6/2/08
Dear Hillary Clinton supporters, in particular the women:
Let me be the among the voices who say "I know exactly how you feel." Or, to be more properly respectful, let me say that I probably don't know exactly how you feel. I may have delusions of suffered indignities, but being a white upper-middle-class guy, there's only so many you can take seriously. It's apparent, no matter the punditry, that there are a lot of very angry women in this country, and if there's a way I can say "AND RIGHTLY SO" without sounding patronizing, then this is it.
The slog towards equality has been tortuous, and it's still not even close. The Clinton supporters I know are mostly women, and mostly those born before 1970. They're either old enough to have suffered the unendurable chauvinism of the post-WWII lockdown, or they're just old enough to have been born into the sexual revolution and wonder why they still get half the respect of their male colleagues.
In this country, men are allowed to grow fat; to grow thick, ingrown hairs on their back; to go bald; to drink to excess and be called "jolly"; to tell stupid jokes at high volume; to constantly toy with the idea of infidelity; to run entire companies despite having no discernable skills and then get millions in severance.
Women in high-pressure, man-centric jobs, especially those who managed to play the game long enough to get in positions of semi-power, must look at these half-wits speeding past their pay grade and seethe. Any ambition on their part is looked upon as the unattractive, sexless behavior of a harpie.
And always, ALWAYS, there's the constant element of physical attractiveness. While male CEOs can be corpulent, nebbishy or necrotic, women have to put up with daily judgment about their looks, knowing full well their success is inexorably wrapped up with the spin of a genetic fortune wheel that either gave them allure or did not. And even if they lucked out in that arena, they have to deal with unwanted advances, sly smiles from dead-eyed men, and people staring at their tits. I swear, if I were a smart, sensitive woman, I wouldn't be angry – I'd carry a fuckin' crowbar, looking for the first chance to swing it.
So along comes Hillary Clinton, who sat through her husband's shenanigans like many of them had done, and was poised to become the first woman President of the United States. Then came the reports of soaring negatives, and a lot of these women came to see it as a judgment of them. A select few cable talk show hosts said outrageously sexist things, made worse by the fact they didn't even know they were sexist. And then the talisman that said it all: the goddamn "Hillary Nutcracker", available at most of our nation's fine airports.
While the rest of the country chuckled at the nutcracker like the advertising execs in "Mad Men", a lot of these women tapped veins of resentment that had been building for 10, 20, 50 years. That nutcracker may have been the worst, most mindless totem of fucked-up gender relations since Billie Jean King kicked Bobby Riggs' ass in tennis. You have to think, though, if it wasn't the nutcracker, it would have been something else.
What is truth is this: some of the very qualities that make people despise Hillary may well be the only qualities that allowed her to get as far as she has. Saying you hate her "unbridled ambition" or that she's "shrill" or that she'll "say or do anything to get elected" is inherently sexist, because we're generally fine with any man exhibiting those same traits. In fact, we call him a "fighter". If you happen to be ex-New York Congressman John Sweeney, the asshole who led the groups of rioting Republicans trying to shut down the Florida recount in 2000, you get George W. Bush calling you "Congressman Kickass."
Now... do I believe the media has been fundamentally unfair to Hillary Clinton? No. In fact, it has been in their best interests to keep this contest going long after the rest of us knew it was over in March. And if Obama had lost 10 straight primaries, he would have been shown the door.
Do I believe Hillary lost the nomination because she's a woman? No. She lost because she's Hillary. She has behaved reprehensibly, her surrogates have spewed lies, and let's face it, she voted for the Iraq war and the Iran resolution. Her land grab of Florida and Michigan was sickening, her claims of the popular vote are complete crap, and she has nuzzled with the right wing.
Young women are voting for Obama, and why? Because I don't think they see her as a woman, they simply see her as a lesser candidate that has done things they don't like. That doesn't sound like a victory to older Hillary supporters, but truly, it is. These young women might become truly post-gender, which was the dream from long, long ago.
In the meantime, it seems like a crushing blow to the older generation. I've been in several conversations with Hillary supporters, and while the debate always begins with specifics, it always ends in emotion. My friend K told me she just wants people to understand how hard it was for Hillary to get where she is, what she had to endure – because it's not that different for a lot of other women right now. Even Pat Schroeder speaking on NPR last week expressed intense sadness, not for Hillary, but because there wasn't going to be a woman President.
