Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIn a way, I'm going to miss her.
Like Richard Nixon before her, we won't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore. Our national walking Rorschach test is going home to lick her wounds and think about how close she came.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Clinton lost the nomination. This is a woman who voted for the Patriot Act, voted to go to war in Iraq, voted for the bankruptcy bill, voted for a Constitutional amendment against flag burning and then -- in a shining moment of cowardice and complicity, voted to go to war with Iran.
This is the woman who, along with her husband and an exalted sense of entitlement, treated the Democratic Party as a personal lap dog.
This is the woman who became the defense industry's favorite candidate. For someone running on change, look at her team of advisors. No, she lost for good reasons, even if she won't admit it.
Maybe the old-school starry-eyed feminists who believed that women would be kinder, gentler, softer, more nurturing leaders are going to be upset. But one look into the beady eyes of Margaret Thatcher should have ended that fantasy many years ago.
Still, the penis-vs.-vagina conflict played a huge part in this campaign. Like Thatcher, who picked a war with some tiny hard-to-find islands off the coast of Argentina to show how macho she could be, Clinton clung to the old "If I don't vote for this, I'll look soft on defense and Republicans will attack me" train of thought.
At a historical moment when most Americans want nothing more than to get out of Iraq and end the country's confrontational us-against-the-world stance, Clinton, by trying to appear "strong," appeared warlike. Embracing the Bush-Cheney conservatism that have come close to destroying the country made her tone deaf to the moment. She deserved to fail.
But we also owe Clinton a huge debt of gratitude. Her accomplishments this year have been revelatory.
For one thing, her awesome grit and determination has provided a model for women that will last us for many years to come.
Then, by coming so close to the nomination -- 1,923 delegates out of a needed 2,118! -- she showed that women must be taken seriously as presidential candidates. And that women can raise big money, too.
Every so often, her charm, her presence, her wit, her laughter (and maybe, too, her infrequent tears) showed us how graceful a woman can be under pressure.
We must also thank Clinton for becoming the point person for chauvinism. She drew out all the sniper fire. She revealed the sexists for who and what they are.
Now that we've seen how ugly it can get, many women hope Clinton will be a leader in working to obliterate sexism. As Anna Holmes, editor of the blog site Jezebel, said in The New York Times on Sunday, "If she can't break the country's highest glass ceiling this election season, the least she can do is take a good hard crack at other ones."
Back in the 1970s, in the early days of second wave feminism, I floated the idea that certain women seemed to fall into the category of "iron butterflies." These women, of all races and nationalities, were attractive -- sometimes astoundingly so -- and competent, but they lusted for real political power in patriarchal societies that denied it to them.
Instead, they used their charms to identify and marry powerful men; they became powers behind the throne. Mao Zedong's wife, actress Jiang Qing, was a good example. So was beauty queen Imelda Marcos and dance hall girl Eva Peron. I also put the matriarch Barbara Bush into that category. Clinton, who started out as an iron butterfly -- a woman who married the most alpha male she could find and rode him all the way to two terms in the White House -- has broken the stereotype.
When I was wrestling with my personal Obama-or-Clinton decision a few months ago, I realized that Clinton was not an iron butterfly but a "bridge woman." By virtue of her age, she was torn between her desire to marry or to become the man she wanted to marry.
With too much talent to remain an iron butterfly for long, she did both. Although in the beginning, her Fifties instincts told her to stand by her man, her deeper self, when freed of the White House, turned her into a very credible two-term senator for the state of New York and then a serious presidential candidate.
Maybe Clinton should have dumped her cheating husband back in 1992. Maybe she would have had the career she was meant to have, as one of the brightest young lawyers of her generation. Maybe she would have become a presidential candidate on her own. Maybe she wouldn't have been tied down by old-school conventions; maybe she would have even won.
What now? Clinton as vice president? No, wouldn't that still put her in the position of standing by her man, even if the man is Barack instead of Bill?
Instead, Mr. Obama, put her on the U.S. Supreme Court. She can fight for women's rights from there, and it will be nice to see Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy choking on their right-wing bile.
A collection of Joyce Marcel's columns, "A Thousand Words or Less," is available through joycemarcel.com. Write her at joycemarcel@yahoo.com.
21 Comments so far
Show All"Great Britain was well within its rights to take the islands back."
