Eighteen Million Cracks in the Presidential Glass Ceiling
A few days ago, standing front row, right, in a strangely barren room at a Boston hotel, I watched Hillary Clinton walk onto a stage with a rather lonely American flag, and again capture the admiration and imagination of every person in the audience. But this group was 80 of her closest New England supporters. Before and after our ovation for her, our voices were hushed. We all felt like we had walked into a wake.
I thought back a few weeks, watching my friend end her campaign. I was among millions of women who literally cried. No, not millions. Tens of millions. I've been working abroad a lot. Colombia to China, Lebanon to Liberia, Moldova to Mongolia, women have pulled me aside and insisted, "She must win -- for us."
Among the 18 million Americans who supported her presidential bid, none will be more important to a November win than women. So what's with us?
I've known Hillary since her husband's 1992 campaign. She obviously had the right stuff to be president, but few of us imagined she would take the plunge into politics. That year, our "Serious Issues, Serious Women, Serious Money" symposium in Denver became a template for women's engagement that has been replicated over the years, most recently by Hillary herself. She has brought women into the political process with an intensity not seen since the early 20th century, when women campaigned passionately for suffrage. For many, the Hillary Clinton candidacy called forth a similar passion.
The hurt many of us supporters now feel is understandable. What happened to our candidate is what countless women have experienced. We in the "sandwich generation" finally position ourselves for The Big Job after years of taking care of others (including the families of our men) only to have it given to someone else (the next generation's man).
That pain is real, and it's deep. But what is Hillary asking us to do in the face of this political, and personal, loss?
Focus on our broadest goal. Mine wasn't to get Hillary elected. In fact, hers wasn't to get herself elected. It was to create a more just nation. A more secure world. We both believed she was the best to deliver on that goal. She didn't win first prize, but meanwhile, she's moved women light years ahead. At the end of the primary season, polling indicated widespread acceptance of a woman as commander-in-chief. As Hillary noted in her magnificent concession address, how remarkable that previous barriers to women's presidential leadership became "unremarkable."
She may not be commander in chief, but she's asking her troops, in no uncertain terms, to get behind the Obama candidacy. It's time for serious conversations with ourselves, and with others, about What Really Matters Now. There were precious few differences between the two Democratic contenders; they lined up on women's rights and a host of other issues. We women who supported Hillary know that Barack Obama is brilliant, talented, and visionary, and that he carries our brief.
That's at a rational level. But at a gut level, we were long past ready for a new era of women's leadership. So we need a personal rigor to return to the issues, to recognize the clear choice that faces us in November. To stay home, or to vote for John McCain, is a betrayal of all we, and Hillary, have stood for these long months.
If we can't heal from this loss, how long will we be suffering from the damage of more Republican policies? So to my Hillary sisters, I say: campaigns are highly imperfect animals. Maybe they haven't found you, but the Obama supporters are doing a lot to reach across the divide. As of this writing, they've contributed well over half a million dollars to retire Hillary's debt, and I've been in one meeting after another in which we've been not only invited but warmly welcomed. Sure, sexism played a role in her loss, but that was not an Obama strategy. In fact, Hillary pointed out to our group (as Geraldine Ferraro said about her own vice presidential run) that there were also advantages to being a woman. The underlying question is, can we women, known for loyalty and steadfastness, switch our support without feeling as if we've betrayed our hero - and ourselves?
For many of us most closely drawn to Hillary, these conversations are exquisitely difficult. Her success would have been vindication of gender-based power struggles throughout our lives -- with fathers, bosses, brothers, colleagues. So with her loss we're wounded all over again.
Recrimination is a strong temptation, but it will be deadly, literally, to give into it. Instead, let's follow Hillary's lead. Forget the admonitions that we "move past," or "move on," or (oh, please) "just get over it." We're women, and we know how to deal with loss: Take it in and carry it forward inside of us. Then -- paradoxically -- we'll have the power to unify our party and win an election critical to our children's, our grandchildren's, and, yes, our own future.
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
Silly 1st wavers. Generations X and Y didn't focus on gender and race. They saw two candidates and picked the one that had a message and a plan rather than a collection of bizarre and poorly presented images. Oh and the imitation-Rove tactics were just awful.
We were also deeply embarrassed by your indulgence in identity politics. With all the blog entries about how Hillary is "just like me!" from 40+ year old women, it's a miracle these new adults have their heads screwed on as right as they do since I'm assuming somebody must have raised them.
