An Army of Women

In this week's Gallup Poll, national Democratic voters continue to be evenly split, with Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each receiving 47% support for the party's nomination. Yet despite this neck-and-neck race to the partisan finish line, as Eric Boehlert recently surmised, the press has been pushing relentlessly to get Clinton to throw in the towel and rescind her claim to the nomination. As the race for top democratic billing remains cloaked in ambiguity, I've been thinking more and more that a decisive win for the nomination is only a piece of the victory pie. And this may be the very reason why large swaths of the press are so diametrically opposed to one more day of Hillary.

Boehlert notes that numerous precedents exist for nominees to continue to duke it out until party conventions: Reagan and Ford; Kennedy and Carter; Hart and Mondale. Yet the media has never pressed a nominee to exit the race with such passionate insistence as they have with Clinton. And whereas Reagan was touted as a "resilient fighter" for his persistence, Clinton is painted as an "arrogant" and "selfish egomaniac." Why such a vehement disparity of descriptors? Is it the case that so much ambition in a woman is simply too much for American sensibilities to bear?

I think that the media's continual attacks on Clinton are symptomatic of deep cultural fear: that she is an extraordinarily visible woman who refuses to "know her place" - and that her refusal to give up her claim to power might be a rallying cry for a new wave of feminist fury. If we forget the delegates, the caucuses v. primaries, and the battle over Michigan and Florida, we see that a major win has already been had by and for the women of our nation through Clinton's candidacy. And many Americans might be afraid of how far this momentum will take us.

Never again will it be questioned, or a poll commissioned, on whether women are qualified to be president.

Never again will there be a presidential primary, I predict, without a woman - or hopefully several women - candidates.

And never again will there be any room for discussion about whether a woman can be tough enough to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.

The candidacy of Hillary Clinton has changed the political landscape forever, and has reinvigorated the political aspirations of women from all walks of life. To many, this "army of women" is a scary thing indeed. And who knows how far it will go if Hillary wins the nomination - or the presidency.

Whether Clinton has been the "perfect" candidate is not the issue at hand, and as the president of a nonpartisan organization, I am less concerned with Clinton-the-candidate than I am with what her candidacy represents. Her campaign tactics, voting record, and political maneuverings are up for debate. She may or may not win the nomination. But what she has already, and decisively, won has been a victory for all Americans, male and female, of all races, young and old: Clinton has broken a barrier for women in political leadership. For that, we are the collective inheritors of a great victory. And yet, this win is offset by what it continues to reveal: our deeply embedded cultural fears of politically powerful women.

Follow Marie Wilson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/twhp

Comments

[HealThisNation]

It is appalling that this worthless candidate represents a victory for all women to you. She represents the worst in politics and in human nature to most of us.

[Suzie813]

Sorry, dear, HealthisNation is correct. She's awful.

[cadbury]

How are you defining "most of us"? Approximately half of all Dems are supporting HRC. Who are you???

[BOBZILLA]

Obama is ahead in every national poll except FOX (snicker, snicker).

As the great Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton once said' "A victory is a victory"

[marymansour]

Please, Ms. Wilson, this is just not the case. For instance I am a single, white woman of 69 born and living in Alabama. I have always been a feminist and very outspoken. If someone of the ilk of Maggie Thatcher, Indira Ghandi or Golda Meier were running for the presidency, I might seriously consider the options BUT Hillary Clinton is a fore flusher, totally shrewish in her tactics and just simply NOT A NICE PERSON.

As for saying Hillary has been picked on by the media - HELLO? Obama has had the mud slung at him by the MSM who still won't shut up about Jeremiah Wright. ALSO, he is the first viable African American to run for this office. I am for Barack Obama and have not wavered. I hope this country has the good sense to vote him in.

[hnic1971]

Army of African-Americans.

Barack as an "elitist". That can be construed as a black man not knowing his place. Uppity Negro.

Plus if the test for leadership is measured in high elected office, let's look at the numbers

Why only 5 African American Senators in US history with 3 since 1967: Edward Brooke, Carol Moseley Braun and Barack Obama when there are 16 women sitting currently as US Senators out of a total of 35 in US history?

Why only 4 African American Governors in US history with 3 since 1990: Douglas Wilder and Deval Patrick and David Paterson out of 4 in US History, when there are 8 sitting female governors out of a total of 29 in US History?

I believe in the historic nature of Hillary's run, but history tells us that the opportunity to lead in the highest elected offices have been opened to women more than African-Americans. Plus it does matter that it is Hillary. Don't you think she gets more of a push than say Carol Moseley Braun or Shirley Chisholm because she was married to President Clinton? These two women had more experience in public service than Hillary has now when in their run for the presidency.

