Questioning Clinton's Defeat

My daughter better not be our first woman president.

She can't run until 2036. By then, a woman in the White House should be about as shocking as a woman police officer.

Should be.

But we can screw it up. We can screw it up by telling ourselves lies about the role sexism has played in the race for this year's Democratic nomination. We can choose to learn nothing real from 2008.

I, as an Obama supporter who's grown weary of the Clintons, can try to shoo them away faster by pretending sexism hasn't tainted this campaign. I can fail my daughter by telling myself the lie that it's just part of the rough stuff of politics for a journalist to compare a US senator to Glenn Close's bunny-boiling character in Fatal Attraction. I can shrug off the slinging of sexist slurs in our political discourse by everyone from misogynistic blog trolls to comedy star Tina Fey, who was supposedly helping Senator Clinton when she delivered her "bitches get things done" endorsement on Saturday Night Live.

I also run the risk of wishful thinking, of noticing only the women who've managed to smash through the "glass ceiling" and climb right on through. I am, after all, typing these words in Seattle, Washington. My governor is a woman. Both of my US senators are women.

I'm trying to guard against convenient, complacent, knee-jerk thinking.

I urge Senator Clinton's supporters to do the same.

Not for the sake of party unity.

Rather, because our first woman president is out there somewhere listening. Whether that future president is Senator Clinton herself or an Army officer leading her troops through their third tour in Iraq or your own extraordinary daughter, her political future depends on learning the lessons of 2008 in all their complexity.

Learning grows out of questioning. So I'll try not to preach. I'll just suggest some questions -- some starting points for discussion with the girls, women, and feminist men in your life:

* What if Senator Clinton had voted against the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"? Would Senator Obama's campaign even exist if the best-known Democratic candidate had demonstrated her wisdom and experience by opposing the war before it began, before it turned into a fiasco?

* What if Senator Clinton hadn't built her campaign around what proved to be a disastrous assumption: that she would lock up the nomination on February 5? What if she'd had the funds and organization in place to avoid losing a dozen contests in a row?

* What if Senator Clinton had shunned PACs and big-money donors? What if she'd trusted in the grassroots enthusiasm for her historic campaign? What if she'd been able to stake her claim as a presidential candidate free from debts to special interests?

* What if Senator Clinton had resisted the temptation to use her belligerent, gaffe-prone husband as a campaign surrogate? Would African-Americans have abandoned her in such huge numbers if Bill Clinton hadn't glibly compared Senator Obama's early successes to those of Jesse Jackson twenty years earlier?

* What if Senator Clinton was Senator Rodham? What if her reaction to the humiliation of the Lewinsky scandal had been to make a dignified exit from her marriage and begin a new life as an unmistakably autonomous, self-reliant woman? What if she'd rejected the cynical old Mark Penn/Dick Morris/Karl Rove political style and reconnected with that idealistic, determined Hillary Rodham who stares out at us from photos taken during her Wellesley College days?

* What if the worst wound of Senator Clinton's campaign hadn't been self-inflicted? What if she'd avoided the bizarre spectacle of claiming repeatedly, gratuitously, and dishonestly that she'd dodged sniper fire on a Bosnian tarmac?

* What if Senator Clinton hadn't waffled on the question of whether Florida and Michigan should be penalized for moving the dates of their primary elections? How many more delegates might she have today if she'd traveled to those states ahead of time and used her unique stature as a senator and former first lady to persuade state legislators to keep those primaries where the DNC wanted them? And even if she'd failed, how much more principled would her count-all-the-votes stance now seem?

I'm not running out of questions. But even the most patient readers must, by now, be running short of time. So I'll stop.

I've come to my own preliminary conclusions about these questions.

Readers will have to decide for themselves.

Some will dismiss the "what ifs" piled high around Senator Clinton's campaign and chalk her defeat up to insurmountable sexism.

Others will wrestle with these questions and the many, many more that haven't occurred to me. Some of these people will try to chart new, better paths to the White House. One of them will be our first woman president. Another will be our second.

And this, I expect, will go on and on until we evolve into a nation that squanders nobody, a nation that picks its leaders from its full, vast pool of available talent.

