Okay, I’ll admit it: I was a Clintonista. I was looking backward instead of forward under the duress of the Bush Bedlam. I know Hillary Rodham-Clinton would make a fantastic chief executive. I don’t think much of her husband and subscribe to the conspiracy theory that her husband was the charisma that sold people on voting for him, what they were buying was Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Vice-President Gore and Senator Rodham-Clinton are not natural politicians but they are master legislators and I believe they were the brains behind any success of the Clinton years. They were the ‘wind beneath his wings,’ and unfortunately their political and personal reputations are tied to his and in his conceit and caprice he’s ruined them both. It’s Shakespearian in scope and tragedy; if the fate of the Republic hadn’t been tied to it I would have found it beautiful – in a literary sense. Gore and Rodham-Clinton made the man who, ultimately, destroyed them.
However, I became reacquainted with a young woman I knew in high school. She introduced me to Barack Obama and the more I learned, the more I believed – understood – that this was the man who could take up the Democrat’s banner and lead them to victory in November. His ideas resonated with my values – even as a right-leaning moderate – and on areas where I would disagree with Senator Obama I have been struck by his refusal to pander to conventional or popular opinion. Before my Republican friends get to uppity about this conversion she is also responsible for my affinity for Newt Gingrich and Christie Todd-Whitman.
On Monday I would have said that, “Senator Rodham-Clinton did not win the nomination.” On Wednesday I said, “Senator Rodham-Clinton lost the nomination and the weighty reverence and gravitas afforded her as a former First Lady.” No one can deny her influence, her intelligence, but at this juncture I would question her political acumen. In contrast when Governor Mitt Romney found himself in a position where his party’s nomination was out of reach he stepped aside, endorsed his rival, and moved to unify his party. He could have made waves about the bigotry he experienced as a Latter Day Saint, but he decided to live to fight another day. He has a future in his party – if McCain doesn’t select Romney as his Vice-President, Romney will certainly find himself offered a seat in the cabinet (if McCain reaches the White House).
Senator Rodham-Clinton made a critical error when she did not acknowledge that Senator Obama had won the nomination fight, congratulate him, and step aside. Her error will cost her part of the eighteen million Democrats who did not vote for her and it could cost the Democrats in November. She didn’t have to endorse him right away and she didn’t even have to be happy about it. What she did not need to do was act as if the fight would go on. It was her job in that moment to show leadership and move her party forward to November. A party that is mired in the bog of in-fighting always loses: she has positioned the Democrats – as Nedenia would say, “to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.”
When her supporters started chanting, “Denver.” She should have stopped them. When her supporters, when she herself, talked of the popular vote she should have stopped this. The metric by which nominations are decided is delegates – super and pledged. Senator Rodham-Clinton had no problems with the rules when the worked for her but as she saw the nomination slipping away she started shifting how things should be done, in her opinion, and every time Obama surpassed her in those metrics the song changed. As someone who leans right on many, many things this reminded me of 2000 in Florida. A tragedy in the eyes of those who lean left and an example, for those of us who lean right, of a time when the Democrats found the rules inconvenient and tried to change them to fit their purposes. The Republicans know this and McCain’s words spoke to it on Tuesday night well before Rodham-Clinton gave her speech noting that, “party elders” had chosen Obama as if the rules had been changed in the middle of the game. I would be surprised if Rodham-Clinton had much a future in her party after this election – especially if Obama loses. If that happens I would lay the blame squarely at her feet. Hopefully the voters are paying attention and realize what is happening and when feelings are assuaged the Democrats can move forward together, united.
Nedenia pointed out that I would probably have been unhappy – incredibly immature – had Rodham-Clinton clinched the nomination. I parried with two things, first Nedenia herself had said that if Obama wasn’t the nominee would, “vote for Clinton and like it.” President Bush has appointed two new justices, one being the Chief Justice, to the Supreme Court. How many would you like John McCain to appoint? How much do women enjoy having control over their reproductive health and would they mind that much if their freedoms were whittled away in that area by a McCain appointed justice? Justice Scalia has over a half-dozen kids, I’m sure one of them has a law degree and could sit on the bench with him. If not there are Scalia clones on benches across the Republic waiting to move up to the big leagues.
The second thing I pointed out was that Obama has been gracious throughout this process. Yes, the press was harder on Rodham-Clinton but she conducted and presented herself as the incumbent candidate – our “once and future Queen, and was treated like an incumbent. When Senator Rodham-Clinton won, Obama congratulated her. When Senator Obama won we would hear – if we heard anything – how the state in question didn’t matter, how caucuses aren’t fair (although agreed upon before the election began), and how that state leans Republican in general elections. Had Clinton secured the nomination on Tuesday I am confident that Senator Obama would have made a gracious speech – not unlike Romney’s – throwing his support behind her.
