Feminism vs. Pragmatism, or, How I Learned to Admire Hillary Clinton
I am a Barack Obama supporter from way back: I gave the first political contribution I've ever given day he announced he was running for President. And my enthusiasm for Barack's candidacy is why I started following this race rabidly, and, accordingly, what lead me to this site. I was never particularly fond of Hillary Clinton. During Bill's Presidency, I was hardly aware of Hillary; I sympathized with Chelsea, who is close to my age, and I thought the Lewinksy scandal was utterly contrived and idiotic. So oddly enough, as I've watched this campaign play out, I've finally started to develop sympathy and understanding for Hillary.
It's not that I agree with the way her campaign has been run. But, seriously, when she graduated from college, "computer programming" meant laboriously punching holes into "punch cards" and running them through a machine.... So how can she be expected to understand and use the internet as effectively as Barack Obama? I think she was caught off-guard by the success of Barack's campaign. He almost seems to make things up as he goes along, deftly turning each unforeseen circumstance to his own advantage; Hillary strikes me as someone who likes things planned and in place years ahead of time. So this campaign must have been as intensely frustrating for her as it as been for all of us.
But the point is, Senator Clinton has surmounted many obstacles to get where she is today. In a bald display of ambition, she claimed the Senate seat from New York and started marching right back toward the White House almost as soon as she'd left it. She's gutsy, sneaky, and tough, and she comes from an era when women had to prove they were more macho and aggressive then men to earn respect in business and in politics. She comes across as someone who fights because she thinks she has something to prove, rather than to find the best way to solve a problem. Personally, I find that unrelenting aggessiveness irritating, but it's because of women like Hillary Clinton, and my own mother and grandmothers, that I can sit here comfortably, as a single woman in her late twenties, living independently in my own apartment in one of the most expensive cities in the US, and say, "well, I disagree with Hillary Clinton, and I prefer Barack Obama" and have no doubt that we'll have a woman for president soon enough.
Clinton has stayed involved in this race much longer than, I think, a rational analysis of the numbers supports, but the media attention she's garnered has solidified the image of a woman running this country, and I think that's something to be grateful for. (As an aside, I think that as long as the Dems can resolve this race before the convention, there will be plenty of time to make sure McCain doesn't win. So the longer-term benefit doesn't have much a shorter-term downside, yet, anyway.)
So, thank you Senator Clinton. I'm still an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, and I disagree with you on matters of policy and your approach to problem solving, but your strength to stand up and fight for what you wanted for yourself is what gave me the simple and absolute knowledge that I could do whatever I wanted to with my own life. The very take-no-prisioners approach that got you where you are today is one now of your primary political weaknesses, as far as I'm concerned, but I really do think the world is better for it.
Aiieee. So this is the first time I've written a full post on anything (as opposed to just a comment). And I really have no idea if these random thoughts of mine are relevant to the rest of you, or analytic enough for this site. But with all the negativity our there, it seemed like a good idea to publish a reminder that the sky isn't falling in on us yet, and in addition to stealing the spotlight from McCain, there are other advantages to the way things have played out this primary.
It's not that I agree with the way her campaign has been run. But, seriously, when she graduated from college, "computer programming" meant laboriously punching holes into "punch cards" and running them through a machine.... So how can she be expected to understand and use the internet as effectively as Barack Obama? I think she was caught off-guard by the success of Barack's campaign. He almost seems to make things up as he goes along, deftly turning each unforeseen circumstance to his own advantage; Hillary strikes me as someone who likes things planned and in place years ahead of time. So this campaign must have been as intensely frustrating for her as it as been for all of us.
But the point is, Senator Clinton has surmounted many obstacles to get where she is today. In a bald display of ambition, she claimed the Senate seat from New York and started marching right back toward the White House almost as soon as she'd left it. She's gutsy, sneaky, and tough, and she comes from an era when women had to prove they were more macho and aggressive then men to earn respect in business and in politics. She comes across as someone who fights because she thinks she has something to prove, rather than to find the best way to solve a problem. Personally, I find that unrelenting aggessiveness irritating, but it's because of women like Hillary Clinton, and my own mother and grandmothers, that I can sit here comfortably, as a single woman in her late twenties, living independently in my own apartment in one of the most expensive cities in the US, and say, "well, I disagree with Hillary Clinton, and I prefer Barack Obama" and have no doubt that we'll have a woman for president soon enough.
Clinton has stayed involved in this race much longer than, I think, a rational analysis of the numbers supports, but the media attention she's garnered has solidified the image of a woman running this country, and I think that's something to be grateful for. (As an aside, I think that as long as the Dems can resolve this race before the convention, there will be plenty of time to make sure McCain doesn't win. So the longer-term benefit doesn't have much a shorter-term downside, yet, anyway.)
