Letter to a Clinton Supporter

Sure, we've had our differences. We've seen the Clintons in very different ways, you and I - especially their campaign tactics. Where you've seen honest if tough campaigning, I've seen the cynical manipulation of divisive emotions and a desire to put self before others.

The race is over, so the question is: Now what? Are you going to cling to the belief that this outcome proves a woman can't be President? I think that perception sells this country, and its daughters, very short. After all, most of the polls take a few months ago showed Sen. Clinton winning the nomination overwhelmingly, and handily beating McCain in November.

What happened? I say voters were turned off by the slash-and-burn tactics used by both Bill and Hillary. While the primary results were close, polls now show that Democrats decisively prefer Obama as their candidate.

You see things differently: You think that media sexism (of which there was a great deal) did her in. And that there was some sneaky double-dealing from the Obama campaign - as if somehow it was in collusion with the same media that pummeled it with Rev. Wright stories. For you, it's as if Sen. Clinton has no independent agency, no autonomy, and no responsibility for the outcome of her campaign.

But the fact remains: She was the leading candidate. It can be done. Had she not voted for that Iraq war resolution, waited too long to recant that vote, and taken bad advice from the likes of Mark Penn, she would be the Democratic nominee today.

So don't tell me a woman can't be President. She was just the wrong candidate at the wrong time. And if you're disappointed that your second-grade daughter won't see a woman sworn in next January - well, so am I. I have a daughter too. I still remember how proud her mother and I were when that daughter was a toddler and Geraldine Ferraro became the Democratic nominee for Vice President. We dreamed of a world of possibility for that little girl - and she enters law school in September.

Now let me tell you about our Godkids. They're twins, a boy and a girl. They're biracial - white and African American, like Sen. Obama. They just graduated from the sixth grade last Sunday.

How do you think it would have affected their dreams of the future if they had heard Hillary Clinton say that only she can win, because unlike Sen. Obama only she can appeal to "hard working Americans, white Americans"? Or if they had heard Bill Clinton dismiss Obama's achievement by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's? Or Geraldine Ferraro saying that Obama's "only winning because he's black"?

I'd love to see a woman President, too - but not at the cost of having her, her campaign, and her supporters shut out the dreams of one group of young Americans in order to serve the dreams of another. No group that suffers from discrimination has ever conquered prejudice by turning its back on others in the same boat. Why try now? Instead, let's break one great barrier this year and lay the groundwork to break the next one when the right candidate appears.

And she will.

No, I don't think the Clintons are racists. I think they ran a rough campaign because they wanted to win, and I think they crossed a line in doing it. No, I don't think you're racist, either. I don't think race influenced your decision - that is, unless you one of the 20% of primary voters in Kentucky or West Virginia who said it did. (I took a lot of heat over that one, but I was just taking these voters at their word.)

Another thing: Doesn't the argument that this was "the last chance to have a woman President in my lifetime" - an argument I've heard many times this year - discount 51% of the American population? Out of all the brilliant and gifted women in this nation, was there only one with the ability to win the Presidency - the one with the well-connected husband?

I don't believe that. And, if you're middle-aged like me, I'm asking you to consider this: It's not about our "lifetimes" anyway. It's about the next generation and their lifetimes. At our age, it's time to ask ourselves: Which course of action is best for those that will follow us, those whose destiny has been placed in our care?

Sen. Clinton's speech last night was very effective - in parts. And it was clever of her to pose and pretend to answer the "What does Hillary want?" question. Her litany of policy goals was admirable. But she didn't address the real question: If she's not staying in out of purely personal ambition, how does her refusal to concede do anything but harm that list of goals?

I understand why you supported her. But why would you allow yourself to be played as a pawn for a Washington power couple's personal ambitions? The Vice Presidency is a matter to be worked out between Senators Obama and Clinton, without perpetuating ugly divisions - divisions that threaten the future of our country, the safety of our world's civilians, the lives of our troops, our reproductive rights, and the ability of many of us to survive economically in the years to come.

We who opposed Hillary Clinton paid her the ultimate respect as a woman, and as a human being: We judged her on her policies and her actions. The verdict is in. It would be wise and fair to accept it.

Don't misunderstand: I'm asking you to rejoin the rest of us - but I'm not begging. The decision, and its consequences, are yours and yours alone. But I hope you make the right choice. I hope you choose with the needs of others foremost in your mind.

Oh, and one last thing: Congratulations on a historic campaign. The next one will be even better.

Related:
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers on Barack Obama clinching the Democratic nomination for president

RJ Eskow blogs:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

Comments

[neskow]

Great writing as always! I guess the comments here show that people are still very angry about the outcome of the primaries...

[MDTERP]

To ZBEARLADY
I am white, 35 and female. I, too, blew off ideas about what I could and could not do and managed to accomplish my goals. Having said that I am aware that, on average, I make 76 cents to every dollar earned by my male counterparts. In a recent case the Supreme Court essentially ok"d discrimination in the work place against women, just keep it secret long enough so we cannot file suit in a "timely" manner. Sexism is institutionalized in this country and the most insidious aspect of it is people act like it is a thing of the past. Mr. Eskow's soothing there there post is a case in point

[MLTINLA]

great article. I think your words speak volumes. Thank you for saying what I feel many need to hear.

