Hillary Clinton Versus Shirley Chisholm

posted by John Nichols on 06/07/2008 @ 12:36am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (28)

Subscribe Now

It is suggested by some of her more ardent advocates that Hillary Clinton should merely suspend, rather than formally finish, her presidential campaign. Then she could retain the option of having her name put in nomination at this summer's Democratic National Convention, seek a roll call of the states and record a historic number of votes for a woman.

If that happens, Obama will still be nominated for president. Indeed, after the recording of show of support for Clinton, the Obama selection would likely be approved by acclamation.

The point of counting the Clinton votes at the convention would not be to stop, or even embarrass, Obama. It would be to note the political progress made by women competing in the presidential arena.

So Clinton would not beat Obama.

But she would beat someone -- or at least someone's record.

The record number of votes cast at a national party convention for a woman was recorded in 1972, when New York Congressman Shirley Chisholm secured 151.95 votes from delegates to the Democratic National Convention that nominated George McGovern.

Chisholm ran a sincere and serious, if dramatically under-funded campaign for the nomination that year -- competing in primaries, demanding coverage from a reluctant media and teaching more prominent contenders and a party that was still struggling with issues of race and gender a thing or two about empowerment. She actually won a statewide "braging-rights" or "beauty-contest" primary (in which no delegates were awarded) in New Jersey and pulled ten percent of the vote in California's June primary.

When she announced her candidacy thirty-six years ago, Chisholm said:

I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud.

I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that.

I am not the candidate of any political bosses or fat cats or special interests.

I stand here now without endorsements from many big name politicians or celebrities or any other kind of prop. I do not intend to offer to you the tired and glib cliches, which for too long have been an accepted part of our political life. I am the candidate of the people of America. And my presence before you now symbolizes a new era in American political history.

One measure of that new era came at the Democratic convention on Miami Beach in 1972, when what was then a record number of delegates voted for an African-American and a woman for president.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson would set new records in 1984 and 1988.

But Chisholm's record as the woman who ran the most quantifiably successful campaign for the presidency in the history of the republic has stood until now.

If Clinton's name is placed in nomination and her 1,640 pledged delegate votes are recorded for her -- or some significant number of them -- she will set a new mark.

Shirley Chisholm made a good deal of history in 1972.

Hillary Clinton has made a good deal more history this year. The primary and caucus results are a measure of that hirstory, as are her cumulative popular and delegate vote totals.

The convention vote would confirm the accomplishment. So suggest the supporters of seeking that vote.

Clinton accomplishment would, of course, come at the expense of Shirley Chisholm's record. That will bother some people, and I have to admit that -- as a longtime fan of Chisholm and her campaign -- I understand the sentiment.

But, just as Chisholm paved the way for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so, Clinton's advocates argue with some legitimacy, HRC can now pave the way for the woman who will actually be both the Democratic nominee and the president.

Comments (28)

Nichols writes, "The point of counting the Clinton votes at the convention...would be to note the political progress made by women competing in the presidential arena."

Is it so necessary that women compete in the presidential arena? Don't they have enough power as it is? Must they invade and occupy every last space previously inhabited by men?

I'm all for gender equality. I believe that a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model should be persuaded by society to ask a nerd or geek out on a date and pay for it, while he sits back and judges how good she is at wooing and winning him. Now THAT would be an important step toward gender equality in our society.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/07/2008 @ 01:25am
Thank you so much for proving exactly why she should. I however doubt she will. She's holding her delegates just in case. A Clinton is a calculating creature, even surrender doesn't seem like a setback. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but something tell me the fat lady is still warming up.

Posted by yutsano at 06/07/2008 @ 01:37am
"Hillary Clinton Versus Shirley Chisholm | If she asks the convention to record her delegate votes, HRC will establish a new standard for women in presidential politics."

Though I'm not comfortable with the comparison of Clinton and Chisholm... I do applaud the 'legitimacy factor' that is at play in this election. Women can be excellent political leaders, and our constricted and limited political fields do not clearly get this across...

However... the actual litmus test is one of character... rather than genetics.

Posted by ttr at 06/07/2008 @ 01:45am
by KSP556 ...

That was funny!;^)

Role reversal simply reveals the paradigm, though... unequal can not equal equality, and pre-installed roles do not a healthy person make.

Maybe it's time we took the totalitarianisms out of our relationships...

Posted by ttr at 06/07/2008 @ 02:08am
TTR, I would ask you and any other male (I'm assuming you are a male) whether that silly example of mine doesn't have some merit.

