The Real Feminist Thing To Do is Acknowledge Hillary's Failures as a Candidate and Move On
When wise pundits in 1987 asked potential candidate Pat Schroeder whether the Democratic Party should let a woman run again for Vice-President or President since the 1984 Mondale-Ferraro ticket had performed so poorly she said, ''The ticket was already down 19 points when she was put on it,'' adding ''perhaps they should not have put a man on the ticket; it was he who lost.''
I interviewed Elizabeth Edwards last week, and we touched on the effect of gender politics on this election, because 28 years later, we're still second guessing Hillary's presumed demise and wondering if it was because she was a woman. I asked Elizabeth, what do you think of the whole "bitch is the new black" approach- is that an effective strategy?
"No...I am concerned with the way in which the percentage of women voting for Hillary, the percentage of African Americans voting for Obama, will change. I'm afraid -- as many Democrats are -- of disaffection in these groups when their candidate is no longer in the race. Because the appeal has been made -- not so much by the candidates-- but certainly by surrogates and others -- this pitch has been made that this is important, for your gender, for your race. In a way it is important for them. But I'm concerned about the disaffection when the candidate is no longer in the race. That's the real argument for the forced marriage between them, is the possibility of disaffection."
I'd love an Obama-Clinton ticket. Gender is a hugely important consideration for me when considering who to vote for. But I completely disagree with Elizabeth on this point. If Hillary doesn't win the nomination women voters won't feel disaffected because the woman is out of the race. Do you really think those who say they won't vote for Obama if Clinton's out will show up on Election Day and pull the lever for McCain?? I feel Clinton's candidacy has opened the door for other women candidates, maybe even for Obama's (hat-tip to Donna Good).
I do feel disaffected by Hillary's campaign management, however, and I have changed my thinking on supporting Clinton. I feel disaffected that she ran a lousy campaign, she let Mark Penn make an ass of himself, she pursued a grassroots strategy stuck in 2000, and while proved she was tough, she failed to read her audience. I've no doubt sexism played a role. Do I want another woman presidential candidate in 2012? Absolutely! I want thousands of women candidates. I don't want Hillary anymore.
If feminists want Clinton to be seen as anything other than a token we need to recognize Clinton's merits, analyze her campaign's faults, and swiftly move on, as if a woman losing were the most normal thing in the world. Men lose all the time. Dwelling doth a token make, and then we'll be back in 1984, all over again.
Follow Morra Aarons-Mele on Twitter: www.twitter.com/morra_am
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
Very astute comments! I agree entirely--
As an African-American male I must say that at the beginning of this race our community was split in half over this issue. Who do we support, the wife of the first "black president" or Obama, the eloquent new kid on the block who wasn't black enough? For me it was a no brainer. After reading about Obama's life story I was sold. How could I not support a black man who has overcome all the obstacles that he has, gone to Harvard, and became Pres. of the Harvard Law Review? But here the kicker. After leaving Harvard he didn't cash in, he went back into his community tohelp lift those up who didn't have his same opportunities. He embodies everything that I want my African American son to be.
Now back to Clinton. Like I said, black people were torn. But it was the Clinton's and their demeaning tactics that turned African Americans away from her. The Clinton's felt that they were entitled to the "black vote". Their statements leading into South Carolina were viewed as an attempt to undervalue and marginalize Obama. She paraded Bob Johnson out with his ignorant statments. This galvinized the community around Obama. Even though Obama wasn;t the favorite of many blacks, our community isn't going to sit back and let you "piss" on us.
I would say his strategy worked quite well, then. He circulated a memo making sure his surrogates stirred up great anger.
That, in my opinion, was contemptuous and one of MY first reasons to be suspicious about Obama.
He has not persuaded me yet that he's not very willing to stimulate anger to win. His supporters are the most angry Democrats I've ever seen in my entire life!
I do believe, btw, that Bill's remark about Jesse Jackson was an attempt to minimize the loss in SC and used race as a way to do it. I'm not saying I didn't get that.