[zbearlady]

Part 1:

To all loyal feminist supporters of Hillary:

I am white, 50, and a feminist!

Growing up, I had a lot of people tell me I couldn't do certain things simply because I was a woman. But...I chose not to listen to those voices of oppression. Instead, I listened to my own voice -the voice of strength that lives within.

I did not cry victim, I did not whine about unfairness. I laughed in the face of fear and created what I wanted my life to be!

I don"t deny that sexism is a real and dangerous issue that we must contend with -even still in this day and age. And this is sad to me. Just as racism, ageism, class-ism, gay-prejudice, fat-prejudice, or any other prejudice and 'ism' is, that is rooted in hate.

But, does that mean that whoever strongly disagrees with, dislikes, and/or is completely outraged by Hillary, is necessarily a sexist? What about those who legitimately reject Hillary (the actual person and not the symbolic cause) simply because of her anti-feminist actions?

When we no longer look at others through the lens of prejudice, don't we then ultimately judge them by their actions?

[zbearlady]

Part 2:

I used to like Hillary. I liked her because of her strength, & her seemingly fearless & unwavering ability to speak her mind. I believed her to be a strong woman.

But over these long months, I question where that strength has gone -at least the strength that truly comes from within. Instead, I"ve seen a woman who is desperate -one who has schemed & manipulated to accumulate strength from 'without'. I've seen a person who cheats, slanders & controls. And I've witnessed the lowest form of desperation, as she radically shifts her positions, 'truths' & beliefs, simply to win the approval of others.

I ask, are these the actions of a strong, feminist woman?

In Hillary, I do not see a woman of integrity or ethics. I see someone who'll quickly abandon all morals simply to serve her own ego-agenda. I see someone who"ll do anything to discredit her opponent -conjuring up horribly deceptive accusations, smears & unthinkable insinuations...& then not having the dignity & grace to own up to her mistakes w/ humility and/or appropriate acts of contrition.

When it comes to voting for someone, I"ll always vote for the person who represents the core values & beliefs which are most important to me. Whether it be, "man, woman, black or white," what matters most is the person...& the true quality & ethical foundation of their character.

When comparing the actions of Barack and Hillary, Obama soars high above Hillary as the true feminist!

[iluvsam]

"In Hillary, I do not see a woman of integrity or ethics. I see someone who'll quickly abandon all morals simply to serve her own ego-agenda. I see someone who"ll do anything to discredit her opponent -conjuring up horribly deceptive accusations, smears & unthinkable insinuations."


So, you just called the U.S. Senator from N.Y who was ELECTED by her constitutency TWICE dishonest, immoral, egotistical, a liar, and a smear monger. I'm sure the people of N.Y thank you for your insight. This is a woman who the people of N.Y. chose to represent them in the Senate. What disrespect you have for them and their choice in representation.

What if I said that I felt all those things about Obama? Would you be offended? Do you think the people of Illinois would/should be offended?

Hillary is a United States Senator and represents millions of your fellow Americans. Calling her those names is just an insult to New Yorkers and the 18 million people around the country who voted for her in the primary.

Disgusting.

[Rmtns]

Bravo!! Well written and to the point, I loved it!

[momosity]

I don't know what everyone's getting so worked up about: it doesn't matter who the nominee is, the Repugnicans will steal this election like they did in 2000 and 2004. What's the point?

[GOP4MoreTears]

Dear Brother RJ,

Bravo! Bravo! That was a wonderful post. I would like to remind others in our electorate a leader which leads by example, as Senator Obama does comes along one in a generation don't miss this opportunity my fellow Americans. Agape.

[iluvsam]

Too bad his supporters don't have the same class that he has.

[StillAmused]

"You think that media sexism... did her in."

No, but there was a truckload of press invention and fabricated outrage, as in...

"if they had heard Bill Clinton dismiss Obama's achievement by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's?"

I posted this in April:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/the-swill-from-bill_b_96284.html

"... [the press] cropped Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comment in South Carolina, discarding the preceding ten minutes or so of Clinton being pressed by reporters about the historical role of RACE in S.C. politics.

"This was confirmed by Rep. Kendrick Meek [D, FL], an African-American who witnessed the whole exchange and SAID SO on CNN."

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/28/intv.clinton.out.of.context.cnn

You popped in:

"... Meek, a Hillary Clinton supporter, CLAIMS [the] statement was "in the context" of 10 minutes' discussion about race and the campaign. But he's not telling the truth, as this video clip shows:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14375.html"

I responded:

"[You"re] citing a clip that only shows the immediately-preceding question, NOT what PRECEDED THAT QUESTION, then claiming it never happened... 'cause you don't see it in the CLIP!... and calling Meek a liar, all based on what you DIDN'T see!"

(crickets)

"I'm asking you to rejoin the rest of us - but I'm not begging"?

The REST of you? ALL 51% OR SO???

