« Than Shwe: This Child Is Burma’s Only Future: Do Not Let An Entire Generation of Burmese Children Be Wiped Out by Your Inaction
Another Swing and a Miss on al-Masri »



The Fall of Hillary Clinton: Why It Wasn’t Enough To Merely Master A Man’s Game

May 9th, 2008
By SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist


01aa-hillary-annoounce_1.jpgOn the 492nd day of Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the first woman president, one inevitability was rudely replaced by another.

That was the number of days that elapsed from January 20, 2007 when Clinton (photo) announced that “I’m in. And I’m in it to win,” something that few observers could seriously doubt, and Tuesday past when voters in North Carolina and Indiana delivered another message: Her defeat at the hands of Barack Obama in the political cage match of the young millennium was no longer a probability but an inevitability.

Sure signs of this seismic shift are the uproar from the hardest of Clinton’s hardcore supporters and flurry of kamikazee analogies from pundits shaking their heads over her stubborn refusal to bow to that inevitability.

These supporters declare that Obama is unelectable although more Americans may vote for him in November than any presidential candidate in history. And that Clinton should be gifted the Democratic nomination although she trails Obama in popular votes, pledged delegate votes, opinion-poll positives, contributions and endorsements, and any second in superdelegates, as well.

The hardcore ranges from big-time bloggers like Taylor Marsh, who will now have to return that lovely dress she bought months ago to wear to the inaugural balls (but at least is making noises about possibly embracing Obama) to some really pissed-off feminists (who are demonizing Marsh for seeing the light).

I’m going to focus on the Hell Hath No Fury Like a Feminist Scorned crowd, which is shaping up to be a bunch of especially poor losers.

These feminists are, of course, blaming everyone except Hillary and Bill Clinton, who in an historic series of arrogant miscalculations took what was once pretty close to a sure thing and squandered it. This took some effort because it required surrounding themselves with sycophantic staffers who determinedly ignored the mood of the electorate and engaged in a Rovian slash-and-burn campaign that alienated practically everyone except blue-collar bubbas and white women who are eligible — or soon will be eligible — for senior-citizen discounts.

The Clintons even managed to crap all over their legacy of attracting black support not because Barack was blacker than Bill but because Hill and Bill were revealed to be cynical frauds to many blacks.

No less a light than George McGovern is taking it on the chin in the wake of Hillary’s Terrible Tuesday because he violated feminist orthodoxy by calling not Hill but Bill the day after to explain that while he probably was the last person in South Dakota to do so, he was changing his support from Clinton to Obama.

In a series of blog exchanges elsewhere, I suggested that these hard hearts try understand that McGovern, who has been eligible for senior-citizen discounts for 25 years, is a kind and gentle soul who opposed the Vietnam War early on, was a model of ethical probity in the Senate and a trailblazer in removing Democratic Party politics from the smoke-filled rooms of yore.

All I got for my efforts was being labeled a “douchebag” and “jerkoff” by two self-described feminists and a “blowhard” by an anonymoose.

Name calling aside, I feel their pain.

The seeds of the election of the first woman president were planted in the halcyon days of the late 1960s and finally seemed well within the realm of possibilities after four hard decades of educating and organizing.

But Hillary Clinton and her sisters only had one rule book to use as they toiled over the years to elect woman state legislators, governors and U.S. senators and representatives. Today there are a record 13 women in the Senate and 61 women in the House of Representatives as a result of their labors.

That rule book was the one that Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes and of course Bill Clinton himself used, but a funny thing happened on the way through the glass ceiling to 2008.

The old rules fell into disrepair and then disrepute and it simply was not enough for Hillary to be better at this man’s game than her own husband and the other men who came before her. Alas, she and her sisters didn’t understand that they needed to change the rules if they were to attract a restive electorate.

That is why the next president will not be the wife of a certain ex-president but a man who has changed the rules, energizing the Democratic Party as no candidate has been able to do in my lifetime. And, irony of ironies, is paving the way for the eventual election of the first woman president. Who will have to wait her turn for a few more years because Hillary Clinton blew it.



This entry was posted on Friday, May 9th, 2008 at 3:23 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, Feminism, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 44 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I read anger, hatred, stereotypes, gloating, sexism and generalizations in this critique. I hope it's not intended to attract supporters because all it does is alienate. This is one of the most unappealing things I've read recently.

    I also hope that Barack Obama himself absolutely never, ever ever describes any voter this way, or the campaign as a "man's game" - I'm going to assume you just wanted to be provocative and vent your feelings. Or something.
    • ^
    • v
    Obama has run an outstanding race. He has focused on the rules and he has run a grass roots campaign that had confronted an unusually powerful and polarizing front runner and come away with not so much as a victory but as a tie.

