What Do Hillary Women Want?
You've no doubt heard the media reiterating talking points about how the way to win the votes of women is to hit hard on economic issues since those are the issues that impact families with painful immediacy. There's some validity to that point. After all, many of the women who were and who remain most strongly identified with Hillary are mothers. We care about our loved ones. We carry the burden of trying to make it work when the ends don't meet the middle. We worry about the future. A lot.
However, if you listen closely, you'll also hear the unwritten assumption that appears to constitute the Obama campaign's strategy toward this large, critical and, usually, faithfully Democratic demographic: "Well, who else are they going to vote for anyway? Let's focus our energies on the Independents" I think of this as the "we've got them by their Roe v. Wade" presumption. The thought also has some validity since the stakes are certainly very high. However, especially with McCain's campaign aggressively courting Hillary supporters, Obama cannot afford to presume anyone's automatic support.
This was no ordinary primary season for Democrats. Women and people of color have been disenfranchised and taken for granted by the Democratic Party for years. This time, however, we were able to back candidates (candidates who actually had a chance to win) with whom we could personally identify. Whether you are a woman, a person of color, some other kind of "other" or some combination of the prior groups, the experience of witnessing a biracial man and a woman as the two final potential Democratic presidential candidates was powerful.
What continues to make it hard for many of us to commit to the Obama cause is his very lack of overt commitment to us. He and his campaign have focused too much on Hillary Clinton herself and missed countless opportunities to reach out directly to those of us who supported her. He seems to feel it is sufficient to lump us into his idealistically inclusive "we," and, in doing so, he fails both to respect and to witness the enormity of our loss. For it was our loss as women, not just Hillary Clinton's. The reality is that we are not bitter. We are grieving.
For all of us, not just Obama supporters, this Democratic primary season evoked intense emotions. We were called upon to be hopeful and we were. We dared to set free longings and desires so deep and personal that they have been contained historically in the secret places within our individual and collective psyches. And, now, some of those longings have been at least partially fulfilled. And some have not. The grief of those of us whose longings were once again thwarted accounts for much of the continuing resistance of Hillary supporters.
So what do we grieving women want from Obama? We want him to acknowledge that our hope was as valid as the hope of his supporters and that our longing will not go unrecognized. We want him to claim our loss as his own on behalf of his daughters and to speak to women's issues directly. In a very real sense, Hillary's loss is a loss for all of us. I celebrate the fact that countless children of all races and skin color will now see a world with new possibilities. But I mourn to my core that my daughter, like Obama's daughters, will most likely not see a woman president within my lifetime.
So, with all due respect to Michelle Obama (and I do mean real respect: she's strong without apology and we love her for it) and even Hillary herself, we do not want only to hear campaign surrogates giving us lip service. No, we want to hear from the man himself that he will represent and defend our interests and the interests of all of our daughters with ferocity. We want him to commit to us overtly and specifically, because the unfortunate reality is that we do not yet live in a society that transcends gender.
Barack Obama has the opportunity in both his acceptance speech and the campaign ahead to do what he has not yet done: to recognize and respect the intensity our grief by speaking directly to us and our issues and then to challenge us to partner with him to mobilize that intensity to bring about change for all of our daughters. The onus is on you, Senator Obama. Speak to us. We'll be listening.
Leah McElrath Renna is a mother, a professional psychotherapist and a Managing Partner of the communications-consulting firm, Renna Communications.
For more Huffington Post coverage from the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.
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
Chalk me up as yet another individual who is fully and unequivocably sick and tired of reading and listening to both Clintons and their supporters wail about which corner of their collective right ass cheek Obama has to kiss in order to gain their support.
This is absolutely RIDICULOUS. Obama won the primary and is the democratic nominee. Clinton lost. The end. The burden is no longer on Obama - he's done more than enough to appease Clinton and her supporters.
The Burden is now on Clinton supporters to make a choice: Vote for a candidate whose positions benefit them and their (supposed) beliefs as democrats, or vote for a candidate who has a record of opposing those interests, or don't vote at all. Hopefully they'll make the grown up choice and not act like immature brats or entitled elites.
These supporters tend to be the upper-class "feminists" who, historically, supported women's rights only for fellow upper-class members, and didn't care about women in other demographics. They are showing their colors now. It's tragic these "clinton supporters" could help elect a man who is so opposed to policies that will benefit women, minorities, and all human beings that aren't wealthy elites.
What are the 5 stages of grief, according to Kubler-Ross: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Let's look at it that way.