Rodham-Clinton said, “I am not making any decisions tonight.” That is her prerogative, unfortunately for her, the voters and party elders had made their decision using the rules and frameworks that initially worked for her and everyone agreed upon before the election started. I am shocked that Rodham-Clinton lost – but mainly because I saw her as smart, organized, and disciplined while her campaign was none of those things. Is this really who the feminists want as their standard bearer? Is this the example of a woman’s leadership that I am supposed to put above that of leadership provided by men? A person who is too petty to acknowledge that the nomination is not hers? A person who is too petty to acknowledge that her opponent had won one state or another?
Beyond my hope, my argument, that the first woman to win her party’s nomination and the White House not be another politician’s wife or daughter but be a politician in her own right like Jeanette Rankin or Ella Grasso, I hoped that the first woman to be nominated by a major party would either play by the same rules as the men and win or out class them. A coworker scolded me vigorously on Monday for saying that Karl Rove’s politics were a designer-imposter version of President and Senator Clinton’s methods was agreeing with me by Wednesday. Feminists have been telling me for my whole life that I am physically stronger than a woman but in every other measure women are superior to me – especially in their ability to inspire and lead people. I always found this argument anti-egalitarian and Senator Rodham-Clinton proved this with her non-concession on Tuesday.
Yes, we have a long way to travel in this country in regard to how women are treated in politics. Women have led countries where their rights are few and barriers are plentiful. How we discuss women in politics needs to be discussed frankly and without repercussion so that learning and appropriate behaviors will ensue. Senator Rodham-Clinton did see sexism on the campaign trail but it did not prevent her from winning the nomination. The most remarkable thing about this election was that Senator Rodham-Clinton out-did the men at their own game at many turns and though she lost she played the game as well or better than most. Questioning their clothing and womanhood, their motherhood, or even just stories about those things and others that we wouldn’t run on men will phase out as quickly as we stop consuming them – the media is, after all, a business.
I have to disagree with the idea, though, that people have a problem with women leaders in this country. From Jodi Rell in Connecticut to Janet Napolitano in Arizona, people in this nation are led by women of both parties not beholden to or encumbered by a spouse and represented in legislatures by many more – most notably Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. While Speaker Pelosi is the daughter of a mayor and congressman from Baltimore, Maryland that gave her no boost in her quest for her seat representing San Francisco, California. The American people are ready for and comfortable with women leading them. Ella Grasso taught us that you did not need a man to move into the governor’s mansion and Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful woman in the Republic and has done it being a fashion icon.
Sexism played a part in Senator Rodham-Clinton’s fall as well as her rise but to do Senator Rodham-Clinton justice, to do women justice we have to look at what she accomplished and what she did not accomplish through the same lens we examine the accomplishments and failures of the men who ran as well. When Biden and Dodd dropped out it we didn’t hear their failure was based on age or a bias against men with white (or no) hair. When Romney dropped out we heard only a whimper about Mormonism. When Richardson dropped out we didn’t pin his failure on his Hispanic background. When Edwards dropped out we didn’t blame it on his made-for-TV hair. When Kucinich dropped out we didn’t attribute his lack of success on seeing UFOS or being a magical dwarf (and there-by ineligible for the presidency). To pin everything on her gender does a disservice to Senator Rodham-Clinton and undermines what she accomplished. It also does a disservice to women and undermines them as well.
Also featured at Urban Oasis.
Filed under: Politics
Nice job, I especially liked the Shakespeare analogy. The Clintons would indeed be a great subject matter if Shakespeare were still around. A great tragedy if, say, Hillary had killed Bill at some point. Or perhaps if she divorces him now. If this candidacy were the thing holding them together, that’s done.
I have two comments – I think Hillary would have done much better had she had her own, longer political career that didn’t begin with riding Bill’s coattails into the senate. I always found her claiming that HIS experience was HER experience a big mistake. To some extent it is no doubt true, but it sounds dishonest and I don’t think that was well received by most people.
Secondly – regarding abortion. First of all, I don’t see Roe v Wade being overturned at this point, but it would just revert to a state’s rights issue if it is overturned. Abortion was not completely illegal before Roe v Wade as many folks have forgotten. Some states had legal abortion on demand (like California, New York and more than 20 others) and others had it available on a doctor’s (or sometimes group of doctors) OK. The point was to allow an easy, safe and legal abortion for any woman desperate to have one. But that pendulum has swung.
I think my point and your point about abortion are the same, it would be a bad thing in my estimation for there to be different regulations in each state. I would compare it to how each state has its own gun laws and teacher certification rules. Some times should be decided by states, others by the federal government. My larger point is that I don’t think that people should take chances with who is guarding their freedoms.
