One of the things that keeps frustrating me about this race has been the fatalism that if Clinton didn't win the presidency, no woman will ever win. This is just ridiculous logic; Jesse Jackson didn't win the presidency or the candidacy, and now a black man is a presidential candidate. Who is to say that in four years, another woman won't be running and won't mobilize a huge base of people? I refuse to believe that women are going to be so disheartened by this that we will drop out of politics entirely. If anything, I think that this will make women think "if she could make it this far, maybe I could make it farther." It isn't all or nothing, people. Women (and minorities. Or just minorities, since women fall into that category) have made tremendous strides in this election, we have uncovered inherent sexism and racism and ageism and discrimination of all sorts. This has started people talking about these topics more than anything else ever has. Barack Obama is a good candidate, Hillary Clinton's political career is not over, and honestly, people know a lot more about what she has accomplished. It makes sense to me that people will take her more seriously - and women politicians in general, because she has proven that women are a vital force in american politics. This campaign should not have been viewed as a war between women and men, blacks or whites, younger or older generation. It was a race to determine which candidate could win the most votes, according to the system we are currently bound by. So why are we acting like everything is over for women in politics?

Sorry Ann, but I have to disagree completely with the sentiment expressed here. This has not been positive for women.

I especially find the last lines of the Goldstein article very condescending.

One ripple that did not come of Clinton's campaign was more attention given to so-called women's issues. Let's face it, it would have been political suicide for her to spend time on issues surrounding reproductive choice, affordable daycare, sporadic or disappearing alimony/childcare payments, the right of employers to base hiring decisions on a job candidate's family situation, domestic violence, the feminization of poverty, etc. Any such discussion would have been condemned as identity politics.
So now we have had a frontline woman candidate, but such issues are still swept under the rug.
I don't want to understate the excitement of having a serious woman candidate, but also don't want it let us think we have arrived.
Obama made an intelligent speech on race that was well received -- would a similar speech made by Clinton on the state of women in America have been so highly appreciated?...

We're going to hear a lot, in the wake of the primary, about what Clinton's defeat means for other women politicians. Or what it means for young girls who might want to grow up to be president someday.

This really irritates me. A woman got further than ever before in the presidential process, and it's being treated like it's a dream-crusher that she lost. More likely, little girls will see what's possible and be even more inspired.

Look at the big picture - two minority candidates got this far. It should be celebrated. Children will be looking at this as inspiration, not defeat.

Regardless of who won it, a minority group lost. I can't see the same sentence being written about the little bi-racial kids who have their "I want to be the first president!" dreams crushed had Hillary secured the nomination.

Yes! I work with a YWCA chapter and with a mentorship program for high school girls, and I can't stress enough how impressed I have been by the interest they are all taking in politics. I had to help one of my mentorship students write her final English paper for 9th grade, and the only real stipulation was that it be a persuasive research essay, trying to convince the reader her approach was better than others. She, without any prompting from me, came to our meeting with 3 pages already written about why she thinks people need to vote in more than just federal elections as soon as they turn 18.

I've been getting a constant influx of questions about how the primaries work, when we'll know for sure who the democrat will be, why people think Jeremiah Wright is crazy, what sexism means, if so-and-so can vote when she turns 18, even though her parents are both Somalian, whether I think so-and-so's grandfather could beat up John McCain (yes, this was actually asked. I reminded them violence wasn't something to joke about, but later discovered a pro-con list the 12-year-old asker had made to conclude, just fyi, that his grandfather could indeed beat up John McCain.)

I have to add, it's a phenomenon even more pronounced among my black and latino kids. Because the message they are getting from this election isn't just "a white woman and a black man can be president." It's that people of all genders and races are involved in politics...and that will become even more true after this election...

I'm not American, and I didn't spend much too time in the US over the last months. But I have friends living in different states in the US. And in talking to them even I could feel that this time something special was happening.
I think that just by becoming a candidate Hillary did do at alot for women and girls in the US: I assume that the sentence "When I grow up, I'll be President" now sounds a lot more realtistic and possible to many young girls.
And the amount of sexism Hillary had to face is proof of how realistic her chances at winning had been all the time. She scared a lot of people (=men) a lot.
I am in no position to judge America's domestic politics, so I won't say anything on whether she or Obama were going to be a better choice poltically.
But I can judge one thing: She really helped in re-improving America's bad image throughout the traditionally rather anti-americanistic European intellectuals. She reminded a lot of peope of the fact that the US consists of more than Bush and Evangelicals.
(While Europe is busy celebrating "the return of the macho" - just think of Sarkozy and Berlusconi for example...)
And me personally - I would have loved to see her among all the other great women leaders throughout the world!