I totally get it. I have a daughter, and I spend every day trying to make her physically and emotionally strong. What could be better for the little girls of America than to see a woman leading the free world? We are LONG PAST DUE for a female President, and it's SHAMEFUL. Give us the right woman, and I will march with Tessa and Lucy to the ends of the world to make it happen.
Posted by Ian Williams at June 2, 2008 11:07 PMIan, I agree with everything you say about women being FED UP with unfairness and stereotypes. And having been born in 1951, I fit the demographic you reference.
That being said, I cast my lot with Obama some time ago. I actually like the platforms of both Democratic contenders, but I believe Obama has the charisma to make a presidency work, whereas Hilary is missing that gene. Yes, it's sad, it's unfair, but it's reality. Barack really does (IMO) have the potential to bring some coherence and unity to this fractured body politic. Neither H. Clinton nor McCain -- defensive, dogmatic -- can do what Obama potentially can for the poor old U.S.
It's a tough election, which is surprising given that I was thrilled early on to have TWO qualified Democrats competing for the nomination. Our prolonged election process seems to bring out the worst in everyone. I'm already bracing myself for the ruthless meanness of the Republican machine behind McCain.
Ian: I agree with 99.9% of your post today. But, as an avid tennis fan, I don't think the Riggs-King match is the best analogy you could find. For exmaple, King beat Riggs although Riggs conceded to being restricted to only 1 serve. He did not get two cracks at the ball every time he served. Although King's victory has always (rightfully so . . to a degree) been applauded as a victory for feminism, it happened on an unlevel playing field. Plus, Riggs was only 137 years old when King best him.
Saying you hate her "unbridled ambition" or that she's "shrill" or that she'll "say or do anything to get elected" is inherently sexist, because we're generally fine with any man exhibiting those same traits.
hmmmm. i think the "shrill" characterizations may indeed be sexist in nature, but i don't think that "unbridled ambition" is. i feel that way about *both* the Clintons, and would say that anyone who moves to New York to be a senator is not doing so oout of a love for New York but because it makes for a nice perch from which to make a Presidential run. I have always thought that RFK being a senator from New York had the same whiff of opportunism (though that is based on very little knowledge of the circumstances of the time, just a lazy cynicism on my part, so someone please correct me if I'm off on that one).
I think there may be more to the sexism complaint from Hillary supporters than Ian suspects.
Hillary does in fact have a case to make for the popular vote, though it's difficult to measure due to the nature of caucuses. Certainly Michigan is problematic since BHO took his name off the ballot (I bet he wishes he could've taken his name off the WV and KY ballots, too), but FL should surely count as neither campaigned there and both were on the ballot. At best, Obama may win the popular vote by less than a fraction of 1% out of something like 50 million votes cast. But her argument that she would fare better than Obama in the GE has some real merit.
The DNC's rules for selecting their nominee are very strange. Consider, Obama won Idaho by 13,000 votes to reap a net gain of 12 delegates, while Hillary won New Jersey by 110,000 votes but had a net gain of only 11 delegates. Texas was even more unfair to her as she won the popular vote but Obama was awarded more delegates! That's not the way it's done in the GE, which should worry Democrats.
If the DNC used the winner-take-all rules like the RNC (and the Electoral College) Hillary would have wrapped up the nomination long ago. Interestingly, if the RNC had used the DNC system Hucklebee would be its nominee. I may like Hucklebee a little better than McCain, but it seems clear that McCain has the much better shot of winning in November, so maybe there's an argument to make that the RNC system produces better results.
Matt, I think all of these systems of electing a national candidate are outdated. In the Republican system, a candidate could get 49% of the vote in every state and still lose to a challenger who got 51% in every state and end up with zero delegates. It would look like a landslide, yet the popular vote would be basically split in half. What the Republican primary system does do is end the primary season more quickly, allowing the party to galvanize around a candidate before it becomes a bloodbath.
The Democrats actually have a system that is more representative of the popular vote, but certainly the superdelegates are looking really problematic right now.