I also think Senator Clinton’s bigger mistake was cherry picking which of HIS experiences were hers as all. She was first lady, she was there for a lot of the decision making – and lets face it she is a smart person who any president would lean on for advice – she should have framed it that way or framed it better than she did. I think her problem really was that she didn’t expect to be opposed very seriously for very long.
I have to say that I liked your post, Spirtopias. Being an anti-Hillarite (in my own right), I started to feel emotionally bent in the beginning of the post, but by the end, I understood where you were writing from.
I believe that Hillary’s big mistake was allowing Bill to stump for her. I know, it’s an immature response to some big political thing that they have, but I do not believe that she would have won with him there… Also, I agree that her campaign was not run as efficiently as it could have been. Moreover, I just said (in nearly the same manner as you had in your post) that it was nice to see Obama congratulate her when she did well, not succumbing to trash-talking or playing the blame-game, however, when things were not going well for the Senator, she quickly resorted to blaming the media, accusing people of treating her poorly because she’s a woman, and the like. My feeling is this (and as a female history teacher, I *know* what it’s like to be a woman in a man’s field)… if you can’t play ball with the big boys, stay home. Again, nice post…
So many things Hillary did wrong – a lot of it in the basic management of her campaign. Clearly they had no plan in place for her NOT to win by Feb 5. They could have still pulled it off of course – look how close it really was no matter how you choose to count the votes – but without a plan beyond Feb, there was no ground work in place to win enough delegates. It’s funny because I know a few true political addicts who once they heard that Mark Penn was running her campaign, said that she was doomed. I think a lot of what went wrong can be traced to that. All of which just showed *me* that her judgment as Obama pointed out, should be questioned. She is very mired in the old ways of Democratic party politics which Howard Dean had been attempting to reverse since he burst onto the scene. Obama ran his campaign much more in the Dean mold and embraced Dean’s 50 state strategy which meant he had people on the ground in every single state from day 1.
Throw in Bill stealing the spotlight at times and that about did it in for her.
I know other’s would point to the media, but my own view is that the media was equally awful to both of them. Clinton at first since she was the front runner, then Obama once he took an insurmountable lead. So that is a wash to me since both of them had to overcome the scrutiny (worthwhile or not).
I LOVE you final paragraph! What a great way to put the sexism complaints in perspective.
I was listening to CNN this morning, and there was a woman on who was giving her opinion on why Clinton lost the nomination. One thing she said really got to me. She said that the media was asking Clinton to resign her candidacy as soon as it looked like Obama was going to be the front-runner, and that the media wouldn’t dream of asking anyone else to resign. I think she missed the point, the point that you showed us so eloquently. The media didn’t HAVE to ask Romney to bow out, or Edwards, or Richardson. They saw the way the votes were going, and they were gracious enough to let the stronger candidate move on.
I question your statement that the American people are ready and comfortable to have a woman lead them. A good friend of mine, a fellow Navy wife, and I were discussing politics one day, and she insisted that the American president should never be a woman, that we need someone strong, with a firm backbone and a good set of cajones, and that women are far too emotional to be the leader of the free world. And she’s not the only woman I know who thinks this way.
I do agree that the reason Clinton lost the nomination shouldn’t be chalked up to her gender. She had many other problems that you cited that caused her to lose. I wish people would recognize it and stop blaming it on her gender.
Bluesleepy… even some of the Democrats were telling her to quit. I think it was half a “pride thing” and half a “stubborn thing.” I also can’t understand for the life of me WHY she is holding onto her delegates. What would she need them for… other than to prove her case for VP. But, she doesn’t WANT to be the VP, right? Hmm…
Senator Rodham-Clinton wants this to be about her, she’s keeping herself in the news cycle. Also, as a contrast in 2000 McCain took so long to release his delegates that I am honestly unsure if he did release them.
Blue Sleepy Said:
“I question your statement that the American people are ready and comfortable to have a woman lead them. A good friend of mine, a fellow Navy wife, and I were discussing politics one day, and she insisted that the American president should never be a woman, that we need someone strong, with a firm backbone and a good set of cajones, and that women are far too emotional to be the leader of the free world. And she’s not the only woman I know who thinks this way.”
Spritopias says:
Nancy Pelosi is running the active part of our government. She’s prove that we can be led by a woman. Many other countries have as well. My reading of the constitution puts the Speaker as a more powerful person than the President anyway and I’d rather that influence over the President’s – which the past months has been nothing. Sandra Day O’Connor’s tenure on the Supreme Court also shows that women have ‘what it takes’ to lead.
Finally, Secretary Albright responded to the “do you have the cajones for the job,” question with, “the nice thing about not having cajones is that you don’t have to think with them.” Preach, sister. Preach.