Regardless of who won it, a minority group lost

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In this race, one person had to lose. Neither Hilary or Obama is the spokesperson for their "group" (which isn't to say that's what you were implying).

For Hillary to lose doesn't mean that women lose.

I want to thank the feministing editors for maintaining an intelligent and neutral stance through all of this. The press coverage on this primary has been really nasty.

I think it's been pointed out that black men got the vote before white women, so Obama's nomination is just following the historic pattern. We will have a female president someday; I just hope it won't take as long as the female vote did.

There were two women Senators in 1991 (Lisa Simpson makes reference to it in an early episode), 16 today. There are seven governors (two of which may be VP candidates); the first female governor not a widow was only elected in 1975. There are 71 Representatives, including the Speaker of the House. If Clinton deigns not to run for VP, she could possibly be Majority Leader.

Progress obviously still needs to be made, but I think a bottom-up rather than top-down approach has proven more effective.

The election (or even serious consideration) of a woman or black man to president is certainly highly groundbreaking and historically momentous, but I'm concerned that we're vesting too much importance to symbolism over that of reality.

I don't want to diminish the excitement engendered by either Clinton or Obama, but I think our best measure of progress for blacks and/or women are best measured in educational and economic gains and in eliminating inequalities that still persist and will likely continue to persist even after any one president's term of office, even if that candidate is black or is a woman. I agree with norbizness: real progress is made from the bottom-up; the election of either a black or white candidate is significant, but should not be used as a token that we have "arrived."

I am curious why we hear so little of Nancy Pelosi these days. If Hillary Clinton not getting the nomination is a dream-destroyer and proof of sexism, what is Nancy Pelosi's ascendancy to Speaker of the House?

"One of the things that keeps frustrating me about this race has been the fatalism that if Clinton didn't win the presidency, no woman will ever win. This is just ridiculous logic; Jesse Jackson didn't win the presidency or the candidacy, and now a black man is a presidential candidate. Who is to say that in four years, another woman won't be running and won't mobilize a huge base of people? I refuse to believe that women are going to be so disheartened by this that we will drop out of politics entirely. If anything, I think that this will make women think 'if she could make it this far, maybe I could make it farther.' It isn't all or nothing, people."

Right on! :D

"I had to help one of my mentorship students write her final English paper for 9th grade, and the only real stipulation was that it be a persuasive research essay, trying to convince the reader her approach was better than others. She, without any prompting from me, came to our meeting with 3 pages already written about why she thinks people need to vote in more than just federal elections as soon as they turn 18."

That's 3 times longer than the essays I had to write in 9th grade. :)

an effect I hope will continue throughout the general election.

Me, too.

I haven't had much time to ponder the implications of her candidacy; I've been too busy trying to get people to understand the difference between "fact," "opinion," and "what I read in my e-mail forwards." Maybe I can catch my breath soon.

This is a little off-topic, but there's something that's been bothering me about the whole campaign so far and I'd like to see if it's bothering anyone else:

Why is it so common to refer to "Obama and Hillary"? It happens everywhere: casual conversation, print and televised news reports, opinion articles, even posts and comments in feminist blogs. Is it so we don't confuse her with her husband? Because people aren't stupid--they'll get which one you're talking about. And if that's what you're worried about, why not "Obama and Rodham Clinton"? Doesn't roll off the tongue as nice, but it fixes that issue. Hell, even "Barack and Hillary" would be okay.

This could be minor, but I feel like the difference in how we refer to the candidates speaks to a difference in how we view them, and I'm honestly not sure exactly what that difference really is. To me, to call Obama by his last name and Clinton by her first makes him sound like the more serious candidate, first names usually being reserved for more familiar and casual references. Or it could be for some people that calling her Hillary is an indication of feeling closer to or more identified with her, thereby distancing Obama. The problem is, I think both of those reasons play into innate sexism and racism. He's more serious because he's a man (she cried on TV, for goshsakes! *gasp*), and/or she's more relatable because she's white (and a woman--us gals are just so much easier to talk to). Or is it just because there's some gut reaction against having another Clinton in office, and calling her by her first name makes us feel better?

Am I totally off base here? All I know is, usually when we call a public figure by their first name, especially a politician, it's not because we like them.

Maggie - the same thing used to bother me, too, for the reasons you outline. But HRC uses her first name in many of her campaign materials, either to differentiate herself from her husband or to engender that feeling of familiarity you mention (which wouldn't be a surprising strategy given how many people said, and still say, that they find her cold or distant). She (or at least her campaign) put her first name out there. So I don't consider that in and of itself an indicator that people who call her "Hillary" are trying to minimize her in relation to Barack Obama.