So, thank you Senator Clinton. I'm still an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, and I disagree with you on matters of policy and your approach to problem solving, but your strength to stand up and fight for what you wanted for yourself is what gave me the simple and absolute knowledge that I could do whatever I wanted to with my own life. The very take-no-prisioners approach that got you where you are today is one now of your primary political weaknesses, as far as I'm concerned, but I really do think the world is better for it.
Aiieee. So this is the first time I've written a full post on anything (as opposed to just a comment). And I really have no idea if these random thoughts of mine are relevant to the rest of you, or analytic enough for this site. But with all the negativity our there, it seemed like a good idea to publish a reminder that the sky isn't falling in on us yet, and in addition to stealing the spotlight from McCain, there are other advantages to the way things have played out this primary.
Advertisement
Paige, great post and thanks for sharing the thinking behind your premise. There's a lot of anti-Hillary folks among Obama supporters, so please let the more negative comments you'll hear roll off. Personally, I applaud you for conveying a balanced point of view. Since I also continue to see good and admirable qualities in Senator Clinton, while wholeheartedly supporting Obama, I sincerely appreciate the aim of your post.
A few months back I heard the suggestion among the pundits that the optimal time for a woman to run for the presidency, in terms of leveraging the zeitgeist in which Americans would be most excited to elect their first female president, passed by about a decade ago. At this point most Americans have accepted the idea that a woman can serve equally successfully as a man as president and has as good a chance as a man to win a presidential election. The country hadn't come to that point 25 years ago. And now, it almost seems a foregone conclusion -- we will elect a woman president. So the overwhelming excitement for a female presidential candidacy may for its own sake may already be limited a bit as a motivation to support Senator Clinton. I guess this is a bit to Hillary's detriment, but I doubt the excitement would be as contained if it were not the case that we also have, in this election cycle, our first viable African American candidate.
Following on the pundit's observation about the readiness for this country to elect a woman president, it was suggested that we might have reached another historical juncture in that the electorate is excited and just might be ready to overcome the long-standing resistance (some would say impossibility) to electing a person of color as president. So, as regards breaking down barriers, the electorate has been presented with two unprecedented opportunities in one election cycle. I wouldn't say that Americans are more excited to elect an African American than a woman. But when comparing these two individuals, it happens that we have a better, more inspiring candidate in the racial minority than we do in the gender "minority".
Together with the fierce intra-party partisanship and the strong desire for supporters of each candidate to elect the historic "first", many supporters on both sides seem to forget that we have two excellent candidates, and we seem to overlook the really extraordinary paths both of these candidates have taken to reach this point.
So, I agree with you, not so much from a feminist perspective, but out of respect for what Clinton has achieved historically. And I appreciate as much what Obama has achieved. Some call it an embarrassment of riches. I just wish we could all step back, on both sides, and appreciate how consequential our mutual support of the Democratic candidate this fall is going to be. And if we can't appreciate the importance of mutually supporting the ultimate nominee, and if we can't come together to defeat John McCain, we'll be losing out on much more than just the policy front.
Thanks for the very thoughtful post, Paige. : ^)
April 23, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I don't really mind the anti- perspectives, as long as they're substantiated by rational commentary and observations. Which describes the vast majority of comments around here, and is pretty much why I decided to stick around the cafe a not just follow the news posts.
Yes! My point is that HRC has made that, in a way, too obvious to ignore.
April 23, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Though you are not the first to make it,
I don't buy this argument.
She also came from a time when African Americans were called Negroes.
Would you accept her calling blacks "Negro"?
Of course not. You have to fight today's battle, today. All public figures have to change with the times -- or else be washed aside.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem to be burdened with all the negatives of Hillary Clinton -- and Pelosi is currently 2nd in line for the presidency. And Pelosi didn't gain office on her husband's coattails. And Pelosi comes from the same "era".
The mythology of Hillary Clinton is rather surprising, especially with so many other real icons to choose from these days.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have shown an equal amount of obnoxiousness -- more than one could have imagined from the 90's. It is who they are as people, plain and simple.
April 23, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of a Congressman and Baltimore Mayor who got to intern in Washington early, and her brother-in-law was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Nancy was handpicked to replace the sick Congresswoman who replaced her dead Congressman husband. No coattails there ().
When Hillary met Bill, he was just another law student - he didn't have coattails - he lost his first race for District Attorney in Fayetteville. Hillary helped build Bill's success, and there absofuckinglutely nothing wrong with her enjoying some of the fruits of it.