But the whole dust-up about "fairy tale?"
Oh, that preceded Bill's remark on the loss and was so clearly Obama playing the race card that it stunned me he got by with it.
Later, with the MLK and LBJ? Oh, ditto for the same.
His outraged surrogates were all reading from the same script.
In short, I believe you've been had. If there is anyone who has not respected the community and been willing to manipulate emotionally for votes, it's Obama.
Hillary and Bill made a point to show up to every single event scheduled, even knowing that the reception would be chilly and not a vote in sight. And she apologized repeatedly.
Obama won't apologize for calling the people in Penn racists, though. Mark my words. Nor will he apologize to Ferarro. Or probably even to his "typical white grandmothe
I'm a Hillary supporter too, but something is more than a little fishy to me here.
While it's not a surprise to most of us that the Clintons would be interested in controlling the message on popular blogs by planting people on them to smear Obama, you're a way over the top.
And you always wonder why no one takes you seriously here?
Even as a Hillary supporter, I have to say, your posts always give us a good laugh here
:)
"His supporters are the most angry Democrats I've ever seen in my entire life!"
Sorry lady, but have you seen the blogs that support Mrs Clinton? Angry? Angry does not begin to describe it.
Look, I am sorry you are disappointed and cynical and unhappy that your candidate is losing, really I am. But, at this late stage where the paths for a Clinton win are increasingly narrow, belittling fellow democrats (assuming that you are one and not an out and out troll) is not terribly good form and mimics why many of these people have turned away from Mrs. Clinton in the first place.
So continue if you must, but you only serve to marginalize yourself.
Your post is delusional
Never before in presidental politics has a candidate been demanded to apologize for what others have said.
The reason why Obama has not apologize is because he has made no statement calling anyone a racist. The black media made statements that got into the MSM and hence Hillary supporters attribute those comments to Obama.
As far as bitter-gate, Obama used the qualifier some people in small towns, the operative word being some.
More than 10K people on Obama's web site from small town PA have since come forward to say that they agree with him.
Another thing, why was it okay for Rendell to say that some people in PA are racist and won't for Obama but it's not okay for Obama to agree with that assessment?
Project much?
Reasonable people would spot you her first LBJ comment but it ended up going to a pattern.
You pretend Bill Clinton wasn't trying to cast Barack as just Black with Jesse Jackson comments after South Carolina? How can you believe it?
It was Hillary's spokesman and the governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, who said his state wasn't ready to vote for a Black thereby branding them racists.
Bob Johnson of BET continued even this week, saying that Barack had 90% of the Blacks before the election started. Even though it was an historical fact that up until late February it was Clinton who had the over whelming majority of the Black vote in every poll.
Geraldine Ferraro did it again. You want us to believe that it was a coincidence that these "castings" of Obama as the affirmative action candidate who ONLY got where he did because of his color just happened to be before big states with a majority white voters? It defies incredulity. That's your position? That it is all Obama's fault that Hillary's surrogates were just randomly talking about Black people and whoops Obama fell in. Isn't getting a bit thin by now even for you? This argument is obviously ridiculous, illogical, and transparently false.
This the down side of triangulation, too much and you piss everyone off. Face it, the Black vote was hers to lose and she has lost it trying to get more white votes.
Obama won't apologize for calling the people in Penn racists, though. Mark my words. Nor will he apologize to Ferarro. Or probably even to his "typical white grandmothe
__________
The notion that Obama called people in Penn racists,or that he owes an apology to Ferarro or his grandmother is just laughable.
In fact, it is so laughable that you can't even be a Clinton supporter. You've got to be a neo-con Republican troll.
Have fun living in the dustbin of history. It's quite roomy.
Maybe Hilary can start by explaining how and why Mark Penn made the "best" strategist for her campaign and at that price! C'mon, the guy is outrightly mean and Hilary never looks like she needs a bully to protect her in the school yard. That I think is a management failure that has nothing to do with gender.