Comments

[SenorBob]

Part 1:
I think her biggest mistake was using Bill. Not because of his horribly misguided statements and bizarre actions on the campaign trail, but because of what it says about her candidacy.

She's accused of riding his coattails to get where she is. She should have left him at home to play with the dog/smoke cigars/play golf, whatever it is that men of his age like to do, and gone out and campaigned on her own. And when the first reporter asked where he was and why he wasn't on the campaign trail, she could have playfully said, "I'm the one running for office, not Bill."

[SenorBob]

Part 2:
So many women are so angry with her for not leaving Bill. Everyone assumes the only reason they're still married is because of her political aspirations. Had she refused to use his clout on the campaign trail, many people (myself included) would have been forced to reassess their opinions of her. Maybe she stayed with him because she really loves him, warts and all. I'm sure a lot of people can identify with that. I'm sure half the women out there are married to philanderers, slobs, or people who suffer from Xbox/NFL induced comas. It would have made her seem more like a loving, caring human being and less like an evil conniving wench.

I"m not saying she is evil, or conniving, or any of that. What I am saying is that she has a perception problem with a significant portion of the population. The problem is, when you're convinced that someone has ulterior motives for her actions, you can't hear what she"s saying. You're too busy looking for the angle.

Had she made a firm commitment to do this all on her own, she would have garnered a lot more respect. People would be marveling at her strength and determination to do this all on her own merits. She could have proven that she is her own woman and a force to be reckoned with, not merely the wife of someone famous.

[DCinFrance]

I'm sure you tell your daughter what I've mine : you can be anything you believe yourself to be, as long as you maintain integrity in trying to attain it. I had a standing policy, though perhaps it was not real world. If you tell the truth, you will not be punished...by me. You'll hear from me, but you will not be punished. You will have to endure the consequences of your actions, but in that you stand in the light of truth, I will stand with you.

Hillary is being punished, and not because of her sex.

[buckygreen]

My initial opposition to Hillary Clinton, was based largely on her positions on Bush's War. Clinton voted for it, and has yet to repudiate that vote. In my view that made her the wrong choice, regardless of gender.

[vorpalmusic]

I don't have anything to contribute, but I really wanted to thank you for an excellent and thoughtfully assembled essay.

[metogamekun]

Maybe the biggest "what if" is . . .

What if Sen. Clinton wasn't running against one of the most inspiring figures in a generation?

Obama is winning on his merits as much as on her faults.

[hokulele]

That's it. Obama inspires and builds consensus. The Clintons are having fits as they fade into history. Do the right thing for a change, Hilrod, go back to your senate job and re-create yourself. You might become a strong leader there. You could never attain the greatness of a Ted Kennedy, but you could do good works. Be satisfied with that. Your self-centered ambition, the real Clintonian mystique, shows now, just as the rest of us who bring some of our worst to light under pressure. Change.

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear hokulele,

I want to thank you and everyone who read my post. Before I reply to something you wrote, let me clarify something that's come up in several comments: I do no pretend to know whether or not Senator Clinton SHOULD have stayed married following the Lewinsky scandal. Furthermore, getting a divorce for political gain or staying married for political gain is a repugnant idea. All of my "what ifs", as I wrote, are meant as starting points for discussion. Nobody should discuss any "what if" they deem disrespectful or inappropriate.

Moving on, I want to echo part of what you suggested -- the "re-create yourself" advice for Senator Clinton. You go on the mention Ted Kennedy. History offers other role models.

My personal favorite right now is William Seward. He was the "invevitable" candidate for the 1860 Republican nomination. He lost out to a relative nobody -- Abraham Lincoln. I wrote a recent post exploring how Seward managed to recreate himself in the wake of that demoralizing loss.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-quigg/hrcs-choice-seward-or-cha_b_101842.html

Better yet, buy and read the book I relied on for that post -- the amazing "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780743270755-0

As you'll see from the comments that follow my Seward post, people really, really like that book. I'd love for every American to read it.

[twgbonehead]

David,

Your daughter can find some great and positive inspiration from this election.

Can a candidate persevere despite a genetic makeup which eliminates them from the consideration of many (prejudiced) Americans?

