Clinton supporters should 'get even' / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, June 13, 2008

By Ellen Goodman

June 13, 2008

Boston — So is the glass half full or half empty? Or to pick a better metaphor, is the "highest, hardest" glass ceiling now half shattered by the 18 million cracks or does it look as impermeable as ever after this unsuccessful battering?

This has not been an easy week for ardent Hillary supporters who are being told to move on and move over to the Obama camp. The woman who looked improbably energetic and strong as she bowed out last Saturday reinforced both the respect and disappointment of her core supporters.

Mourning is not too strong a word to describe what I've been hearing in the last few days. No sooner had the speech ended than a Hillary fundraiser received an e-mail from the Democratic National Committee asking her to raise money for Obama. She said, tersely, they didn't even wait for the body to cool. The next day, with Hillary waving goodbye on The New York Times' Page 1, there was an article on Michelle Obama's clothes in the Styles section. Back to the first lady beat, sighed a reader.

"Women have had the idea of her being president in their heads for a decade or more. So the level of disappointment, anger, discouragement is that much stronger," said Marie Wilson of the White House Project. As Dianne Feinstein said, "the nerve endings have to be healed."

Well, fair enough. But in the early stage of the mourning process, those supporters who have been dismissively pegged as Angry White Women should take another adage from politics: Don't Get Mad, Get Even.

This is not a revenge fantasy, especially not against Obama. I cannot imagine the core of Hillary's female supporters turning to McCain, a man who voted against equal pay, let alone abortion rights. So I'm not talking about payback; I'm talking about pay-it-forward. I mean "get even" in a very different sense: Even the playing field, even the odds.

Get Even in the Media. Every Hillary supporter I talk to heatedly brings up the media. Women who have never let the word "misogyny" slip from their lips now pair it alliteratively with media. I will spare you the reprise of Great Sexist Hits of 2008. If you have five minutes, go to the Web site of the Women's Media Center and be aware that this is just a Whitman's Sampler.

It wasn't just the ugly stuff coming out from under the rocks - "Life's a B--, Don't Elect One." Nor was it just the sleazy shout-outs of the new boys' blogosphere. What shocked even the slur-hardened feminists was that, as Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List said, "it seemed to be so acceptable. And it was shameful." Where was the DNC's voice of protest? Where were the big feet and CEOs of the media? Why do sexist slurs get a laugh while racist slurs end careers? Getting even is, finally, shaming the media messengers.

Get Even in Politics. First lady Hillary Clinton made the water safe for "uppity" wives like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama. She may well make it easier for the next woman running for the West Wing.

But how different would this race have been if there were three women in the mix? Women of varied opinions and backgrounds? Women are still lagging behind in the profession of politics, and are reticent to run. For all those mourners who fear there won't be a woman in the White House in their lifetime, getting even is building - sports metaphors be damned - the farm team.

Get Even as Voters. Until now, Democrats have taken our votes for granted. Where else would progressive women go? Democratic leaders have often seen these women as a one-issue, pro-choice group. It's not enough.

I'm not saying that Hillary's world will be appeased by offering her the vice presidency. To some this would be a proper reward, but others would see it as only a consolation prize. More importantly, Obama needs to talk directly to women in this fragile, slip-sliding, backsliding economy. Getting even requires winning respect.

"It would break my heart," said Hillary, "if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours." Well, I'll hold the half-full cup lightly in my hand. But let's remember how good women are supposed to be at multi-tasking. It's not so hard to root for Obama and work on leveling the field for the next women.

Getting "even" is the best revenge.

Ellen Goodman is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

13 June 2008
at 6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

The arrogance of Goodman and the women she regularly cites in her columns, who always seem to think that they are speaking for all women in America, continues to be offensive. And, what's her point? Is she advocating that her own national coffee klatch of women simply not vote? Are her comments more in the nature of a threat to the women and men who run the DNC? Whatever it is, if this is any indication, the women on whose behalf she does speak are not happy.
13 June 2008
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

