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
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 media's continual attack on Clinton"? Please. That's so eight weeks ago. If you've really been paying attention, they've been focusing on whacking Obama since then so they can drag the race out as long as possible.
As a woman myself your article leaves me feeling only distaste.
The media has NOT been "attacking" Clinton, she's had fair treatment as far as I'm concerned. No one ever calls her on her gaffes, no one is ever allowed to talk about the WH scandals or bring up Peter Paul or Whitewater. They basically walk on eggshells around her and Bill. No one made a big a deal of her "oblitering" comment, because you know for shit sure if Obama had said that all hell would break loose.
Yes she's made significant strides for women in this race, but believe it when I tell you if she didn't have a Clinton behind her name if Obama had lost ELEVEN contests IN A ROW, if he was behind 130 delegates and he wanted to break the rules they all AGREED to re: MI and FL and if had told a BALD-FACED lie about sniper fire not once, not twice, not even three times but FOUR TIMES you know as well as I do that he would be finished. They would have demanded he get out of the race, and crowned her the nominee and that would be that.
So don't come here and tell us she was attacked by the media that seems to think this race is solely for their enjoyment and relish in its protraction and can't do anything but talk about the ins/outs of Wright 24/7. Peddle your story elsewhere, it doesn't jive here.
Bravo! Tell it sister!
I am an older white women and I would NEVER vote for Hillary. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. It is because she is a liar, a shift-in-the-wind chameleon, a dirty fighter with no moral fiber, a narcissist. And also because I cannot stomach the idea of Bill Clinton running around in the White House again, stalking interns and coaching her from the sidelines.
We need a new kind of government.
Honest, all-inclusive, visionary.
That PERSON is Obama.
Dems, Repubs and Independents for Obama.
Not even the Shrub with all his attacks on the Constitution and the separate branches of Governement has been able to re-make this country as a monarchy, and until the White House, by itself, can make a change in this country, all that Obama represents is talk.
And crossoverwriter, neither Clinto or McCain have an edge in lying, shifting (Google for "Why Obama's Illinois PAC will not endorese his presidential bid"), or dirty fighting over this guy.
Oh! I forgot to mention - we base victories on votes in this country - not polls. Your article is quite the waste of time.
Y'know, Marie - I'm getting pretty sick of these sexist articles. You keep reducing everything to the idea that all this candidate is, is a woman. Ridiculous! She is an underhanded, scheming, smearing, cheating liar. That is why I can't stand the thought of her being president. You also keep pushing th myth that she is qualified to be president. Again, ridiculous. She is not more qualified than I am, or for that matter, Bush. She has a name. She did little in the senate. She has lost New York jobs. She has caused us to go to war. She brought on the anti-constitutional patriot act. All she does is pander, insult and lie. She can't write for herself. She can't manage her own campaign, much less a country. It has nothing to do with being a woman! Stop pushing this sexist nonsense. Yes, there are SOME who don't like the idea of a woman in office, and there are SOME that don't like the idea of a black man in office. But, these two won over all the other candidates, and one of them will win the nomination. Get over it.
I would rather base my decision on who would be best, rather than gender or color.
Step away from the Koolaide!
Sometimes the Koolaide is spiked with Sodium Pentothal. Truth out.
Amen brother. Time for the Hillary-philes to stop whining. Hillary has become an embarassment to honest progressives and I for one am done defending her. The moronic right wingers and idiot pundits may actually have been right about her all along.
Ms. Wilson with all due respect, Hillary in my opinion could have faired better had she been more a women than trying to suggest she had a pair of balls. It's not about rather a women is ready to be President it's which women in "public opinion" is ready. Hillary chose her campaign strategy and she and she alone delivered it, can't blame the media for her strategy and actions. I think it's very fair to say that if this race where in reverse the DNC party leaders would have already asked Sen. Obama to step aside, because Sen. Obama wouldn't get points for being a Clinton. If it were not for the media continuing to spin "Hillary math" this race would have been over.