I'd congratulate you but you appear to have missed the real victory here. You burned the bras and broke the molds but your kids figured out what the whole point was. They inherited a bigger world due to your efforts and they have grown beyond you. Good job. That's what every parent should want for their kid. Now stop demanding penance for it and pay attention to what your daughters are actually saying.
This is the most thoughtful and cogent writing on this particular topic I’ve seen. I can understand the disappointment and anger many of the women who supported Hilary must feel, but as you say staying home or voting Republican would do nothing but give McCain the chance to appoint one or two Supreme Court justices. Roe v. Wade would be reversed within five years. I also think that some of the people who were dismayed by how things turned out are too quick to label Hilary a victim and are unable to accept the idea that her campaign made some major missteps. (Some of which are admittedly easier to see in retrospect.)
I supported Obama, although I had a major reservation during the primary (which I still have.) I think his “change” theme might be setting up an unrealistic set of expectations—especially given that many of his supporters are fairly new to political activism and don’t necessarily understand exactly what a president can and cannot do.
But back to Hilary: If Obama loses in November, I can see that a lot of her supporters will want her to throw her hat in the ring again in 2012. I’d much rather see her dedicate herself to becoming the 21st –century Teddy Kennedy. In my opinion, Ted Kennedy has done much, much more to steer this country in a liberal, humane direction through his influence as senate leader than he could ever has done as president.
Hillary or McCain. Period. If the DNC thought this election was so important they should have picked a candidate we can vote for in good faith. Obama is seriously lacking. No, he will not win many of her voters, in August the possible backlash after the convention may be just be what makes this election go down in History.
Your arguments are so convincing! Interested in this bridge I have for sale?
Excellent article.
Eighteen million cracks, but yet she could not break on through to the other side.
And never will. Particularly with her performance since she suspended her campaign.
Clinton lost the nomination despite a headstart of epic proportions. Did press sexism play a significant role? Yes. Would it have played a significant role in the general election? Yes. If Clinton could not overcome this (unfair but de facto) disadvantage among Democrats then how would she have surmounted it in the general?
The press betrayed a great deal of sexism during the primaries. Then again, it never diminished the status it gave Clinton as a viable candidate after her meandering message lost her contest after contest after contest, all in a row. Let's all admit that (for their own reasons; presumably to keep selling eyeballs with a close contest) the press artificially kept Clinton in the game under conditions which would have sunk her fundraising and therefor her chances, absent this gift from the press.
With all that water over the dam, can Clinton demonstrate enough leadership to keep her personal supporters from abandoning their mutually shared political views for the sake of vengeance? I have a hunch that she can, and will, except for a few way out on the end of the curve. I presume many of those posting as McCainDemocratWomen are Republicans stirring the pot.
If Clinton *can't *demonstrate the degree of leadership required to inspire her supporters not to sign the country over to the Republicans for four more years, how does this improve her standing as a public figure in any way? How does that advance the political cause of women?
Please explain.
The same question could be directly applied in Obama's case, as well. It's a damn good one. Where Clinton's ardent and assertive drive appeared motivated by only her lust for power and history, one must also ask that of Obama in the context of his seeming lack of substance. and while McCain keeps tripping over himself, and gifting the O campaign with his clumsy attempt at Bush separation, Obama's glaring weakness is his constant unwillingness to define himself before the Republican hate machine can do so.
***If Clinton could not overcome this (unfair but de facto) disadvantage among Democrats then how would she have surmounted it in the general?***
You just hit the nail on the head. Well done.
There were no "tens of millions" of women crying. You need to get out of Fantasyland. There is no army of 18 million. Clinton had a household name, the Democratic machinery and her husband's legacy and people voted for the familiar. What do you think won her CA and PA? In the end they had to choose between Clinton and Obama and some voted for Clinton and others for Obama. There were Democrats choosing between two candidates. Hillary Clinton who didn't want to be the woman candidate at the start of the campaign (remember, she was most experienced, ready on day one candidate?), suddenly became a champion for women when it became clear that she was in danger of losing. She played the GENDER card from the bottom of the deck.
I am rather sick and tired of the re-scripting of history so as to have it fit into this dishonest narrative.
18 million loyal, adoring, pining cracks, and yet, she's still passing around the hat because she's millions in debt (from her own choosing), go figure.
