Clinging to the candidacy

A sigh of relief seemed to permeate the country on Wednesday morning as it was made apparent… A sigh of relief seemed to permeate the country on Wednesday morning as it was made apparent that the exceedingly long campaign for the Democratic nomination had finally reached its end. The race felt as though it had lasted forever, not only drawing itself out into the final moments of the primaries but also having begun so early, the candidates lining up just as Bush was sworn into office for his second term.

And part of what made the race seem even longer was that it endured such a menagerie of role-changers, candidates who were at one moment the frontrunner, the next the underdog. It was fought bitterly and ultimately won in the places we forget so easily, like Kentucky and Montana – states that can often seem like the cultural deserts of our country for the other three years of the election cycle, alien and elusive to the America that propagates itself in the media.

And now the historical significance of the general election has been set. It has become a question of progress vs. tradition, outwardly a battle between change and consistency, underlyingly a battle of breaking through the race barrier. And while it certainly is important to consider and examine the implications of the election results before we vote, those questions are likely to overshadow the implications of the decisions that have already been made in these campaigns.

For example: Hillary Clinton’s decision to remain in the race, even when it seemed obvious that she had lost. When my roommate – a diehard Clinton supporter – returned from her campaign work in Indiana, she seemed resigned to an Obama-McCain race. And yet, almost a month passed between then and the end of Clinton’s campaign. In between, the senator was ridiculed for being foolish, stubborn and divisive, for clinging doggedly to a plane-on-fire idea of presidency when everyone else had seemed to move on.

Why? Some argue that it was mere intractability that kept her in it, that she was tethered to the campaign by a sense of entitlement that stemmed from her long political career. But if this were true, wouldn’t she have dropped out earlier when she could have saved her pride and maybe also maintained the political relationships that would have cast her as a cabinet member or maybe even vice president?

Others say that it was party strengthening in which she was interested, that her campaign inspired organization and action by the party in places that normally would have remained apathetic. But her campaign was also incontestably polarizing and contributed to the clownishness of the Democratic Party during this race, possibly doing more harm than good.

So if it was not egoist or inciter that Clinton played, what was it?

In her concession speech, Clinton made a point to be supportive and positive about the future of Obama’s campaign. This was a good choice on her part, to present herself as someone who is for the party and for the country, even when it was not for her. But as well as displaying a graceful lack of petulance, Clinton also made a few comments about gender that could not only give meaning to her campaign but also justify her decision to stay in the race so long. Clinton said that it is a “remarkable” movement for our society that it will now be “unremarkable” for a woman to achieve the political accomplishments that she did, that the precedent was set, and similar campaigns will not be historic in their ambition but rather in their success.

The question persists, though, whether it really will be easier for women now that Clinton has tried and failed.

If it is the case that Hillary Clinton has become the paramount symbol for women’s achievement, will it be easier for those whose gender bias affects a woman’s role to assume that their prejudice will go unnoticed? By saying that we have made great strides in gender equality with this campaign, are we giving society an easy out? Will we no longer be held accountable for our bigotry toward women because we’ve allowed one single woman to go so far? I fear we’re in danger of being able to hold up Clinton’s campaign as proof of our growth with one hand while quietly undermining all of our progress so far with the other. It’s our job, as a society that will be overwhelmed with different questions of social justice for the next few months, to ensure that this does not happen.

When history looks back on this election, it will read Hillary Clinton as someone who was not a candidate for president, but a woman for president. And though her candidacy might have failed now, it is still yet to be written whether or not her efforts as a woman for president were futile.

And I think that that question now at our hands, which could easily be ignored in the fervor of the general election’s social impact, is insurmountably important.

E-mail Cassidy at cassidygruber@gmail.com.