peach_plum_pear (Anonymous) says…

“Democratic leaders have often seen these women as a one-issue, pro-choice group. It's not enough.”She saying that even in the “progressive” DNC, women have got to be careful of people falling back on patriarchal tradition and base misogyny as tools to denying them opportunities for advancement. I'm an Obama supporter for sure, but it hurts my ears when people try to take down a politician by labeling them “shrill” - a word I have never, ever heard applied to man, much less a man running for public office. The ability to dismiss women's ambitions, qualifications, skills and ideas is not limited to conservative old-timers - indeed it is alive and well among my peers, liberal progressive college students at KU.So, ladies: don't put up with it! Let's show 'em how tough, smart, qualified and skilled we are, in every way. Let's not allow dismissive misogynistic comments to poison the discussion about who to elect or how to improve our communities and nation.
13 June 2008
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

barrypenders (Anonymous) says…

The nice thing about democrats is that they have clear distinct lines drawn for the sexs and various races.
13 June 2008
at 9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Does the DNC have a specific strategy to appeal to left-handed trans-gendered Lower Slobbovians?
13 June 2008
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

“Women have had the idea of her being president in their heads for a decade or more. So the level of disappointment, anger, discouragement is that muchstronger,” said Marie Wilson of the White House Project. As Dianne Feinstein said, “the nerve endings have to be healed.”—uh, *not all women*!arogant. and, there are a lot of Hilary supporters who *are* planning to vote for McCain. ***oh, and, Hilary *was* shrill. up to a couple months ago, her voice had an amazingly grating quality! her voice pitch did change and I think she visited a speech therapist or voice coach. my wife thinks she just got a tired voice from campaigning. her “sHrillary” name goes back a long way, describing that godaweful voice. ***finally, E.G. here subtly slams women who aren't liberals, aren't in favor of women being able to freely kill their babies right up to birth, etc. she does, however, highlight the real demorat party. I expect to never hear a dem whining about the 2000 election now though! the good thing about how the dems treated hilary in their primary is theygave her the boot, though *she had more votes* than did Barry H. O'bama. more votes from actual voters, not super deligates! so, they *chose* to nominate the candidate that *wasn't* the top in the votes. hmmm, hypocrites.
13 June 2008
at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Speakout (Anonymous) says…

The way I see it is that every person, man or woman should be elected for their ideas and their leadership, not because of their race or gender. Perhaps the American people in the Democratic Party want the ideas and ideals that Obama speaks about and not what Clinton spoke about. Her “loss” may be just because her ideas didn't catch hold or her baggage was too much. I am for Obama because of his ideas and leadership and against Clinton because of her husband and corruption. Nothing against her gender or race. How many others feel that way? If she were a man, I would still feel that way.I would vote for a woman who is a qualified leader and stateswoman. I was not for Hilary the candidate.
13 June 2008
at 10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rachaelisacancer (Anonymous) says…

Unlike the elderly and the bearded troll, I'm able to see the completely sound reasoning in Goodman's article. We should as women - as humans, as members of society - vote for the candidate who promises us equality. At the same time, we should be fighting to have inequality addressed. Like she said, we're good at multi-tasking. Nobody said Goodman is speaking for all women. She's just speaking for women who actually care about other women. Sadly enough, you may find three trolls to every one of those caring women.

13 June 2008
at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Nobody has said that Goodman is speaking for all women except Goodman herself, when she routinely says, “women want this” or “women believe this” or “women feel this way,” ad infinitum, which she does time and time again. There are many women (“female trolls,” apparently, to a previous poster) for whom Goodman definitely does not speak. It's ridiculous.
13 June 2008
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

The question is, what did Barack Obama do to women? Yes, there are boors on every bandwagon. But, Obama? He ran. That's it. He decided that, compared to an unapologetic Iraq war supporter and the #1 recipient of lobbyist dollars in the US Senate (Senator Clinton), he might be a real alternative. On the little slurs, I'll see your “likable enough” and raise you a “not a Muslim, as far as I know”.
13 June 2008
at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I don't see Goodman speaking for anyone but herself, Cato. Nevertheless, judging by your name, I'd say that she certainly is more qualified to speak for women than you are.
13 June 2008
at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pancho_villa (Anonymous) says…

