The Gender Agenda
“If many of Mrs. Clinton’s legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination,” the New York Times asks today, “how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?”
The question underscores how crucial it is for Democrats to untangle the issue of what derailed America’s first woman president from what seemed her clear path to the White House only a year ago. Was Hillary Clinton’s campaign undone by the message or the messengers?
In the latter category, Sen. Clinton, although she bears ultimate responsibility, was clearly hampered not only by her husband but hot-shot strategist Mark Penn, who failed to see that voters would be turned off by a play-it-safe campaign fueled by what looked like a sense of entitlement. (They overlooked the lesson of what Harry Truman did to Thomas E. Dewey in 1948, a “sure” year for Republicans.)
“When people look at the arc of the campaign, it will be seen that being a woman, in the end, was not a detriment and if anything it was a help to her,” presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin points out. Her candidacy faltered as a result of “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman.”
No matter how true that may be, and even if they accept its validity, that will bring cold comfort to millions of women who have so much hope invested in what Hillary Clinton calls breaking “the highest and hardest glass ceiling” in American life.
All other calculations aside, and there are many, this frustration has to be taken into account in Barack Obama’s choice of a running mate. With consideration and without condescension, the potential first African-American President has to think long and hard about the symbolic and practical value of breaking through American prejudice with two for the price of one.
Cross-posted from my blog.
-
saintixe56
