Why Hillary Lost (Guest Voice)
Jun 12th, 2008 | 11 responses
This Guest Voice column is by Karen Werve Grant, an attorney who now heads a writing company and is a volunteer in the Obama Organizing Fellows program.
WHY HILLARY LOST
by Karen Werve Grant
In her pursuit of the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton fought her way into a corner that must have looked familiar to her, and to many women who label themselves as “fighters.” I know because I am one.
As a fighter, I know that fighters are prized for their killer instinct, strategic and tactical diversity, drive and determination, indefatigability and “never say die” commitment. There is also the intimidation factor. Many people refuse to fight with someone who refuses to lose. And we fighters can be fearsome, even in defeat. As I used to say to certain opponents, “I may lose, but you will know you have been fought with.” Senator Clinton probably knows what I am talking about. It sets her and me apart from meeker women, and quite often enables us to achieve what others cannot.
But, even though I am a soul mate, I did not vote for Senator Clinton. She would have made a good Democratic nominee and a good president. The country needs change, and a fighter can bring change, but fighting brings many other things with it that are not so attractive. I am tired of the fighting and apparently, I am not alone.
For one thing, fighting is always a win/lose proposition. To avoid being on the losing side, fighters will do almost anything to win. There is rarely a middle ground, and if there is, the fighter is the one who defines it, in her own terms, which is a loss in itself. Fighting creates enemies – people who want to fight back. Fighting begets more fighting. And so the story goes.
It is not Hillary’s or my fault. It is how we grew up. Fighting is what we learned and what we know. It accounts for our incremental success, and whatever power we acquired, which is seductive to us women. But, too often it also accounts for our losses. A great strength can quickly become an even greater weakness.
Accepting loss was anathema to Senator Clinton. Her will to do anything to avoid losing, even when she had already lost, was the most depressing kind of leadership. Fighting on had reached a point of diminishing return, but Hillary Clinton refused to admit it, as if that alone would void the reality. Senator Clinton, who had successfully fought her way to the top as a contender in the top contest, ultimately lost the race for the nomination precisely because she is a fighter. But only because she ran against someone who offered a better way.
Senator Obama’s win showed me that while a good fighter can make things happen, if I have a choice, I will choose the avenue of unity and reconciliation every time. Many like me are just plain exhausted from eight years of the divisiveness of the Bush Regime. We want change, yes, and if necessary, we will fight for it, just to avoid another four years of Bush policies. But if we can accomplish change without the win/lose approach, without the polarization, if we can get it by listening and hearing from all sides, from inclusion instead of exclusion, from thoughtfully weighing alternatives and collectively weaving elegant solutions to thorny problems, well, many of us would prefer that.
Barack Obama offered this contrast as a way to achieve practically the same results as Hillary Clinton. His label is “uniter,” not “fighter.” He convinced me that unity and hope are more than some tactic he thought up, that he recognizes the value of diversity and inclusion, that he wants to understand and consider disparate ideas rather than dismiss them out of hand. I’ve seen him take the high road when responding to media quotes of something Hillary allegedly said, choosing to accept on its face a given explanation, as opposed to wagging his finger, chastising or dwelling on the negative. This, in my view, separates him from Hillary and me.
Why did we become fighters, Hillary and me? Maybe because as women we have always felt a need to prove something – namely, that we are not less. Women are born feeling like they are less, and giving up the fight means accepting that status. Without the fight, we disappear. Without the fight, we don’t exist. Out of that fear comes the fight. But fighting, it turns out, is a choice. There are other means to achieving the same results we all want. Senator Obama showed us another way that I liked better.
I love you, Hillary, but it’s as simple as that.
Karen Werve Grant is a supporter of women’s rights and a volunteer in the Obama Organizing Fellows program. She spent many years as attorney serving low-income clients. She currently heads a professional writing outsource company in San Diego.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “Why Hillary Lost (Guest Voice)”
This is an attitude that is becoming more and more prevalent. Understanding that our culture values and uses adversarial negotiation almost exclusively. That it is less productive or effective, and more distructive, than collaborative and creative approaches.