Doesn't the woman have immense power by deciding who is and who is not "worthy" of her? Doesn't the ability to reject (for dates, for sex) imply power? The guy has to put himself (and his large ego) on the line, but she can just sit back and judge him all day long. A most UNEQUAL, even matriarchal, relation.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/07/2008 @ 02:17am
by KSP556 ...

-Doesn't the woman have immense power by deciding who is and who is not "worthy" of her?-

Yes... in a room full of dolts, she will 'control' the room... and she is so 'powerful' in that context that she will be able to be escorted out on the arm of the winner of the brawl she 'inspired'...

Is this archetypical woman you speak of... a good judge of character? Is she intelligent -and- conscientious with her wit? Are her politics sound? Does she inspire or create great art? Does she bring out the best in the people around her? What is her spiritual life like? Is she well read? Does she have a lust for life, or just a lust for what you call power?

If she trades on her beauty, she's already cashed in her chips before the 'big game' of life has begun...

Posted by ttr at 06/07/2008 @ 02:49am
HRC has already made her mark, all those pledged delegates are already in the history books. Her strong accomplishment stands as part of the record.

Alas, also as part of the historical record, stands the Clintons' appalling behavior in this campaign. That merits no count at the convention.

Posted by sloper at 06/07/2008 @ 05:03am
* Topic change *

WSJ: Federal records from February through April show Sen. Obama has outstripped Sen. McCain in spending for a campaign's most-important functions -- a staff of field directors to round up volunteers and get out the vote, a chain of local offices to call strategy and dispense paraphernalia, and a robust advertising and direct-mail schedule.

Sen. McCain, by contrast, has done little advertising, has a much leaner ground army, and is fielding only a handful of campaign offices ahead ...

WHY? You think their stupid? You think Duncan Donuts (Clear Channel) and Disney (ABC) etc. etc. etc. are going to give an inch?

Good luck with that.

HERE's WHY: McCain's ol'boys own, love, control your TV and radio.

TV's on all day in the homes of "working class whites"

Radio's on in the car of "working class whites"

fear/flag fear/flag fear/flag fear/flag fear/flag

Can they stop darkie?

Look at their Boards of Directors -

Posted by winyahn at 06/07/2008 @ 05:06am
Can they stop darkie? Look at their Boards of Directors - Posted by winyahn at 06/7/2008

No, they can't stop him, not if he's allowed to live. Bigotry may be alive & well, but don't count on fools to swing enough battleground states in the electoral college finale, corporate controlled MSM or no.

Obama has too much going for him -- besides his evident superior campaign & talents -- in the brilliant GOP economy, the magnificent CheneyBush war, and the oil companies' astronomic profits that we're called upon to admire every time we tank up at the pump.

The only real suspense in this general election will be how long & strong are Obama's coattails.

Historic, indeed.

Posted by sloper at 06/07/2008 @ 06:05am
Well, first off this morning...

mihnea goes on the Ignore list. He's re-spammed those same lengthy, boring Cut & Pastes from yesterday on every thread on this blog....even RESE and PLUNGER didn't do that. Too bad, because the ravings of an insane Muslim-hating Romanian might have been interesting this election cycle.

Second, HRC keeping her delegates and letting them vote at the Convention WOULD NOT be about showing some "progress for women", Mr Nichols.

Again your naivete is astounding.

It would be about making sure that if Obama loses this year, she has 2012 in her coatpocket and a "I SHOULD have been the nominee" card to play (both for explaining his loss and for shutting out any primary contenders in '12.)

It'd be like Gore wanting the nomination in 2004....NOBODY could have denied it to him, if he'd wanted it.

And with a close Dem race this year, if her delegates are counted ON LIVE TV....nobody can deny 2012 to her, again if Obama loses.

Hillary doesn't give a damn about "history" or "Shirley Chisholm"....it's about her continueig ambition for the Oval Office.

Posted by Mask at 06/07/2008 @ 07:01am
Amen Mask, you're on the money with this one.

Clinton has no need to do what Chisholm did for the purposes of recognition, only for purposes of ambition, which would make her <i>very</i> un-Chisholm-like.

On a lighter note, our new spammer is quite an odd duck, especially with the long list of "predictions" he gleaned from Ifni knows where. It's a study in classic "fool the rubes" psychic tricks. Some of the "predictions" are already virtually sure bets that anybody with half a brain cell could predict just from current circumstances. These are there to give the rest of the list an appearance of legitimacy and accuracy. The bulk of the list wanders from the possible but mildly sensational all the way to the incredible and impossible. A few are quite specific, but most are vague enough that they can be claimed as correct with a bit of spin and misdirection. Of course, Mihnea thinks these are real, but it's just another example of how gullible people can be.