You stated -- "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"
Sorry but the media like many of us are well aware that she falls short and CAN'T obtain the number of delegates to take the lead. So spin it which ever way you like, these facts remains true -- So the concern now is how long should she be allowed to attempt to destroy Obama and split the party.
HuffPo's word count limit prevents me from posting a point by point debunking of your unbelievably ridiculous claims.
All I''ll say is:
What an unmitigated pile of desperate, gender-biased BS.
One article praising Hillary at Huffington Post, and see what kind of "sexist" response it gets. Nobody dares slander Obama the same way, it would be "racist." It would be nice if Huffington Post could rise above this kind of ugly favoritism. Maybe it will when Obama loses the nomination.
What part of the word 'liar' is sexist? In fact, what part of ANY of the comments here have been sexist? Oh....exce
The only sexist thing I ever heard was when some bozo was trying to pay her a compliment and suggested she had the 'balls' to be President. That was both stupid AND sexist, but it was from HER SUPPORTER in HER presence. Is she supported by sexists? Obviously so.
That was as stupid as you trying to argue that if she didn't have a vagina, she could easily be elected president.
Another Clinton surrogate using Rove's Orwellian campaign tactics. Clinton is going to lose the nomination because she has no integrity and cares more about what she can do for herself than what she can do for others.
Shut up and lay down. I'd vote for Condi Rice before shillary. At least you KNOW Condi's a rethug. :)
Hillary Clinton supports a gas tax plan thought up by John Mcsame which has been denounced by nearly every economist not on her payroll (and even a few that are) which would if passed (she has a better shot at winning the nomination then getting it through congress by this labor day if ever) at best do nothing, at worst most likely lead to even higher prices, terrible roads, and thousands of unemployed highway workers, and in theory
1. She believes in her gut that it will benefit Americans even though it has been denounced by almost every economist and expert as a bad idea (Post 9/11 Iraq War train of thought perhaps)
2. She has discovered that it polls well and is pandering for votes.
Either way, that is not the kind of thinking that we need in the White House. If you still support her in light of this just because she is a woman or think she is more "electable" then Obama who has shown the good judgement to denounce it and that kind of thinking, you should not be allowed to vote.
you mention this about long primaries:
"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. "
but you seem to not realize the issue of it. ford lost, carter lost, mondale lost. all the winners from those long contested primaries lost because they were badly bruised by their own party members and too late to the game of the general election.
It is truly frightening that ANYONE would be "less concerned with Clinton-th
I'm disappointed that some women think that Senator Clinton is the best that women can do. Her success is due almost entirely to the efforts of her husband. She was not elected to the Senate on her own merits but as a reflection of her husband's success. She would not make a good President.
I long for the day I can support a female candidate for President. I'm confident that there are several out there who have are worthy based on their own efforts. It's disheartening, though, to realize that there are so many women who think that Senator Clinton is the best female candidate we can put forward for consideration.
Chicagobama - well said! People have accused African American's of voting for Obama just because he's AA. To which I argue, if that were true how do you explain the lack of support among AA's when Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton ran for President? They are not just voting for a AA to become president they are voting for a "qualified" AA to become President. As a women I will look forward to a women becoming president but I'll cast my vote when I feel the "right" women is running for President.
Where is Jesse Jackson by the way? Haven't heard from him for a while.
Thank you for saying this - I was just drafting much the same thing. A women would be great - just not this women.
You are so mistaken, Marie! Hillary has no experience and no integrity. Her vote to go to war was just political expedience as is her gas tax holiday. She'll say and do anything to get elected, it doesn't matter if she is a woman or not. Obama is a far better candidate and would have wrapped this nomination if they were not so many racists in this country.
Obama would have wrapped this nomination if he were a better candidate.
Sophie, JFK barely squeaked by Goldwater. Obama is the best candidate I have seen or heard since 1960 and he is going to win. It's as simple as that..
Could Hillary serve as President from prison? Thank goodness we'll never have to find out. She can't win, so that's that. Look ahead. Hillary killed her own cause when she started telling that story about ducking sniper fire in Bosnia. It's a lie. It isn't true. Don't you get it? It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with being ANOTHER liar named Clinton.
Ms. Wilson, thank you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
