The Democratic presidential race is coming to a close. The Democratic National Committee has attempted to resolve the controversy over the Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries by giving both state delegations half votes. That diminished Barack Obama's edge over Hillary Clinton, but he is still likely to win enough delegates to be named the Democratic nominee. In fact, it appears that it is mathematically impossible for Senator Hillary Clinton to reach the magical delegate threshold of 2,118. The question now is whether Senator Clinton exits the race and if so, will she do so with grace?
Hillary Clinton's candidacy is an historic milestone. She created a massive organization, raised millions of dollars, and plowed over all but one of her male rivals. In a different year, she would have won the nomination. But not this time.
The reasons are many. Her campaign made obvious strategic miscalculations. She was not prepared for vigorous competition, only rallying after losing eleven straight contests and falling significantly behind in the delegate count. Her husband's presidency was a mixed blessing. Unfortunate comments after the South Carolina primary created a whiff of race baiting, alienating thousands of African Americans who had, until then, strongly supported her candidacy. Finally, she faced another politician nonpareil-the seemingly effortless eloquence, grace, and unparalleled ability of Barack Obama to evoke hope in millions of Americans. Moreover, the symbolism of his candidacy-which dramatically repudiates centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, and horrific acts of overt racism-overshadowed the uniqueness of her run.
The result does no discredit to her. Unfortunately, blaming sexism and misogyny for the state of Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations threatens to diminish her legacy.
She has complained about the "sexism that has gone on in this campaign" and the fact that "so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist." Some of her supporters voice similar sentiments. "She's been treated pretty shabby," one claimed. Another complained of "pervasive and insidious sexism." Yet another stated that "latent sexism has been a part of this campaign." Therese Murray, president of the Massachusetts Senate, unapologetically claimed that "Obama wouldn't have gotten to where he got today if it weren't for the bias of the male media." Geraldine Ferraro lamented that racism is unacceptable, but sexism seems to be permissible.
These claims are nonsense.
Does sexism still exist in America and are some voters unlikely to choose a woman for president? Of course. But racism also still exists, and undoubtedly has cost Senator Obama as many votes as sexism has cost Senator Clinton. Indeed, both Clintons have played the race card. To Senator Obama's credit, he has not wasted his time whining about this ugly historical legacy, but has worked to create a new reality.
Consider the membership of the U.S. Senate. There are fifteen women and one African-American. Is sex or race the bigger barrier to winning high office? Moreover, Senator Clinton has emphasized her sex during the campaign and has won support from many women because of her gender. Yet even though Senator Clinton has enthusiastically played the gender card, Senator Obama won the votes of a majority of women in 13 states and split the votes in another one. Surely, not all of his female supporters are anti-feminist, inauthentic, self-hating women.
Blaming sexism for her loss in the Democratic delegate count will set back the cause of women in politics. A new Brookings Institution study finds that the "fundamental reason for women's under representation is that they do not run for office." The most effective way to make that gap permanent is to convince women that they have no chance to win.
Senator Clinton should take pride in what she has accomplished. Equally important, though, her campaign should accept responsibility for its failings. A combination of her mistakes on strategy and Obama's gifts, not discrimination, doomed her candidacy.
13 Comments
Jane | June 5, 2008, 3:18pm | #
Michelle:
I always enjoy your insights on MSNBC. Here's some food for thought about Clinton as VP.
Would Hillary actually be able to bring her much-touted popular vote to an Obama / Clinton ticket? I'm not so sure. Hillary's three constituencies, in order of size:
WOMEN: Any thinking woman knows that Obama will be as good on women's issues as Clinton would have been (except for the symbolism of having a woman president) and will support him. McCain is disasterous on women's issues and to vote for him because Clinton lost would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
RACISTS: These people voted for the Not Black on the Democratic primary ticket. They're not going to vote for Obama just because Clinton is the VP nominee. Their loyalty is not to her.
REPUBLICANS: Starting with Karl Rove two years ago and ending with Rush Limbaugh's "operation chaos", Republicans have been itching to run against Hillary. Her high negatives energize their base and would have gotten out the Republican vote. In crossover states, especially after the Republican nomination was settled, Republicans answered the call to vote for Clinton. They wouldn't have voted for her in November.