For Clinton's original and later-coming supporters, the denial phase began after it became clear that the delegate math simply did not support a Clinton win after a certain point, without major tinkering with the reality as presented. Anger emerged as primary during the last phase of the campaign as denial began to give away and continued after the last primary was run. It is still running strong among some but has merged into bargaining, which is what I think is being expressed when we hear talk of what Obama has to do to win their votes and allegiance. The depression phase emerges in the dark view of the future: We will not see her like again in my/our lifetimes; this was the opportunity, now it is gone.
I hope and pray that the acceptance phase begins soon, both for those with these awful feelings, and for the rest of us for whom an Obama presidency presents a tremendous opportunity to begin the long, frustrating, and difficult process of shifting the direction of our nation with the involvement of the many, many people who have become engaged in this effort.
I am sure that I am at the acceptance stage and I will be voting for McCain.
blah, blah, blah....wh
Enjoy your lack of fair pay. You deserve it.
It is not about acknowledgment. I think most people know this. He's acknowledged her already, and it will never be enough.
These people are not going from, degrading Obama for the past several months, to shrugging their shoulders and going, "Maybe he's not so bad". These people have already made up their mind.
This is politics. She lost the race. As happens all the time. It's time to work towards the goals of the Democratic Party. Not hold the party ransom for your particular candidate.
If any of these people really cared about feminism, Hillary, anything..
I think you missed the point a little bit...this blog is about acknowledging women, not Hillary.
why do you need to be acknowledged? Without women there would be no men.
There acknowledged.
I think your comments are excellent. Women and people of color have definitely been taken for granted by the Democratic Party. Those who have supported Obama since the beginning fail to see that Obama is taking women for granted just as this party has always done. For example: he couldn't find even one woman to give a keynote address besides his wife? If he truly wants to reform this country and this party, he is going to have to face some ugly truths of his own about his campaign, and in some instances, his own behavior. As of now, most Hillary supporters are going to vote for Obama, but he is making it difficult with his refusal to address the realities of this election season in a manner that respects the dignity of the female half of our population.
Um, does Hillary count, because she's speaking. Sheesh.
Some more cheese with that Whine?
It appears that you don't believe Hillary is a woman; it's been well established that she is speaking at the convention. You appear to support her, so why don't you see Hillary as a woman?
"Obama is taking women for granted just as this party has always done, couldn't find even one woman to give a keynote address besides his wife?"
Besides the fact that Hillary, Nancy Pelosi and other women are speaking at this event -- what is the problem with Michelle. She is a woman.
"we want to hear from the man himself that he will represent and defend our interests and the interests of all of our daughters with ferocity."
He has done this over and over, get over it! One of the reasons he is running is for his daughters. For one open your ears and listen to the man...Be a real woman!
They want Obama to be a white female. Period.
And not even, necessarily, a Democrat.
You should have picked a better woman to represent you then. You know, a true leader. Not one that would, for example, leave it to her husband to make crucial campaign decisions like whether or not to air that "3am" ad.
You should be asking the hard questions of your candidate and yourself at this point. Failure to recognize that Hillary lost the election "from day one" simply highlights the fact that, at this late date, it's neither about policy or any particular candidate - it's about the ego of her supporters. Period.
The only onus is on Hillary to explain herself and her implosive campaign to her supporters. Her loss is hers and hers alone.
Is there anything else we can get you? An iced latte? Foot massage?
Please. Those of you PUMAS voting for McCain out of spite are doing yourselves and this country no favor.
No, the onus is not on Obama. He ran a respectful campaign and won. The onus is on those who choose to hold on to resentments rather than move on and look toward the future. Yes, there are many women who are disappointed that Clinton did not win. I am not one of them and am glad she is not the Democratic nominee. But I understand the disappointment. You should do as I did during the campaign resolve to vote your interests rather than your resentments.
"So what do we grieving women want from Obama? We want him to acknowledge that our hope was as valid as the hope of his supporters and that our longing will not go unrecogniz
Obama has done nothing but rhetorically kiss Hillary's behind (and her supporters' behinds) since June 3, even though her "historic" candidacy represents nothing at all of the advancement of women in politics or society. Her celebrity and "qualifcations" are based purely on her spouse having been a governor and a two term president.
also based on blatant lies and racial discord but all that is clearly not relevant.
Leah,
You've spoken many words, yet you've said little.
Be direct.
What do you want? And say it directly, concretely, and to the point.