    In hindsight, Hillary's downfall is perfectly within the framework of political expectations not only by Democrats but all of America. Hillary has been elevated to coronation status for 16 years. America and more specifically the secular humanists within the democratic party who felt betrayed by the Clintons once they were in office.

    Because you have essentially secular humanists running this campaign and driving its dynamics the process has become about people. What is more defining about people then race?

    This democratic nomination process has been about nothing but race. What are the Blacks doing. What are the Whites doing. What are the Hispanics doing. No where is it more evident to me then in this democratic primary season.

    Within both parties are a closet full of skeletons. The democrats are going to make the fatal and flawed mistake of finger pointing instead of trying to fix what is wrong and in the process a party that is not powerfully FOR anything but has chosen to simply be for what the GOP is not has led it to the brink of internal chaos of its own accord.
    • ^
    • v
    Jill:

    Let's take something public that I have spoken to you about privately -- your willful naivete.

    Do you really suggest that politics has not been a man's game in this country?

    Do you really suggest that Bill Clinton did not have an outsized role in his wife's campaign?

    Do you really suggest that the polarization and divisiveness that the Clinton campaign worked so hard to sew did not hurt them?

    Do you really suggest that the race baiting -- which continues through this week with some extraordinarily ham-handed comments from the candidate and her chief strategist -- hasn't alienated blacks?

    Do you really suggest that what my post is about is demonization while you ignore my salutatory remarks regarding how hard feminists -- AND THIS MAN, AS WELL -- have worked over the last four decades to empower women in the workplace and in politics?

    Do you really suggest that Obama is not leaving Clinton in the dust because he picked up on and ran hard with the electorate's thirst for change while Clinton played by the old rules?

    What is it that you're doing except stooping to the very name calling that I noted in my post?

    Well?
    • ^
    • v
    Jill - I didn't read any of those things in Shaun's comments and I'm an old feminist. He mentioned the progress women have made - not enough for me of course, but there has been progress. She could have been the first woman president but let's face it. She and her campaign blew it. For me it's not about race or gender. It's about change in America. She didn't represent change. I thought she did at first and supported her, but later it became the same old politics. She didn't have to do this - she is smart, articulate, and despite her recent comments, truly believes in America. It's unfortunate she chose to run her campaign this way.
    • ^
    • v
    If Jill's comment is representative of naivete, then I say Long live Naivete."

    It certainly is more clear sighted than anything in this post.
    Hint: being blinded by antipaty is not anything remotely close to sophistication.
    • ^
    • v
    Shaun - I chose my words carefully. They represent what I read in what you wrote. Obviously not everyone read it that way or will read it that way. And that's fine. I stand by what I wrote. I didn't call you a single name. And I won't. Except Shaun.
    • ^
    • v
    Jill wrote: (Incidently why doesn't this obviously well laid out, well designed and superb blog not have a quote feature or other posting tools?)

    No Jill Didn't write that. She wrote this:

    I also hope that Barack Obama himself absolutely never, ever ever describes any voter this way,

    Shaun I think Jill addressed your entire post with these words. You tend to be describing anyone who would dare support Hillary as some sort of hoodlum with a gun in a knife fight.

    Also you say that she played by the rules but that was wrong. That she needed to change the rules to win. Strange concept. In general while my opinion is meaningless I do sense a lot of anger towards Hillary. But not only are you addressing your anger at Hillary but to the millions who have supported her and continue to do so.

    I will never forget reading an opinion page from a paper in France the day Bush was elected to a second term. "What are those Idiots thinking?" That has always stuck with me and it seems to have become the overwhelming theme of politics within America today.

    If you do not agree with me and my candidate then the philosophy seems to have become:

    "What are those Idiots thinking?"
    • ^
    • v
    Joy?-

    Shaun expressed the same basic sentiments at the very start of the campign, before Hillary had a chance to do anything right or anything wrong.

    Overall, the whole anti-Clinton campaign looks and smells more like an obsession instead of analysis
    • ^
    • v
    Jill:

    "I read ANGER, HATRED, STEREOTYPES, GLOATING, SEXISM and generalizations in this critique. I hope it's not intended to attract supporters because all it does is alienate. This is one of the most unappealing things I've read recently."

    Ahem.
    • ^
    • v
    But Shaun, that is what I read in what you wrote. Only you can say "I'm not angry, I don't hate, I don't lump together, I am trying to be humble, this race isn't being won or lost on gender and I don't clump as though they are one single category."

