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
Too bad Hillary didn't write the original script! Have any of Hillary's scripts been played out for rewards? Any playright or director in Hollywood tell you the Trinity is necessary for "Father-Son-Holy Ghost" engagement or "Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, See No Evil" three-some for the patron or citizen to be intrigued enough to pay the price of the ticket? A reminder: Men most frequently like to be reminded an not informed. Come to think of it as a female I'm no different in substance than our struggling selves to that of a male, the other half of our genetic coding.
Government's view of the economy or even political contribution by women can be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. What aspect of what I've just said doesn't Hillary understand?
Remember, Hillary, we all grew up in a country run by politicans who sent pilots like McCain to man the bombers to kill the babies to make the world safe for children to grow up in. It takes a village?
You are one of the wealthy...
To amplify an earlier post which said "To all those Hillary supporters considering voting for McCain: do you really want a president who is clearly enamored with the idea of war in Iran:"
Do you really want Roe v. Wade overturned by a McCain Supreme Court?
Further, do you want a man in office who thinks that the reason for the pay gap between men and women is that women need more training?
I have been married 43 years, and I still training mine.
Yes! and Yes!
There are already enough votes on the SC to overturn Roe v. Wade.
And when that happens - because it will at some point down the line - then states will enact their own laws regarding abortion, as they were doing when Roe v. Wade was heard.
Overturning Roe would only mean that there is no Federal right to an abortion.
States, however, would be free to do their own thing, as they have been doing since Roe V. Wade was decided.
Arianna, I believe you spoke too soon,having studied the Feminist Movement in University and raised by a single mother I see no triump in Hillary's Historic Defeat, but I gain huge lesson about Integrity. Inorder for there to be a triump there is must be an altering of some kind Hillary altered nothing if you call altering perception of commander& chief significant that again is not a triump. The historic fight of Racism is not only to alter perception but to alter structure that exclude not just black men but also black women and people of color. The Historic Women's Movement - which refers to White Women- These women are already apart of the existing power structure they were married to men that owned it or they were children to those men, so their fight of inclusion was not to change the structure but to be apart of it. Hence Hillary is not a treat to the existing structure, therefore she found it easy to use Race when it benefited her and sexism as an adjective when she is losing. Where is Hillary asking for a structural change? To accuse the Media(White Owned) of being Sexist, they respond by asking easier questions, they play along with her new math and ignore her skeletons. Hillary, has not put forth a plan to end Racism or Sexism, why not? Because to do so would call for true Historical Change and takes real guts and integrity that is not what her campaign is
Thankyoy Maureen...
I think you are wrong in your historical perspective. I am a white woman who participated in both the women's movement and the civil rights movement, and during the same long years. There was no big division between the two (at least in my mind)....w
That is what makes it so galling to see some of the stars of the old feminist movement condoning Hillary's racist behavior now as being merely something that she needs to do to win. I have lost all respect for (as just one example) Gloria Steinem.
The dream that we had then was for a more just society for everybody, and I--for one--am not willing to abandon that dream in order to elect a female president before I croak (I am 73 and feeling fine). It wasn't about electing whatever woman could behave the most like an agressive man. We were hoping for a woman with tolerance, compassion, understanding, decency and generosity of spirit. That woman will come along some day, and I hope I am around to see it. But she isn't running this year.
Here, Here! But there's still hope..
I'm hoping Obama picks a woman of this type of character to be his Veep.
I have followed Senator Clinton's campaign closely since the beginning and have never seen or heard a racist comment from her. You are just repeating a strategy line from the Obama campaign and should be ashamed of yourself. You know that this is a good and caring woman who had to prove that she was tough enough to be the Commander-In-Chief and she did. Did you not notice how she was taken over the coals for every emotion she let slip?
Maybe you need to read the disgusting comments posted here to understand why Hillary's supporters are questioning whether they belong in the highjacked Democratic Party after all. There is only one reason we support her so strongly - she can win and Obama can not.
Aryana,
Nice article. I agree w/the poster "bulbul," your bloggers have used your website as a safe haven to blast away in a very ugly fashion at an admirable candidate for the highest office in the land.
I live in Oregon, and I mailed my ballot weeks ago for Hillary. She's a fighter, she's smart, and most importantly if you look at the demographics and the "Sure thing Swing" states, if you're a Democrat flat out exhausted by the last 8 years, and want to make sure another republican doesn't end up in the White House, you oughta be voting for Hillary.