Goodman is banging her head on the glass ceiling as always because she has no idea how to negotiate; rather, only how to nag, which is never attractive. Feminists shoot themselves in the feet, first by being shrill, and second by complaining about being called shrill when held accountable.For the sake of the next generation, it is helpful to realize that this (small minority) group of 60s, overbearing, bra-shedding, radical feminists are moving ever closer to being placed in nursing homes by the children they didn't abort; that is, being placed in the same nursing homes they built for their mothers to live in while they spent their lives banging their heads on the glass ceiling in a never ending quest for equality.Duck, conservatives. Incoming!
13 June 2008
at 11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

riverat (Joe Hyde) says…

Who says Sen. Clinton won't someday be President? Why should that aspiration die? She's young enough, smart enough, experienced enough and connected enough that she can run for President again in the next election — perhaps even the election after next.I could be mistaken, but what has hurt her chances the most this time around was not that she's a woman; it was her Yea vote approving the invasion of Iraq.
13 June 2008
at 11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Speakout (Anonymous) says…

Maybe I see things differently, but the more we rag about equality and bring up these issues, the more unequal they become. For example. If women or blacks or Muslims or Jews or whatever want equality, then they have to work into the mainstream and not a special group.This morning there was a question posed on KPR: “who was the first African American to join NASA?” Does it matter that he was AA? Who cares? This is singling out an individual according to his race an action we want to stop don't we? Who cares if he is AA as long as he is an American? The longer we keep stressing a person's race or gender, the longer race and gender will be an issue. Lets stop that!
13 June 2008
at 11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Bozo, I speak for no one but myself, and have never implied that I was speaking for anyone, especially any particular group of women. Judging by your name, however, perhaps it can be inferred that you do speak on behalf of clowns like Goodman.
13 June 2008
at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EXks (Anonymous) says…

Goodman fails to mention Hillary's worst campaign albatross….Bill Clinton himself. He did Hill no favors shooting off his pie hole with his infamous melt down's with the press. And Hill's campaign advisers were just as bad, if not worse. It wasn't sexism that sunk Mrs.Clinton's campaign, it was lousy management and her idea that she was *entitled* as a Clinton to be crowned the Dem noniee!

13 June 2008
at 12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigDog (Anonymous) says…

Speaking of Hilary Clinton ….. where has she disappeared to?
13 June 2008
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

verity (Anonymous) says…

I am a woman close to Hillary Clinton's age, straight out of the sixties, fought for equality my whole life, etc., etc. and sometimes probably shrill. I certainly don't take Mrs. Clinton's defeat as a personal insult or as being anti-women. Mr. Obama did a better job of convincing people that he held the same values they do.Unfortunately, our generation didn't get done what we thought we would. Some of us sold out, some of us just got tired, some of us got greedy. I could go on. We are leaving a really messed up world for those who come after us.In my humble opinion, it's time for a new generation to take over. I have become very cynical after what I have seen in my lifetime, but I still have hope that a new generation will turn us in a new direction. I will vote based on that.Thank you.
13 June 2008
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EXks (Anonymous) says…

Good post verity, I concur. A lot of good history has come to pass, considering that women couldn't even VOTE until 1920 and still they weren't politically equal to men.And, Barak Hussein Obama will be a morally better president than Geroge Herbert (Hoover) Walker Bush
13 June 2008
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“Bozo, I speak for no one but myself, and have never implied that I was speaking for anyone…”Um, liar.
13 June 2008
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Defender, in calling me a “liar,” as you have done before, you continue to make libelous comments on this site. Maybe you'd get further with a different approach.
13 June 2008
at 7:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

commuter (Anonymous) says…

Since people are talking about Bill. My major disappointment with Bill was his first two years in office. He had majorities in both the House and the senate. What does he do?> - he send Hillary to champion for health care, championing like she was the president, instead of him.Bush despite all of his other faults, Bush decreased the tax rates, reduced capital gain rates, and created the child tax credit. For people who think his tax cuts were only for the rich, please feel free to recalculate your taxes without the tax changes during his tenure. Unless you made a lot less money, it is a good bet you have paid less taxes. Please feel free to send the money to the Fed and explain that tax cuts were only for the rich and since I am not rich, I am not entitled to this reduction in income taxes.
13 June 2008
at 8:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

