I would have loved to vote for America's first woman president. But it wasn't meant to be.
Hillary Clinton, the woman who could have made history, simply let me down.
She let me down five years ago when she voted for the war in Iraq. And she let me down all these years since, by never repudiating her vote or apologizing for her mistake.
She let me down -- and lost my respect -- by continually using the pronoun "I". "I'll be ready the first day in office." "I'll be the one to answer the phone at 3 a.m." Like some egomaniac, she seemed to forget that there are 300 million other people in this country.
Barack Obama didn't forget this. His most-used pronoun is "we". While Clinton billed herself as a one-woman act, Obama focused on the ensemble, on plurality, unity and cooperation, That's not showmanship -- that's statesmanship.
And Clinton's favorite verb? "Fight." Thanks, babe -- that's what they're doing over in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, and in Lebanon, and in too many places around the globe. I don't want a fighter in the White House; I want a peacemaker.
As an active feminist all my life, I see exactly where Clinton went wrong. She was using the old paradigm: To beat them (the men) you've got to be like them. Tough, aggressive, pragmatic. But what a difference it would have made if her campaign had employed some "feminine" qualities: compassion, conciliation, generosity.
She must have taken Margaret Thatcher as her role model. She should have copied Golda Meir instead, who was known to greet foreign dignitaries in her housedress, and brew them a cup of tea in her kitchen.
I do, of course, sympathize with Hillary's marital predicament. As many wives discover, a husband can be both a help and a hindrance, an embellishment or an embarrassment. I think she would have been a lot wiser to leave hubby home, tending the lawn in Chappaqua.
Most likely, Hillary herself will not be willing to return home next year and take up domestic chores. Nor should she. She will make a fine elder stateswoman. Chastened by this campaign, she may yet become a mellow voice of reason, of tolerance, of understanding, of moral rectitude and responsibility.
She is finished running with the wolves. Now it's time to lick her wounds and be a woman again.
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
On the bright side, you'll never catch her doing a "Britanny" while exiting a car. And thank God for that !
Well said! Hillary has turned into everything she fought against. Or perhaps, she had always been like that, except we failed to see her that way, believing it was a "vast right wing conspiracy" that smeared her. She vindicated the right and disillusioned many who used to be in her camp.
What is most irritating is her equating herself with feminism. She rose to prominence because of her husband; her operation would not have been half as successful without relying on her husband's name; all her major advisers are male; and she needs to be bailed out of her financial predicament--debt incurred by incompetent management--by her husband or some other men. Ironically, no one in her campaign has objected to suggestions of her being bailed out by Obama.
Most importantly, as the author rightly points out, Hillary follows the exact script of male politicians--no surprise there, since she surrounds herself with men. She operates the same way George Bush does: it's me vs them; you are either with me or against me; symbolism trumps principle; lies repeated will be accepted as truth... Who wants a woman who acts just like a man?
Hillary's new "WE" is white racists who will never vote for a Black candidate.
"She let me down -- and lost my respect -- by continually using the pronoun "I". " Obama uses the pronoun "we" because he is incapable of actually making anything happen, as evidenced by his painfully thin resume. When we interview candidates, we're taught to look for "I" over "we", to seek out individual sense of confidence and accountability in their accomplishments, and to make sure that they are not unduly taking credit for other group accomplishments. Obama does exactly that - takes credit for as bills that others have authored, and promises great things that we will all do together. When those great things don't happen, can he blame US for that, since it's not his fault? Tell me, how can we hold a "we will" promiser accountable for the change that he promises?
I think that looking at Presidential elections as being akin to interviewing a person for a job is somewhat flawed. It's better to look at it like an opportunity to pick your boss--what kind of a person would you want to work for? An inclusive team-player? A tireless self-promoter?
It's true in principle (not practice) that politicians work for US--but really, seeing as how we have to live with the fallout of their decision making with very little REAL control over what they do or don't do, it's better to view them as a boss that you get to hire. Look no further than W. If he worked for me I'd have fired his ass years ago, as I suspect MANY people would have...now, I don't know about you, but I haven't had much luck with that yet.
First of all, you presumably are not hiring a nation's representatives. Government JOBS are about "we" not "I", at least that is how I interpret the representative form of government that we have in America. I also doubt if you hold elections with all the company's employees voting for new employees. Using your interview process is kind of a poor example isn't it? Kind of like comparing apples and oranges isn't it?