Oooh... can WE play TOO, coach?

What breathtaking effrontery!

[RJ Eskow - Huffpost Blogger]

See RJ Eskow's Profile

I've watched the video, and Bill Clinton's remark came out of nowhere. Meek is a Hillary supporter who tried to spin it in his favor, but the actual video makes it clear how gratuitous and ugly Bill's remark really was.

Hillary got less than 50% of the vote by anybody's count, unless people are playing games.

"Hardworking Americans, white Americans." Funny how every HRC defender chooses to ignore that remark. On second thought, not so funny.

[iluvsam]

Please just stop. Enough with the negativity. The people of N.Y. voted for HRC twice, and she is their chosen representative. They deserve some respect for their choice and so do the 18 million others who voted for her in the primary.

The hatred toward these two people is old, tired and really unbecoming of someone who allegedly supports a candidate for "change". Do Obama's supporters have the class that he has? Why you have so much venom toward these two people should really be a case study.

[StillAmused]

When a moth is circling the flickering candle of its choice, it's useless to point out that there are other, brighter lights in the world.

You persist in citing the only(?) 30-second video to 'prove' Clinton's Jackson reference "came out of nowhere", asserting what you DIDN'T hear in THAT video NEVER HAPPENED!

Because he's a "Hillary supporter", you assert that Rep. Meek is a LIAR (he was THERE, you WEREN'T!). By that logic, there are 18 million "liars" running loose whose votes are ESSENTIAL to an Obama victory. Fortunately, most care more about their country than do those obsessed, to the point of self-caricature, with trashing Clintons.

"Hardworking Americans, white Americans."?

In a rambling telephone interview, Hillary commented on DEMOGRAPHICS CITED IN AN AP ARTICLE. Your telephone conversations may sound like carefully composed valedictories. The rest of us pause, back up, add references on the fly and -- sometimes -- sound clumsy.

It requires a desperate antipathy to presume that Clinton thought to herself, "Eureka! I know what I'll do today... I'll INTENTIONALLY insult a huge demographic that's always supported me. Yeah... THAT's the ticket!"

When Obama cruises to victory, you and kindred spirits will eagerly clamber onto the parade float. No one can stop you... but his victory will, IN FACT, be attributable to a broad cross-section of Americans who, whatever their original loyalties, joined to support him -- certainly, not to the avowed, monotone grave-dancers who've come along for the ride.

[axt113]

Anyone who think McCain is a moderate or that he won't make the situation worse is deluding themselves, McCain is not a moderate, he has consistently voted with his party on social issues. His economic policies will only grow the deficit with increased tax cuts. He is a warmonger and will launch an assault on Iran soon after taking office.

[NoSpinTruthZone]

Hillary needs to go independent and form a third party. She'll draw well over the required 5% of the popular vote and the new party will receive matching funds from the government for the next election.

No it won't help her this year, but in 2012 she'll be kicking it big time.

Plus we need a strong third party. The two party system has failed the will of the people.

[egal]

Thank you. It's tiresome being told that it's sexist to choose NOT to vote for Hillary just because I disagree with her policies and political actions. As if somehow, gender equality can only be gained by putting on blinders and running with any female candidate without considering anything beyond her sex.

Being scorned by a bunch of old white women (not all, just those few distinctly unpleasant ones irl) who insist that the only way not to be sexist is to just hand the election ot Hillary due to her sex without considering her policies gets old. I like irony, but hypocrisy and self-destruction isn't something I would wish on any battle for equality.

[Janemas]

Excellent written work!

[jfor]

Lets see the feminists put their money where their mouths are and vote for McCain. Go ahead ladies, make Rush Limbaughs day. One more conservative on the supreme court and its goodbye choice and hello burka.

[Diana]

As always, right on target. Thanks.

[nk007]

I think all feminists who attribute Sen. Clinton's inability to win the nomination to sexism are not being truthful. If the Democratic party-especially the democratic leaders in Congress-were Sexists how come A woman, Nancy Pelosi, was elected speaker of the House of Representative? Right now a white woman occupies perhaps the second most powerful position in our government. Second how come there are four Democratic women governors of states, two of whom by the way endorsed Sen. Obama. This claim that Obama won because of sexism is patently bogus.

[iluvsam]

I don't think people are blaming her inabililty to win on sexism per se. The issue with regard to sexism is that sexist things were said about Hillary in the media, by pundits on T.V., by people in her audiences, etc. but the rampant sexism was to be accepted and was never challenged by the media or others. However, when Bill made seemingly innocent comments in South Carolina, they were INSTANTLY transformed into racist statements by the media and pundits and race was suddenly put into play. When Bill and Hillary tried to defend the comments and make the case that the statements were simply historical facts and had no racist connotation, they were then considered liars, opportunists and disgusting racists who didn't deserve to live. THEY were blamed for making race an issue when all they did was defend themselves from being accused of making racist comments. Therefore, the problem was that saying anything that could even remotely be twisted into a racist comment was considered outrageous and deserving of political death, but rampant sexism was acceptable and never challenged. THAT was the problem.