Jim Rough, “Society's Breakthrough” approaches this from a community standpoint.
Others have covered it from an individual or communications perspective.
“Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life” Marshall B. Rosenberg and Arun Gandhi
My sister lived in Tokyo for a number of years and told us about a neighbor couple who were both professionals and spoke several languages. They had developed the habit early in their marriage of arguing in English – because Japanese does not allow that kind of communication. Just heard today that the longest lifespan is in Japan – 83 years.
[...] Why Hillary Lost (Guest Voice) The Moderate Voice – USA Barack Obama offered this contrast as a way to achieve practically the same results as Hillary Clinton. His label is ?uniter,? not ?fighter. … See all stories on this topic [...]
Great piece. I had the same reaction when I heard HRC talk about what a fighter she is. Not only can it sound condescending, but more importantly, it just isn't the way things work in this town – and of all people, surely a sitting U.S. Senator knows that better than anyone.
However, Senator Obama is not really a uniter. He should have dominated when he became the apparent winner. Yet, he has decided that giving special interest groups in the Democratic party is more important than being a uniter.
As the first black presidential candidate, he should have come out against quotas and AA. He did the opposite and proposed a massive increase in the program. Definitely not a uniting idea when over 60% of Americans oppose AA to begin with.
Wonderful post.
I only wish some of these insights could be exported to the blogosphere.
SD, AA (affirmative action) exists because we still have a long way to go to overcome our national prejudice. Blacks simply do not have the opportunity that whites do, in terms of quality of education, job interviews and offers, high school and college graduation, job grade and status, fairness in the judicial system, freedom from racial profiling and harrassment (“driving while black” for instance). Beneficiaries of AA, such as Colin Powell, disagree with you about AA, and I assure you that YOU are racially prejudiced. Prove it's not true. Go here and take the test. I guarantee you'll fail. Even blacks raised here have cultural bias against blacks, and women have cultural bias against women. It's universal in our culture and we have a long way to go yet.
GreenDreams,
If the Democrats really want non-equal treatment they should not have passed the civil rights act as written. It specifically forbids quotas. Of course, the Demcratic Party just ignores those parts of the act
Since 1979, the courts have been consistent in striking down separate and unequal provisions. Yet, the Democratic Party keeps promoting them because its bring in the black vote withouth negative impacting the rich whites who send their children to schools like Sidwell Friends, St albans, or the Chicago Lab school.
Also, if blacks really want to improve thei plight, the first suggetion would be to stop acting like stereotypes. I sure that the white male beating beating by a gang of black tennagers really felt that blacks do not have the same opprotunities as whites. See <a href=”http://wbal.com/stories/templates/smith_show.aspx?articleid=7819&zoneid=13″>http://wbal.com/stories/templates/smith_show.as….
I also love how people defend racial discrimination on the part of the government by screaming racism. If blacks want different rights than everyone else, then pass a constitutional amendment. Until then, the government must treat everyone the same.
SD, you failed the test, didn't you. I did too. Point made.
[...] the reality. Senator clinton …11 Observations On Clinton??s Crash & Burn The Moderate Voicehttp://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/20328/why-hillary-lost-guest-voice/Pictures: Barack Obama addresses huge Portland rally Times OnlineBarack Obama yesterday addressed [...]
[...] to fight with someone who refuses to lose. And we fighters can be fearsome, even in defeat. …http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/20328/why-hillary-lost-guest-voice/Cannes Film Festival: A Polish auteur??and Mike Tyson!??stage comebacks Movies City PagesCall them [...]
Great article. As a strong supporter of womens rights, I was eventually turned
off by Hillarys campaign. Being a fighter is fine, but being a dirty fighter is
not. Had she and Bill not taken the anything to win tactic, the outcome of
the Democratic nomination might have been different.
Barack Obama handled her attacks with dignity. The Clintons are solely
responsible for their loss.