Now, about why it is apropos that Obama use the "we" rather than the "I" pronoun....it is all about process. In his speeches Obama emphasizes grass-roots support and involvement. That requires his supporters to be involved in local public works and that they affect local change with leadership from above. You are completely correct that it is all of our "fault" if it doesn't succeed. It is also our success if we succeed. That is called empowerment and "we" will do it.
Obama '08
SLal wrote: "When we interview candidates, we're taught to look for "I" over "we""
So what? We're not hiring a pencil pusher for a corporation. We're hiring a world leader. Do we want a self-obsessed liar or somebody who is building a national movement? Your little company, or wherever you work, should not be the standard for this country. Also, your standards are fundamentally sexist because, unlike Hillary, most women use "we" more than "I" even when WE are just as qualified and prepared as men. Are you justifying this. Your company standards are designed to discredit women applicants, and you want us to apply your sexist standards to the entire nation?
I've found it very disturbing to observe Hillary almost mimicking much of Bush (and, strangely, Nixon). She and her campaign attempt to spin an alternative reality based on distortion, divisiveness and constant SPIN. Its really The Big Lie in action. Facts are something no longer solid - all there IS is spin. I guess it depends on what your definition of IS, is.
Well said!
Thanks!
Hillary is proud of her "testicular fortitude."
dr4Will: If you were to ever make a positive statement, that did not denigrate people, what would that sound like? You obviously are passionate. How about revealing where you would LEAD the nation, instead of just sniping at anyone who states something you feel is not comfy.
You touch an interesting point about a dilemma faced by Hillary and other women breaking the glass ceiling. The need to emulate masculine qualities. Yet it touches a deep debt owed to Hillary and a debt owned to the pioneer women cutting the original path, everywhere.
Historically, a majority of the first in line glass breakers had to forsake their femininity. It was a price of admission to the club and survival. They had to make sacrifices that those who follow, never see. But, the first in line pioneers need to clear the path for others.
Typically the women breaking glass ceilings in corporations faced the same challenges and sacrifices to make it into the club. But, because of the sacrifices made by the pioneers the corporations are stronger and better places to work. Future generations of executive were then able to more express their diversity, again helping the corporations. Again, not just women were freed, everyone was freed to be more diverse. Corporations strengthened as the club is opened.
The same has been true in politics. In all the Hillary bashing, it is overlooked the debt owed by all to Hillary for breaking the barriers and making this a better country. I admire her strength and determination and appreciate the new lands she has opened to so many others.
Very well said.
Thanks.
there was not need for Hillary to go to a bar and have a shots of whiskey and a beer with the boys just to get some votes. It dint look good for all womens in the USA
I've been ruminating on this post some more.
Shore said that Obama's ... "most-used pronoun is "we"."
Earlier in the piece she says
1: I would have loved to vote for...
2: Hillary Clinton...let me down.
3: let me down five years ago...
4: And she let me down...
5: She let me down...
6: and lost my respect...
(-- by continually using the pronoun "I".)
later:
7: I don't want...
8: I want...
9: all my life...
10: I see exactly...
11: I do, of course...
12: I think she would have been...
Gee, I guess it really is all about you.
O, the irony.
Like some egomaniac, you seem to forget that there are 300 million other people in this country. They do not all believe you or see through your eyes. This does not make them ignorant, stupid, misled or wrong.
50 % of those who have voted so far have voted for Hillary Clinton. Are they all ignorant, high school drop out racist typical white women? Not feminists? Delusional?
Are all of those people who support her completely blind in not seeing what you purport to be the defining characteristics of Hillary Clinton?
What arrogance. What hubris.
Aside from that, the fact is that without a proven word count it is just hyperbole masking as fact.
Now we'll see written on all over Progressive blogs "you know that Obama's most used pronoun is "we". it's amazing? He's such an amazing man."
You know? I noticed the use of "I" or "she" and the use of the inclusive "we" as well. So did Hillary. Did you see her latest speech when the crowd started to chant "yes, SHE can"? Hillary's response was to shush them and insist that it was their campaign as well. You can bet that Hillary also wanted to emphasize inclusion as well and had been briefed on the importance of "we" and to tone down the singular pronouns. That's why candidates have handlers---to notice the nitpicky things.
The use of "I" or "me'" is not the culprit, how one employs it is. As in "it's all about ME."
Yes,
My point in relation to Shore.