Short and to the point: She hasn't stepped down yet, nor should she. Millions of us have our prayers pinned onto her, and once the Superdelegates do a huddle at Convention I believe they'll go w/the "sure thing," too. Thanks for an interesting website & hopefully everyone in the party will unite soon. And, those that end up angry need to vent their anger at Republicans.
I hope this means that you will unite behind Obama. And if Hillary is the candidate I promise to support her.
Obama 2008
You are a rare Obama supporter.
Kudos to Arianna & the NYTimes for trying to ease Hillary out of the race with some respect and closure. Unfortunately, she might not take the bait. She can still win with a superdelegate coup. Oregon’s Governor & Superdelegate Ted Kulongoski is in his last term and has already endorsed Clinton. A Superdelegate in a position like his won’t need a monetary offer to participate in convincing other delegates at the convention to switch to Hillary. The political payoff from the future Clinton administration could be quite attractive.
It’s not just Superdelegates we should be worried about. Pledged delegates can also switch sides. Given the amount of international money at risk with this election, I’m guessing there are a lot of greedy billionaires worried about someone as honest and thoughtful as Obama running the show here in America. Imagine the lost revenues to oil interests if America withdraws troops from Iraq and they have to crank up oil production to pay for their own reconstruction and operating costs, including the Iraq government’s generous summer vacations. Without our occupation artificially keeping world oil production down, OPEC won’t be able to manipulate prices and oil could drop to pre-invasion values!
If you want to make sure the nomination isn’t stolen from our candidate, start communicating with your delegates. You can sign this petition asking Oregon Superdelegates to vote for Obama and unify the Democratic party so we can start focusing on the how to beat McSame.
http://www
What the international $$$$$ community is more worried about, I think, is the rise of a candidate who can raise money independently of depending on them., and Obama is just such a person. They managed to find ways to destroy Howard Dean's candidacy in 04 for this very reason (and the Clintons and their corporate pals in the DLC tried to get Dean fired as head of the DNC. They hoped to replace him with somebody who is more corporatel
That's ridiculous. All the big Wall Street money is with Obama. He's been bought & sold since Day 1 in the Chicago machine.
Oh really? One of her biggest supporters is Steven Rattner, huge hedge fund manager.
Bill Clinton for Senate:
If Hillary Clinton is elected VICE-president, the next senator from New York could be her husband, Bill Clinton.
Supporters are touting that scenario in the event the seat currently held by Mrs. Clinton opens up as she moves to higher office. a Democrat, would be tasked with appointing someone to fill the open Senate seat for the remaining two years of Clinton’s term.
"As a senator, he’d be a knockout,” Harold Ickes, an adviser for Sen. Clinton and a White House aide to the former president, told the newspaper. “He knows issues, he loves public policy and he’s a good politician
Bill Clinton will never be senator. For the years following his presidency he's been in the grooming for taking over the UN. Imagine Hillary as president and her stand-by-her-man hubby as president of the UN. Geeze... not one person on this earth would ever be able to sleep again.
I agree that Hillary has done women a favor by blazing the path to the presidency as much as she has.
HOWEVER, I am getting angry that her defeat is all being blamed on sexism. Hillary's vote for the war, and her hawkish (obliterate Iran) stance, are why she lost me as a supporter. I would have very much liked to support a woman for president. Hillary is a HAWK, and she is UNQUALIFIED, DISHONEST, INEXPERIENCED and has tried to claim the presidency from her HUSBAND'S COATTAILS.
She also mismanaged her own campaign and showed her utter incompetence. Obama is more qualified, has held office longer, and authored more legislation. Obama has shown expertise and financial skill in managing his campaign. Obama has followed the rules, won fairly, and DESERVES to have won this nomination. Obama has shown more respect toward Hillary than she deserves and I am extremely dismayed that her failure is being blamed on sexism instead of the reality that she just plain lost to the better candidate.
AND she has embraced billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, formerly the money behind the 'vast (I assume in reference to his girth) right-wing conspiracy
AND she has embraced billionaire and arch-conservative Richard Mellon Scaife, formerly the money behind the 'vast (I assume in reference to his girth) right-wing conspiracy
Arianna's basic premise is theoretically correct, all other things equal if we're referring to a generically mature, intellectually honest woman. However Clinton's conduct throughout this campaign, with rare exceptions, has been to slander & undermine the respectability of all her challengers, long before she was left only to defeat Obama. I vividly recall during a Democratic debate a few months ago how she falsely accused John Edwards of using the "Republican playbook" when he genuinely challenged her rationale for supporting the AUMF, which she claimed wasn't intended to give Bush consent to declare war against Iraq. This allegation against Edwards came back to bite her in the rearend, though few if anyone in MSM held her accountable. She engaged in exactly the same strategy with which she falsely charged Edwards. Her suggestions of sexism in this race are wholly disingenuous, as are Ferraro's references to Obama as "sexist." I'm sure Ferraro would lodge the same charge against Alice Walker & Kate Michelman, among other feminist activists, who endorsed Obama in the past few months. They hate their own gender, so they endorsed someone who "claims" not to be a Muslim and has a middle name that matches Bush's arch-enemy. Of all women who are competent enough to run for President, why did it have to be Hillary Clinton?