So, other than some hard-core Hillary groupies (who might want to defeat Obama anyway so Hillary can run in 2012), what would she really bring to the ticket?
Jane
San Diego
jessica | June 6, 2008, 7:09pm | #
Barack Obama is 100 times better than Hillary on women's issues! Barack recently said he understands that female veterans have more PTSD because of harrassment issues. Hillary has never offered any sympathy to women vets. She only says that women are tough. Well, Hillary, good riddance. Obama understands women's needs better than that.
I'm hoping to get Hillary kicked off the armed services committee so I sure wouldn't want the threat of her as a VP. Military women don't want radical feminists making their life worse. The first thing hillary would do as President is force military women to have harder work and more dangerous assignments. Women just want to serve their country.
Christopher G. Edgerton | June 6, 2008, 8:11pm | #
Mrs. Bernard,
A fantastic article. It has been great seeing you on MSNBC and I sent the letter below to Mr. Matthews yesterday. It is great to hear genuine divergent view from those normally expressed. Senator Obama's message of "One America" is what wins. In the demographics I am a white southern male out of the Carolinas and have lived in Baltimore and California and my mother and grandmother who raised me were bombed out and lost many of their relatives in Europe during the Second World War as did my fathers on the American side. We did not bleed so much for so many generations only to get feigned moral outrage and violin playing. It is a time to lead! Speaker Pelosi and Dr. Rice our Secretary of State should be mentioned when regarding "womens" issues. They concern all of us!
With sincere thanks.
Mr. Matthews,
I realize Media Matters has called you "sexist" and
maybe this motivates some of the obsession with
Senator Clinton. However, Senator Obama won and little
mention was given to what he did with the DNC today.
We, as viewers only heard about Senator Obama's suits.
Why? Senator Clinton's clothes are not cheap. Senator
McCain has vast property holdings. The former
President Clinton, the donkey (party symbol reference)
Senator Clinton rode into the election on, and the
vile, loud and obscene Terry McAuliffe, who has now
taken up morning drinking as you may know from
Congressman Scarborough's show have made millions upon
millions of dollars. The lead story is Senator Obama
and Senator McCain. Not the graceless, ill mannered
Senator from New York (or is she from Illinois or
Arkansas?) and her company of international criminal
financiers, Brazilian dealings and so on. Harold "you
bet your ass" Ickes was kid gloved by Mr. Russert on
"Meet the Press." Eugene Robinson, Pat Buchanon and
Michelle Bernard have saved your broadcasts recently.
If only they could be heard more it would help.
Further, if Senator Obama has to go out and get white
voters. Why not have Senator McCain go to the schools
in black Baltimore, Washington D.C., rural
Mississippi, Atlanta, the Carolinas and Oakland. Or why not suggest it. Black voters have never had a choice but to vote
for whites and with such charismatic figures like
Mondale, Dukakis, Senator Gore and the alternatives
please measure people on the same yardstick. Senator
Obama in Virginia with Senator Webb was worth some
footage!
When you run for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania seat
you will have to do this as well. You are a great
voice and your sense of history is refreshing and rare
in the media but remember this was a Democratic
primary and punditry failed to call it. What Senator
Obama must do will be done he does not need to be told
about how to connect. It is demeaning to someone
raised by a single mother from Kansas and grandmother
in Hawaii.
Respectfully,
Christopher G. Edgerton
Manny | June 8, 2008, 12:09pm | #
I enjoyed your take on the issues surrounding this presidential race on the McLaughlin Group this sunday.
Stan Scott | June 8, 2008, 2:25pm | #
Ms. Bernard,
I found this article after watching you speak on the McLaughlin Group. I am a Barack Obama supporter who respectfully disagrees with your comments in this article.
I was against Hillary since the beginning of the campaign primarily because of her vote on the Iraq War. However, her unfair treatment by the national media and the talking heads brought me around to cheer her on. I admired her tenacity and persistence and enjoyed how she proved the pundits wrong time and again. It did not diminish my support for Obama, but it did elevate Hillary's status for me. And the only thing I can attribute this unfair treatment to is sexism. Unfortunately, it still appears to me that sexism is alive and well in 2008.