Sadly ... this imperialist mindset will take decades if not hundreds of years to erase.
F__k 'Great Britain'. 'Great Britain' isnt really that great. They are our dogs-bitches now. You can rest assured the new prime minister (Brown-noser) is as obsequious as the previous lapdog. There is nothing more pathetic than a previous oppressive imperial power groveling at the feet of the current oppressive imperial power.
"This is not a woman any ambitious political party in their right mind would want to "retire" and with all this leverage, I hope she goes to Denver and makes hers and our demands known, loud and clear. If the Obama people are really smart, they will give Clinton her due or a lot of us will "walk"."
There seems to be some support for this view, but it seems awfully short-sighted and not a little selfish. It amounts to saying that you would rather have McCain as President if you can't have Hillary. You would rather have McCain continue the war, the crappy economy, etc. than have Hillary do it? What kind of party loyalist would say such a thing?
She lost the primary because her policies suck and she's just BWB (Bush With Boobs).
Now stop being a sore loser, remember we want DEMOCRATS to win in November, and put your Obama button on.
Good post, thanks
Rockerbabe, THANK YOU for writing this:
"Senator Clinton has almost 20 million votes in the primary which = 20 million supporters; these backers each have money to give and one vote to cast. How many men other than Senator Obama have ever gotten that many votes in a primary season? None. This is not a woman any ambitious political party in their right mind would want to "retire" and with all this leverage, I hope she goes to Denver and makes hers and our demands known, loud and clear. If the Obama people are really smart, they will give Clinton her due or a lot of us will "walk"."
YOU ARE RIGHT !
At this point, it's not so much about Clinton, it's about her supporters. There are just as many of us as there are Obama supporters. I have said this repeatedly: Obama NEEDS us. He cannot win without us. He's going to have to figure out how to win our votes. We are not going to simply give them away. Clinton's endorsement of Obama has little or no effect, she had to do it, it was the best thing for the Democratic Party.
This is from the Molly Ivins column that CD ran in January, 2006:
"I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges."
"Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Clinton lost the nomination. This is a woman who voted for the Patriot Act, voted to go to war in Iraq, voted for the bankruptcy bill, voted for a Constitutional amendment against flag burning and then — in a shining moment of cowardice and complicity, voted to go to war with Iran."
Exactly. These were votes the Clintonistas could never justify. HRC constantly fudged her support for these measures when it became apparent they would come back to haunt her.
Joyce Marcel's summary of Clinton's charcter is the best and most insightful one I've seen since Molly Ivins
H. Clinton I guess will do anything for the limelight. Even when the game is over she keeps on playing. Nice move to steal some of Obama's victory press. She has her supporters to think about, how considerate. Here's hoping Hill does a Joe Lieberman, and runs Independent. That would really play well for the true progressives like Nader and McKinney.
Hillary is smart, talented, has endured tremendous shame and humiliation as Bill's wife, and is...Republican--just like Bill.
I just don't understand why these DLC political cross-dressers don't come out of the closet and swish in full neocon swoon.
Lieberman, Feinstein, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, the whole bunch of them could all "come out" on the Rush Limbaugh show and just be done with it.
Me too! No further comment.
Siouxrose---in your comments to Rockerbabe, I second the motion!
Britain illegally seized the islands from Argentina in 1833. Argentina simply retook them in 1982. Britain went to war, and we provided them with the latest version of the sidewinder missiles, lent them an aircraft carrier that was not publicly acknowledged at the time, and allowed them to use one of our airforce bases in the area. Weinberger and Reagan were both knighted by the Queen in honor of their assistance.
That said, the military junta that led Argentina deserved no sympathy, but the Falklands should be returned to Argentina, it is a remnant of British colonialism.
ROCKER BABE: You do NOT speak for all women over 45... some of us (and I am a feminist as well as humanist) place PRINCIPLE above GENITAL(S). Hillary has sold out when it comes to policies that matter. I am no fan of her husband's policies, either. You have been in these forums had if you read others' comments, you've been provided with an education. I am not saying Hillary did not have to deal with sexism, that's par for the course. What's at issue are her policies. It remains to be seen if Obama acts as merely a yes-man to the same corporate forces that now pre-select our candidates for us, added to the unsavory fact that our elections/votes are counted by private corporations with obviously mixed agendas.