...yet another Make HRC Feel Good piece on HuffPo as the reality of losing finally dawns on her...and her inevitable exit from this race looms ahead...
...look, losing is hard, for all of us, for some more than others...b
Obama 2008!
.
No thanks.
...no problem, we'll keep it moving, regardless
Obama 2008!
.
You know what? I think you got two things right. 1. The over 17 million of us who have supported Sen. Clinton will just say goodbye to Sen. Obama and move on. 2. "let's give credit where credit is due". IF Obama is the nominee his massive defeat in the GE can be credited not only to him but to his obnoxious and foolish supporters who think they can continue to insult Sen. Clinton and not suffer any political consequences.
Please do not blame Obama for his supporters. It only shows how ignorant you are. I would never blame Hillary for how idiot her supporters are.
Yes, charge on with your primary popular-vote loss and cut all the Clinton dead-weight support! Yes you con!
Obama will win the nomination. Will Democrats heal their rifts and get on with the business of defeating John McCain? I beg all Hillary supporters quite sincerely, consider the implications of putting McCain in the White House. Do they really know this man?
http://you
I don't think people on the Democratic side have honestly seen enough of McCain to know who they are voting for - ironic considering all the talk of inexperienced, unknown Obama.
As the late, brilliant, and deeply missed Ann Richards said, Bush was born with a "silver foot in his mouth". McCain manages to make Bush look at least relatively articulate and consistent:
http://www
As Bill Maher said, this guy is a warrior who is "dumb about war": he's obviously on the CFR, but so is Obama. McCain rattles on about Iran supplying weapons to Al-Qaeda, and has to be corrected (via a whisper in the ear) by of all people, Joe Lieberman. Why would the largest Shia nation in the world supply weapons to Sunni extremists killing Shia in Iraq? This wasn't a 'misspeak', it was something McCain clearly didn't know. This is the foreign policy expert?
Not only that - he is fairly clear on his position with regard to Iraq. More troops. It may be "unpopular' he says, but he will send more troops there if he's elected:
http://www
cut the self righteous act please...d
we are going to vote for the dem nominee
or a few for nader (the guy who represents REAL change...c
I actually had a great deal more to post, but the limitations would have resulted in a flood of text: I don't intend for my tone to be self righteous at all. In fact I readily admit that I am anxious about this rift between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters and I'm inclined towards hoping that we refer to ourselves all as Democrats as soon as can be achieved.
I hope you're right in that comments on blogs exaggerate animosity between Obama and Hillary supporters. It's only that I've seen so many vitriolic comments, gloating or sneering from both sides, and too many declarations (and even polls) to the effect of 'If our candidate doesn't win, we vote McCain or we don't vote and McCain wins'.
Having encountered this so often I only hope that it is exaggerated, but I think it wise to caution those people who do intend on voting for McCain or allowing his election by not voting, through posts such as that which you replied to.
McCain's got his own friendly pastor, a "moral compass" and "spiritual guide" - not Hagee, another guy named Parsley.
Rod Parsley says the US cannot truly fulfill it's "divine purpose" until it understands it's "historical conflict with Islam". Islam is the single most dangerous enemy the US has, according to this guy.
"We were built for the battle! We were created for the conflict!" screams Parsley, "We get off on warfare!"
http://www
To all those Hillary supporters considering voting for McCain: do you really want a president who is clearly enamored with the idea of war in Iran:
http://www
A guy who admits he doesn't care what the public think.
At what point, a reporter asks, do you stop doing what you want, and start doing what the American people want, regarding Iraq?
"I disagree with what the majority of the American people want," McCain answers, at 6:10 in the above video.
He says the American people don't care if troops are in Iraq for "a hundred years, a thousand years or ten thousand years", as long as American troops aren't on the front line:
http://www
Is this posturing? Tough talk? Or is he serious? He's adamant about sending more troops. Does he "get off on warfare" like pastor? Does he have some conviction of a divine war with Islam? Will he invade Iran?