[Syco]

EXACTLY!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!

[Arleang]

The author of this article believes that Hillary Clinton has broken through the glass ceiling and opened that path for those women who will follow. I disagree. I think she was pushed through the glass ceiling by a womanizer.

I have evidently been a feminist all my life, because I knew early on that I would not tolerate being pushed around or dominated by another human being without a fight. Evidently there must be many types of "feminists". I am not of the Hillary Clinton school of feminism.

A woman will emerge to run for the presidency who will earn the respect of most Americans, of men and women of all cultures and races, based on clear thinking and commanding presence. I am waiting.

[ann1]

"that she is an extraordinarily visible woman who refuses to "know her place" - and that her refusal to give up her claim to power might be a rallying cry for a new wave of feminist fury"

Ma'am, I totally disagree with that statement. Hillary definitely knows her place. She stayed with a man who was known to be a womanizer. He had numerous affairs and to top it off he publicly humiliated her before the world. See that's what women have always done throughout the centuries. Stay with a man inspite of his cheating ways. We're expected to look away and pretend that it's okay. We somehow buy into the notion that we're not good enough, we're not pleasing. As I once heard an elderly woman say.......­a man will be a man, that's just the way they are. Well guess what? It's not okay. I'm not saying that marriages can't survive infidelity, but being publicly humiliated is different. I question women who stay with men who CHEAT, not just once but repeatedly. No matter how much you may love him I believe staying with him is an indication of something deeper that requires the assistance of a psychiatrist.

[drblack]

The media is all over the Wright issue, but have they mentioned the Paul vs Clinton trial that began last week and calls into question the honesty of the Clinton's?
The Clinton's are unethical and have sold out to big money.
It is not her sex but her policies, lack of integrity and ethics that define Clinton and make her a terrible candidate.
The only worse possible President than Hillary Clinton is John McCain.

[bbrecht]

As a woman I don't need a role model like Hillary. I'm still waiting for my candidate-- a real feminist who appreciates the interconnectedness of the struggle of women with the struggle of others. My candidate would not vote for war in Iraq or threaten to obliterate Iran. She would not lie about sniper fire to try to prove she's tough. My candidate would not "pretend" to be working class, if she comes from a privledged background she would own up to it and she would have come to terms with what that means. She wouldn't have worked on the board for anti-union Walmart!! She would have been in the streets demanding that Walmart allow its employees to collectively organize.

Last but not least she would not spend all her energy tearing down her democratic opponent -- instead she would articulate a positive vision for America. I'm still waiting.

[arkgrfx61]

I'm sorry, but there are other much more worthy women than Hillary Clinton to have the honor of breaking the glass ceiling (Corazan Aquino, Bhenizir Bhutto, Golda Meir, etc. to name a few). I speak for myself and i'm sure i speak for countless other women who agree that Hillary is NOT what feminism is about. Someone who feels like she has to be a ball buster, someone who is afraid to be herself (and finally found her voice after her NH win!) is not a role model that I would want the future generation of young women to look up to.
I don't think it's that America isn't ready for a woman president as so much they are afraid to have THIS woman as president.

[GeneralWashington]

I know Hillary faced some serious problems from the media at the outset of her campaign, but I watch the major networks (that would be excluding Fox News) everyday.

Can anyone show me the current media bias against her because she's a female?

Or is this just another "thin-air" argument to rile up support for her?

[texanna]

I wish I could share in the author's optimism about the future of women's positions at the upper levels of our government, but I just do not. When Hillary is beaten back and beaten up sufficiently the lesson will be well-learned by women of all ages -- stay in your place girl or else...! Do you have close girl friends? Better be prepared for the "L" word. Have you got detailed ideas about policies and positions? Be prepared for being characterized as a wonk and a really boring one at that. Certainly not a rock star, which is a much better characteristic for being President. Have you ever actually reached across the aisle and gotten actual legislation passed? Better be prepared to be characterized as a party traitor. Have you ever gotten mad? Better be prepared for that "B" word, and worse, yet, if you're pre-menopausal, they'll go straight for PMS. Wow, you REALLLY don't want her finger on the big, red button, do you? Since you will only get a chance to ascend to the highest levels after many, many years of hard work you will probably have developed many, many relationships. Be prepared to be characterized as a user of people, since, of course, you could only have ascended to those heights because of your associations which you will be characterized as a complete abuser of. I am not a supporter of either candidate, but I would definitely say I am a sympathizer of Sen. Clinton.