Oh, a quick p.s. to Mihnea: don't bother replying, I'm putting you on ignore too. Spamming definitely cancels out any other factor. Too bad, you'd be probably be as much fun to trash as the other right-wing kooks who wander through on occasion.

Posted by Stwriley at 06/07/2008 @ 07:46am
Damn it, I can never remember that they've taken out html support even for simple things like italics. Is this stupid comment interface ever going to be fixed?

Posted by Stwriley at 06/07/2008 @ 07:52am
and the oil companies' astronomic profits that we're called upon to admire every time we tank up at the pump.

Posted by sloper

well,

the laws of supply and demand state that prices must fall for the month of october during election years.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2008 @ 09:07am
Or, if Al has a chance at the nom on the 3rd go 'round, Billary will have to figure out how to switch enough delegates to negate the 1st...

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2008 @ 09:16am
Posted by ttr at 06/7/2008

That was really well said, TTR.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/07/2008 @ 10:04am
JFC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay...lets record Hillary's delegates...but lets subtract 90% of them that acting were voting for Bill Clinton because of political favors owed and Bill's glory days.

This is a coat tail candidate who owes her success to hubby in the final analysis, despite hubby's pissing off the black vote.

As poliitical commentators have stated it is highly unlikely that the Junior Senator from NY will get a Senate leadership position due to "inexperience" and lack of the popularity and respect needed to be a consensus builder.

What hogwash Nichols.

Posted by OneVote at 06/07/2008 @ 10:14am
unfortuately, if HRC continues this path of destruction, even now, we as females will go back into the kitchen! if she had a positive campaign, especially, in the last few months. this could be warrant, but, she decided or her campaign managers, to divide not unite all the people. she played the fear game, no matter which way we try to define it.

At this time she should take of the PANT SUITS and put on a DRESS and act like the Lady she is - Smart and Intellegent!

As a 63 yr old female, who wanted to see a female president, selfish wish, HRC didn't prove to me she was ready! She still has some growing up to do as well as those radical women making the heat in the kitchen even hotter than hell. I was a single mother fighting and working to keep my PRIDE and DIGNITY, while not be a BITCH! I succeeded!

Posted by simplewisdom at 06/07/2008 @ 10:23am
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/7/2008

HSUB, go ahead and get it into your head, that Al Gore will never be President of the United States....I think HE has.

If we're lucky, Obama wins and wins re-election in 2012 and by 2016 HIS Veep will be the nominee and Al will be older than McCain now.

If McCain wins, Hillary will have a lock on the nomination in 2012 that even Gore couldn't break (because he'd be almost forgotten, except to his cultists like you).

And there is NO realistic scenario by which he "becomes Obama's Veep or Obama becomes his Veep in 2008".

Geez, man. Move on with your life for pete's sakes.

Posted by Mask at 06/07/2008 @ 10:29am
Posted by simplewisdom at 06/7/2008

THE speech of her life (political) is in an hour and a half.

If she sounds TRULY supportive of Obama and pushes him hard...she may have a future (Hopefully helping President Obama in the Senate for 8 years).

If she doesn't....she is truly finished in politics.

Posted by Mask at 06/07/2008 @ 10:32am
I showed Mihnea to the ignore door yesterday. History's great for it's record of these sorts of predictions and conspiracy theories. Even Roosevelt secretly tried all manner of crazy 'cures', now well documented.

Sloper, I greatly appreciate the reminder of people power. We'll see. I'm hopeful too. Media-democracy is key.

Sequayola: anyone that has time/interest, listen to DemocracyNow's Friday (yest) report from the Media Reform convention.

http://www.freepress.net/conference/

3000 strong, the head of the FCC, Dan Rather, Moyers, Huffington are there. They're talking of going from defensive to offensive.

I didn't see a thread on this here!!! There's not a more fundamental progressive / democratic issue.

They're discussing how deep McCain is in with ATT/phone companies, the titanic struggle of mega-corps (esp phone/cable) to control internet to squash net neutrality.

Broadcaster's now enjoy 'postcard' extensions of their licenses every eight years. Don't have to do squat in terms of local programming, representing minorities, no one is ever denied re-issue, hence the explosion of puppet/pundits and implosion of true journalism. There are some pretty elegant ways to turn this around. Beginning with rolling back Rove-Cheney-Powell corporate ho's anti-democratic / monopolistic policy legacy.

Posted by winyahn at 06/07/2008 @ 12:06pm
Zero, The Muriel Fox quote reminds me of something a letter writer wrote in reply to a recent Pollitt column.

She pointed out how Hillary Clinton has been pressured to concede defeat because, don't you know, girls are always expected to step aside for the boys, and when they don't, they're dismissed as "selfish".

