She has run in more states and gotten more votes in the longest primary season than any other white woman in the history of the republic. Congrats on that.
Way to go Arriana
It all boils down to one thing: the democratic process. And integrity.
I agree. That's why all who care about this country should join together in opposition to the deceptive and divisive Obama.
How is Obama deceptive or divisive? His whole campaign is about transparency and bringing people together.
Do you think for yourself, or simply parrot Clinton talking points?
The Huffington Post is such a JOKE. What a collection of LIBERAL FASCISTS. You think that you can define some alternate reality by all of you little pea-brained MORONS agreeing that Oblablabla is going to win.
He's a loser. Even if he STEALS the nomination, by ignoring the votrers of 4th and 8th largest states, he will get TROUNCED in the general election. Obama is HISTORY.
Looks like 4 more years. McCain thanks you, Obama! Hillary could have won, but YOU are a LOSER.
Way to go JackWOrf. There are a lot of us out here, and not everyone has a computer and subscribes to this blog and has the courage to post a reply. But we will be out there in November, getting our revenge. If that's what the democrats want, bring it on.
DEFEAT??? DUHHHHHHHHHH. Hillary DESTROYED Obama in Kentucky and West Virginia. If you think that she is "defeated", then you are mentally RETARDED!!!
Obama wants to CHEAT his way into the nomination by ignoring Florida and Michigan. What a sleezy, slimy, filthy little CHEAT!!! McCain is going to DEMOLISH the filthy little CHEAT. He probably cheated his way thru Harvard too. Plagiarizing, lying CHEAT.
Your post.....going.....going......and gone.....from here. Some of mine did...
Hillary it is...
Bulbul: Yes, it is a common occurrence on many blogs. Attack Hillary, and you receive royal treatment. Defend Hillary or oppose Obama, and you must tread lightly.
Hillary has a lot of assets but I have been on the fence so far in deciding between her and Obama. Her speech today where she flaunts the Florida and Michigan votes and insists she is committed to providing them full count puts me in the Obama camp for sure. She and Obama signed a pledge to not compete in Florida and Michigan and because these votes would do her good, she has fought to reclaim them ever since. Although today's speech may be a concession attempt by she and the party to pacify these two states, it does remind me of when she seriously tried to renig on her pledge - like we would all forget somehow that they had an agreement.
Hillary is'nt wrong advocating votes for Michigan and Florida. Even the party rules provide for a reduced delegation as punishment with 50% being the number which is codified in a rule. The people of Fla and Mich did'nt break any laws and they want their vote counted. If state leaders, some of whom were Republicans, moved their primary earlier than the DNC wanted,well how does that invalidate a vote? Obama campaigned in FLa with tv ads. Hillary made some apperances.The issues were laid out, newspapers endorsed candidates, and an informed electorate voted. What happened to "one person one vote"? I say count 50% of the votes otherwise we piss offf two democratic states and risk alienating a lot of voters who may take it out on the Dem candidate. Since PA, Hllary won most of the votes. I am scared Obama has disconnected with white working class people and though he wins Southern states skewed with Dem voters who are disproportionally black, he may lose them when thje GOP white voter is heard from.. Hillary has won the big states the Dems need to win in Nov. like CA Ny Ohio, Texas PA Mass, Fla Mich, NJ, West VA and Kentucky. I bet adding up her wins and the votes they carry to win the presidency she is closer to it than he is. She is about a half millon votes ahead counting Fla and Michigan. Dont count her out, she is our best chance to prevail in Nov.
She's counted on the ignorance of the American voters from the git go, and she damn near won. It's no wonder we had the likes of GWB for 8 horrifying years. She's most beholding to corporations, he's most beholding to the people. Who do I trust? The one who was against the war from the beginning, the one who can admit when he has made a mistake, the one who only focuses on the issues, the one who didn't try to win votes with a bs gas tax vacation, the one who is willing to sit down and talk with the enemy because that's what diplomacy is. His words and his actions are always more congruent than either Hillary's or McCain's. And that's sad. I wanted to vote to Hillary. But she was much less than I expected and he was so much more than I expected, so I've had no choice.