Maggie, a lot of Clinton's marketing materials identify her only as "Hillary." I think it's to help differentiate her from her husband, and make her campaign materials markedly different from his. Seriously, go look at her website. "Stand with Hillary" and so on.

I think it's been pointed out that black men got the vote before white women, so Obama's nomination is just following the historic pattern. We will have a female president someday; I just hope it won't take as long as the female vote did.

Black men officially got the right to vote after the civil war, and then were systematically denied the right to vote throughout the majority of the country. This persisted until more than forty years after women got the right to vote throughout the country. I mean, this is really one of the worst oppressolympic tropes that gets spread.

-- ACS

Maggie, I agree that it is odd. I think in part the reason is that Hillary and her campaign tout "Hillary" as the an identifier. I seem to remember many "Hillary" signs at her events on TV but not many "Clinton" ones. I do think that a lot of people, myself included, call her Hillary to avoid confusion with Bill (e.g., "did you see what Clinton said yesterday?" Which one, Bill or Hillary"). I am not sure what to read into the use of the different names, though. I would guess that very many people refer to the two candidates by those names for a number of different reasons. But it is odd.

sexeducatornyc, I just meant that most of the things that are applied to women because Clinton lost could also be applied to blacks if the situation was reversed. For example. people are saying that this has set feminism back (which I don't agree with), but if Obama had lost it could have been said that the rights of blacks had been set back, etc.

For years we've heard anecdotes from researchers that women's political participation increases when there's a woman running for office.

Imagine a world in which women made up the supermajority of politicians. How interested would men be? Would it really be a surprise if they took more interest if they were actually represented?

In some ways, this is pretty obvious. Consider as well that America fought a war to have representation that reflected its people, then, 80 years later, fought another war for similar ideals. Glad that it isn't getting to the point of raising armies for women to be in power, but it's undeniably important.

To me, to call Obama by his last name and Clinton by her first makes him sound like the more serious candidate, first names usually being reserved for more familiar and casual references. Or it could be for some people that calling her Hillary is an indication of feeling closer to or more identified with her, thereby distancing Obama.

Well, if you've noticed, the most successful women are first-name only: Oprah, Martha, Hillary, Condi. Whether this is a sexist thing or a women-empowerment thing - or both! - is not something upon which I will speculate.

oenophile:

Mainly it's in conjunction with "Obama"--the disconnect between referring to one person one way and the other in a different way, in the same breath--that it bothers me. Again, it isn't something I've completely nailed down, and I could be reading way too much into it.

It showed my how horrifyingly sexist our country still is. Even people I wouldn't have thought that of made comments about Clinton being "too political" or "too aggressive" and things of the same ilk, characteristics shared by all politicians but only lambasted in females.

It showed me that a woman can be the more experienced candidate but her career is taken far less seriously than a male competitor's is.

It showed me that a smart, strong, independent, qualified woman in a position of power still terrifies the American people at large.

I learned a woman can make a brilliant and intelligent speech or kick serious ass in a debate but the next day we will only her about her hairstyle, her pantsuit or her cleavage.

I learned you are either stony and emotionless or a hysterical woman; there is no middle ground.

I learned that if your husband cheats on you and you don't leave him, you are, by default, abusive to women and a sexual harasser. However, had you left him, you would be less of a woman or at least less qualified for the presidency for being divorced (that's my own speculation but I doubt anyone would disagree here).

I learned if your daughter helps you campaign, you are "pimping her out." Because there's no way that the daughter of a smart, strong woman would grow up to also be a smart, strong woman and be able to make her own decisions about politics.

I learned that the media's collective soft-kissing of a particular candidate can secure his future long before he ACTUALLY secures his future.

I learned that a female president will automatically attract terrorists, despite the fact that several countries we are allegedly fighting against have had women in positions of power, as have friendlier nations who have yet to be blown up for it.

I learned that people automatically assume that if you happen to choose the candidate that matches your sex or race that is the only reason you are voting for them. It's not possible that you just prefer the candidate.

I learned that it's still OK to use derogatory sexist names and slurs while using parallel racial terms would earn you a one way trip to bloody-pulp-ville. Or banned-from-the-media-ville. Etc.

Mostly I learned that since the general public is still intimidated by smart, strong women, I should stand up and be one, not shut my mouth, not be a good little girl, and not take any of this sexist bullshit laying down, because if we just roll over and let it happen it will never change.