    That is what I read. I accept that it may say more about me than about anything else. And I held back on my keyboard before publishing - but I felt it was important to leave that feeling here because what you describe SO isn't my experience and I SO don't like to be lumped and I SO don't want to be represented and seen as being monolithic as you describe.

    I mean, isn't NOT being monolithic part of what Obama is supposed to be all about? So the way you describe things here seems completely antithetical to me as representative of the best of what Obama is supposedly offering that is new.

    In the fight to win in November, how do you think more voters will be won over - from wherever they are sitting on the spectrum? By backing them into a corner and demanding that they see what you see or else they're naive, or showing them what is attractive that they can recognize and relate to?

    I just feel like the discourse around analyzing what has happened and is going on could be so much more constructive. I feel that what you wrote in this post is very destructive - it doesn't engender a desire to shift support.

    And that's what will be necessary for Obama to win.
    • ^
    • v
    Meanwhile, Susan Faludi offers a different but not incompatible perspective in today's NYTimes in writing that when there is a woman president it will, in part, be because "Hillary Clinton got down with the boys" in 2008.

    Link:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fal...
    • ^
    • v
    Joy - I don't see that being a feminist of any era has anything to do with liking or not liking the tenor of what Shaun wrote. He could say the exact same thing without labels, stereotypes and generalizations.

    By the way - what about all the men who voted for Clinton? Where do they fit in? I mean, there have been a lot of them. I actually haven't read anything about them now that I think of it - that's kind of weird. Has anyone else?
    • ^
    • v
    Ha. Thanks for that link, Shaun. See - I thought that we were trying to move away from the bazillion labels Faludi uses - I could swear I've heard Obama support that notion. But I may be wrong - maybe he likes the labels as much as Faludi and others. Personally, I don't know what to make of stigma anymore.

    But I digress. lol sorry

    As you might imagine, I don't see the role of a presidential candidate as going into the basement to fight amongst themselves. And I don't think Obama talks as though he does either - he talks about taking it to a higher place, of expecting better and more. And in fact some criticisms have been lobbed at him for not fighting enough.

    So Faludi's whole premise doesn't resonate for me. But, again, that's is just moi.
    • ^
    • v
    Oooo - I don't really know what it means or how it works, but my disquis number thingy just went down for the first time ever! Uh oh.
    • ^
    • v
    Yeah, "Man's Game" is really problematic. You should think about it, dude.

    To be specific, it's not feminists who are pissed off. It's feminists who are over 65 who are pissed off. These first wavers, who admittedly fought the hard battles that made it easier for me, remind me a lot of HRC herself. They're tough, determined, and tireless in pursuit of their goal to put a woman in the White House. Unfortunately, I see a lot of these supporters exhibiting some of olde style feminism/HRC's, er, less productive traits.

    First, there is the focus on the middle class white woman as the prime unit of feminism. Part of the reason that there are so many off-shoots of feminism (e.g. Black Feminism which argues that forms of feminism that strive to overcome sexism and class oppression but ignore or minimize race can perpetuate racism and thereby contribute to the oppression of many people, including women) is that there's always been this tactical myopia on some women's problems. A good example: earning the power to work outside of the home was not an accomplishment for black feminists; they had been working all along. Acknowledgment of the problems facing more types of women could have expanded her base.

    Second, and most disturbing, is the willingness to sell out your ideals to get what you want. I've seen far too many women try to hold the nomination hostage by promising to vote for McCain. This is a man who has had a 0% rating from NARAL for as long as I've been checking. He votes against fair pay acts for women. He would do everything in his power to minimize/eradicate choice in this country. The man opposes funding for family planning programs and regularly votes against requiring insurance coverage of birth control. He would undo much that women have achieved over the past 40 years and some "feminists" would help him into office. Why hurt their daughters and granddaughters and undo their own legacies like that?
    • ^
    • v
    Jill,

    How I read your posts is that you have failed to communicate your ideas effectively. You write as a disgruntled Hillary supporter who is doomed to lose.
    • ^
    • v
    janinedm:

    Thank you for picking up and moving the dialog along. Good points all, especially the historic perspective.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with Shaun 100% re: Janinedm's comment.
    • ^
    • v
    Um - Hillaryhaslost - I almost never write about Hillary and I never write about her as a supporter. So - you know - you might want to provide links or something.
    • ^
    • v
    Jillmz--

    Everyone knows what Shaun is like when it comes to Clinton.
    • ^
    • v
    Aw, shucks.

    I'm trying (and often failing) to build a reputation for productiveness and evenhandedness during the primaries because when the focus turns to McCain, I expect you'll see me in full-on, mistyping, all-caps, white knuckle rage!!1!
    • ^