Good speech
“. . .from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories, unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United States. And that is truly remarkable.”
I watched the live telecast of Hillary Clinton’s concession speech. I found it exceptionally moving, and I’m not exactly a fan of hers. Days earlier I watched her “I’m not deciding right now” speech. I found it ungracious, I thought she should’ve declared her support for Barack Obama right there, but now that I think about it, it usually takes candidates weeks and months to concede defeat. She took a few days. That concession speech washed away the bad taste of the previous one. I like the way she reminded women of the things we take for granted, things which earlier generations of women had to fight for. Yes, she was addressing Americans, but these issues affect everyone. It would be foolhardy of us not to pay attention.
Many people dislike Hillary Clinton because she has an air of grasping ambition about her. She stood by Bill Clinton throughout his trials, but one got the impression that she did it for her own political career. She did not have her husband’s charm and warmth; she was simply not likeable. A friend of mine avidly detests Hillary because she reminds her of our own president. (Speaking of remarkable, the Philippines is often viewed as a patriarchal society, but we have had two female presidents. Neither of whom have exactly advanced women’s rights, neither of whom have so much as mentioned family planning.)
And yet no one disputes that running for PUSA requires massive, vaulting ambition. We forget that ambition is a good thing. Look at the current PUSA. By many accounts his youth was marked by a distinct lack of drive and ambition. Did he even want to be president? It’s as if he just landed in that office after a long binge, and look where he’s taken America, dragging the rest of the world with it.
Ambition doesn’t guarantee competence, but at the very least it indicates true desire and preparation. Some people are just better at concealing what they want. Maybe Hillary was disliked because she’s too direct, and we prefer ambition that is couched in coy, pretty terms.
Next question: Will the Fil-American voters choose Barack Obama?
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
June 10th, 2008 at 03:44
What bothers me is that women with ambition — especially if they’re not shy about admitting it — are somehow considered suspect. Men with ambition, on the other hand, are to be admired, praised, promoted, patted on the back, etc etc etc. Men with ambition are considered “natural leaders,” “charismatic,” “strong,” “assertive,” blah blah blah. Women with ambition, on the other hand, are “grasping,” “desperate,” “cold,” “manipulative,” “ball-busting” bitches.
No politician ever got to his/her position without a very healthy dose of ambition. One can almost say that no one ever achieves any kind of significant status in life without ambition. (One could argue that even James Stewart’s Jefferson Smith had ambition, i.e., to rid Washington of machine politics and make a difference.) Ambition isn’t a bad thing, but it is when it’s applied to women.
I also think that the idea of Clinton as not being “likable” depends on the person doing the liking. I personally think she’s likable, but another one may not. I don’t think Bush is likable, but millions of other Americans would love to have a beer with him. I also think that the idea of “likable” can be used against a woman both ways, i.e., if she’s “likable,” the impression is that she can’t be taken seriously and will try to please too many people to be effective. If she’s not, she’s not presidential material. Nixon wasn’t likable. Bush Senior wasn’t especially likable. But both became presidents (the later impeachment of Nixon notwithstanding). The double standards applied to women running for higher office have never gone away, they’ve just been magnified in light of this critical race for arguably the most powerful position in the world.
I also would disagree with the idea that HRC stood by Bill because of her own political ambitions. How does anyone really know what another person’s motivations are for sticking with another person? Does anyone really know what goes on in someone else’s marriage? I don’t know what goes on in my best friend’s marriage, much less that of my president and his wife. God, can we please stop talking about the Clintons’ marriage for once and for all? JFK married Jackie partly because of what she could do to his image, but no one thought that that should have disqualified him for the presidency. Laura Bush stuck by Dubya despite the alleged infidelities and alcoholism, yet no one questions her motivations to stay in that marriage, and God knows she has plenty of reasons to leave.
Cheers,
Marjorie
June 10th, 2008 at 08:18
Speaking of ambition, I remembered a passage in Robert Harris’ Imperium (which you featured in an earlier post):
“Sometimes it is foolish to articulate an ambition too early–exposing it prematurely to the laughter and skepticism of the world can destroy it before it is properly born. But sometimes, the opposite occurs, and the very act of mentioning a thing makes it suddenly seem possible, even plausible.”
I guess why many of our politicians are not effective leaders because they just like the idea of being a leader/policy-maker. And of course, the money that comes with it.
June 10th, 2008 at 08:30
Next question: Will the Fil-American voters choose Barack Obama?
If the Fil-Ams are anything like us, then yes. Pinoys love celebrities and Obama has Hollywood’s A-list among his endorsers. :-D
June 10th, 2008 at 11:03
What is still sadly remarkable, however, is how the ambitious woman is judged differently from the ambitious man. Ironically, the ambitious man will have to rely on the ambitious woman — the most likely veep — to secure those crucial votes from her key demographics (blue-collar whites, Hispanics, and Catholics) and the so-called “swing states”, which the latter won by significant margins during the primaries.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:10
Through the years: the side-parted one-length ‘do, the pageboy, the pantsuits. Gloria Arroyo’s been aping the Hillary look since she started inching closer to center stage.
Articles say she’s a bitch, but I’ve rooted for Hillary. For one, high school and college photos show Hillary looking nerdy. I heart nerds who marry charismatic popular schmucks with amoral addictions and stick by them despite Monica Lewisnkies because that’s what love is. Or, polyamory is deep.