I think the silliest idea being bandied around right now in some Clinton circles is that if Hillary doesn't win, than no woman can be president. Where does this defeatist attitude come from? Do these folks not know that Nancy Pelosi is #2 in the presidential line of succession? For crying out loud, starting in 2006, there was a significantly greater than zero probability that Pelosi would be our next president. (Hey, it happened to Gerald Ford.) There are 16 women in the US Senate and 9 state governors, several of whom (plus Condoleezza Rice) are being considered for a VP position. And all of whom have orders of magnitude more charisma than Hillary. Chill out, folks.
No. Hillary's argument is if Hillary doesn't win, no democrat can be president, man or woman ... it's either her or McCain.
Charisma, that's what we need in a President.
I don't understand how anyone--man or woman -can still support Hillary Clinton as she has been exposed as an INVETERATE LIAR. From the beginning of her phony campaign of "a conversation with voters" with the planted questions to the lies about Obama and choice in NH, to the lies about being snubbed at the State of the Union, to her lies about her "contributions" in Ireland, Bosnia, Macedonia, SCHIP....
Why does anyone believe anything this horrible candidate says? This is a completely untrustworthy, nasty, dirty, lying person. That should disqualify anyone regardless of gender.
Wow. you women are awsome. I wish oh how I wish that Hllary represented the integrity and intelligence represented in these comments and this blog.
there are some women who really do vote for what is best for our country as a whole and not for a person's gender. :)
Great!,
Now how about you take the situation a step further and think about what will MOST PROBABLY HAPPEN once Hillary grabs the nomination with Obama having the Most delegates, states and popular vote
Hillary nomination =
Hill Supporters minus ( Turned off young people+ Turned off African American's + Unattached Obamacans + Unattached Independents )= President John McCain 2008
Note: Hillary is not too popular with independents and Republicans, John McCain is
..and we can just pretend that it doesn't bother us that, after 40+ years, men in similar job positions make 30% more than women same job responsibilities, different job title..tha
You have a lot to learn, honey...it makes a real BIG difference if the only serious woman contender for the Dem Party nominee loses because white males decide having a woman as POTUS is just too uncomfortable to consider (what if she has a PMS attack or kills Bill in a fit jealous rage?... watch her grow old...yukk
"it makes a real BIG difference if the only serious woman contender for the Dem Party nominee loses because white males decide having a woman as POTUS is just too uncomfortable to consider (what if she has a PMS attack or kills Bill in a fit jealous rage?... watch her grow old...yukk
You really think this? This is why Hillary is losing in your opinion? So it had nothing to do with:
1) The fact that she lost Iowa (and largely because women supported Obama and Edwards before her)
2) She had no game plan after February 5 - and was out-organized by Obama's grassroots organization.
3) That she let loyalists run her campaign, put her in debt, and undermine her credibility by negotiating trade deals she says she's against.
4) That she has offered no cohesive message this whole campaign - experience, solutions, now I'm a gun totin bible thumpin whiskey drankin fighter straight shooter
5) That she told a bold faced LIE about her Bosnia experience and most of her international experience is a fiction
But no, in your mind, the ONLY reason she's losing is because white men don't want to see a woman elected. COME ON!
Zora you hit it dead-on.
The funniest part to me is, a tried-and-true sexist would LOVE a woman POTUS, because they would think she can be manipulated by the men surrounding her behind the scenes. Real sexists would underestimate her power.
And if anything, Hillary has shown us that she can lie, twist facts, exaggerate her record, and pander to whom ever so happens to be standing in front of her, AT LEAST as well as any man we're ever seen run for high office.
I think your over zealous support of Senator Clinton, as the female candidate, has blinded you to the degree that you cant even comprehend how someone can support Senator Obama over Hillary just on the issues. As a white male Obama supporter, Clinton lost me on her war vote, not reading the NIE , the bankruptcy bill, and the way in which shes ran her campaign has only reinforced my support for Senator Obama. I think her resume has been grossly over exagerated she is after all the junior senator from New York. After the healthcare fiasco and subsequent republican landslide win in the 94 midterms her first lady experience wasnt much more than other first ladies. Sorry Im voting for Obama on the issues, it has nothing to do with PMS, growing old or any other imaginary defect. Ive voted for many women in my lifetime, just not this one at this time.