When Obama gave his highly praised speech at the last Dem convention, the left was swept off their feet. Hillary and Bill were carrying the Dem torch. George Soros and Howard Dean and the entire left-wing of the Dem party saw Obama as the new change agent–—and cast Bill and Hillary to the swine. Hillary is a conservative compared to Obama and Obama really isn't *that* liberal to the left wing of the Dem party, but the most liberal. That's why the Dem party (which includes their policy and agenda wing, the corrupt liberal media) love Obama like no other. It is a true love story. I'm sure it'll play out like all other love stories. Deception, anger, denial, attempts at reconciliation, hurt, lies, third, fourth, fifth parties etc and maybe a tragedy. 'Twill be very interesting when the Dem party blows sky high. Can't wait.
13 June 2008
at 10:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

rachaelisacancer(Anonymous)says:Unlike the elderly and the bearded troll, I'm able to see the completely sound reasoning in Goodman's article.We should as women - as humans, as members of society - vote for the candidate who promises us equality. At the same time, we should be fighting to haveinequality addressed. Like she said, we're good at multi-tasking.Nobody said Goodman is speaking for all women. She's just speaking for women who actually care about other women. Sadly enough, you may find three trollsto every one of those caring women.–whoa there Rachael babe! you calling me elderly? my values are old fashioned, but I don't qualify for aARP, and won't for a while! second, my wife got quite a rise outa your description of her, and other high values, conservative women as trolls.you know, that fits right in with Barry h. o'bama's telitism, saying that we cling to our guns and our faith out of *bitterness*! keep up the ephete elitism, its really gonna win over americans! you've just refered to nearly a hundred million american women as *”trolls*!” amazing. yes, the way EG has her quotes, and her own comments, she is speaking as if that refers to “women” not “some women!” note: DiFi (northern cal nickname) or dianne feinstein on the senate floor is really starting to look like a very tired old firehorse. listening to her, even more so. also, many of those referenced in EG's collunn *were* voting for Hilary *because she is * a woman. I too would vote for a high values, conservative, qualified woman. not because she's a woman, but because of her values and her politics, i.e. Condi.

13 June 2008
at 10:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

subtext to EG's collunmn:she's indeed afraid the hilaroids will vote for McCain, wrote this to try to keep them on the reservation. speak…problem is, the dems are nominating the candidate *with fewer votes* in the primary! you cannot deduce some high moral plain from that kinda undemocratic slight of hand! further, note that several hundred thousands of barry h. o'bama's votes in the primary come from Cook (kook) county IL, his hometown, and well known place in history of *vote fraud*! ***anyone who is thinking barry h. o'bama is somehow morally great: review his long term associations, his lack of moral courage or moral strength to kick them out of his life, instead he clings to them until they are political liabilities (watch out michelle!). his associations: his bigoted hateful pastor of 20 years; the curch he and michelle have donated many tens of thousands of dollars, that teaches “kill the white oppressor” buddies up to hamas etc.; his wife not proud of america for most of her adult life; his unrepentant domestic terrorist bomber buddy who said on 9-11-01 that he wished they'd done more than bomb the pentagon and nypd hq as weather underground terrorists; his wacko catholic priest buddy of 20 years who was on his religious leaders advisory committee. and, he had his little daughters growing up in that hateful church! these do add up. then, stir in his elitism, and now we hear he actually is in favor of higher gas prices! he just thinks prices rose too fast! he is in favor of higher gas prices! add them up. just what do you get? not much.
13 June 2008
at 10:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

oh, btw,rachael,couldn't come on here earlier, *because I was busy serving* some of those trolls you talk about, in the old fashioned Christian values tradition. ***Get Even in Politics. First lady Hillary Clinton made the water safe for “uppity” wives like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama. She may well make iteasier for the next woman running for the West Wing.–so, we can assume Ms. Goodman will vote for Laura Bush when she runs for president in 2012?
14 June 2008
at 7:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rachaelisacancer (Anonymous) says…

Jesus H!I guess, gnome, you just don't get it.You can say “women” without speaking for all women.And Goodman isn't arguing about voting for women just because they're women or anything else.She's saying, “Hey - this situation we've got here, this election and what happened in it, it highlights a problem we have in America and in the world. That problem is sexism. We are victims of it but we don't have to be victims any more! We can take this opportunity to promote women (who share our values and who care about other women) in politics, in society, in our every day lives.”I fail to see what your problem with that is. Maybe you should ask your wife. Does that make it simple enough for understanding?