Lisa | June 9, 2008, 10:32am | #
Mrs. Bernard,
Fantastic article. I must agree with comments above HRC is not the right choice for the VP spot. Her name on the ticket will not enlist voters for Obama. Her expectations were miscalculated on this election. Hillary had in her mind the race would be won by her hands down no matter who was her opponent. Sexism, I was believe was a fundamental ploy by her and her husband. In SC Bill went a little a overboard, or did he really show who he was and who the Clintons are?
Diane | June 9, 2008, 2:15pm | #
Ms. Bernard:
I was a strong Clinton supporter, not just because she was a woman, but because her 40-year career began with working on public issues as a college student in the late 1960s, and continues to this day.
While having the education to enjoy a cushy life, she chose to give her time for years to public service.
The last time I watched you on MSNBC was a few weeks ago, when you stated at the end of the program that there could be race riots if Barack Obama did not get the nomination. I heard similar comments from former VA Governor Doug Wilder.
Do you really believe comments like those help your candidate?
As for MSNBC, they threw their hat in the ring long ago for Obama, with almost no attempt to hide that.
And, for anyone who thinks that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert and company didn't throw out the crudest types of sexist comments, then make an excuse to explain their remarks that HRC sounded like a "nagging ex-wife" or "a nagging mother warning their kid about waiting for the father to come home" or referring to the Clintons as a 'sitcom" or her "cackling" laugh, or a host of other obnoxious statements.
In contrast, Olbermann has continually fawned over Obama and Matthews has a "tingling feeling" going up his leg.
Where were the women on that network to stand up to that destructive language?
Governor Ed Rendell(D-PA) commented that the most objective coverage of the Democratic candidates came from Fox because they weren't crazy about either one of them. That tells the real story.
The truth is, millions of her supporters over 50 have thicker resumes than Senator Obama, and think it takes a whole lot more experience to serve as commander-in-chief.
Jean | June 9, 2008, 8:09pm | #
I agree with Diane, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann and everyone else on that network are sexist and just plain crude. You especially are a very ungracious winner. Tonight you are complaining that SENATOR Clinton is stepping all over Obamas moment. She is not. You spiteful critics won't stop talking about her. Aren't there any positive things you can say even about your candidate. YOU are the reason Clinton 's supporters will stay away from your candidate Barack Obama.
Rodney Spigner | June 9, 2008, 8:42pm | #
Michelle,
I agree with your article that Senator Clinton took Senator Obama campaign for granted and they discovered after Super Tuesday that they had a race on their hands.
It was then their campaign blamed the media, sexism and the Obama campaign for their troubles.
Senator Clinton might not make it to the white house, but opened the door for women to run for President of the United States.
I created a board game after the democratic contest that salutes both candidates for making history.
I plan to donate $1.00 for every game sold to Senator Clinton's campaign to help pay off her $30 million dollar debt.
Go to www.battleforthedelegates.com for more information.
Also, view the game played live on You tube - search "battle for the delegates".
Alan Brixius | June 10, 2008, 10:30am | #
I watch Hardball every night because Chris Matthrews has people on his show that gives me a good insight on what is happening between the parties. However, whenever you come on I cringe in my seat about you next attack on Hillary Clinton. I understand your reason to support Barack Obama and I support him as well (I am white) because we do need a change in Washington. I am not happy about your constant attacks on Hillary Clinton, because now that Hillary is out of the race for the president, Barack Obama needs her supporters to beat John McCain in November. I'm try to figure out if you hate all white people or is it just Hillary Clinton. Your continued attacks on Hillary will piss off her supporters and Barack will lose.
When I found out that you are a Republican I began to wonder if it is you strategy to attack Hillary and use the race card against her, continue to attack Hillary so her supporters will not vote for Obama and therefore have John McCain keep the White House for the Republicans. If you don't stop attacking Hillary Clinton and cause her supporters to not vote for Obama, I will blame you for his loss.
