*
Why Clinton? Why have older women and feminist organizations hitched their wagon of dreams to such a controversial figure? Clinton promised much, in particular a return to the good old 1990s when the economy boomed and the Yankees were world champions. However, she became a shape-shifter in the face of Obama's utopian wave. First, she was the most experienced candidate ('Ready on day one'). Later, she became the populist candidate of the single parent waitresses. In the end, she came out as a feminist candidate. Which Clinton is the real one? I would suspect the latter self-presentation is the truest. But it is fair to ask whether the difficulty she faced was not only sexism in the media but also her own personal history. Hillary Clinton is not just a woman candidate, she is a brand name. And her brand is not untarnished. Her front-runner status in January 2008 was based on name recognition. Once this shown to no longer suffice to move voters to her cause, the game was over. Her 'experience' advantage was not so overwhelming; hence, it didn't turn the tide against Obama. And her 'experience' in the area of policy in which she is most passionate, universal health care, was an abject failure. (Perhaps she thought this failure was erased from the memories of the Democratic electorate). Moreover, something else went without saying: Republicans would fight to the death to defeat such a policy proposed by a second President Clinton. Hillary Clinton's legacy in this area is much like her legacy as the first woman to crack the political glass ceiling: her defeat opened the door to more pragmatic choices.
*
Political feminism should not be depressed over the dramatic fall of the inevitable one. Other less problematic women candidates exist and will emerge in time. Hillary Clinton was probably not the 'best chance' for putting a woman in the White House, although this particular nadir in Republican party prospects is a good chance for any breathing Democrat.