(I also decided that if Obama has any political savvy in him he'll pick Clinton for his veep, they would be completely unstoppable as a joint ticket in my opinion)

I think that too many nominal "progressives" in the United States focused on empty symbolism (the black guy, the woman) and not enough on the fact that it was their views and platforms that should matter. I think both candidates suffered sexist/racist comments and attempting to see "whose was worse" is harmful. Both sexism and racism are terrible; attempting to quantify each is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

I think if we focused less on their contest (which I think was fought hard but fair, for the most part) and more on the contest with the stereotypical white, male, Christian conservative candidate, we'd all be better off. But I'm worried that too many people will charge Obama with anti-Hillary sentiment when I'm not sure he personally (or his campaign) is really guilty of the type of sexism we saw from the Iron Our Shirts idiots.

Really, making true change isn't going to happen because of an election. Having Hillary Clinton be the nominee would not grant talismanic powers to combat sexism; the same is true of Obama and racism. We need to change minds first (through education) and then political change will follow.

I find the whole debacle just hideously depressing. I don't feel empowered by Hillary's failed candidacy at all.
A question: if a female hasn't been elected President in 40 years, are we still going to be talking about how it doesn't matter? I swear, this whole thing has me thinking completely irrational thoughts of joining a right wing church or something. At least there, we know where women stand. I feel like the American "progressives" pay lip service to women's rights, but really are more interested in their votes than anything else.
Whatever.

in a truly equal society, genitalia should be irrelevant.

To assume that a male politician cannot address the concerns of his female constituents, or vice versa, is ridiculous.

Its honestly pathetic that women believe that Obama winning is a cataclysmic event that will banish them to kitchen forever. Really, if you are stupid enough to go for Mccain, good riddance, we don't need idiots in the party.

IMO, i honestly just cant understand it. I met a few bitter and angry women today in result of today's news, and i asked myself a question.

If Obama's penis magically disappeared, would it all be alright? I simply having a penis-less president THAT important?

"I met a few bitter and angry women today in result of today's news"

I'm sure you did.

Well, real life society isn't truly equal.

Gender, race, sexuality, class, etc, matters.

They will always matter, though hopefully not even nearly as much, or in the same, extreme ways.

The assumption, in general, isn't that it's impossible for someone who possesses a biological trait or "life experience", that is held in higher regard by those of power and privilege, to address the concerns of those who do not.

It is that those who do not, like a member of an ethnic minority as opposed to a member of the ethnic majority, is *more* qualified to speaking out on issues dealing with race, and can do so with more authority, for example.

But you mean, that, let's say, women, feminists or not, should operate, based not on reality, but based on the conditions that only exists in an idealistic fantasy, an as of yet, unrealized "humanist" reality.

Really...

The concerns regarding Obama's views on things like reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, etc, are not unfounded.

The concerns regarding the continued use of sexist dogwhistles by, to some extent, his campaign, but most specifically and especially, a significant amount of his supporters, are not unfounded.

The concerns regarding the way that so called "democrats", "liberals", and "progressives" used sexist attacks against against her out of spite or malice, because she wasn't their favoured candidate, or they just plain didn't like her, or because it was politically expedient, and this not having been sufficiently called out by voices of authority (if at all), are not unfounded.

(Isn't the left supposed to know better? To be "above it all"?)

The US media has been a significant complicit perpetuator and perpetrator of sexism throughout the election.

The concerns regarding the implications of all *this* for the next *eventual* female presidential candidate, and women in general, are not unfounded.

Time will tell.

(And the hyperbolic idea, that the sole event that Hillary Clinton didn't become the nominee is the sign of an upcoming Kristallnacht for women, or that her mere failed candidacy has somehow damaged the prospects for future ambitious female politicians/careerists is, more often than not, sexist wishful thinking on the part of misogynists/anti-feminists. Not some widely held idealogy that the "bitter women" and "sore losers" who voted for her adhere to.)

For years we've heard anecdotes from researchers that women's political participation increases when there's a woman running for office.

Just to be clear, are these really anecdotes that you are talking about? Or are they published studies, i.e., the currency that most researchers deal in? Because published studies are the closest thing we have to "proof", whereas anecdotes...well, they are just stories that don't really prove anything.

What i said about an equal society was intended to be indicative and theoretical, obviously it is not a perfect world.

---------------
It is that those who do not, like a member of an ethnic minority as opposed to a member of the ethnic majority, is *more* qualified to speaking out on issues dealing with race, and can do so with more authority, for example.
-------------

that is true, but the very same can be said about gender issues.

I know, that's what I was alluding to. Substitute ethnic minority, with female/sexism, non-hetero/bigotry, etc.

The reports that concern me are of supposedly Democrat women saying they were so disappointed that Clinton was not the candidate, that they would vote for McCain rather than Obama. Surely a woman who supports Clinton is concerned about feminist issues. How can one possibly conclude that McCain is the more feminist of the two remaining candidates?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! I almost wonder if those quotes were from McCain shills?