Is Electing A "Woman" All That "Historical"?
Conventional wisdom holds that the election of a white woman, Hillary Clinton or a black man, Barack Obama would be an historical event. Well, no and yes. Clinton's election might be called historical if one believes that all history begins and ends with, and is a function of, what happens in the United States. Women presiding over major states in the current era are no longer earth-shaking news.
Angela Merkel is doing nicely running Germany and Segolene Royal had a fair shot at presiding over France. One doesn't have to reach far back in history to confront Benazir Bhutto's two terms as Prime Minister of Pakistan, or Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of England, or India's Indira Gandhi, or Israel's Golda Meir, and so on.
Nor has the United States to be ashamed of its record of conferring the burdensome responsibilities of high office on women. Drew Faust, President of Harvard; Shirley Tilghman, President of Princeton; and Susan Hockfield, President of MIT are only a few of the large number of women presiding over our nation's leading institutions of higher learning.
The corporate world has not distinguished itself in the matter of trusting women with the reins of large numbers of corporations. Possibly this is because women tend to handle financial responsibilities better and might not be trusted to understand why corporations that are performing poorly should be paying their senior executives obscene bonuses. Still, there is Anne Mulcahy managing Xerox; and Patricia Russo at Alcatel-Lucent; and Andrea Jung at Avon; and Brenda Barnes, who passed up a shot at being CEO of Pepsico, and ended up running Sara Lee.
It is easy enough to go through major fields of endeavor in which women occupy leading positions in America. The arts and sciences owe much to women. Politically, as we look at the number of women in the US Senate and House of Representatives; or, the number of women in our state legislatures; or, the number of women governing our states, it is difficult to believe it was less than a century ago that women were not even allowed to vote in America. To the number of women holding elective office must be added those presently or formerly in high appointive positions, including Attorney General and Secretary of State.
Certainly, the accession of a woman to the Oval Office would represent another step forward in the march toward universal equality in the United States. The number of women fully and independently qualified for the post is legion, and it is certain the election of a woman president will occur in the near future. It will be a pure victory, owing nothing to their husband's coattails and occasioning no necessary footnote in the history books to qualify that victory. But in terms of historical importance, the election of a woman to the nation's highest political office would not remotely be comparable, domestically or internationally, to the election of an African-American.
No multi-racial nation outside of Africa has chosen a black leader to preside over it. Many nations have confronted and continue to confront racial discord, but none so profoundly as the United States, which clung to the odious institution of slavery well after other first world nations had seen the wrong of it. And when slavery was taken off the books in America, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, rank prejudice replaced economic interest as the engine of oppression well into the 20th Century.
We have come a long, hard way on the road to racial equality in America, and we are not there yet. Nevertheless, as Lyndon Johnson once said, America is a constant becoming: we have made progress in the struggle for racial equality in America, and we have before us an unprecedented opportunity to make still greater progress.
The election of Senator Barack Obama as president of the United States would be an event of historical importance eclipsing anything to be achieved by the elevation of Hillary Clinton. It would send a message to the world that America has turned to embrace its founding principles. We are at point in our national life in which the restoration of our international standing as a nation of humanistic principles is vitally important. History will record no clearer signal that America is America again than the election of one of its African-American citizens to its highest office.
Alongside that dazzling signal, the election of the nation's first woman president would be interesting, not earth-shaking; one small step for the United States; hardly a giant leap for mankind.
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
June Koch takes over a thousand words to answer the question posed in her headline: no.
Yet, she still gets it wrong.
Of course Hillary's candicacy is historical.
She is the only VIABLE woman candidate to ever run for office.
The electoral votes show that NEITHER Obama nor Clinton will have the 2025 required to take the nomination without question.
The fact that a woman even got this far is historical. But June Koch is blind to this fact.
Like many faux-feminists, she pulls down any woman who may actually prove the Feminsist Movement was not a failure.
Instead, June confirms what a failure the feminist movement continues to be for nearly half a century.
It's time to quit arguing which of the two remaining democratic candidates are more "historical". If all the candidates had been the same gender or race at the outset of this election, it is very possible we would have an entirely different cast of characters today. Americans have allowed themselves to be caught up in a moment of glory- the FIRST woman POTUS! the FIRST black POTUS!