Politics are personal as well as planetary. Not a H.C voter ,nevertheless comments like this one , turn my sympathy to her ;
"I think you all should drag Hillary out into the street and kick the snot out of her!
Who'll be the first "man" up?
Humph".
From another blog today. Not a word was written by Obama's supporters condemning it.
Entirely understandable and correct.
I think it's vitally important that Obama supporters DO NOT insult Hillary supporters - and vice versa. I think it vital that they look for commonalities again, and forget the bruises of the campaign, numerous and hurtful though they may have been. They need to be put into the past. Hillary supporters and Obama supporters need once again to become Democrats, as I mentioned in another reply.
Insulting a candidate invariably insults a supporter, or more than one supporter. There's no need: if there is indeed danger of a split in the party that could affect the nominated candidates electability then this needs to be addressed, not exacerbated through petty comments or squabbles.
The comment you cited is pure idiocy, and I hope you understand it does not reflect on Obama supporters. I'm surprised to see no Obama supporters condemning it - especially as it seems to be so vitriolic that it is more likely to be a post written by a Republican intended be divisive.
Think about before the nomination: would you have imagined such antagonism? It may be time, regardless of who you support, to try and consider things less from a personal level and more from a political level. I truly hope that people can refrain from making insulting comments, or from letting such comments influence their vote.
There needs to be a study on why so many ignorant people support Hillary and would turn over their hard earned money and vote to someone who had no chance to win after Super Tuesday and who pissed away millions of dollars on her last Senate campaign and this one.
But I do think Arianna's piece is a tad premature. What happens if Hillary chooses to contest this nomination all of the way to the convention floor even AFTER Obama has reached the magic number of delegates needed to win the nomination? Now I don't expect this to happen but it could. And if it does, that will make Hillary more fit for a straightjacket and mental hospital than the Senate and it should forever damage whatever goodwill the Clintons have left with the Democratic Party. So we really need to allow this to play out until after the primaries are over with to see what the Clintons do next before Hillary's run for the Presidency is defined as historic or anything else. The only way Arianna's comments would hold any water is if Hillary tries to unify the party in early June and goes out and works hard to help Obama win the Presidency. Anything less than that would be Hillary only concerned with Hillary, which puts her into the category of any other cheap politician.
RJ Crane, topplebush
That is a lot of ifs you are speculating about. Why don't you take a couple of deep breaths; calm down; let the drama play itself out; move out of your Mothers basement and get a real life?
This is a good blog by Arianna --- beginning the healing process between the two camps.
I voted for Bill twice and would consider voting for Hilary if there wasn't a sense of Clintonesque entitlement to her campaign . At this point I could care less about the Clinton brand. She denigrated the process when she reached out to Republicans, and stirred up the question of race. This morning she's pointing to just some Rovian analysis that she somehow stumbled across, saying the same words she's been trying to make stick for months now, "I am the strongest candidate.
During all the years you have followed politics, how many democrats have taken money from Republican fund raisers? And secondly, doesn't money always mean favor, and influence?
Just a couple of questions:
1. Will you support her when she wins?
2. Will you demand that Obama be her running mate or John Edwards?
Get back to me will ya! Your people call my people and we'll do lunch!
Ciao
game over - again I have supported her till this campaign and the choices she made... but its over now...
I won't pretend to know Hillary Clinton's motives for running. They could be selfless or selfish depending on how you want to view her actions. Your analysis is pretty much spot on, a solid overview, avoiding the snags where Hillary's personal integrity falls into question but I understand why you're not nitpicking. I wrote this before and will write it again, Hillary lost me with two things she supported, and one of them was not the vote on the war. I love the way the general public eagerly signed on for the war, along with the popular media and now, years later, Hillary's a goon for voting to empower Bush? How convenient. I was in Germany and read the so called "intelligence". For anyone to have believe this contrived drivel utterly amazed me, but Hillary was not alone. Most of the military that should have known better bought it too (many, sadly, still do). I was cautioned to keep my opinion to myself. Ah, history. But I digress...
Hillary lost me with the anti flag burning amendment and her capitulation to "pro-lifers" who refused to have a clause in the parental notification law to prevent under age abortions. I wondered why she would protect a symbol (one not under attack) and not protect an underage girl from a rapist and/or seducer in her own home without that girl filing charges first and getting the abortion -if she still could- second? I'll reluctantly vote for her if Obama loses.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