IF eighteen millio REMAIN as claimed, "loyal", a measly/meager $3 a piece wipes out her debt and even leaves some for her next campaign to help gather /maintain interest" !!! (btw, IF factual numbers / math was used, the votes tallied between 17.2-17.4 million and USUALLY, when rounded would be rounded/estimated at 17 million NOT UPPED to 18 as keeps being hyped (over hyped and few if any noting the over hype and willing to hedge just in case "something or other happens and perhaps the C's stage another comeback perhaps and want to not be on the wrong "list"....!!!)
The suling and supposed "loyalista's, well frankly --IF WHY you supported her was due to her positions, then SHOULD BE no problem to throw support to Obama wholeheartedly as their positions were but minimally varied variences...Seems that some are hung up on "sexist" issues due to wanting to fulfil a "destiny", again, as the sale was NOT made, step up and assist fulfilling another "destiny" , support Obama and do it sincerely and enthusiastically and at the very least do so to prevent a continuation of the bushlerized notions and faulty pathways that McC will continue to take the nation down and further out on the limbs to points we REALLY should not allow !!!
Lets talk about her debt and her supporters when you exclaim disbelief at American ignorance in November when the 'chosen one' looses.
Don't cry to us, we can deal with McCain easier than Obama and more conservative judges. Also get it straight McCain actually pays his ladies more, we just happen to LOVE that. Actions please.
WOW
This is the most excitement I've seen on Huffington Post in a while!
Seems to me , when the conversation centers around Sen. Obama and HIS decisions, the blogs are very weak. But the mention of Hillary Clinton... and the venom, excitement and belittling begin.
Responses to Obamas position on FISA, wiretapping, abortion rights, gun rights, all very apologetic and mild... real ISSUES! But Clinton comes up... by a woman asking people to support Obama, no less, and just listen to the trash-talk. You wonder why Clinton supporters feel alienated?
A few quick FACTS on sexism (vs. racism) in politics in America... Please KNOW YOUR FACTS, opinions are so unnecessary when we have the INFORMATION!
1. First African-American Congressman- Joseph Rainey 1870... more than 40 YEARS ( a generation!) before women could VOTE!
2. First African-American Senator- Hiram Revels - 1870's (women could't vote)
3. First Post Reconstruction AA Sen- Edward Brooke 1966, 26 years before the first African American WOMAN Senator.
4. First African American Supreme Court Justice- Thurgood Marshall 1967, First Woman Justice Sandra Day O'Connor... 1981, long after Marshall.
5. First AA Sect. of State Colin Powell 2001 , Followed by the first Woman Sect. of State Condoleeza Rice
6. A sad Fact for all us Democrats--- The First woman Supreme Court Justice, and Both African American Sect.'s of state were appointed by Republicans.
According to these FACTS, whats tougher in politics (and elsewhere) being a woman or being an African American?
By your logic, we owe our vote to John Merrick, the Elephant Man, who would have a MUCH harder time of it than EITHER a white woman or a black person.
In the words of William Munny, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
I never said anyone DESERVED a vote. I'm just tired of reading comments that are not supported by history or facts. Life has been very difficult for disabled people also... they had to fight for the right to just to enter a building. If Merrick were the best choice, I would vote for him. Just do not DISMISS the sexism in our society, as history and FACTS prove it. Read the POSTS, read how UNWILLING people are to even admitting it!
Sexism is a problem that deserves to be part of the discussion also, and not so readily dismissed as it was by your silly conclusion above.
By the way, it is interesting to me that you put white woman in your response... as I clearly showed in mine that advancement in politics was more difficult for ALL WOMEN, as I showed FACTUALLY that African American women have also had a very difficult time. The conversation was about women, which you DISMISSED, and brought it back to race.
Your fact 5 is incorrect and doesn't support your argument. Madeleine Albright was the first woman U.S. Secretary of State, appointed in 1997 by Democrat Bill Clinton. Colin Powell, the first African American Secretary of State followed her.
I'm not one of the 80 women that the Obama campaign has reached out to; I'm just one of the 18 million (and, no, I wasn't recruited by Republicans) who voted for her, because I felt that she was the strongest candidate and, yes, felt it was time to see our country led by a capable, experienced woman. That being said, if there's been been any reaching out by the Obama campaign and the DNC, I seem to jave missed it, other than Sen. Obama's high praise of Sen. Clinton following her concession speech. Reaching out, to me, would be denouncing the media sexism that went down during the primaries, including in the Democratic platform an intention to treat gender crimes as bias crimes, and insure equal rights for women...something that will concretely show that Sen. Obama take sexism seriously, and intend to address it with action. I am not voting for President this year unless a candidate makes that promise. That's not recrimination...it's using the power of my vote (or nonvote) to address an issue that I feel is critical.