And then there are the things like the caucuses and the electoral college, which only exist because at one point we couldn't travel far very fast, and both have outlived their usefulness. It doesn't make sense that 1 vote in Wyoming is worth about 20 in California, but the EC ensures that this is the case.
Surely a straight popular vote would be a good way to elect a candidate for a national office, but local politics in both parties are going to prevent that from happening in our lifetimes.
Ehren, I can agree with you about caucuses, but there are good defenses of the electoral college and against a straight popular vote.
But this: "The Democrats actually have a system that is more representative of the popular vote" is hard to square with the results of Texas (and other states), is it not? If the DNC system was more representative of the popular vote, how could Hillary get more votes but fewer delegates?
Well, the system in Texas works like the electoral college writ small. Depending on which districts were won and how populous they were, different numbers of delegates were awarded. In much the same way that George Bush lost the popular vote but had more electoral college votes. That's just a vagary of not having a straight popular vote.
But I'm just saying that with the Democrats' Primary, if two candidates are about equal in a state's popular vote, they'll be about equal (give or take) in the number of delegates they receive. In the Republicans' Primary, if two delegates are approximately equal in the state's popular vote, then one delegate will get ALL of the delegates, and the other candidate will get ZERO.
I'm not saying that one or the other of these systems is better. And because they're just internal to each party's nominating procedure, they don't have to be fair. I could start a political party and make one of the rules of my party be that me and my friends get to pick the party's candidate and there is no national vote. That's how the Libertarian and Green parties basically work.
I'm just saying that the winner take all system is less true to the popular vote, though neither system is exactly true to it.
Is there a possibility that Hillary could end up as Obama's VP? I would lose a lot of excitement for Obama if he were to choose her. (Plus, I might be concerned for his safety as I feel Hillary will do anything to become pres).
i'm a recovering hillary supporter - after indiana i realized it was over for her and reconciled myself to the fact that i will be voting for obama in november and not hillary. but i am sure i will shed a tear tonight or tomorrow (just like a girl) when obama makes it official. and it sure doesn't make me feel good when obama supporters seem to be dancing on her grave when the reality is that if she won the nomination they would be voting for her. (and whats with comments that hillary would do anything to be president as a reason not to pick her as VP - please!)
it is time for some obama supporters to learn a lesson from professional athletes in a tournament - take the victory and move on to the next game - the general election. and i surely hope that hillary is wrong when she says she is the stronger candidate for the november election but i fear that she may be right - which is why democrats need to come together and stop bashing the other side. and if people keep saying things like being concerned for obama's safety around hillary i have two words to say to that - president mccain.
and as my final thought on today's subject - an article that chelsea clinton was emailing around earlier in the campaign is worth a read (or re-read) to explain how women feel about hillary.
Those are fair arguments, Ehren, though in my opinion the benefits of a winner-take-all system outweigh the problems and inequities. (A national popular vote system is not without its own.) The RNC's rules have the added benefit of imitating the general election, which is the election that really matters.
My Clinton-supporting mother-in-law finally saw the inevitable and made peace with the rest of the family last week.It hadn't been overly pretty in the intervening months. She used to yell at her daughter (who, like me, went for Obama as soon as Edwards dropped out), "I thought I raised you to be a feminist!" She'd shoot back, "You also raised me to be a DEMOCRAT".
It would have been amazing, if Clinton had managed to ruthlessly claw her way to the nomination, to watch her roll over and play dead during the general election, expressing unprepared surprise that the Republicans fought dirty, and reaching her highest moment in her gracious concession speech in which she declared that "the system works" and "the people have spoken". Amazing, but I'm kinda glad I won't have to watch.
That's true, Bobby Riggs WAS 137 years old when they played.
where were all these feminist supporters back in the day when shirley chisholm was running? clinton couldn't hold a candle to shirley chisholm, may she rest in peace.
Exactly xu, the country needs a better, more digestable (sorry Bill) female candidate. As a woman of eclectic background, Shirley Chisholm's running was so iconic, but where's the future? This politics gig takes super-smart gals like 'La comandante en jefe' Tessa, I guessa:)
Make you co-op-er-ate with the rhythm, that is what I give em, G Bush is the pres but I voted for Shirley Chisholm
"clinton couldn't hold a candle to shirley chisholm"
Or Condoleeza Rice, or Sarah Palin. Chisholm was ahead of her time, no doubt. As for her '72 run, she wouldn't have fared any worse than McGovern.