But what is HISTORY going to judge this President on? We are poised on edge of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Millions have lost homes, jobs, health insurance, retirement security. We are in the midst of a huge debacle in the Middle East. Millions of Palestinians are still refugees, without a home or nation. We are entrenched in a war in Iraq, and on the verge of facing enemies in Afghanistan AGAIN because we didn't finish our job there and rebuild their infrastructure as we should have. The Government of Pakistan, a nuclear power, is teetering on the edge of collapse. Iran is funding terror groups across the Middle East, promoting anti-Israeli and anti-US sentiment to new generations. Many African countries, including Somalia, Uganda, and now Kenya, are practicing genocide. China is committiing Human Rights Violations DAILY in Tibet and elsewhere. These countries would be the envy of Nazi Germany. The PLANET is in peril from Energy Company greed, and careless use of fossil fuels by the public. The U.S. is the worst offender globally, but our leaders refuse to make us face the massive changes necessary to halt the looming crisis, fearing public panic and Wall Street collapse. We have the most conservative Supreme Court in history. Torture is even allowed if we call it something else. Our citizens want to blame all of our misfortune on foreigners who come here escaping persecution, starvation, and sometimes death in their homelands. They would rather do without Universal Healthcare, than offer everyone the right to be healthy, and receive medical treatment equally.
Yes, History will judge us. But I think race and gender are the least of the issues we face.
Obama has been a women's rights activist throughout his career as proven by his record in IL. He did not marry arm candy; he married a strong career oriented black woman - hardly the mark of a misogynist. While he does not 'call out' women's issues on his website or his speaks as strongly as his competition, he needs to speak to all audiences, not just women. And why is it okay for Ms Rodham to play the gender card? 51% of the population still needs to work with the remaining 49%. Is being a woman the only thing that defines her candidacy?
Women's rights are civil rights and civil rights apply to everyone.
I have to comment about Obama 'playing the race card' because I find it outrageous. I really don't understand what Obama gains from playing it and why Ms Rodham's enthusiasts blame Obama for playing it. The LAST THING Obama wants to be seen as is the 'black' candidate because people will assume he will only look out for the black community - all 14% of it. Seems like a small base to 'pander' to, in my book.
The Clintons played it first through their surrogates in the black community, who proclaimed that he 'wasn't black enough' to represent the black community or even to be considered black. Obama had to fight for the AA vote. It may surprise people to know that many African Americans do not appreciate immigrant communities of African decent (Caribbean, Latin and African) because they feel as though these communities are reaping the benefits of the AA's struggle but not putting anything back into the AA community. In NYC, Caribbean and native AA communities tend to be separate and have just now managed to heal what was a very contentious relationship, especially in the 70s and 80s.
'White guilt' - whatever that is - is not going to get a biracial man elected in this country; there are just not enough people who feel all that guilty. The race card is not going to get Republicans and Independents to cross the aisle and vote for him. Obama spends far more time talking about his single Mom and grandparents than his experience as a black man in this country because that is what he SHARES with others.
Why are we holding Obama to a standard that Fmr President Clinton overcame when he ran against a far more experienced two-term Vice President/former head of the CIA candidate? He may have been Governor but AR is pretty small state.
To explain why Obama reduced Clinton's international experience to serving tea for ambassadours?
It's so annoying how everyone has touted HRC's campaign for the Presidency as historic, and as some kind of feminist breakthrough in politics.
Has everyone forgotten that Elizabeth Dole ran as a Republican Presidential candidate?
http://dol
Much as I despise Dole's political positions, she did have far more real experience in politics and Government than HRC. She also ran the Red Cross and has done a lot of charity work.
Everyone has acted like HRC's candidacy has been some kind of monumental historical event. Why? Because we knew that after Bush, that a Democrat was sure to be the next POTUS? The truth is, what's historical is that HRC is the wife of a former President. That's what's historic. And that's also why no one has compared Elizabeth Dole's candidacy or even brought up her name in comparison to HRC in this election cycle.
Women need to get over this idea that we need to elect a woman purely for the sake of gender, and start examining more carefully, whose the better candidate; HRC or Obama?
The answer is obvious to anyone who has examined their voting records closely,
http://pol
and to everyone who doesn't endorse the war in Iraq and think it's a monumental mistake.
Let's elect a candidate on the basis of integrity, principals and judgment. The choice couldn't be clearer. Obama will be the next President, with or without the hysteria and anger of women who support HRC purely because of her gender.
correction - ... WHO'S the better candidate
Yes, of course electing a woman president of the united states would be of enormous significance, and to suggest otherwise is silly. We really don't need to waste time debating whether it would be more important to elect a woman as opposed to a black person, or a Hispanic, or a Chinese, or anything else. The big picture is that the president has been exclusively reserved for white men, and we need all people to have a fair opportunity.
I'm more interested in getting equal representation for women in Congress and in business. How about in federal employment? How many women senators do we have? 16? Why isn't it 50? And when will it be? And how many women representatives? It should be two hundred and something.
As for business, law, medicine, academia, tenured university positions, journalists, newscasters: it should be 50% women. If you remove the artificial barriers that exclude women, then the natural course of things would lead to 50% women.
But we don't need to make the false decision that it is either a woman or a black man. We need to make a commitment to demanding that all these institutions remove the barriers so that we all have a fair opportunity. Something is lacking in this country.