They are practically the same on the issues Realist.
Well if having qualified women candidates is what you want, you're in luck. While Clinton's chances at the Dem nomination seem to grow dimmer by the day, there are more women govenors than ever, and some of them are being looked at by many as possible VP contenders on both Dem and Rep tickets.
Don't put all your hope in Hillary. Blacks had to get past the failures of many past campaigns by Shirley Chisholm, Jessie Jackson and others before Barack Obama. I don't think a woman POTUS will be far off. The progress has been slow, but progress IS being made.
GoldCanyonGal- you sound "bitter."
...and let's not forget desperate. Her supporters act as though HRC is the one and only woman who will ever make it this far. She was the front runner. She blew it.
I'm not voting for HRC because I don't like her. I didn't like her from 1992 to 2000. I didn't like her before she threw her hat in this ring. With her tactics these last several months, I like her even less than I did before, if that's even possible. I would rather chop my hand off before I ever let it make the mistake of pushing a button on the screen (it used to be "pull a lever") to vote her into the WH. The only thing that I'd want her for is to keep the Supreme Court from going to hell in a hand basket. But, my ovaries have dried up, I only have one child (a boy), and Maury Povich will always have his "baby daddy" tests.
She's a lying, coniving, inexperienced, got where she is because of her husband, scandalous, (and if she STEALS the nomination) thief who will NEVER get my vote.
I guess I'm bitter.
Well, as a white male I can say I don't have any qualms about voting for someone who is a woman, I started the campaign season fairly neutral but over time Clinton has worn away almost all respect I use to have for her. I acknowledge she is smart, talented and knows how to play a certain type of politics. I also think she has serious issues in how she ran her campaign and who she chose to surround herself with. She failed in many metrics, so much so that a relative newcomer with a funny name, from a minority ethnicity, who has been attacked on so many idiotic non-issues has all but beaten her.
It was hers to lose six months ago, and she did spectacularly.
Morra:
RALPH NADER 2008!
Oh lord, Pioneer King thinks he's voting for Ralph Nader. **Whisper** your actually voting for McCain
Thank you for articulating this so clearly. I'm still hopeful that I'll see a female prez in my time and that she's growing and learning and working right now as we blog. I can't wait to see who it will be, but I do know that it won't be this year and it won't be HC. She'll be better.
Thank you. Could not agree more. She is disruptive and divisve. Hear her speak on both sides of her mouth:
http://www
Excellent article. I am a 61 year old woman, early on I supported Hillary, but I was disturbed by her running as the presumptive nominee, but I attributed that to poor handling by her campaign people and contributed to her campaign. When she appeared in town I showed up to see her but the only people allowed in were 'hand picked' and presumably screened in advance, I left disgusted but tried to convince myself to continue supporting her in spite of my misgivings.
About a month later my son encouraged me to go see Barack Obama at a local rally. I stood outside for two hours thinking myself crazy for doing so, but when i got in and he started talking I looked around and saw all the college students in attendance, all of them so excited for this unlikely politician, looking thinner in person than on TV, and I thought to myself- this is not about me, or my 'desire' to see a woman elected, it's about these kids- the world is theirs now and I have to respect them enough to support their candidate; I'm glad I looked around that room that day, otherwise I might still be trying to convince myself to support Hillary Clinton
I want to say something about this supposedly sexism in the MSM. When Hillary beat 8 other men and knocked them all out of the primary, where was the sexism then?
What about the MSM positive press toward Obama you ask? Obama has won twice as many states, so one should assume he would get twice as much positive coverage. When the NY Giants won the Super Bowl, who got the positive press? What about when a team wins the World Series or a Boxer wins the a title fight. In each of these cases, the loser is forced into obsecurity because the winner deserves the praise. Hillary has the view that winning is only winning when she wins. Remember that she didn't congratuate Obama once when he had 11 straight wins?