Jenny | June 10, 2008, 10:09pm | #
You're kidding right. Hillary plowed over no one. Hillary is where she is because she's Bill's wife, and she's a woman. The droves of misandric feminists are her supporters, not intelligent fair people. She should take pride? For throwing Peter Paul under the bus among others? For lying..again and again? For Bosnia? Sure you don't support sexist feminist Hillary Clinton? Since when as IWF supported ANY feminist or ANY feminist agenda?
paraskeve | June 13, 2008, 6:14pm | #
This is a most unintelligent, totally illogical and OBAMYOPIC article. Guess Michelle just can't see through these cracks on the ceiling, eh?!
Her phenomenally vehement HIllary-bashing renders her incapable of expressing anything but a troglodyte's affinity to truth. So, she can't see the sexism and misogyny that gave Barack the great assist from the media frat-boys that enabled the limping candidate to stumble over to the superdel finish line!
Stolen as he stole the election in Chicago from his AA mentor SEN. ALICE PALMER. Chicago-type dirty politico that Barrarck Obama.
Remember his YuTube mega-hit:
"Obama Gives F!nger to Hillary"--now that's change we can believe in! What an immature, sexist, anorexic resume...
come November the Obamyopics will be cured of their dreadful blinding afflication--delivered bitter medicine from these 'typical white (and black) women" who just can't stomach Barack's smug arrogance--and SILENCE throughout the media Hillary-bashing of which he's the direct beneficiary!
Melissa | June 16, 2008, 1:26am | #
Every time I see Michele speak, it amazes me that she calls herself pro-woman. It's a toss up whether her representing us or her attitude towards women does the most damage.
Someone should tell her that fringe groups do not represent feminists. Feminists, even radical ones, wanted one thing: to be treated with respect - up to and including being paid the same for doing the same job.
Glitzy twits that don't do their homework routinely distort the hard work of all women that had to play hardball to get men to listen. It's the feminist equivalent of the peace-nik that won't fight for their country, but abuses the hell out of the right to free speech.
Sitting on top of the pile of bodies as if all of the work is done isn't going to cut it.
If women think they are getting equal pay, they'd better take another look. Go ahead. Check it out.
Doesn't she see the double-chins in suits and the biblical slowly moving towards their daughters right to stay off of some butcher's kitchen table?
I guess not. Some things we fought for are taken for granted now. Well, they'll learn - but not from people like Michelle.
Whenever I don't feel like studying the issues so I can vote, I remember the women that died so that we could have the privilege.
Seeing Michelle verbally dogging Hillary Clinton, saying she was "like a man" was stunning to me.
Seeing the promotion of free trade without strict definition is careless to the point of irresponsible. What kind of women's group promotes that which unfairly slants against the common man and keeps labor camps in business?
It is feminine compassion - i.e., I'll be kind to you and you be kind to me. If you touch my kids, I'll rip your face off.
something we learned many men had -- that gave many of us hope for the future.
Sexism certainly played a part in the election, although not as big a part as just plain anti-clintonism. Don't you love the fickle public? The Clinton's supported the black community long before it was cool.
The media's bias against her was the worst I've ever seen. I suspect some of it will go down in journalistic history. Studies are already being done.
Personally, I didn't particularly want any of three we have to choose from, but if you check their stands on the issues-their voting records and history, you find that Hillary was much more qualified.
All politicians have to do is distract us with b.s. non-issues and we all forget what's important, don't we?
Which of the candidates is most qualified to lead the country? It takes more than a way with words.
The media fogged the issues and kept them fogged. Towards the end, the harder people looked, the better Hillary did. It was simply too late.
Michelle's outcry that Obama's "moment" was ruined by Hillary's slow withdrawal revealed her lack of cutting edge information. Many people wanted her to run as an independent. She had a legitimate decision to make.
It was a woman's career in the balance and those calling themselves "politically astute" were outraged.
The continuous demand for Hillary to quit the race well before any male candidate would have been should have been fodder for a "new feminist" fire. It was all part of the media's echo chamber and I'd expect an educated woman claiming to represent women to call them on it, not join them!
Ah well. People get the government they deserve. Maybe someday we'll learn. In the meantime, the lesser of evils...