Statistically, since women take time off to have children, and a lot of women leave the workforce permanently once they are married, your theory of 50/50 is incorrect. I don't know what the latest CENSUS figures are in relation to women who don't work out of choice, but you would have to take that percentage away when calculating an even handed percentage of women to men in those old-boy-club professions.
This article doesn't surprise me one bit, neither the subject matter nor the sex of the author. The media has been very dismissive of the import of Clinton's campaign for a while now. Right on this very site there are ads that read “Can Hillary Stop Obama?”, as if she's the Man trying to keep the black man down. I've been waiting for someone to say this outright ever since Edwards dropped out of the race so as not to stand in the way of a "historical" moment - never mind that he was probably a better choice than either Clinton or Obama.
And of course a woman has to be the one to say this outright. It gives it an out-of-the
But that’s what this whole campaign is about isn’t it? And by extension, isn’t that what America is about? We need someone who makes us feel good, feel better about ourselves, our crimes, sins, our flaws. Obama, he’s the right person for that job, not too hot, not too cold. He’s just black enough for us to feel comfortable with “embracing our founding principles” after only 232 years. What is it that they say, we’d gladly vote for a woman, just not THIS woman? But Obama, he’s just right. But if the powers that be had decided that he weren’t, if say he were a little more W.E.B. Dubois and a little less Booker T. Washington, who would dare say, “We’d gladly vote for a black man, just not THIS black man?” Plenty, silently, I’m sure. But the one who would have air time would be the one black man in the crowd.
That would be the "Internment," sorry. Very different from "interment
You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel better, but the fact remains: this was probably our only chance to have a female president of the United States (Yes, that is pretty HISTORIC) for at least another 30 to 40 years.
In fact, many of us may not live to see this event happen.
Oh, don't you know? Margaret Thatcher will suffice for us. :)
What the hell is so special about getting a female president? Are people that stupid that they're willing to vote for "any" female because she's a woman? If Thatcher was running in the Democratic primaries, would these idiot pseudo-feminists have advocated voting for her because she's a woman!
Where's Camille Paglia to straighten these fools!
Geez, what a sad comment. As if Hillary Clinton is the only woman of her generation, my generation, or my daughter's generation qualified and talented enough to be president.
I'm sorry, but the fact that you're scared there won't be another female candidate for the POTUS does not automatically mean she gets my vote, and I would pray that this isn't the reason people vote for any candidate. Can we please just elect someone based on their potential and not their physical attributes?
Peace,
Kelly
Very good, wise point...we
May I remind everyone that Cynthia McKinney is running as President under the Green Party? That would definitely be HISTORIC, and she's a mean fighter...
I thought we didn't want fighters, we wanted uniters.
One minor nit...and I'm not sure of the answer, so anyone wordsmiths, help us all out...
Is the use of the word "historical" ala the title of this post appropriate? Shouldn't the appropriate word be "historic"?
I always thought that something historical had to refer to something in the past, e.g. an historical event, while historic could be used to indicate an event of remarkable importance.
Not that it's that important, but I am curious.
And another thing...I guess what really bothers me is that she (or the editor, I suppose) put the words woman and historical in quotes...I
Is she suggesting that Hillary Clinton isn't a woman, but a "woman"?
Similarly, maybe she meant to refer to something "historical", when the word "historic", at least in my opinion would be more apropos.
If I were the suspicious kind, I'd suspect a coded message...
Hillary would not even be the first AMERICAN woman president -- South American leaders Michelle Bachelet in Chile and Cristina Fernandez in Argentina are both serving terms as presidents, and Blanca Ovelar might be voted president of Paraguay this April.
More to our shame, that other countries in the west have valued women enough for them to have led their countries.
"It will be a pure victory, owing nothing to their husband's coattails and occasioning no necessary footnote in the history books to qualify that victory."
This is an excellent point. If Hillary Clinton were to be elected President now, it would have a bad stench that would completely undermine the significance of her achievement. People would say she wouldn't be there if she hadn't been married to a popular ex-President. They would say that she had to use insider connections (the superdelegates) to get there. I want to see female President someday. But I want it be someone who made it there on her own.
And Bush wouldn't be there if not for his father.
And Bill might not have been Pres without Hillary.
And the Adams' father and son presidencies were among our first.
So lets not forget that Hillary is working hard.
And I'm an Obama supporter.
"The election of Senator Barack Obama as president of the United States would be an event of historical importance
Thus Spake Obama supporter.
But then again to Obama Magnificent faithful every move He makes is fraught with significance of Universal Proportion.
Oh, the Fearless Leader. Ah, the Just and the Pure.
It's approaching "Life of Brian" level: Follow the shoe!
Brian: Please, please, please listen! I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shut up.