You said: "We want him to claim our loss as his own on behalf of his daughters and to speak to women's issues directly."
Leah, realistically speaking, this loss was a result of a badly run, mismanaged campaign, nothing more nothing less. Stop hiding behind our womanhood and using our womanhood as a weakness, when Hill's did herself, as a politician, whether male or female, disservice for running a campaign with no direction. A campaign that feeds into the stereotype that women are directionless as documented by letting her campaign blow in all negative directions like tumbleweeds. We women need to deal with this fact and move on positively, not like wounded weaklings.
Leah, use your knack, wisdom and know how to persuade others who think like you to become strategic thinkers by putting their feelings in their back pockets. Either you're going to vote for O, who more aligned with the rights of all men and women, or you are going to vote someone who would exploit your weakness --your inability to see the big picture and move on---to set women's rights, civil rights, human rights, back in a way that will hurt us all.
What is your choice?
What say you?
Clearly, you didn't understand the piece.
The loss she was discussing wasn't an electoral defeat of a candidate, but the loss of a dream that many women shared of finally electing a woman to be POTUS. You may think that it was misguided, placed in the wrong place, etc., but for many women, it was what motivated them.
the only dream that was lost was Hillary's. She will not be the first female president. So what???
Thank you Leah. You have described perfectly how I feel. The grief part at least. As for Obama, the opportunities have come and gone. His arrogance is appalling to me and there is nothing he could do now to stop me from voting for McCain.
Your arrogance is appalling to me. I think this is what the founding fathers called "tyranny of the masses"
Or, as Bill Maher said on Larry King...Som
How dare he win the nomination! That damn arrogant..
You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Keep in mind that Obama's arrogance isn't about anyone in particular
you know what . . . you need to work on your issues otherwise you may find yourself by yourself.
"He seems to feel it is sufficient to lump us into his idealistically inclusive "we," and, in doing so, he fails both to respect and to witness the enormity of our loss. For it was our loss as women, not just Hillary Clinton's. . . We are grieving."
I'm a woman, I've been a feminst since I was about ten years old, I'm well into middle age, and I'm not grieving about Hillary's loss. Maybe because I realize a few things: (1) Hillary lost because she ran a bad campaign, just like any man who would have lost for the same reason (feminism, back when I first encountered it, was about merit, not about symbolism); and (2) this election isn't about my FEELINGS, it's about what's best for the country.
"But I mourn to my core that my daughter, like Obama's daughters, will most likely not see a woman president within my lifetime." Why do you believe that? There are no other women in the country capable enough to be president? I guess I'm more optimistic and believe better about my gender than to think that. And, I believe better of the other gender, too, who would have to vote for her in significant enough numbers to get her nominated and elected. So, all that emotion would be better spent working for this candidate and seeing what new talent emerges during the eight years of the Obama presidency. (As we old feminists used to say, "Don't agonize, organize!")
Of course there are women throughout the country who are brilliant, oratorically gifted and worthy of being sought out, given the opportunity and mentored to be President in the near future. The Democratic Party isn't looking very hard for them, though, and if Sen. Obama truly understood what the problem is he would've insisted that the DNC find that woman and put her in the prime spotlight as the keynote speaker -- just as was done for him in 2004. That didn't happen, did it? That, in my estimation, would've been much better than an Obama/Clinton ticket. It is precisely because we don't see the party seriously grooming any women for the Presidency at this point that we believe there won't be a woman President for quite some time. It's not because we think there aren't any women in the country who could do the job.
Umm... HRC *is* speaking at the convention. Any don't kid yourself, texanna, you'd be pitching a fit right here on HuffPo if he chose to have someone other than HRC to speak.
"The Democratic Party isn't looking very hard for them, though . . . .we don't see the party seriously grooming any women for the Presidency at this point that we believe there won't be a woman President for quite some time. It's not because we think there aren't any women in the country who could do the job."
Sorry, but the last time I looked, this wasn't about grooming and being granted anything. If we want anything, we will have to achieve it ourselves. And, God knows, we shouldn't rely on our husbands' advisors, who are little more than Republican shills. I guess I'm waiting for a woman who comes out of nowhere, the way Barack did, and is smart enough to build an organization that will get her elected and get the country believing in the Amercian Dream again.
As a black woman I read your words and they are foreign to me. Women? Not all, that in itself is rather generic and too wide a brush to paint on just the type of women who have issues with Hillary losing. Like I said, I can't relate to this tragic drama.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