My point is that Ms. Shore was writing an opinion piece, both Obama and Hillary are running for a representative office. You are right, it is important how one expresses themselves in different situations. In opinion pieces it is appropriate to use the word "I" (unless you want others to speak for you and tell you what your opinions are) while in a governmental office it is appropiate to use the word "we" because in the Jeffersonian model of government, our government in America is a cooperative process that involves both top-down leadership and bottom-up grass roots support. Thus the word "we" is appropriate. Continually using the word "I" tends to communicate her view of governmental process as a process that involves only her. This is not complete proof of her thinking of course. But it is a red flag.
Obama '08
I've been saying exactly what this post says since New Hampshire. She won NH because she was strong - and yet a woman. They had the formula in their hands, and Penn tossed it aside. Further, Hillary let him.
I went into this campaign unsure about Obama. I knew Hillary had the chops. I didn't know if he did. But the campaign proved that the converse is true.
The nightmare these past seven years (aside from a stupid president), has been that our leader chose friends and allies to run key aspects of the government rather than relying upon the most qualified. Hillary made the same mistake with her campaign.
Obama came in with the best and the brightest. His campaign showed it. Hillary chose friends and old cronies. Her campaign showed it.
If campaigns are, as I've heard it said, one of the largest organizations most candidates ever run, and if those campaigns are indicative of how they would govern, then the current winner of the Democratic primary is the better choice. He has chosen excellence over loyalty, and steadfastness over reaction.
I'd consider voting for a woman, not just any woman on the basis ofher gender, and definitely not this woman. I have absolutely no desire to vote for a President because she wears a bright yellow pantsuit and heels and hurls insults at her competitors. (Where are the dresses and skirt-suits we've all worn throughout our careers).
I love the comment about Golda Meir as an example of a strong Prime Minister and elder statesperson, who had a grandmotherly way of handling her friends as well as opponents. She was a very effective leader and well-respected throughout the world. Her one great mistake, though, was not putting troops at the ready in the days before Yom Kippur 1973. A compassionate woman, she said repeatedly that she lamented her inaction for the rest of her life. I doubt that Dubbyah loses sleep over Iraq.
OOPS:make that "race" not face.
Other typos too. sorry.
(post below.)
Just as well, a few more thoughts:
I see you did mention the "feminine" qualities of compassion, conciliation and generosity. Masculine qualities are called tough, aggressive and pragmatic.
I know many mothers who are tough and pragmatic- and aggressive as hell if someone messes with their kids. You are working under the old rules where everything's divided into blac/white ideology, opposites, division, polarization, even within. If one is an integrated personality we have all of those qualities call them what you will. Possibly one could say Obama is far too "feminine" in how he expresses his aggression, pragmatism, lack of generosity, zero conciliation.
Obama's a passive/aggressive, attacking in ways that can't be grabbed onto and then uses plausible deniability. Isn't that considered a feminine "quality?" He never fully takes responsibility for anything, spends lots of time minimizing and turning the tables, sends others out to do his dirty work. That seems to be a HS Girl's quality.
Pragmatic? Oh yes! Like when he was running in Illinois and had everyone running against him thrown off the ticket with legal technicalities and tricks, throwing one of his mentors under the bus in another election, or how about letting the "kingmaker" Emil whoever in his last year in Illinois throw legislation his way that other legislators had been working on, sometimes for years so he could have his name on it?
Very Pragmatic.
Oooo
what a man.
I think that Ms. Shore was referring to qualities that are often defined as 'masculine' and 'feminine' according to the common usage for purposes of definition. You are right about some women being "tough and pragmatic--and aggressive". However, there are always some exceptions in the common usage. You know.....like when women are like 'lionesses' around their 'cubs'. It has never been thought unfeminine to show those traits around children.
The whole point about feminine and masculine traits is about their expression not about their existance. I do agree that Hillary has, at times, shown the traits of being tough and pragmatic. Sometimes the expression of these can be inspiring. Hillary at times is inspiring. However, too often she shows the negative expressions of these traits....like manipulating, passive-aggression (or pandering), and egotism.
The bigger problem that you and other Hillary supporters personally share, is to look at the larger picture and see the best path for this country and for the women in it. It is now statistically improbable if not impossible for Hillary to win. The Democratic nominee and the women of this country need your support in the fall.
Obama '08
sorry, I went over in words... again.
There are still states that have not voted. Why shouldn't they?