Obama may still prove me wrong, but I thought he and Edwards, the pretty boys, came across as… weak. Hillary’s solid. When she makes decisions, including things concerning the US military, she stands by it (even if it’s not popular), taking into account what needs to be accomplished. In contrast Edwards flat out said he was sorry for his vote for the military support for Iraq; wishy-washy and wimpy. On Obama’s non-decision: did he not decide because he didn’t understand the situation, or did he opt to not decide because voting for or against is not going to do favors for his popularity? I think this raised questions on his capability.
Also, without sufficient numbers or background facts Obama’s integration of the hope campaign during the debates came across more like unrealistic promises than anything. Hillary acknowledges the need for open communication and change, but she also understands being all love and world peace about it with dictators is not the smart thing to do. I’d have been very interested to see how she’d do as president.
June 10th, 2008 at 20:17
I never liked Obama…he somehow reminds me so much of Marcos. My family and I are not voting for him and about 90% of my Fil-Am friends and family also won’t vote for him. I believe Hillary is more qualified to be president than the two men and I will write her name on the ballot come November.
June 12th, 2008 at 05:54
Oggi: Marcos? Gimme a break. Bush and Marcos, now there’s two peas in a pod. Heck, I wouldn’t put it past Bush declaring martial law before his term’s up so he can “obliterate” Iran (don’t you smell it in the air?). And who could forget senior Bush (when he was Reagan’s VP) toasting Marcos in Malacanang for his “adherence to democratic principles!” Just magical.
Ironically, Hillary did not run as a woman candidate. She did the exact opposite-she manned up! She only wore the mantel of women’s champion when it became expedient for her to do so. Alas, it was too late. And this misogyny crap touted by her surrogates is hogwash. It’s the Clinton campaign machine, stupid! By the way, I’m a woman. Nothing personal.
No surprise most Fil-Ams won’t be voting for a progressive. In the nearly 20 years I’ve been here, I’ve noticed that most Fil-Ams are conservative, very establishment. Remnants of colonial mentality, perhaps? It never ceases to amaze me when one votes against one’s own interest.
My great HOPE (yes-that word!) is Hillary supporters come around. It’s not about what Hillary wants. Making a villain out of Obama is not it either. Remember, those two are on the same side. It’s about the big picture, people. This country just cannot afford a third Bush term. And the rest of the world is counting on us.
June 12th, 2008 at 14:17
thank you, marjorie and Askaniclan for voicing out my same sentiments towards HRC.
i do not dislike obama, in fact, i’ve read both his books way before he announced he was running for president. i think he is a brilliant writer and a sharp mind and he’s an astounding speaker. if anybody has seen his speech during the 2004 DNC, you know what i mean. but barack’s swagger in recent years and his subsequent campaign for the presidency made me less of a fan.
that said, if i were an american and had to choose between the two, it would be, hands down, hilllary rodham clinton. i was once asked by ricky why i would choose her, i just simply said, and i know this is quite shallow, it’s because she’s a woman. well, it wasn’t just because she was a woman, it’s because she was a woman who was unabashedly ambitious, driven and knows what she’s talking about. and she stood by her choices in life. if there was anything i hate most in any person is his/her lack of balls in standing up for what he/she believes in. and as a woman in a male-dominated industry, i know what she feels and i totally understand her. and if anybody else read her autobiography, you would understand her better. i liked this one particular story in her book where she ran as class president in high school against 4 boys, she obviously lost. the winning boy made her head of the events committee, planning school dances, charity events, pep rallies, etc..which in effect, hillary ran the whole show.
if any of the obamacrats bothered to research about their candidate after being DAZED by his speech skills, they would realize that their candidate does not have any stand. in his stint as an illinois state senator, he barely voted neither yes nor no, he just simply voted “present”. what kind of man does that? NO BALLS and BTW, obama’s votes on social issues align primarily with john mccain and the republicans – anti abortion, anti gay civil unions, etc. ALSO, what kind of man chooses rev jeremiah wright as a social compass for 20 freakin years?!?!?!? this man is all rhetoric and that kills me because i do like obama, it’s just that his decisons and as askaniclan pointed out, his non-decisions bother me.
and you know what, i hate to say this, but america is not ready for a black president. you would be hard pressed to find a working class white man who is able and willing to vote for a black man. and this is coming from a brown island princess who spent 6 years of her life living in new york city. not exactly a small town in a confederate state, but most americans, like filipinos, are still racist and bigoted.
i know it’s all about dems vs republicans, liberals vs conservatives, good vs evil but i think there is still a lot to be said about the way democrats ran the primaries particularly how the democratic leadership and news media treated HRC. HRC’s gracious speech, i think, is her victory speech. sa kanya pa rin ang huling halakhak, you’ll see.
p.s.
did anybody see gloria steinem’s interview on CNN? i know, another old school, bra-burning feminist hogwash, but i totally agree with what she said. she said “men are admired when they win, women are admired when they lost”
June 13th, 2008 at 00:30
Hillary reminded me too much of Reese Witherspoon’s character Tracy Flick in Alexander Payne’s film Election. There’s something about overachievers that I have a distaste for in general.
One thing that cracked me up was how both Hillary and McCain called Obama an “elitist”…like those other two don’t go home to their multimillion dollar houses to have their expensive lobster dinners at the end of their campaigns. Pot? Kettle?
Anyway, what’s past is past. The lady had her concession speech last week and finally threw in her support for Obama. Now let’s get ready to finally turn the ship around as we head for the polls in November.
By the way, here’s an interesting slant about hip hop culture and the Obama campaign straight off the latest issue of Seattle’s weekly alternative newspaper The Stranger:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=596638&hp