In the aftermath of the Democratic nomination contest, just about everybody’s come forward with an analysis of what happened to Hillary Clinton.
Her supporters see it as tragic proof that the US is deeply, unapologetically sexist, and/or that the election was stolen. The comments on Hillary’s most ardent supporting blogs are filled with rage and bitterness. They say they’re going to exact revenge; support McCain; write in Hillary; bring down the Democratic Party.
Hillary’s detractors have written ad nauseum about how they perceive her as selfish and self-serving. She was vilified for staying married to a fornicator; for launching her senate career from a state in which she had to establish residency; for claiming executive experience from her years as “First Wife”.
For millions of people both for and against, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was unbelievably personal. How ironic, then, that it is the candidate herself who achieved the most personal triumph possible.
She individuated herself.
Bill and Hillary have been indelibly intertwined in the national psyche for nearly two decades. Everybody knew who she was, but for the most part the association was “Former First Lady”, or “Bill Clinton’s wife”… and she didn’t hesitate to leverage that name recognition heavily.
By launching under Bill’s banner, she necessarily had to leave space for his presence beside her, where he immediately (and unfortunately) sucked up all the light. The connection between them was crucial to the “inevitability” theme, but regardless of how one regards Bill Clinton’s presidency, that truly was not a compliment to Hillary as an individual.
It didn’t matter whether he was beloved or hated; a successful president or a failure. Relying upon his luminosity to launch her national campaign diminished her personally.
Her problem was not that she is a woman. That’s far too generic and shallow an analysis. The real pitfall was that she attempted to share a spotlight that already illuminated someone else — and that same someone cast an enormous shadow.
That is no longer the case.
When I think of Hillary Clinton these days, my first association is not her husband… and I couldn’t say that six months ago. Bill’s shadow is barely discernible to me today.
Hillary Rodham Clinton may have lost her party’s nomination, but she gained something that could never have been awarded via votes or delegates or donations.
She casts her own shadow now. Good for her.
Polimom,
In many ways, Hillary had the same problem that the son of a “great” man has–a very big shadow to try and get clear of. Of course, Bill’s shadow was one Hillary consciously stepped into in order to assume some of his power and reputation for use by herself, whereas a son can not help who his father is. Still, the parallel is interesting.
Some women, e.g. Christina Kirschner, consciously represent themselves as the alter ego and stand in for their husbands. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn’t. However, Hillary while she started there, found that she had to break free of Bill’s shadow in order to have any chance. Bill’s legacy is not one of such unchallenged success that she could just be “Bill 2”. She has managed to do so.
Without Googling, how many people know what former President Theodore Roosevelt’s son did with his life? Winston Churchill’s? John F. Kennedy’s son?
Fame is a double edged sword. It can serve the holder well, but damage all those who stand too close to the holder.