[BitterInPA]

She has not proven anything and she has not broken any barriers. All she has proven is that she can play the divisive, angry, negative campaign that she learned from the Republicans. She has not beaten them, she has become them.

If anyone missed this, especially Clinton supporters, please look at how her tactics work. You are being played...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

[AshevilleVoice]

I have an entirely different perspective: I am sad at how far off track feminism has gotten since the feeble white feminists have begun to use Hillary as an example of a woman pitted against a misogynist and gender-biased American society.

This has diminished the insights of all the early feminist writers who correctly discerned that merely having women take equal positions in a patriarchal society run by patriarchal values will change nothing. We need women and men with feminist values in leadership roles.

Hillary is a woman using the worst kind of patriarchal tactics to assert her dominance. Embracing this as any sort of victory for women is like telling little girls that if you want your hopes and dreams to come true, then marry a powerful man, just suck it up when he humiliates and embarrasses you, and use his connections to get where you want to go for yourself.

Celebrating Hillary's "toughness" is saying that mean-spirited, deceitful manipulation is a virtue and that you must beat down your opponents and then climb on top of them to become a leader.

[bbrecht]

well said- thank you!

[RealistDem]

Kudos for that post.

[Gma11]

Fallacies of reasoning (simple summary): http://www.wam.umd.edu/~southard/reasoningandfallacies.htm

"HASTY GENERALIZATION What is true about a part is true about all parts, or what is true for one will be true for another. For example, Jimi Hendrix performed pretty well when he was stoned, so we all would perform well that way."

For me, Hillary Clinton does NOT represent women as a whole, or vice versa.

[Foohog]

"I am less concerned with Clinton-th­e-candidat­e than I am with what her candidacy represents­."

And that is exactly the problem. You don't care about who the candidate is, but whatever warm-fuzzies you'll get if a woman is elected.

Well I'm sorry but contrary to what the "a-woman-r­ight-or-wr­ong" crowd apparently thinks, there are many of us in this country, both male and female, who happen to be adults. We know that a decent sense of fairness means that we don't vote against someone because of their gender.

But as adults, we also know that a decent sense of priority means we don't vote for someone just because of how many X or Y chromosomes they have.

And by the way, I don't care what national group you managed to get yourself elected to, when you start with the assumption that I'm voting for Obama because afraid of powerful women you are being every bit as sexist as Archie Bunker ever hoped to be which renders your opinion on anything as irrelevent as his.

Grow up, stop being a whiney little girl and act like an adult woman who knows that the country's future is more important than what one can find between the candidates legs.

[Agave]

I disagree. There has been no shattering of the glass celing by Hillary Clinton. That ceiling is too solid even for her. Consider: from the moment this nation formed, freemen African-Americans could vote; women waited abother 140 years. After the Civil War, freed slaves were allowed to vote; women waited another 60 years. In the too recent past, female infants were routinely drowned as worthless extra baggage. And in the world today -- in the 21st Centruy -- women are still being stoned or publicly flogged for being outdoors without an immediate male family member.

You want to talk about a beat-down, under-privilaged, under-represented class? Look right next to you.

And does it surprise anyone that 70% of the American public -- and that HAS to include men, too -- tell polsters that they feel Clinton has been treated harshly because she is a woman (and not simply because she's Hillary Clinton)?

[Foohog]

You might want to read a history book on the African-American experience in this country before you spout more of this drivel.

Many states back in the day not only wouldn't let blacks vote, the also had laws on what religion you could belong to.

I don't know of a single instance in this country's history where a woman was lynched because she was a woman.

I don't know of a single instance where someone blew up a church because we changed the constitution to allow women to vote.

I don't know of a single instance where a woman was drug to death behind a pick-up truck to her death because she was a woman.

And just out of curiosity, how do the medieval practices of the morons in another country reflect on whether we in this country are anti-female?

The very fact that Hillary is in this race renders most of your post false and silly.

[dawn2dusk]

exactly

[BitterInPA]

What? African-Americans can vote? Well, maybe not in Ohio in 2008...

“a wide discrepancy between the availability of voting machines in more minority, Democratic and urban areas as compared to more Republican, suburban and exurban areas.” Such unequal placement had the predictable effect of slowing the voting process to a crawl at Democratic polls, while making matters quick and easy in Bush country: a clever way to cancel out the Democrats' immense success at registering new voters in Ohio.
(from Harpers - http://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696)