When I started looking at this race early in the year, I was not predisposed to Hillary, though when she ran for Senator as First Lady I did expect this run, and I was fully hopeful and in support of it. But, I was upset by her AUMF vote and I didn't want to support Hillary "just because she was a woman", so I entered the race with an open mind, and no disposition to any particular candidate, aside from Al Gore.
But, little by little, Hillary won me over. It was a mix of factors that brought me to her side. Her performances in the debates and on the stump impressed me more than any other candidate. The reminders of her lifelong advocacy for children was significant. Her progressive voting record in the Senate. Her reputation as a hard worker. Her committment to the issues I care about. All of these things brought me back to where I was when she won her Senate seat for the first time in New York, fully hopeful and in support of her candidacy for President.
And, as she won me over and became the clear favorite in the race, I have allowed myself to imagine what it might be like to elect the first Democratic female President of these United States, and I have to tell you, it's an extremely powerful notion. I sometimes read something like this article, Encouraged by Women's Response, Clinton Stresses Female Side, and actually find myself choked up. It's a viceral reaction. I can't explain it, I didn't expect, but it's there. I will acknowledge that.
Indeed, I would say many women and feminist have a similar reaction to Hillary's monumental run. According to the article I cite,
In the latest Washington Post-ABC News survey, conducted in late September, 57 percent of women said they would support Clinton in a Democratic primary, compared with 15 percent for Sen. Barack Obama and 13 percent for former senator John Edwards. Of those who support Clinton, 31 percent said that her chance to make history was a factor in their decision.
Consider that for a moment. 57% of women in an eight person race support Hillary. That's astounding. More than twice as many women support Hillary than Obama and Edwards combined. According to that same poll, Clinton also holds a significant lead among self-described feminists in a generic match-up with Giuliani, "Men and women who call themselves feminists preferred Clinton 64 to 30 percent, while those who did not were evenly divided between Clinton and Giuliani, 48 to 46 percent."
While one of today's posters suggested Hillary is running from her gender given her penchant for wearing pants suits, I would argue Hillary is doing just the opposite. According to the same article,
In the early days of the 2008 presidential race, the question was often asked: Is the country ready to elect a female president? And Clinton seemed to be bracing to confront the doubters.
But as the primary campaign has evolved, giving Clinton a substantial lead in national polls in the race for the Democratic nomination, her public approach to the gender issue has shifted with it. Far from running away from the so-called woman question, she has taken to openly embracing it.
The result is a campaign that is much more overtly feminist than her own advisers had anticipated -- more House Speaker Nancy Pelosi than former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, more focused on reaching out to women than neutralizing worries about a woman candidate.
I think there is an entire unelectability argument being staged against Hillary, that is mostly a dog whistle campaign based on her gender. The article I cite notes the still difficult nature of being a woman running for President, "The flip side of her strong support from women is the potential for a backlash among men -- especially in a state such as Iowa, the first caucus state, which has never elected a woman to Congress." Imagine, Hillary is trying to win the caucus in a state that has never so much as elected a woman to Congress, much less elected one the candidate in a presidential election. In a recent stop in NH, "several male audience members shook their heads and refused to clap." So, while her gender helps her with women, it may actually be hurting her with men. According to the Washington Post poll, while she holds a 42 point lead among women to Obama, that lead shrinks to 22 points among men.
So here's my point, Hillary's gender is relevant to this campaign. For some, it's a sign of unelectability, or even a reason to not trust her with the presidency. To many of us, particularly women and feminists, it is a historic moment that captivates and inspires us. One Republican strategist put best what Hillary's run in a general election will be like:
Too many Republican strategists are girding for the wrong fight. They are acting and talking like we’ll be facing Leona Helmsley, the notorious "Queen of Mean," when our nominee faces off against Hillary Clinton. But that’s not the Hillary we’ll be confronting next November. Before this is over, Hillary’s candidacy will have more in common with Amelia Earhart’s first trans-Atlantic flight or Sally K. Ride’s first trip into space than Helmsley’s heartlessness.
Comments are closed on this story.