Not only do I love the "Life of Brian", I also love Herman Hesse.
But, unfortunately you are wrong. Only Clintonistas are incapable of independent thought. We agree with everything that Obama says or does simply because he is always right. The same cannot be true of the Clintonistas, because quite frankly Hillary is a poopyhead.
If he is always right why does he support dicrimination agaianst gays and lesbians.
"We agree with everything that Obama says or does simply because he is always right. "
Thank you for illustrating my point about the mindless followers.
I don't mind Obama, I mind his followers.
I have the same attitude towards all major religions (except Ch'an and some Mahayana traditions).
To me, this article is what women face.
Let's up the bar.
Now, it's not just the United States, where obviously sexism is still a major hurdle, it's the world! LOL*
This has been exactly my experience as a woman.
As soon as I succeeded, someone upped the bar.
At one point I realized I was, statistically speaking, in the top 3 percent of women in the world.
And I still scrubbed the toliets in my home.
No doubt as to whose job that was.
I got the irony of life right then and there.
You can hit the mark. You can hit it out of the ballpark.
But you still have to clean the potties. :)
Like most women, I don't care. Toliet-cleaning is just a chore like others.
I must add a bit of personal to this. I divorced in my 40's. (Don't we all?) And I mowed the yard.
I remember my husband sweating like a pig, me bringing him tea, and being sooooooo appreciative.
When I had to mow the yard, I could not get over how easy it was.
It flabbergasted me.
That day, I knew I'd be OK.
I had bought in hook, line and sinker.
When I used to be so grateful that he took care of car repairs? Same thing. First time I needed repair, I was nervous.
I had no idea that it amounts to nothing more than writing a check.
The old feminist slogan of "Women need men like fish need bicycles," kept flashing before me.
I just couldn't believe how easy it is to be single.
It's a lot harder to stay married, like Hillary chose to do.
I never criticize my women friends for their choices in these matters. I get it.
But I would like for some to know.....i
I was married for most of my adult life. I've been single now for .... gosh 10 years.
Single is easier.
That's the truth.
Good for you Ann. I discovered that raising children and running a household isn't all that difficult either. I did envy women for one paticular aspect however. It's impossible for a man to network babysitting trades.
*hooting*
So true.
They suck at that.
Oh God, if someone was going to defend Hillary and put forth a great argument about women's place in the forefront of the world happenings, why did it have to be a 'man-hater'. Just ruined it!
What a refreshing commentary! Misogyny in America is so ingrained, so intractable that it’s practically invisible. Having been a corporate executive for many years, I can tell you that men and women are different…. as men are different from other men and women from other women. Ms Koch’s article is so redundant that I hope it represents the high water mark of the length to which these “feminists” will go to justify the inferior role that men have relegated to them. I guess it would be too much to ask for Ms Koch to appreciate the irony of The Civil Right Act granting “Minority” status to the “Majority” of our population.
Just imagine what the response would be if you juxtaposed “how do we beat the bitch?” and “iron my shirts!” onto Barrack Obama. What if someone said “how do we beat the black bastard?” or “shine my shoes!”
The first was a one day blip, bringing out chuckles, smirks, and of course, the obligatory, disingenuous, mild rebuke.
The second?...
I find it hard to imagine you were in the top 3 percent of anything, if you didn't understand that you didn't have to clean the toilet if you didn't feel the inclination. My husband cleaned an entire bathroom the other day, including the toilet, and I didn't even ask.
No person, woman or man HAS to do anything they really find objectionable. There are plenty of men who will happily clean the house and the toilet. If women are too timid or brainwashed to understand they can ask their husband to do any type of chore, even toilet cleaning, then that's their fault, it's not societal. If you don't like cleaning, get a cleaning service. If you don't like to mow the lawn, get a gardener. You live in CA and help is cheap.
Feminism is about understanding every woman has the choice and the power to do anything they want, or the choice and the power to NOT do anything they don't want. Giving that power away to anyone is not societies fault, but an individual choice.
Hillary is not just any woman. She's part of the two-some called the Clintons. We would not be having this argument if it were Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, or Diane Feinstein - all strong capable women who would likely beat Obama if it were just about woman vs. black. But in spite of their shared and individual achievements, the Clintons have made a lot of enemies and not just because of their policies. Hillary is a capable, intelligent woman who does represent how far women have come in this country. However Obama is a better manifestation of the best things about this country and why it continues to be a magnet for those around the world. You can overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles, work hard and end up on top here and ONLY here. The fact that he's biracial is icing on the cake. That's what the American Dream is all about. After the country club that has been the Bush years, it's about time that THAT story is told - both inside this country and outside of it. Hillary can certainly speak to it but Obama's story is better.
Loading comments…
Posted February 21, 2008 | 10:44 PM (EST)