Toe-to-Toe ~ She's a Contender

In 1982 I was on a dais with several of the first ladies who were in Springfield, Illinois to support the ERA.  I was 34.  I was thrilled beyond beyond.  At that time I don't recall any conversation about women running for president and actually winning.  The women who ran then were breaking the barriers by piercing the atmosphere.  In the 1964 primaries Republican Margaret Chase Smith got over 83,000 votes and Democrat Shirley Chisholm got over 400,000 votes.  A few more women ran before 1982; Charlene Mitchell, Ellen McCormack and Barbara Jordan. 

Twenty six years later and a woman has won enough state primaries to get 300 electoral votes in November and be the next president of the United States.  Seems like that would be the finish line for a woman to be Commander in Chief.  How could it not be the natural outcome?  But who could have imagined her inter-party opponent would be the first man of color to get this close too?  And once again minorities are splintering, claiming victimhood victories, comparing wait times and boasting self-worthiness.  None of these activities even hint of unity, strength, compassion or defeating the opponent.  Sojourner Truth would not be the least bit surprised, "The rich rob the poor and the poor rob one another." 

One of the contenders has won enough big states to get the required 300 electoral votes in November and the other has more delegates as of May 15.  If it was two white guys, they would be "duking" it out all the way to the convention hall.  It might be an extension of our national passion for kumite.  Oddly (or is it predictably and I was just not paying attention?) the media and some high profile politicians are calling for the lady to bow out.  Maybe they don't want to see her kick some ass - maybe it offends their sensibilities - maybe they just can't see their projection of a woman in the fight with anyone, on any score, in any competition.  (We love you Billie Jean!) 

Every time you hear someone ask the woman to drop out - I hope you will consider the nature of the request.  It is an extension of wanting women to refrain from the sport, the competition, the ring.  Taking that request seriously is tantamount to never really standing toe-to-toe with the competitor.

(Hey - if you like my blog - please vote )

Comments

[John Smart]

great post!

[Linda Perkins]

Zoe, yes, Hillary can drag this out but it's just so clear of the ultimate outcome. I think she's proven that a woman can be a serious candidate, but unfortunately, it doesn't appear that her candidancy is going to bring her over the finish line this time. I think what we want is a Democratic victory. I'm frankly tired of this prolonged race. Let's just get to dealing with McCain and the Republicans and not continue this intraparty bickering. I'm sorry for this horrible split within the women's community about this Democratic election. I was at our commencement today and one of our Women's Studies graduates ,who is supporting Hillary ,was debating her boyfriend, who is an Obama supporter over whether HIllary should drop out, whether she can still pull off the nomination, etc. He kept telling her no, she won't be able to do it. But, I'll willing to wait and see. Miracles do happen.

[Joe C]

Interesting post. The one problem with it, though, is that if you reversed their positions, Clinton and her troops would already have been clamoring for a couple of months now for Obama to drop out. Senator Obama has never suggested that Clinton should drop out of the race.

Senator Clinton, from the start, ran as the "inevitable" nominee, surrounding herself with most of the party's heavy hitters. Lately, her argument has been, in effect, that a black man cannot win the presidency. Obama has never argued that a woman can't win. Of course, it is easier for an underdog candidate like Obama to recognize the strength and legitimacy of an establishment candidate like Clinton. It is harder for the establishment candidate to credit the strength and legitimacy of a candidate who rises suddenly out of nowhere to claim the laurel.

In so many ways (at least until her recent race-baiting) Clinton was an excellent candidate. It was her bad luck to be running against a talented "change" candidate. And perhaps it was her lack of foresight to have run as a kind of incumbent, when she had every right herself to claim the "change" banner, as the first viable female candidate. Obama realized early that this was a "change" year, not a "safest choice" year.

As for the media, the pundits held off for a long time before finally stating the obvious: that Clinton, especially in a year like 2008, no longer had any chance of winning. In another sort of election cycle, the notion of taking the fight to the convention might have energized the party. But this year, Democrats strongly feel the need for unity. Already, the landslide of superdelegate votes for Obama had begun. So it was obvious to everyone that Clinton's argument was having no traction with party insiders. Even today, Clinton would have an outside chance if only the undecided superdelegates were trending in her direction. Instead, they are all voting for Obama, and some are even crossing over, abandoning Clinton. In other words, there is no reason to think that Clinton would gain anything by taking the fight to the convention. She would likely only hurt her own reputation within the party and see a further deterioration in delegate support.