I for one do not buy that there has been sexism in the MSM ... except when Hillary has interjected it to swing votes her way.
Take the bitter-gate fiasco. I agree that this story is problematic for Obama ... but in truth, when the story broke, the biased pro Obama media has taken its cues from Hillary on how they should define this story. That's not journalism, that's being manipulated. And the Clintons are masters of that art form.
Thanks, as a young person... we appreciate it.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!
Dead on!!!! As a woman, this is my EXACT perspective!!!! I have been waiting for someone to have the guts to say this!!
Thank you over and over!!!!
I wouldn't vote on identity unless the candidates were equal in every way because we do need more women in office but my main judgement lies with issues and political affiliations.
I was an Edwards supporter and when he dropped out I leaned Obama because he, like John, refused lobbyist donations. The wholesale whoring of our elected reps and the people's money going for quid pro quo to fatten corporate coffers has got to stop. Hillary defended her lobbyist money, that bothered me. Her being part of the DLC also bothered me.
But I knew I needed to learn more to make a decision so I went to their websites, read their plans/platforms which are quite similar. I admit to liking Obama's speaking style, a refreshing change from Dubya. But what influenced me to vote for Obama was Hillary more than anything.
The Hillary camp mailed flyers calling Obama anti-choice when his record with NARAL & NOW is 100%. Painting a pro-choice candidate as anti-choice pissed me off. Then she lost in Iowa and her camp went nuts, calling him a Muslim drug dealer, making subtle and not so subtle racial comments. Then there was the fear-mongering 3am ad so reminiscent of the Neocons and her lie about Obama on NAFTA in my state.
Hillary had a shot at my vote at one time and her awful campaign was what lost it for her.
Brilliant! Except:
An Obama/Clinton ticket would not do it for me. For one, Clinton is a LIAR - almost never telling the truth. For two, if God forbid anything ever happened to Obama, we would have in office Hillary, who is a LIAR - almost never telling the truth.
"Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidenti
"Jerome Zeifman, former Watergate committee counsel, has filed charges before the International Criminal Tribunal that threaten Bill Clinton with a war-crimes indictment. Zeifman [says] the proposed indictment specifically incorporates all the charges of war crimes already pending against Milosevic and his henchmen . . . namely, violations of the laws or customs of war [including] murder, ill-treatment . . . of civilian population, . . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder . . . and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war."
Yeah--This Zeitman guy sounds really credible. I'm not sure how old he is, but it sounds like dementia to me. Oops! I'd better watch what I write, or Zeifman might try to get ME indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal.
Thank you, again and again.
As a woman, it is difficult to watch another woman fail, until you realize that Clinton's failings are so much broader than she would like to admit (being a poor manager and a backwards-looking candidate). She constantly wears the victim-hood on her sleeve, because it makes it easy for her to hide her other failings. You are absolutely correct in saying that Clinton is not THE token person, we've got many talented and smart and hard-working women who have made it a long way. Clinton's failing DOES NOT mean we women are failing.
As much as her campaign has turned me against Hillary, if it came to pass that she was the candidate, I am certain that some time between August and November, I'd get over it and vote for her. I think the same is true of most Obama and Clinton fans.
You make an excellent point about treating the defeat like any other. Had Obama NOT run and had Hillary lost to Edwards, Gore or McCain, I think many feminists would have an easier time dealing with it. They could have celebrated her coming so close, or bemoaned the remnants of sexism that doomed her campaign from the start, but having her lose to another underdog forces the ugly comparisons between sexism and racism and reduces her candidacy to less than it could be.
Had Hillary run the same forward-thinking positive campaign that Barack has, I think it would have been something for all to celebrate, no matter who would have won. I also think she would have fared better. By running an ugly campaign she has focused our attention on all that is objectionable about her.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