Please vote for someone. Write in voting is allowed in all 50 states. Unless I see some concrete change=deeds done by the Obama group, I plan on voting for Hillary Clinton for President.
Thanks, Rockerbabe. Good thought...that's just what I'll do.
***if there's been been any reaching out by the Obama campaign and the DNC, I seem to jave missed it, other than Sen. Obama's high praise of Sen. Clinton following her concession speech.***
Well, I tried to reach out to some H supporters, and all I got was a long list of reasons why she lost plus a terrific amount of bitterness about that plus a lot of antagonism toward O. Maybe if you guys would just let go and look to the future, that would help a little.
The future is sad. four more years of Republican leadership because of Democrat incompetence.
This 18 million voters number is a nice newsbite worthy one. And like most MSM newsbites, totally inaccurate.
We just did a post over at the CA NOW blog addressing some of these issues, and McCain's record, and why a vote for him is not a viable way of expressing disapproval at Hillary's loss: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/08/misogyny-yee-ha.html
If someone feels they need to register a "dissent" vote, there's still the Green Party, with a female President and VP candidate.
I will not vote for Obama for many of the same reasons I did not vote for him in the primary--lack of experience, his playing of the race card carried out by his surrogates, and because of the way he treated President Clinton. Just to mention a few. Even when you take Hillary out of the equation, I don't think he should be president. Of course the biggest reason I won't vote for him is because of the sexist attitudes I have seen from men and even from women and especially the media. I guess you could say I have a broader issue myself. I want McCain to win and I want everone to understand that he won because of women. Specifically, because of the way women were treated during this election cycle.
Also, I don't think those 18 million cracks in the ceiling are going to really help women. If they are there at all. I think the sexist attitude will prevail the next time any woman decides she wants the top spot. In a way, Geraldine Ferraro had it wrong. Obama didn't do well in the primary because he's a black man. He did well because he ran against a women.
Senator Obama ran against a field of men -- and a woman. Just one correction to the SELF-SPIN some women are doing as a disservice to themselves and all woman, because it is based upon untruths and manipulation of the facts.
So, essentially, you're voting for a man who opposes you on women's issues because you want to get back at Chris Matthews for bringing up HRC's "cleavage"?
Yeah, I guess we could say you have "issues." If we wanted to be polite.
So you're going to vote for a man who has a poor record on the women's rights that are so dear to you and will continue the horrible tenure of the past 8 years just to prove how powerful women are. Oh yes very intelligent. F'up the rest of the country because your candidate didn't win, that'll show them
wow. I can tell you are frustrated (in ohio). I'm not being sarcastic or cynical. I'm just really sad that you feel that way. but you are entitled to your own opinions and your own vote.
"To stay home, or to vote for John McCain, is a betrayal of all we, and Hillary, have stood for these long months."
Guess you didn't read that part...
Vote policy instead of personality and you will get a better government.
I, for one, am more than tired of rehashing this entirely worn out subject.
Is John Edwards whining about his loss? No. Joe Biden? No. Chuck Dodd? No. Gov. Richardson? No. They all returned to the lives they had before the primaries and carried on. You can't tell me they didn't feel qualified to lead. You can't tell me they didn't leave disappointed supporters behind. But move on they did, and their supporters moved on as well, because that's how contests work - - - there is a winner and everyone else is a loser. That's life. Deal.
People, the horse is dead. Stop beating it and get on with life.
Amen.
Yes, she was supposed to be a historic game changer. But truly, was she the best candidate to be female candidate for president? I'm not trying to open up a new argument here, but I would love to see a woman run for president who got to the nomination on her own merits, and not (partially) based on the good feelings about her husband's two terms. I did not vote against her based on this, but I'm sure some folks did.
And I whole-heartedly agree with WFV's argument. She ran as the front-runner from day one, had the rules, delegates, and deck stacked in her favor, and STILL lost. For as much as Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Gravel, et al have not complained, she actually has LESS of a reason to do so.
Nothing wrong with us we are voting McCain
There's plenty wrong with you. But anger makes you do stupid things that you'll regret later if he wins.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
