A Novel Idea: Women Helping Women Win
What a difference a day makes: With New Hampshire behind us, and a different result in the books than either the polls or the pundits expected, it feels as if there's new energy in this historic democratic race. And it's no surprise that women--45% of whom backed the female candidate Tuesday night--are the driving force propelling this contest forward.
Clinton herself is saying last Saturday's debate was responsible for her win and her ability to recapture the women's vote, and I'm sure that helped. She stood up for herself on that stage and explained her positions clearly. Women (and more than a few men) likely admired her competence.
But in analyzing what brought that win about, something else came to my mind: the memory of another time when women came to her side en masse.
It was when, as first lady, Clinton became the proverbial "wronged woman." While there was (and continues to be) plenty of disagreement about whether she should have stayed with or left Bill, what many women understood implicitly was the devastation of being wronged--and because they understood, they stood with her. During that time her approval ratings soared, rising as high as 71% during the impeachment--the highest they'd ever been.
When she was down and out, the women were with her--and Tuesday night, the same was true.
In the aftermath of Iowa, the women who had been least decided about Hillary watched a tired and misty-eyed woman get emotional about her passion for her country and her desire to lead it--and I believe that in that moment they found something to relate to.
A woman seeking to serve, a woman who had just lost, and a woman who was working hard to be considered as good as the guys. She may not have been perfect, but she was a woman whose plight they could finally understand. And when the press and John Edwards came after her for it, she became a wronged woman once again.
Whenever women come together, as they did Tuesday night, to support each other in the quest for more representative leadership, it's a good thing.
But if I am right, and what made Hillary so appealing to women was the vulnerability she revealed in New Hampshire, then another question must be asked: why should a woman have to be almost counted out before she can count on other women to support her?
This is an issue that is broader than any political candidate. I know because I spent years working on behalf of women who were struggling to change their communities, but who were bringing about that change from the foot of the table: they had few resources, and little of what most people consider "power."
Convincing other women to support these women in their efforts to make a difference turned out to be a simple task compared to what I encountered when I founded The White House Project and began to seek support for putting women in power--at the head of the table.
Convincing women to come out and support other women who might be considered "powerful" (no matter the sector) turned out to be a much more difficult proposition, indeed.
So while we celebrate the fact that women joined together on Tuesday to advance women's leadership in an unprecedented way, I also believe we still have work to do. We need to figure out how we can support a woman when she's up, just as steadfastly as we do when she's down.
Follow Marie Wilson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/twhp
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
The comments here made by women are astounding. Not one of these women has read anything about Hillary Clinton, and who she is, and what she has accomplished. You sound like right wing Republicans. It is as if you were brain washed with these stupid slogans of "Hillary is a tool of the administration", or "HRC is a corporate sponsored candidate.
This essay is a really backhanded way to say that if you don't support Sen. Clinton, it's because you have problems supporting a woman.
I guess it must be sexist to not support someone who-
1. Helps lead the charge on an immoral and illegal war.
2. Continually backs down in the face of an administration that only seeks to benefit oilmongers and war profiteers.
3. Is unwilling/afraid to support impeachment of two of the most lawbreaking and reckless people to hold public office, in any country.
4. Shows blatant and unapologetic disdain for liberals and progressives who actually stand by what they believe in.
It's so depressing to read comments by arrogant, self-righeous readers assuming the right to judge a woman's motives for choosing to forgive and do the hard work necessary to salvage a marriage.
The old scripture passage, "Judge not that you be not judged" keeps coming back to me as I scan the Huffington Post.
And now I'm reminded of David Fiderer's recent post about Maureen Dowd's projections of her own failings onto Hillary Clinton, and I suspect some of that is going on here.
There's also likely some old-fashioned envy. After all, Hillary is a successful US Senator from New York; she's managed to keep her marriage and family together through thick and thin(her mother lives with her and Bill); she's maintained dozens of long-time friendships; and overall, she has a very full and rich life.
It's no wonder she's the target of so much malicious envy and the lowest forms of misogyny.
Well, again, it's not a question of genitalia.
What is HRC's platform, what has she done, what does she propose doing, that will be helpful to women? If nothing (and that's what I see) then let's ask what has HRC done, what does her platform include, that will help working people, a group to which most women belong. The answer again is nothing.
HRC is a corporate sponsored candidate. The corporations sponsored Bush in 2000 and in 2004, and the same businesses are sponsoring HRC this year. Why? Because they think they will get the most from her. Is that based on wishful thinking? Or do we think that when these major corporations write checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars to her husband for "consulting," or for "speaking" at a lunch, that it's just possible they told him they will support Hillary if she does what they want, and Hillary said Okay?