Confused by sexism? "Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would gave trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment...It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, not one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon." (Marilyn Frye) SOME BIRDS KNOW THEY'RE IN A CAGE AND OTHERS FLY AROUND TOTALLY UNWARE OF THEIR CAPTIVITY!
Huh? Sorry, but I don't understand your comment. What does it have to do with this discussion? Not intending to be sarcastic, it just flew over my head.
LOL kenzgramps....
One last remark:
Few years ago my company was sending me to Detroit on business trip. Now I am travelling to Bangalore (India).
Some month ago Ford Motor Company sold Jaguar to Tata (an Indian company).
Two weeks ago I learned that FoxConn (a Chinese chips manufacturing company) has by far more employees than GE.
Many people seem to praise Clinton's policy in US, but these things did not occur in the last 8 years only.
Just think about that
I am European, writing from Germany. Ms. Merkel is our Prime Minister and she is doing quite a good job, managing a coalition of parties I would have never thought possible before, and getting pretty good results. Contrary to Ms. Clinton, she put herself at service of her party and nation and never used the gender card. Nor she used empty demagogy, nor she played on the fear of German people, she just run on her capacities, diplomatic capacities and good judgement. She is a wonderful example for women.
Now I am observing the US primaries and I admit I am getting very negatively surprised of American people. I see people agreeing rule, breaking them and then negotiating the punishment. I see racism, sexism (actually I see more misandry than misoginy). I see one candidate pretending to have her own rule (in fact on Clinton web-page the number of delegate is not even cited), calling for division and playing on them. I observe the constant claim of fight as something heroic and accepting that someone else made it better as "giving up".
In the few weeks Ms. Clinton's campaign has improved. My impression is that she is a good "fighter" when she has nobody in front of her and she has nothing to lose. Being able to judge when nothing can be lost and there is nothing at stake, taking decision when you have no responsibility does not sound all that impressive to me.
Merkel is a great example to cite, good point.
You depict this one beatifully.She is only fighting when she has nothing to lose.Where was she when Obama came from 20% behind her to now 16% infront. From fewer SDs to now more SDs.from an unknown entity not as far back as 2006 to the most popular person across the world.
She is not fighting to win,she is fighting to make Obama lose.Thats not a reason to fight.
Obama can't win Ohio...Clinton can...and its all going to come down to that.
Ohio is not America.America has 50 states. Beside the presidency is not about winning ,its about doing the right thing.
Its worthwhile pointing out to u that,the entire GE election in America has changed. When they used to mentioned places like Ohio as key,that was bearing in mind that,young people dont participate in Elections and also that only the usual under 30% of the electoral population will participate in a GE .But I have got news for you,CHANGE has come to America.
With Senator Kennedy now taking ill perhaps Hillary will notice that history is tapping her on the shoulder to fill some very large shoes. Of course my hopes are with Senator Kennedy for a full recovery and as many more years in the Senate as he wishes, but who could blame him for slowing down a bit.
Despite rumors that Hillary may not want to run for re-election, it does seem that a bright future in the senate awaits her if she wants it. I hope she responds to history's shoulder tapping.
She might not be the best choice for VP but she wouldn't be the worst either. Her tenacity has in many ways overshadowed my reservations about and grievances with her.
I've been having some of the same thoughts, GulliverSwift, but we're not there yet. Had Senator Kennedy and Tip ONeill supported President Carter enthusiastically, he would have done better against Reagan. But Reagan had charisma and media support that Carter couldn't match. I'm banking that McCain is a much weaker candidate than Reagan and less appealing than either Obama or Clinton. Certainly, a McCain presidency risks taking us over the precipice.
As a New Yorker, I'd love nothing more than for Clinton to step into Kennedy's shoes. I wish she matched his passion for progressive causes. But right now, she's signalling that she's not stopping her pursuit of the White House and might even go to the convention to press her case. If by some fluke she pulls off the nomination, the Democratic party may win the presidency, but it will loose its claim on the future.
As a woman, I share Arianna's appreciation for Clinton's softer side. But I can't forget she's the woman who never called Bush/Cheney on their conflation of 9/11 and Iraq, and that her enthusiasm for our war there enabled the neocons to pursue a course that fuels our enemies and devastates hundreds of thousands of lives here and in Iraq.
Stop, Hillary, stop!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
