-
It is tempting to believe that Hillary seemed so relaxed, and confident, and generous this afternoon because she has finally accepted her place. And that place is, once again, second to a giant of male charisma. But this would be insulting, and also not true. I think she projected such calm certainty in her bowing out speech because she is at her best out of combat. When the white shirt is out, she can put her demons to rest and, for the most part, let go of the enemies-under-every-rock view that seems to always darken her mood.
If this had been her hello instead of her goodbye I might have felt more enthusiasm for her, or at least affection. She opened on a historic note, mentioning the little girls who now understand that "we can be whatever we want to be." She placed her candidacy in a string of civil rights victories. She mentioned the 50—50!—women who have orbited the Earth.* It's not merely that she cheerfully checked the boxes all the sour pundits drew for her—enthusiastic, repeated endorsements of Obama, calls for Democratic unity. It's that she finally accepted her role as a pathbreaker for women, and not the victim of constant attacks.
Yes, there were some uh-oh moments. The digression about "barriers" and "biases" that went on a little too long. The weird metaphor of her supporters as 18 million shards of glass chipping off the glass ceiling. But for the most part, she hit the notes Meghan was complaining had been missing from her candidacy.
Yes, the female Hillary and Obama supporters will be fighting it out for some time. But with this graceful exit, she allowed the larger conversation to move on. After her speech I was listening to conservative talk radio—in this case the talk show hosted by Richard Land, the enlightened Southern Baptist leader. He is obviously no Obama supporter but he could not help but describe his nomination as the symbol of the greatness of America, and how far we have come. This could stem from conservatives' reluctance to hit hard at a black man (as Peggy Noonas argues) Or it could be genuine. Either way, it can't be bad for the Democrats.
Read more XX Factor posts about Hillary's exit.
*Correction, June 9: The post originally said that 50 women had orbited space.
-
David Brooks raises an excellent question in his column today about demographics and the Democrats: I understand why affluent, college educated voters are drawn to Barack Obama, but how did Hillary Clinton become the candidate of the working class voter? She went to Wellesley and Yale Law School. People in Arkansas found her snooty and bizarre. She didn't shop at Wal-Mart, she served on the board. There was the "cookie baking" flap. In the years since the White House she and her husband have taken in more than $100 million and their best friends are billionaires. Brooks offers only, "Clinton's talk of fighting and resilience plays well down market", but is that it? Whatever it is, Hillary has wrought an absolutely extraordinary political transformation.
And what is everyone thinking about Obama's tepid response to Jeremiah Wright's "throw Obama under the bus" tour? Is Obama right to simply say, "He does not speak for me He does not speak for the campaign. He may make statements in the future that don't reflect my values or concerns. I think certainly what the last three days indicate is that we're not coordinating with him, right?" and just hope Wright burns himself out. Or does he have to make a stronger, more specific statement saying that while he still has love for the Rev. Wright and appreciation for the role he has played in his life, he is filled with sorrow over the ugly, damning, just plain wrong things he has been saying, etc.—which runs the risk of looking like he is getting into an under-the-bus throwing contest with his pastor and which might offend some black voters?
-
Noooo... it wasn't Monica.
It was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of course, joining Bill and Hillary for a breakfast with "religious leaders" on Sept. 11, 1998. There is a lovely photo, too.
Q. Does this mean Bill & Hillary are closet Wright parishioners who share Wright's every opinion?!
A. Nope. But I think now we can all stop talking about Jeremiah Wright. If Wright was good enough to be considered a major national religious leader by the Clinton White House, then maybe Barack Obama wasn't uniquely obtuse in his decision to stay on at the church where Wright presided. And maybe Hillary Clinton's campaign should stop trying to use Wright to discredit Obama.
Just a thought.
And in case you were wondering what Bill, Hillary, the Rev. Wright, and the other religious leaders chatted about over their coffee and muffins: Bill took the occasion to repent. Even the absent Monica got an apology from Bill, at least in passing: "It is important to me that everybody who has been hurt know that the sorrow I feel is genuine. First and most important, my family, my friends, my staff, my Cabinet, Monica Lewinsky and her family, and the American people."
-
I love that Woolf quote, Judith, and it's sadly apt, lo this century later. And I think you're right that's both Hillary's own doing and a product of how she's been treated. But I wonder about your claim that she has weathered horrors and Obama's hasn't. Yes, she wore the straitjacket of being the first lady, which was never more strangling than in Bill Clinton's White House. But Obama is a 46-year-old black man with an amazingly unconventional and also difficult past; see his autobiography. Forgive me if you were talking about their public and recent political personas and experiences rather than their whole selves and lives, but since I don't like the race-and-gender-suffering one-upsmanship, I can't help pointing out that Obama knows a real trial when he sees one. His have been different kinds of crucibles, and maybe that explains why he's sunny Jane Austen, but maybe it's more apt to think of him as a black writer with a light and wry side, like Langston Hughes (who Rosa reminded us of the other day.)
I'm curious: Does the comparing of your racism as worth than my sexism, and vice versa, distress any one else? Or is it just me who sees this as singularly unproductive?
-
I hear you, Hanna and Emily et al.—OK, pretty much everybody, now—and no doubt you're right, but I have to confess that I don't feel entirely ready for this to be over. I like this contest. I like the analysis and entrail-reading. I like getting up in the morning to find out how the returns came in overnight. I like watching as the Democratic party tries to manage the Godzilla-versus-Mothra nature of this battle between two formidable candidates and as superdelegates and party people try to decide which side to side with. It's suspenseful and exciting—like a great basketball game that's now gone into overtime. It doesn't seem such a bad thing if these two candidates continue to differentiate their positions and levels of readiness; and if Obama starts getting tougher media questioning and being obliged to respond, surely that will enable all of us to get to know him better. And I think that the primary results do enable us to look for illuminating patterns among voters.
Ruth Marcus has a terrific column today in the Post. She convincingly refutes Hillary Clinton's complaints about sexism: Given that Clinton began this race as the establishment favorite, Marcus point out, it's ludicrous for her to plead that the playing field, for her, isn't level. However, Marcus also points out that for future female presidential candidates, sexism, while it may not be the most constraining "-ism" in America, cannot be dismissed. Noting that Hillary Clinton doesn't do as well among Democratic men as she does among women, and that there have been sexist overtones to some criticisms directed at her—the b-word among them—Marcus says, "I've been wondering whether the country, particularly the male half, can comfortably fit a woman into its mental picture of a president. Obama's success stems in large part from his ability to use rhetoric to inspire and persuade. The country has scant experience of a woman in that role." She quotes Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, pointing out that Americans lack "historical memory" of a charismatic leader who is a woman. Would we accept one, I wonder? Would voters flock to a woman with Obama-like charisma? If not, why not? Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate to answer these questions; there are too many variables, too many other reasons why someone might oppose her, besides gender. But I think these are interesting conversations to have and I'm prepared to keep having them for a while longer. It beats working.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?