Using the argument for gender alone as others have pointed out to you, would you place such credence in another soul-less sell-out like Condoleeza Rice? Or that disgusting bigot Ann Coulter so filled with bile she'll need a liver transplant before 50?
Allow yourself to be enlightened!
Yes, I would much rather have Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court than in the Vice Presidency. It would spare us four more years of media attention to Bill Clinton's misadventures.
For the record, Argentina, not Margaret Thatcher, picked a fight over the Falklands. They invaded them and captured a tiny British garrison. Great Britain was well within its rights to take the islands back. Nor should we lament Argentina's defeat, which helped bring down the military junta that started the war.
Please, not the Supreme Court. I don't know why people keep talking about this as if it made sense. Is it the only position people can imagine a smart feminist woman lawyer filling?
The Supreme Court does NOT need justices who crave the limelight, for whom it's always "all about me," or who thrive on melodrama and chaos. (No, I don't like it when Scalia does it either, and I opposed his nomination too.) We need justices who are humble, self-effacing, content to just do their work out of public view and get it right, without having to get the credit in public. And someone who is perceived of as having a social change agenda would have trouble getting confirmed, even if in Clinton's case the charge that she's really a wide-eyed radical is pretty ludicrous.
There are many positions where Clinton's brains and passion and experience would be useful. Maybe she even learned enough from the last go-around to be able to lead on health care. But please, stop with the Supreme Court.
"Neither is flattering to well-educated, talented, ambitious, independent-minded women who have something to offer the world besides breeding services."
That might be your take on HRC, but it isn't mine. All I see left is ambition. In pursuing it she would say anything and do anything and is apparently completely without principles, other than promoting herself and if that meant trashing anyone and everyone -- well, tough. She has also become an embarrassment not to women, but the human race.
Dragon women or iron butterfly - that's your characterization. Neither is flattering to well-educated, talented, ambitious, independent-minded women who have something to offer the world besides breeding services. I won't bother to mention what we call men with those qualities and it is a compliment, not a put-down.
Senator Clinton has almost 20 million votes in the primary which = 20 million supporters; these backers each have money to give and one vote to cast. How many men other than Senator Obama have ever gotten that many votes in a primary season? None. This is not a woman any ambitious political party in their right mind would want to "retire" and with all this leverage, I hope she goes to Denver and makes hers and our demands known, loud and clear.
If the Obama people are really smart, they will give Clinton her due or a lot of us will "walk". I doubt he could win without all of us "older white women". You know, your mother, grandmother, aunt, cousin, sister, best friend, teacher, doctor, dentist, wiper of noses and messy butts, kisser of skinned knees, fixer of all manner of problems, chief cook, bottle-washer, laundry lady, gardner, chauffer, seamstress, CEO, RN, MD, RD, JD, police officer and yes the lady next door and down the street. We are everywhere and are watching your every move.
Bubbasouth: you should be ashamed of yourself; I doubt you have anywhere near as much to offer as Senator Clinton or is that the problem? You are what you describe her to be? Maybe it is you who needs to crawl back into that hole from whince you came.
"Put her on the Supreme Court"? A joke, right? Obama owes that hideous, satchel-ass hag nothing. Besides, she is uglier than Clarence Thomas, and more treacherous than Tony Scalia. Hasn't she slopped at the public trough long enough?
The powerful woman archetype is known to the male chauvanist. She is called a "dragon woman," not an "iron butterfly."
Nanoon: Perish the thought!
POET: Wow... what a great slapstick scene your allusion would make! I've been working on a play (a musical, very tongue-in-cheek) entitled BORN AGAIN and that would be a quite a sideshow scene. Maybe we should collaborate!
STAR OF THE SEA: Nice to see you back. I know how heavy the political rivalry on THIS site can feel, added to the fierce weight of the problems our nation--and world--currently face. Smart to take a time-out now and again to revive the spirit, touch into those sources that replenish our souls to go the distance... for these are indeed those times we read about, a mighty transition underway, and TESTS to our souls.
It's going to be about 95 degrees EVERY day this week where I live and summer does not officially begin until June 22... and the EXXOn execs say there's no such thing as global warming. I'd love to see one of those bloated fools if their AC broke down...