Dean - just set the record straight, the King/Riggs match was played with all the normal rules in place, including 2 serves per point. In fact, Riggs lost two set points on double-faults.
He was 55, though. King was 29. I heard that McEnroe challenged Serena Williams to a match a couple of years ago, making the same boast Riggs had. I don't know but I think Mac may have been lucky that Serena ignored him. Have you seen her arms?!
Lucy Blake-Williams for President 2052!
...who's not only intelligent and being reared as a fair, open-minded person, but also bilingual.
Arriba con la Luz 2052!
¡Si, para mi patroncita!
Umm.. Isn't a tad patronizing and sexist to assume the disappointment regarding Hillary is mostly female??
I'm a male ( at least the last time I took a shower i was) and I have been an avid supporter of Hillary. I think she was a wonderful candidate and would have made a better president in this particular moment in time. And I encourage and respect her decision to use her 18 million person strong army to demand a position of power moving forward.
While I will throw my support behind Obama I will not forget easily the hatred exhibited by quite a few Obama supporters. And quite a bit of unforgivable hatred demonstrated here. Those Obama supporters who condemned Hillary and her supporters as 'racist, unworthy, redneck, and old" and who screamed they would NEVER support Hillary really are hypocritical to "reach out for unity". Unity is achievable when respect for differences is demonstrated from the onset. Obama's victory is not theirs; he stands for civility and inclusion. Now if he could just teach his followers what that really means, maybe then we all stand a chance.
Re: Clinton fans "forgiving" Obama supporters etc.
"Can't we all just get along?"
Here's to a Democrat in the White House in 2009.
Dear Hillary-
Please don't ever wear that blue suit again.
Cheers,
Everyone
Hillary and her blue pant suit hasn't officially bowed out yet, have they? Do we know if a brokered convention is off the table? Obama would probably survive it, but you've got to admit he's not in as strong of a position has everyone would like their nominee having lost the majority of the last 15 state contests (8).
Much of what's said in this post is very true, and thank you for saying it.
However, I didn't support Hillary because she was a woman, or because I'm a woman. I *do* think that a lot of the criticism against her was, indeed, sexist and adhered to several of the double standards as explained in the post. Particularly the point that she is criticized for standing by her husband, when many women have done so.
That said, now that Obama is the nominee, I will steadfastly support him - AND hope he picks a runningmate who has a lot of experience in the many serious, life-or-death issues that take a lot more than book-learnin', charisma, and idealism to deal with.
I have to say, I kinda liked the blue pantsuit. It was very Barbie-for-President.
http://www.amazon.com/2000-Barbie-For-President-Doll/dp/B00004YRVK
I don't mean to stir the pot, but some of the folks here who were so anti-Hillary have also in the past been very pro-Bill. I don't get it. Hillary learned her bad campaign tactics from the master! Why all the love for Slick Willy but insults for Hillary???
LFMD - Umm, because Bill is a guy? As my 6-year old daughter would say, "Duh."
Ha!
Duh is right.
I have to admit that I have this sinking feeling. Although I supported Obama all the way, now that he is the delegate favorite, I am kind of scared. As in, "what now?" scared.
Is he all style and little substance? We'll see.
i agree - to coin a seinfeldism, will it be "an administration about nothing?" costanza for vp!
Hey, Ian-
Your post is great. My concern that maybe there wont ever be the right woman because, though she may not be HRC, she will have to exhibit these non-feminine behaviors to be successful. And though, you are smart enough to see past it and understand why it's necessary I think there are a lot of dummies out there. I suffer from an overwhelming loss of faith in the intelligence of the American people. If Obama gets elected, I will gladly revise my current opinion. But after 8 years of W - well, we must be stupid.
I think I'd rather discuss with you offline. I don't want to piss anyone off and I don't have a personal nutcracker.
Caroline
I take some solace in the fact that John Sweeney, aka Congressman Kickass, one of the nasty characters inhabiting the aftermath of the 2000 election, eventually got his ass kicked--by a woman. Sometimes karma is right on the money.