"It's 102 miles to Chicago..." (tags: #politics #feminism #womensrights)
"...We have a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're wearing sunglasses." - The Blues Brothers, 1980
The Blues Brothers is one of the SO's favorite movies. As we were coming back from Las Vegas and discussing current news (which included some upcoming hits from the 2016 Presidential campaign, or "Blacklash 2016, the Unblackening" as Larry Wilmore calls it), the SO dropped the comment "It's 102 miles to Chicago."
I took it completely the wrong way, of course. Forgot about The Blues Brothers. My thoughts went to Senator Hillary Clinton and her presidentail campaign. So how does this relate to Chicago?
President Obama most recently hails from Chicago and was a senator from Illinois before he became Commander-in-Chief. Senator Clinton lost her 2008 presidential bid against him and has changed her 2016 campaign to reflect lessons learned. But she's still "miles away from Chicago" in the sense that she has, by no means, a guaranteed seat in the Oval Office come January 2017. It was a weird thought. But what was even weirder for me was the realization that Senator Clinton *has* to win the 2016 election if the primary wave of women's rights is to succeed.
Do you remember what Governor Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential campaign did to the feminism movement? The fanaticism that came out of the dark corners? The wardrobe fiasco? Her inability to remember historic events and dates properly? Her gaffes (combined with the media coverage) turned a successful, conservative woman (or one that appeared so at first) into the laughing-stock poster woman for why the women's rights movement should be tucked in a drawer and ignored.
Maybe I'm being a little dramatic here, but there's a counter point. Do you remember Geraldine Ferraro, the FIRST female politician representing a major American political party? I do. I remember being excited when she was picked as Vice President Walter Mondale's VP running mate when he ran for election in 1984. Barely a few months into their campaign, the first breath of scandal torpedoed her political career when her husband's tax record came to someone's attention. Then it became a question about her and his finances, and that was that. We didn't have another female politician (one who could be taken seriously as a vice presidential or presidential candidate) running for a major party until Senator John McCain picked Gov. Palin to be his running mate. That's twenty-four years later, in case you weren't counting. Almost a quarter of a century.
Don't believe me? Check this link for names and tell me which ones you recognize and why they would have been a serious contender against better-known male politicians.
The fact that we had two women, one running for president, the other running for vice-president, in the same campaign? That was a gold mine for the feminist movement. We didn't just have people campaigning for equal pay, better health care, and improved social services. We had two women from two opposite sides of the politicial spectrum who were powerful enough voices to make the men sit up and take notice of our issues. And then... both of them lost.
If the Democrats had another strong male politician in their ranks who could raise the call to arms and get the votes in, you can bet they'd be raising the banner for him instead of Senator Clinton. If the Republicians had a strong female politician in their ranks who could overcome the "Hillary Factor," you can bet they'd be trumpting her name all over the place to steal the news time from Senator Clinton. But the fact is, neither party does have this. At least not at this moment in time.
That doesn't mean Senator Clinton will win election 2016. It just means that if she does lose, it's going to hurt worse than in 1984. Because the strongest female politician in this generation, the one who can break that glass ceiling for us and teach the United States (and the world) what a female U.S. president can do, will have lost a major opportunity. Not just for her, but for the women's rights movement. We won't just lose our moment for getting the equal rights we desire. Her loss would silence an entire generation of female politicians struggling to make a difference.
She doesn't need to win just for herself. She needs to win so women in the White House aren't just a token political appointment. So we can make a stronger bid for our right to stand on our own two feet, make our own decisions, and be taken seriously by the men and other women in our lives.
If Senator Clinton loses 2016, it may well be another twenty-five years or more before we see another woman strong enough to make a bid for the White House. And that's just unacceptable. For all of us.
NOTE: This is not a political endorsement. Just an observation of history, hoping it won't repeat itself.
The Blues Brothers is one of the SO's favorite movies. As we were coming back from Las Vegas and discussing current news (which included some upcoming hits from the 2016 Presidential campaign, or "Blacklash 2016, the Unblackening" as Larry Wilmore calls it), the SO dropped the comment "It's 102 miles to Chicago."
I took it completely the wrong way, of course. Forgot about The Blues Brothers. My thoughts went to Senator Hillary Clinton and her presidentail campaign. So how does this relate to Chicago?
President Obama most recently hails from Chicago and was a senator from Illinois before he became Commander-in-Chief. Senator Clinton lost her 2008 presidential bid against him and has changed her 2016 campaign to reflect lessons learned. But she's still "miles away from Chicago" in the sense that she has, by no means, a guaranteed seat in the Oval Office come January 2017. It was a weird thought. But what was even weirder for me was the realization that Senator Clinton *has* to win the 2016 election if the primary wave of women's rights is to succeed.
Do you remember what Governor Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential campaign did to the feminism movement? The fanaticism that came out of the dark corners? The wardrobe fiasco? Her inability to remember historic events and dates properly? Her gaffes (combined with the media coverage) turned a successful, conservative woman (or one that appeared so at first) into the laughing-stock poster woman for why the women's rights movement should be tucked in a drawer and ignored.
Maybe I'm being a little dramatic here, but there's a counter point. Do you remember Geraldine Ferraro, the FIRST female politician representing a major American political party? I do. I remember being excited when she was picked as Vice President Walter Mondale's VP running mate when he ran for election in 1984. Barely a few months into their campaign, the first breath of scandal torpedoed her political career when her husband's tax record came to someone's attention. Then it became a question about her and his finances, and that was that. We didn't have another female politician (one who could be taken seriously as a vice presidential or presidential candidate) running for a major party until Senator John McCain picked Gov. Palin to be his running mate. That's twenty-four years later, in case you weren't counting. Almost a quarter of a century.
Don't believe me? Check this link for names and tell me which ones you recognize and why they would have been a serious contender against better-known male politicians.
The fact that we had two women, one running for president, the other running for vice-president, in the same campaign? That was a gold mine for the feminist movement. We didn't just have people campaigning for equal pay, better health care, and improved social services. We had two women from two opposite sides of the politicial spectrum who were powerful enough voices to make the men sit up and take notice of our issues. And then... both of them lost.
If the Democrats had another strong male politician in their ranks who could raise the call to arms and get the votes in, you can bet they'd be raising the banner for him instead of Senator Clinton. If the Republicians had a strong female politician in their ranks who could overcome the "Hillary Factor," you can bet they'd be trumpting her name all over the place to steal the news time from Senator Clinton. But the fact is, neither party does have this. At least not at this moment in time.
That doesn't mean Senator Clinton will win election 2016. It just means that if she does lose, it's going to hurt worse than in 1984. Because the strongest female politician in this generation, the one who can break that glass ceiling for us and teach the United States (and the world) what a female U.S. president can do, will have lost a major opportunity. Not just for her, but for the women's rights movement. We won't just lose our moment for getting the equal rights we desire. Her loss would silence an entire generation of female politicians struggling to make a difference.
She doesn't need to win just for herself. She needs to win so women in the White House aren't just a token political appointment. So we can make a stronger bid for our right to stand on our own two feet, make our own decisions, and be taken seriously by the men and other women in our lives.
If Senator Clinton loses 2016, it may well be another twenty-five years or more before we see another woman strong enough to make a bid for the White House. And that's just unacceptable. For all of us.
NOTE: This is not a political endorsement. Just an observation of history, hoping it won't repeat itself.