Do we think corporations give away money without receiving promises in return? Is the pope Catholic?
The female issue is a diversion. Progressives should ignore race and gender, and vote for the candidate who promises to help working people.
Oh yeah: the e-mails being sent out claiming Obama is a Muslim terrorist: do we think the Clinton folks possibly could have sent those out in NH at the last minute?
The night before the California vote in 2004, I got an e-mail showing some gruesome video of a woman weeping with a dead baby, saying "John Kerry supports abortion and the murder of babies, and no decent person should vote for her or you will go to hell," or something like that. It obviously came from an anti-Kerry group.
So who is likely sending around e-mails saying Obama is a Muslim terrorist? Hillary Clinton is the most likely source.
She and her husband are ruthless and unethical. It's got nothing to do with gender. Vote Edwards.
Hillary has proven herself nothing but a tool for the current administration. Saying that women are voting for her is as ignorant as saying that that is why blacks are voting for Obama. It demeans women and blacks - and any qualifications the candidates might have.
I agree - send her a kleenex - not a ticket to the White House where she can continue her assault on civil liberties (PATRIOT, PATRIOT II, MRA) and the Iraq war.
If you want more of the same shi*, vote Hillary!
I totally disagree with your theory that women should vote for women. What if these women are not quality people. Ilike to be free to make my own choices.
Women for women and concern for the votes of elderly women. Being argued before the Supreme Court is a voter ID law in Indiana. The purpose of this law is to prohibit the elderly who are mostly women and minorities from voting as they tend to vote Democratic. This is blatant sexual gender discrimination against elderly women. Furthermore, voter ID law would prohibit elderly women from voting against those who would prohibit them from voting.
I don't understand how some women can be so totally stupid.
1) The affair with Lewinsky was not the first for Bill Clinton. I believe that it is the fifth affair that is on record (Gennifer, Paula, Juanita, Kathleen) - and who can guess how many of Clintons affairs are yet to be revealed.
2) Hillary facilitates, or enables, Bill's disgusting behavior by pretending to be the victim and not strangling him.
3) Hillary knew what she was married to and decided that the depraed insults to her womanhood was a small price to pay for her power lust.
4) Whether Hillary was damaged by Bill's 5th affair (and not by the first four?) is completely irrelevant as far as electing a leader for our country.
Oh poor me. My husband fucked somebody else - a lot of times - you have to vote for me so that I can get even? This is pathetic.
Wake up ladies. If you feel bad for Hillary send her a flower - not the nuclear football.
I'm a feminist, so I applaud the first serious woman candidate for President of the United States!
However, I'm also a liberal. Like her husband, Bill, Hillary seems to be a weather vane - blowing in whatever direction the polls dictate, even when they blow to the right. I don't like her as a Presidential candidate, and this is only one of my reasons.
IF Hillary wins the nomination, some Right Winger will go digging back into:
- Whitewater
- TravelGate
- Vince Foster
- The Lincoln Bedroom
- Commodity Trading
...ETC...
Do we REALLY need to revisit all of that?
I think it's time to move ON.
Just heard from the Kucinich campaign that they are considering launching a re-count of the NH primary results.
We're not used to having "women as an option". The sexism has been so internalized that we don't always identify it. I look at some of the comments on Huffpo and the sexism becomes clearer. Funny how powerful women in the media feel threatened by Hillary. I guess they feel its competition.
Go Hillary!!
I think that the best thing that has happened to politics in the long-time is Barack Omaha. I am so sick of American politics that I'd rather follow a blind man into a cave that makes me open my own eyes. Barack makes me open MY EYES, not blindly see the world through his eyes. The Clintons represent 'old business', have old scores to settle and have no NEW vision for this country. I do not feel bad saying that Hillary is getting the punishment that was meant for her old man; and if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Let's not pretend to have short-term memory...t
I think many Americans are still uncomfortable with an assertive, successful kick-ass woman, which is sad. But I also don't think it's wrong to want to "like" the candidate you support. Just that tiny glimpse of humanity brought people to her in droves. Not too much to ask.
This is a great article, unforunately not well received because the notion of women supporting women is scary to many, especially to the men raised in a paternalistic society.
It's anti men apparently to believe 50% of the population should have more than 16% representation in government. It's apparently wrong to think a woman will more easily understand some of the issues often ignored by some of the men over two centuries. But alas, finally having the option to vote for a woman, is all we should say. Daring to mention it makes women feel empowered angers the boys.
now here is an idea.
have wjc cheat on hrc during the campaign. (if not already)
let it 'leak' to the msm.
hrc wells-up, wjc finally defines 'is'.
and even more voters for hrc!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