April 23, 2008 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, are you calling the Presidency of the USA the fruits of Bill's success? That's... disturbing.
CaliforniaPaige-I was where you were about three months ago. While we now disagree, I appreciate your balanced presentation of your current position.
April 23, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying she helped build the Clinton machine (whatever that is) from the beginning - there's nothing affirmative action or coattails about her using it.
People forget that the reason the Clintons are hated so much is that they didn't know anyone in Washington and they weren't connected to the hoi polloi, which of course includes the vaunted self-flattering press. They were looked at as rednecks and treated as rednecks.
April 23, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, Hillary is a model for women everywhere scratching to the top. If I am not mistaken she failed her bar exam, then like a lovesick puppy she just followed Bill everywhere. She finally passed the bar and did lovely things for women. Like working at Rose Law Firm and sitting on the board of Walmart.
It is hard as a woman trying to win public office in an all boys club. Fortunately for Hillary, she got to ride the escalator to her senate seat that, to other women, would be a steep hill to climb. Hey that's politics, but she can't then act like she actually climbed it.
But Hillary is a master at projecting a persona that does not fit the facts. The election showed her strong point was the economy. The economy! The loyal incompetent campaign manager for her uncontested senate seat blew through 30 mil, enraging her donors. So she decides to make this person her campaign manager for her presidential run? Hmmm who else appoints incompetent cronies to high ranking positions.
Not that Hillary cared. What she cared about was loyalty and Patti Solis Doyle had that in abundance. Hillary took her at her word that things were going great, until someone finally alerted her to the fact that they were broke after IA, hence the 5 mil loan.
Kind of makes you wonder what kind of president she'll make. Who will she have advising her?
Here is the stark comparison of GWB prep of the Iraq war and Hillary's campaign:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adamant that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men'.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
Admire her all you want, but I think you have a very low bar set for those you hold in esteem.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?ref=opinion
April 23, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meds run out last night?
April 23, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best you got, Desidero?
Having trouble actually countering mageduley's points with, you know, substance?
Oh well. Par for the course.
April 28, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, a quick nit to pick:
She could have done what Obama did - hire someone who knew the Internets.
Well said Paige. Watching her speech last night, I felt a grudging admiration. I don't like some of her tactics either and have been disappointed by them. Bizarrely, I also admire her tenacity. It's like a love/hate relationship. I only use that phrase for lack of a better term: I really neither love nor hate her. But all this in itself is one of the reasons I think so many have chosen to support Obama - there's just so much drama. In my own head, in her campaign, in the 90s, etc. Even Billy Glad, who I think is a pretty ardent Clinton supporter, seems to have an inner struggle in his support for her.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/hillary-is-my-revolution.php
As you say:
It's so true, but isn't it odd how such a conflicting idea can be true? The very thing we admire her for is also the very thing that drives us up the wall at times.
Yesterday, Ben Smith of Politico wrote:
And Desidero - you're absolutely right in saying she helped build the machine. As they say - Behind every great man is a greater woman. ;)
April 23, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero can't even figure out what the Clinton machine is.
Yes, I know, Desidero is actually insinuating that s/he thinks there's no such thing as the "Clinton machine" or maybe that if there is, it's somehow not sleazy, or vicious, or vindictive.
Which is ludicrous. The Clintons' behavior, starting from the 1990s on (possibly earlier, I didn't follow their Arkansas career) is full of the same tactics that we denounce when Republicans do it. Like making reporters persona non grata and booting them from the press plane when they dare to utter a less than fawning comment. (David Bender, hardly an Obama partisan, reported on this last night on Ring of Fire Radio, during an interview with Bobby Kennedy, Jr., a Clinton supporter.)
I don't really expect Desidero to be a resident of the reality-based community, but I'd hope most of the rest of us are.
Which brings us to your statement I quoted at the top of this post -- point taken about behind every great man and all that, but my question is -- great at what?
April 28, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I went to bed last night thinking, well, it'll be interesting to see if anyone has any response to my thoughts...
And you people have replied! You've responded with thoughtful commentary, biting criticism, and sincere debate on specific points. I'm thrilled! I'm hooked! I'm flattered! I'm excited to respond to each comment! I'm -- Oh, crap, I'm late for work.
So thanks for understanding my argument (or at least trying to) and finding meatier bits to think about. I'll add more replies as soon as I have the time.
April 23, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful. It's a slippery slope. A blog here, a comment there...and before you know it, TPM is your home page.
April 23, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear! You mean it gets worse?
April 24, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink