News & Politics
What if Hillary Had Won?
Imagining the past year had Clinton clinched it in November.
It’s been a year since the Obamas strode onto the Grant Park stage to claim the honor of becoming America’s 44th First Family. But what if the election had gone differently, and it had been the Clintons up there in matching reds? What if it had been Hillary assuring us that “America is a place where all things are possible”? How would the past year have been different under her rule? We asked DoubleXers who were against Hillary last fall to 'fess up to any regrets, and those who supported her to call out their best gloating points from 2009.
Emily Bazelon: What if Hillary had won? What if, a year ago tomorrow a woman in a carefully chosen pantsuit (red for power or safer to go with blue?) had won the presidency in Barack Obama's stead? It surprises me how hard it feels to wrap my brain around that counterfactual. A year is short. And yet Obama's presidency is entrenched in a way that's hard for me to dislodge, and Hillary's persona has moved on from candidate to globe-trudging Secretary of State.
But to jump through the mental hoops: If Hillary were president, we'd have a whole different set of optics, as they say in pundit-land. We'd hear a woman's voice when the president addresses both houses of Congress or appears on TV or at a town hall somewhere in Indiana. And that would make women feel different in a way that's intangible but that also matters. Our sense of possibility would be larger, the sky would feel higher, the glass ceiling would have shattered instead of remaining whole despite its 18 million cracks. Maybe most exciting: Many of us would have started to take this new relationship between gender and power for granted. (Hillary would, no doubt, have spawned her own equivalent of the birthers who would have refused to accept her election as legitimate. What would they be doing—claiming that she dropped down from Venus?) And yes, that would make it easier to imagine women as CEOs and university presidents and leaders at the very top of every other field.
For me, those gains weren't enough reason to support Hillary's candidacy. We debated the tradeoff early and often on this blog. Sometimes when I talked to older women who felt mystified by the diffidence of women like me, I felt traitorous, like a feminist Red Riding Hood who'd lost her way. I wanted to give them the reassurance they were looking for without giving them my vote. They're over it, I think—the women's vote helped carry Obama. But imagining Hillary as president makes me remember why I couldn't dismiss their voices then. You could be a good feminist and vote against Hillary, but you had to be a more complicated feminist. You had to see that -ism as one of several parts of your identity, and not give it primacy. I'm all for complexity, but sometimes it's tiring. Also harder to explain.
One specific counter-prediction: If Hillary were president, we'd either have more troops on the way to Afghanistan by now or we wouldn't. She wouldn't have taken her time to ruminate the way Obama is doing, because the barbs about weakness and dithering would have sunk in deeper.
KJ DellAntonia: Short answer: Amy Poehler, still on SNL.
Long answer: Sometime in early 2008, I got an e-mail from a friend asking me to support Obama. Up until then, I'd been an ardent Hilary supporter, and I mocked the idea of switching my allegiance (and my New Hampshire party-hosting abilities, which were what the friend wanted) to Obama. Among other things, I argued that the last thing we needed in the White House was idealism unaccompanied by serious experience. But Obama supporters came after me fast and furious (I'm a U. of Chicago law-school grad), and I was swayed.
SNL: Equal Opportunity Objectifiers
Jon Hamm spent most of the Saturday Night Live episode he hosted last night shirtless.
Confessions of a Woman Comedy Writer
Allison Silverman accepts one from New York Women in Film & Television (and tells us why it's rare).
Comments
Hilary as Prez?
By: BobTheFish | Tue, 01/19/2010 - 15:17
For as interesting a question as this is, I feel like the consensus is that it wouldn't have made much of a huge difference, except in the respects of having "the first female president" in office right now. Slight changes in policy might have been enacted, but overall 2009 and 2010 look to be years where the republican party is, and would regardless,(except possibly for McCain having won the election) mirror much of Hoover's term in office, where, although not guilty of the economic downfall that happened only 8 months after he took office. The economic collapse that we are seeing now was inevitable, and as such, the president during this period of time, no matter what actions are taken to counteract this event, will fail. What's more interesting to ask, is what impact this might have on having an African American or other minority president in the upcoming years, and how likely it is that the republicans will take hold in 2012, (and they will as you can see by the sea of change in public offices in recent elections). Back when G.W. Bush was running for his second term, I had a distinct feeling that the economic downturn was coming and I thought it might be within the next four years, thusly Bush would be better to have in office, taking the responsibility of the fall. Instead it happened just as he was leaving office and the Dems were taking over.
Also, there was a comment about our First Lady's actions as though she isn't doing much compared to other "First Ladies" in other countries. The "First Lady" isn't actually a political position. It's just a formal term of sorts to refer to the significant other of the president. (Would a female president's husband be "the First Man"? Or what if a homosexual president were in office? Would the term still apply for a lesbian or gay man?) The "First Lady" traditionally takes on their own causes and uses the publicity and influence of their marriage to the President to further these goals. There's really nothing she "must" to do, though I wish she were to follow the tradition a bit more seriously and start championing more charitable works.
What If ?
By: greenfun | Sat, 11/28/2009 - 00:01
Really? You aren't wishing you had used real criteria for electing a President? Someone who has been on the right side of women issues always? An opportunity for the first time in our country's long history to put a woman in the White House? Only a man in that role.......forever? My college age daughter is so proud that I sustained accusations of bitter, middle aged white racist to do the more unpopular thing and support Hillary. How does your daughter feel? Yes-you say, " I was proud to vote for the first African American male President," but you didn't have the guts to do the unpopular thing and go against white male media and white male congress. Not to mention all the excited, cool liberals who were all being good girls and ever so cool for wanting to please the boyz and be popular-just like high school.
We are 51% OF THE population, and still you did not fight for your daughters rights. And shame on you. Obama has bailed out wall street with 100 cents on the dollar with no new regulations enacted to protect taxpayers. He has thrown gays and women under the bus. He made a backroom deal with Billy Tauzin of big pharma of all people. He isn't going to be a great POTUS, and what is worse-this was all predictable if you had actually researched his record and questioned his politically strategic "present" votes for yourselves, and not depended on his campaign website and the BS from the media. Contrast that to Hillary' s REAL record of accomplishments. Accomplishments for women, children, the poor, the defenders of 911, gulf war veterans and on and on............pages long. Also, someone who does know the realities of working within the realities of Washington's power structure, and not some hocus pocus good talk about doing things differently and then continuing in Bush's footsteps. When are you going to admit you aren't comfortable with a women in power...ooh she might be divisive and bossy. When are you going to tell your daughter you didn't have the guts to be the unpopular girl? And what are you going to differently next time?
From politician to book author
By: Jimwell A | Sat, 11/07/2009 - 01:22
We can't deny the fact that millions of Americans do still believe on Sarah Palin's ability to lead the country as vice-president. She loss her fight on last year election, but today she's the winner as best selling author of the book "Going Rogue". It's official – Sarah Palin will finally be going on Oprah. November 16th is the date that's been scheduled, so you might want to turn in – at least if it actually interests you. The reason why is that she has a new book to hock – the much awaited, Going Rogue. (Although she's not much of a rogue; as Republicans go, she's very average and doesn't possess the most exuberant of wits – Ron Paul is far and away more of a rogue.) The book is already a bestseller on Amazon, and the presale price is about $10. So you can get the book by Sarah Palin and watch her on Oprah.
Tired of people stereotyping HC & other strong sensible people
By: psstwife | Tue, 11/03/2009 - 23:17
When Hillary spoke in our midwestern town of about 150,000 during the 2008 presidental campaign, I couldn't attend in person but our local station broadcast her appearance live on the Internet so I was able to watch an excellent closeup on the computer. Hillary used the microphone effectively throughout the 30+ minute speech. I was delighted by how pleasant, positive and intelligent she sounded, especially compared to how she was usually portrayed in the media.
Only at the very end of the speech did her voice rise in pitch and become a little strained, but that's when a speaker is building to a peak and trying to be heard over an excited crowd that is making more noise. Still, those are the 30-second clips that the media chooses to emphasize, making her sound like just another shrill harpy.
I was reminded by how the media crucified Howard Dean when that video from an Iowa campaign meeting went viral on the Internet. Many months later, I heard a podcast at Timestalks.com of Governor Dean being interviewed in his role as head of the Democratic National Committee and I was completely impressed with his calm demeanor and intelligent conversation. Suddenly I understood why the Howard Dean supporters were SO enthusiastic about his presidential campaign.
Why do women who read Slate & DoubleX fall in so easily with the MSM's portrayals of strong women?
MSM: Cat Fight!
By: MrJM | Tue, 11/03/2009 - 18:57
"And I disagree, Dahlia. I think Sarah Palin would have been raised up as the perfect anti-Hillary."
I gotta side with Hanna on this one.
With Hillary in the White House, the press could never have resisted painting them both as bitchy, overly aggressive, all-too-ambitious broads.
Unlike now, of course.
-- MrJM
http://twitter.com/misterjayem
If Hillary were prez...
By: calia1949 | Tue, 11/03/2009 - 17:21
Here is one man heard from-- In a recent interview, Gore Vidal recanted his switch of support from Hillary Clinton to Obama. I missed it, but apparently Vidal had publicly changed camps in mid-campaign. Now he says Clinton would be doing a better job. The interview is in the London Times, 9/30/09. Access at:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/...
calia1949
Hilary as President
By: jc300 | Tue, 11/03/2009 - 16:49
Interesting discussion. I have a hard time picturing Hilary as president, too. For me it is tough because the role of Secretary of State seems like a great fit. It's a hard job but she seems perfectly suited for it.
Some props
By: spackle | Tue, 11/03/2009 - 16:34
Just wanted to say I think this is a great conversation. It is so refreshing how the XX writers honestly and openly tussle with these issues. One of my biggest frustrations with my generation is that women wrestle with these issues and have healthy disagreements, but when dealing with men sometimes act like there's some single way of thinking and if I, as a man, wrestle with the same issues or disagree with them, I just don't get it or don't have a valid perspective.
I wound up being pretty anti-Hillary during the primaries for a variety of reasons. That said, I do respect her and recognize how much women in this country would've been inspired by her presidency and I lament that loss. I think it's an interesting dilemma: if you think one candidate is better for the next 4 years, but another candidate has huge but fuzzy value for the health of this country in 20 years, how do you weigh that? I think that addresses the question around "do guys care?" The answer is yes, at least for me - but do I care enough to vote in contradiction to my personal belief about which candidate I think is better? In 2008, the answer was no.
Gender-blind, I liked her
By: Jane W B | Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:02
She just outshone everyone in the debates. She inspired (my) confidence, and I knew she wanted a second whack at health care reform, and this time she had the stuff to get it right.
KJ DellAntonia speaks eloquently for me, with one big difference. I think Pres. Obama is more interested in politics than policy. It is not wistful idealism which drove him to make a deal with Big Pharma, abrogating the government leverage in negotiating for drug prices. That was disappointing and telling; his sense of expediency, mistaken or not, seems to belie his words.
I of course supported Obama and was moved to tears at the watershed we experienced in this country when he was elected. But he is inexperienced, and we're just learning about him in some ways.
I am however inspired by the way in which Secy Clinton works with the president. There is not the slightest crack in that unity.
What if Hillary had won?
By: MrJM | Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:57
I'm sure we could have looked forward to years and years of progressive accomplishment as we saw during the first Clinton administration, i.e. each and every progressive issue sold-out in the interests of triangulation.
Yeah, that would have been friggin' great.
-- MrJM
http://twitter.com/misterjayem