It didn't occur to that whiny feminist letter writer that Clinton was being pressured BY HER SUPPORTERS to concede defeat BECAUSE Obama had a 200+ pledged delegate lead over her. This has everything to with the math and nothing at all to do with "the old boys club."

This is one of the many things that turns me off about modern "feminism," if that's even the right word anymore. The feminist never puts herself in anybody else's shoes; men don't count as human beings; reality should be looked at through a very narrow, self-gratifying prism, truth or facts or evidence be damned.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/07/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by Mask at 06/7/2008

Must'a touched a nerve, huh...

Poor Frita.

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/07/2008 @ 2:01pm
"How many of these "oppressed" women ever had no choice to but to work for a living?"

Posted by Zero at 06/7/2008

Probably none.

Posted by ACook at 06/07/2008 @ 3:00pm
Zero, You said a couple of things that I think are dead on:

"...this Machiavellian career first lady with no connection to any real humanist or populist moral framework or, frankly, even an honest connection to or interest in actual real public service, is somehow a savior of women, and apparently, it is "misogynist" or "sexist" to note the obvious flaws and failures of the candidate and candidacy and vote against it."

EXACTLY! (Did you know, by the way, that Obama won as many women votes as Clinton? This is not something that has been reported widely in the media.)

And this:

"How many of these angry "feminists" shrieking bout "oppression", "misogyny", and "sexism", are authoring their overblown histrionics from comfortable easy chairs..."

Again, you're dead right. The fact that there have been, at least over the last 4 decades, so many feminist books, so many feminist organizations sprouting up, so many feminists making it as authors, actors, lawyers, doctors, etc., shows that women long, long ago made their way into male society and have since been assimilated.

We need to remember that organizations when they reach their goals don't fold their tent and declare victory. They find some new rationale or basis for continuing on. In the 1990s it was the silly sexual harassment issue that was manipulated to keep feminism relevant. During that time such manufactured issues as "the beauty myth" and "backlash phenomenon" kept feminists hot and bothered. Right now it's the supposed injustice that was done to "poor" Hillary Clinton by an evil brotherhood that apparently controls the airwaves (kind of funny, because every time I turn on the news I see a young, beautiful woman anchoring it).

Do me a favor. The next time you hear an angry blabbermouth talk about "gender justice," invoke the example I gave above:

"I'm all for gender equality. I believe that a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model should be persuaded by society to ask a nerd or geek out on a date and pay for it, while he sits back and judges how good she is at wooing and winning him. Now THAT would be an important step toward gender equality in our society."

Posted by KSP556 at 06/07/2008 @ 6:19pm
The Machiavellian Feminist...

Seems we've gone from... "men are the problem"...

To... "Men do it, so we should do it more"...

This 'free for all' Social Darwinism thing has got to be put into proper perspective, or the American family is a thing of the past.

I remember a time when Feminists wanted to do things differently...

...and that was when I backed them up 100%.

Posted by ttr at 06/07/2008 @ 8:06pm
Zero: "Feminism is more of an enormous marketing channel to sell books, magazines, makeup, foods, clothing, entertainment, and identities to women than it is anything else at this point."

You nailed it. The fact that women have already achieved equality will not stop the marketing machine from churning out books, products, magazines, etc. The most important thing being sold, of course, is an identity. Like any other "ism," feminism offers impressionable minds a way of thinking about the world, an object to fear or to hate, and a course of action to take. To a lot of young women, it doesn't matter that the "ism" is intellectually baseless; the alternative is to completely let down their guard and experience men and life with complete openness, which can be threatening.

If women had to approach men and ask them out for dates, sexual harassment would be a sacrament. As it stands now, there's a terrible double standard. When a man comes on too strong, or is a little graceless, he's "harassing." When a woman comes on strong she's sending signals, or flirting, or seducing. Women have all the power in this realm, because they are the ones that size up the "other". The guy has to be cool, handsome, rich, the best athlete around, the most experienced lover, etc., but the woman only has to show up and look good. She doesn't have to bring anything at all to the dating table. Sort of like the experience of a job interview; it is the interviewer that has the power, not the job applicant.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/07/2008 @ 8:12pm
TTR: "This 'free for all' Social Darwinism thing has got to be put into proper perspective, or the American family is a thing of the past."

Some would argue that the American family was a thing of the past long, long ago.

"I remember a time when Feminists wanted to do things differently..."

I don't remember such a time at all. The only feminism I ever encountered was the shrill kind, where the women came off as combative, unkind, snarky, male-envious or male-fearful.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/07/2008 @ 8:16pm
by KSP556

I remember it well... sorry your experience of it was so unpleasant for you.

Strong, centered and intelligent women are awesome!

Posted by ttr at 06/07/2008 @ 9:24pm