They have never voted in a primary before. Why shouldn't Senator Clinton finish what she started and allow these people, many of whom support her and have worked hard for her to have their voices heard? If it makes no difference to Obama statistically then why do his supporters get so incensed by her continuing? I know many Obama supporters on the progressive blogs like this one claim in their inimitable ways that they don't need Clinton's supporters. The sane however do realize that they are needed for a Democrat to win. Do you really think these people should be alienated by not being able to vote?
I have now intention of not voting Dem but I do not like or trust Obama anymore for reasons of my own which there is no point stating here. I'm not Hillary, the attacks are very wearing on me.
Thanks for not attacking.
You know, I think I can understand what you (and probably many other Hillary supporters) are saying. It is important to show the world that women are not quitters and are persistant when faced with big odds. I have nothing bad at all to say about many of her supporters. I just have a different opinion of Hillary and her actions and perhaps her hidden agendae. I agree with both Obama and Edwards and think Hillary should continue to run, but her supporters need to have no illusions. I'm never sure that everyone knows that this primary is effectively over and that the stakes are about something greater than Obama or Clinton. As Hillary herself said "I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation".
The only thing I would really like is for both candidates to run clean campaigns. The Republicans are listening.
Obama '08
Thank you dear for telling me what my problem is as a Hillary Clinton supporter. or- as a former Obama supporter who does not like his passive aggressive tendencies and attacks.
I think the problem is you Obama supporters do not see that the point is not that she can't statistically win it is about finishing what you start. Certainly if she was 20 percent trailing in votes one could say she should quit but she is almost even among actual voters. These voters see this woman's strength, her determination, her willingness to keep going when people hurt and hate her, call her names, malign her, betray her, abandon her, pillory her, lie about her and still show up and work and do her best and finish what she started. (and yes, reach out across divisions in order to get things done as so many, --even those who dislike her grudgingly admit-- attest to is something she does far more than others in the Senate.) This to me is admirable. I cannot imagine how she does it. Sorry I do not believe she is an egomaniac. After I became disaffected with Obama I researched both candidates in depth and I am amazed at her strength. I am also amazed by the trajectory of her life and the steady thread of commitment to "the least of these" she has always had.
yeah right
You used a word here that I love - "statesman". I see this as a quality, but not a gender-specific quality. I want someone who is strong, yet knows how to be diplomatic. Combine statesmanship with real leadership, the ability to inspire and the ability to bring others together to create solutions... these are the qualities I am looking for in a President.
If there were a female candidate who embodied those qualities right now, I'd vote for her. There is not.
Obama '08!!!!!!!
She was ambivalent, Ms. Shore. When she did use "feminine" tactics, they were often the worst stereotypes of women around. She could attack like a pit bull, but the tables couldn't be turned on her because then, according to her husband, the boys were picking on her. She whined, she cried at the most opportune moments, and her efforts to be everything to everyone, i.e., her triangulation, often came across as fickleness. No, she has set the idea of a woman president back decades with her vacillation between the worst of both the masculine and th feminine modes.
Nice article - says it well.
In seven years of Bush she has had every chance to express the qualities she claims, but that would require those qualities.
Joan, your brain deserves a big kiss
Holy Crap, what a load of sexist drivel.
First of all, even if one did agree with you that Clinton was acting "masculine" so what?
So I see, we are beyond face, shouldn't see it but we are not beyond gender criticism? I could just imagine if someone said Obama was acting too white, or feminine for that matter which, given his "cattiness" one could accuse him of. You know, cattiness being a typical feminine quality and all.
However I don't think there are a lot of people (at least unbiased people) who would agree that a woman who is tough and tenacious, determined and dedicated, passionate and incredibly hard working is masculine. There are many women who identify with her and these qualities that make her a leader whether they be a CEO, a truck driver. an academic, waitress or a housewife/ mother. And guess what? They all have to be tough, take no crap and are women. I don't see any more masculinity in HRC than I do in any of the other women I know who are in any variety of positions.
I notice you haven't said what the feminine qualities are that Clinton should be exhibeting. She should be in her housedress and making tea on the campaign trail?
Are you for real?
So seriously, what is it? Must be the pant suit.
Feminist active for many years?
You must be from the Chris Matthews school of feminism.
I don't think you would get any argument from anyone if Hillary was ONLY "tough and tenacious, determined and dedicated, passionate and incredibly hard working". Those are not 'masuline' qualities. If that were indeed her only qualities I would jump up and down, and be a Hillary supporter. She does demonstrate those but it's the other qualities that bother me.
