"But How Come Other Women Are Calling the Election Historic?"

In that lynch mob, with such a desperate need to punish – what do you think the reaction would have been if Sen. Clinton said anything else but that this was an historic victory? 

I received several comments from men throughout the election, in which they quote female columnists or pundits who defend Barack as some kind of proof that I'm wrong. While I appreciate the attempt of all who post comments trying to further discussion, you have to consider the media environment women work in and ask yourself if they would have gotten to where they are if they were the type to challenge conventional wisdom.

I received a comment recently that poses a point worth discussing. The comment was: "Hillary Clinton has called the election of Barack Obama as president "an historic victory for the American people." 'Nuff said."

While I appreciate the comment, it shows a lack of understanding of the enormous pressures women in our society are under to go along and get along. I think it's pretty obvious that Sen. Clinton has no other choice but to say those words if she wants to retain her hard earned position as a senior leader in the party.  Even women who have achieved the power that Sen. Clinton has - and I can attest even women who make partner in major law firms - get there and stay there only if they go along and get along.

Her words have to be evaluated in the context of the Obama-lynch mob that practically ripped her to shreds for daring to even remain in the primary (although Ted Kennedy stayed in thru the convention and staged a convention fight and the party didn't insist he leave).

Recall that even after she left, the media parsed her every word and breath with their vulgar bigotry barking that she wasn't deferential enough to Barack, shaming her for daring to speak of her own achievements and historic race, which is standard in concession speeches. Oregon's US Sen. Gordon Smith just lost a tight race to the Democratic challenger and in his gracious concession speech he spoke of the many accomplishments he was proud of. That's standard. And Sen. Clinton was the first woman not only to win a state primary, but to win I don't know how many state primaries and millions of votes and came within an inch of winning the party's nomination. That was an enormous historic moment, but the media not only wouldn't allow her to celebrate it, they shamed her for daring to speak of it. Unless she was anything but deferential to Barack, she was selfish and calculating.

In the emotional and angry mob hysteria, Sen. Clinton's only option if she wants to retain her leadership ranking, is to go along and get along (for now). I give her points for being far more gracious about it than I think many who have been put though something like that could be. And don't misunderstand my point - she has a distinguished career of fighting for human rights issues on the state, national and international levels; I have no doubt that she wishes black Americans to be treated more equally in our country.

Recall that she tried a few times to call attention to the sexism and the media practically ate her alive. Even the apologist female columnists ate her alive.

History will have to sort out the emotional hysteria that gripped the media, but there's no denying it was there.  Months after Sen. Clinton left the race, Sen. McCain appointed a talented young Governor with comparable age and political experience to Barack and the media took their pent up Hillary-hating machine and just turned it on full blast to Gov. Palin. While the Governor had huge popularity ratings in Alaska and after her convention speech had great approval ratings across the country, it took only a few days of Barack and the media’s destruction machine for her ratings to plummet. When the country watched her for themselves , they liked what they saw. But the media took it into their own hands and in a few days of their round the clock destructive coverage, they singlehandedly caused her ratings to drop.

In that lynch mob, with such a desperate need to punish – what do you think the reaction would have been if Sen. Clinton said anything else but that this was an historic victory? 

I invite my academic readers to add in the scholarly theories that undergird this point. When oppressed people go along to get along, can those actions be considered truly of their volition? I understand enough theory to repeat it, but not to explain it.

I'm going on vacation to relax in the sun and try to put the 2008 election out of my mind for awhile. I invite readers to continue the discussion in comments and if I can access email I'll post them through.

Comments

[Alison]

I am not an academic of women's history but at this point I wish I was. Yes, history will have to sort out the abuse against women during this election.

Ya know, this makes me think of something that I have always wondered about. When looking at movies of the Holocaust or slavery or a number of other bigoted oppressions, I have always wondered - if I had lived in any of those time periods would I have been an oppressor? Would I have been silent in the face of the oppression? Or would I have spoken out and fought the oppression?

After witnessing this election I have seen the strength of gang mentality and I have seen women jump on board to oppress two very accomplished women. I did not. I spoke up and so did many other women, like Lisa. Who can resist the type of gang mentality of the Holocaust and slavery? I think I now know.

[mary]

Great post, again, Lisa! Hillary really has no choice but to call it "historic". Social pressure is immensely persuasive and what other choices do women in such high office really have but to play along. Hillary's feminist weltanschauung has evolved within the confines of the society she lives in. And, to the best of my knowledge, women's rights are NOT human rights....yet! Give Madam Secretary a chance!..