Can a candidate stay true to their own values, promote their own ideas and ideals without resorting to mudslinging opponents?

Can a candidate tolerate and survive unfair and biased slurs and innuendos, without resorting to the same or losing their cool?

For the first time in a very very long while, the answer has been shown to be "Yes". Your daughter has a great inspiration and role model in this election. Or does the fact that he's a black male eliminate him from consideration for this role?

[azcamp]

This was a historic race--not because an African-American and a woman participated--but because it is the first time that so many Americans got actively involved.

Change means getting rid of the PACs and Lobbyists influence in the race by building a grass roots fund raising capability. Change means employing a 50-state strategy that redraws the electoral map. The red state vs blue states, liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican polarization did not work for average people. If the media made the campaign about race, gender and class, then America has much work to do.

This is a historical opportunity to unify Americans around what we share in common. Any candidate could have decided to lead that movement, but only Senator Obama showed the courage to do it. He could have failed to raise enough money from small donors, failed to overcome the established political machines and failed to deliver a message worth believing. No one would have blamed his failure on others. He would have gracefully ended his campaign, having fought hard and well. He would have left behind a movement to work in every community in the US to build a better world.

Senator Obama asked all Americans to be loyal to the ideals of our country rather than to invest our loyalty in him. He is a transformational leader because he changes us so that we can change the world. His time is now.

[Ravoon]

Your daughter (and mine too, by the way) can find many better feminist role models than Hillary Clinton. Our prospective first female President can learn a lot from Senator Clinton's campaign. Hopefully, she will learn what NOT to do if she wishes to run on a platform of "change."

[Yohomegirl]

Clinton wades through sexism, Obama faces racism, McCain will fight the age thing. We all have our challenges. How we rise above them is what counts. I am a Southern, white female handy person. Some people like that I am female. At electrical supply houses around town I get treated poorly, and I always tell the one nice salesman at one store that I am glad that his store hires one heterosexual man there, and I say it loudly. At my favourite plumbing supply store little ole me is at maximum discount. You take your knocks, revel in the good, and keep going. I don't know about the rest of the women in the country, but I CAN do anything. Tell your daughter she can too, and she will believe it, and do it.

[kristycu]

you are right, we all have our challenges and we can choose to let others impressions get us down or we can say i'm not going to let you determine how i live. I think Clinton should have given a great speech on sexism if she truly felt that this was going on way to much (and i'm not saying that it was not there), just like Obam gave his speech on race relations, (regardless of the reason, he gave it) he didn't have to. He could of just did the distance session that you do when people you know say awful things, but he chose to go that one step further. I believe that if Clinton had given the sexism speech she would have probably wowed people. Her being a woman in her position to some extent, there is a good possibility she has experinced these things on her way up. She would have given a credible tesimony. But she didn't.

[midknightryder13]

I agree with what you say -- but I AM curious about your response to 'the one nice salesman'? Let me, in the interest of total disclosure, preface this by two things: 1) I am asking this in all earnestness and 2) I am a gay man of color.

Now, WHY do you say that you are glad his store hires "one heterosexual man there" loudly? Are ALL the other men there gay? (Which I highly doubt.) Or, more likely, are you trying to say that it isn't necessary for the other men to belittle you in order to prove their 'manhood' as this man, who is ALSO heterosexual, seems to be able to do.

This man is secure in his sexuality -- the fact that it is heterosexuality is quite beside the point. I feel reasonably certain that you meant no offense to the gay men out there who treat women with resoect -- just wanted to give you some food for thought.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[LouisPWu]

You forgot two very important questions:
1) What if she had voted AGAINST Kyl-Lieberman(back door authorization to attack Iran) instead of for it?
2) What if she HAD NOT THREATENED to ANNIHILATE IRAN (70,000,000 dead--most of them innocents) if the government of Iran ever attacked Isreal?
Add to that her voting for war in Iraq, AND her continued support of the war in Iraq (Voted consistently to fund the war as per Bush's requests) and I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON.

[Darnamell]

This was delicately brushed over, but it isn't just about Bill.