For instance, how about pandering in order for votes? Or do you think that she was just too stupid to see that her and McCain's ideas about the gas tax were not really realistic? I do give Senator Clinton credit for being very intelligent, so I conclude that she must have knowingly pandered in order to get votes. Then there are the negative qualities of manipulation and appearing submissive. You can see an example of this when she was working to get her husand's ideas passed (specifically NAFTA). She now says that she didn't really "mean" it when she said those positive things and helped get Bill's trade policies passed. It leaves me with the thought of "what else doesn't she mean?"
Last, how about her divisive qualities? Her seeming inability to compromise.We already have someone in the WH whose motto seems to be "My Way or the Highway". And we all know how well that has worked out.
Obama '08
Her inability to compromise:
That too is belied by the facts. Anyone who works with her in the senate talks about her willingness to reach across party lines, even those who were prepared for problems because of the neocon spin or don't like her liberalism were stunned and pleased, grudgingly stating admiration.
People do change. She admitted mistakes in her approach to her health care work. Smart people learn from their mistakes.
Finally no one is perfect. I do not expect to approve everything a President decides or policy they advocate. I know Hillary Clinton has "stuff" I don't like but I do not buy into the demonization of her and the neocon spin that people are still trying to perpetuate after all these years.
Obama also has "stuff" I don't like. I've researched as much as I was capable of. Neither is perfect. My choice comes from my research, what I think the country needs in this moment, what I think is best for the whole country, not just me and my ideals.
I never fault people who choose Obama, I get it. My support for Clinton is not against Obama.What I don't get is why Obama supporters feel so free to attack, demean, question the sanity of and flat out hate those who are supporting Clinton. We are not the enemy and it is sad that so many have treated us that way.
Nafta:
I'm tired now but I'm going to try to finish this discussion.
She never said she didn't "mean" it.
Many people around then, who were in on the discussions, some who do not like her at all have said that she was against it from the beginning because she felt it would 1. hurt health care, and 2. hurt working people. This is not HRC saying it, though she has, but people involved in the process who were present when she voiced strong disagreement with it.
Even Carl Bernstein who obviously can't stand her has recounted times where she disaggreeed strongly as did David Ghergin (sp) and others.
She wasn't a policy maker, she was first lady. What she could say in private was not appropriate in public where she is representing the President and speaking in that capacity.
I don't see that as submissive I see it as a function of position.
Divisiveness?
I'm sorry but I believe the people who push the Hillary Hate, follow the old neocon propaganda talking points...(which Obama did a few times BTW) by calling her divisive and polarizing are the ones who are divisive and polarizing. A person isn't polarizing all by themselves, there are responsibilities on both sides. That's always been puzzling, even when I was not an admirer of hers I would argue that point with people. Here they were slamming her, maliciously smacking her around, insulting and hating her and then calling her polarizing. huh?
illogical.
Gas/pandering:
I did the math. I don't know your income but mine is far below poverty due to a disability. Someone commuting to work 5 days a week, 100 miles a day and a car with 16 MPG. is $75.00 in savings over the summer for work, I'm not including errands, taking the kids around, going on a vacation etc.
You know, $75.00 is actually a lot of money for many people. It used to not mean much to me, I would say, "what the hell its only 75bucks."
But that can pay a bill, get an extra tank of gas, take the kids to an amusement park or the beach.
Even if it only was 30 bucks! Every one sneered about 30 bucks. Do you know how insulting that is to the really poor, the seniors who live on a fixed income or someone like me who has a fixed annual income of less than $8000.00 a year?
Of course this wasn't a long term fix, she never claimed it was, she had a long term plan as well. Was it pandering? maybe, I don't care. It would have made a difference to some.I don't expect perfection. It isn't like Obama is stainless. I realize most people cannot or choose not to see the negatives about their own candidate but I think its important to try to be realistic, to see both the strengths and weaknesses.
They each have both, noone's perfect.
Gas pandering, for sure.
These are hard times, especially for the self-employed, underemployed, or unemployed. So I can understand that some people think Senator Clinton's imitation of Senator McCain's gas-tax holiday for the summer would be a godsend, however small.
The problem, of course, is that neither Clinton nor McCain can actually deliver on the promise this summer. Changing the tax requires an act of Congress. Has either of the two panderers submitted a bill to eliminate the gas tax this summer? No?
Should a gas-tax holiday bill get passed, somehow (magic?), Bush would surely veto it. So why do
Posted May 13, 2008 | 12:23 PM (EST)