What if Hillary had bothered to discredit ALL the race-baiting comments by her supporters? There are very, very many and not ONCE did she truly address the issue.

And, of course, what if Hillary decided that the best way to the nomination was not through an assassin's bullet?

[johnwinner]

We don't need her, e don't need her cultists. Let's get her and her fanatics out of the Party, Obama will win without them.

[Lerk4]

Hear, hear. Let them hold to their threats of "it's either Hillary or McCain".. I'm so sick of hearing that anyway. I'm convinced he WILL win anyway, and these unrealists can explain their vote to THEIR daughters.

[Darnamell]

Except for the very likely further degradation of America, I almost wish these Clintonites could see what their support for McCain would do. They'd lose Roe v. Wade, they'd have someone their dear president would probably call the First C*nt, they'd lose more friends and family in the Iraq debacle.

So yeah, go ahead and be mad your candidate lost. But please try to not further wreck the country because you are angry.

[Desiderata]

"What if her reaction to the humiliation of the Lewinsky scandal had been to make a dignified exit from her marriage and begin a new life as an unmistakably autonomous, self-reliant woman? "

I am very pro Obama, yet I will defend Hillary Clinton on this. Her decision not to divorce Bill Clinton is none of your and none of anybody else's business. Only she knows why she remains married to him. She owes no one an explanation and has, rightfully, provided none.

And her refusal to dump her husband should have no bareing on her worthiness to be the first woman President of the United States.

[Susanfrom29]

I agree completely, just like at the time I felt that the entire affair should have been the business of only the parties involved.

It is truly none of our business.

[blaqntelligence]

As another Obama supporter, I agree completely with you.
Hillary's marriage is none of our business.
I've always said, I'd have dumped the bum....but that's MY opinion. I also supported her decision to make her marriage work.
I don't like her now because of her political behavior.

[kristycu]

I agree as well, the sad thing is, i was like: yeah it is wrong for him to have an affair, but he was not messing with my money, i was not getting attacked by outside soureces, etc. Basically he was still an effective president. it did not hinder his job performance. and i know a lot of people think it is our business, to some extent it is and to some it is not, if the county was going down hill because of it definately our business, if it was not that is something, they would have to work out. Although from a moral prospective, i think it is not the most respectable thing to do-to step out on you wife.

[mesuki]

I couldn't care less about Hillary's private matters,but I do care that she's destroying this democratic party by her unwillingness to be honest and play by the rules.So what if Bill screwd around behind her back ( or in the next room for that matter).He's not the first man to do it and I'm sure he won't be the last. If she could deal with it,who are we to judge her? but she's messing with my party and I'll never forgive her if she takes it to the convention and hands the election to McCain!

[DCinFrance]

As much as I hate to, I will agree with that...it's nobody's business but her own, no matter how much I feel it was a self-serving political decision on her part given her husband's then great popularity and her evident presidential aspirations from the start.

[GaiasChild]

What if Sen. Clinton had been warm and congenial and what if she had kept presenting her vision instead of going into reactivity to Obama and solving that problem with attack dog methods. What if she had been candid and truthful and what if she didn't play "let's you and him fight," while she fractionalized factionalized and polarized. What if she rated really high in the polls on trustworthy and truthful? What if she'd played the primary the way Huckabee campaigned against John McCain. What if she didn't play victim and entitled and right after a media bout of poor me she'd perked up bravely instead of come out slugging with all kinds of stratetic tactical sadism? What if she didn't play the blame game and put on airs and brag on herself. What if?

[PumaJ]

What if? Hmm... then we all might still be supporting her in her quest for the presidency.

However, because she was reactionary, polarizing, blaming, playing the victim, lying, bragging, and in general sounding grandiose and narcissistic so many of us have left her behind, that she now will claim her prize.

I still fail to see how calling her on her negative behaviors represents sexism.

[kristycu]

your-right
I also believe that had she played it like Obama did and campaigned in all those states, the story would be much different. But she did not invest the resources. And it caught her off guard. and now she is gaining ground, but to little to late.

[wolverinesm]

In other words, what if Senator Clinton were more like Senator Obama...

[t9chi]

That's a lot of what if's