Clinton claims presidential nomination, 32 years after Ferraro

With big victories in the California and New Jersey primaries on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton became the first woman in American history to clinch a major-party presidential nomination—32 years after Democrats nominated Geraldine Ferraro for vice president, which had led many to believe that a woman at the top of the ticket was just around the corner. That corner was a lot farther off than it seemed. Since Ferraro’s nomination, we’ve seen a woman serve as Speaker of the House, three women (including Clinton) serve as secretary of state and three women named to the Supreme Court (following the groundbreaking appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981).

Only a handful of women have even attempted to run for president over the past few decades, and no woman even won a seriously contested primary until Ms. Clinton’s first narrowly unsuccessful campaign in 2008. The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart writes that her victory this year “constitutes the greatest political comeback by a presidential candidate since Richard Nixon won the Republican nomination in 1968, after losing the presidential election of 1960.” Perhaps the better comparison is to Ronald Reagan, who came tantalizingly close to winning the Republican nomination in 1976 and never stopped running until he made it to the White House four years later. This year represents a reversal of roles for the two major parties: The Democrats tend to go for fresher faces (Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama), but this year it’s the Republican Party taking a gamble on an outsider candidate.

Advertisement

A future sign of progress may be, well, not necessarily a female version of Donald Trump, but more women candidates with the audacity to run even when they’re not the most experienced in the field. (Why did Ms. Clinton face a primary challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders rather than Sen. Elizabeth Warren? Neither senator has a strong grasp on foreign policy, but I suspect men are more likely to think they can get away with learning on the job.) The nomination of Ms. Clinton may help fight what’s been called “election aversion” on the part of women, or their tendency to be under-confident in their ability to hold elected office—even when there’s evidence that voters and journalists overall are not biased against women candidates. But Ms. Clinton had many advantages in her 2016 primary campaign, including hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, near-universal support from Democratic officeholders and her status as the wife of a former president. The question is whether her success as a candidate, and possibly as a president, will embolden women without such resources to run for office.

With her nomination in hand, Ms. Clinton is now focusing on presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. The demographics favor Ms. Clinton; as Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said four years ago of his own party, “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” It would be unfortunate if the fall campaign denigrated into tribalism, with each political party turning out their own zip codes and whipping up resentment of the Other.

Mr. Trump, of course, has shown little hesitation to pit ethnic and religious groups against each other—the latest example being his assertion that a judge of Mexican ancestry can’t be impartial in a lawsuit against Trump University. But the Democrats should resist the temptation to seek a comeuppance for “angry white guys” this November, and Ms. Clinton should not only celebrate the breaking down of racial and gender barriers but also promise voters that she will try to boost economic opportunity in all corners of the nation. “I’m With Her” is a great slogan for raising money and energizing volunteers, but at a time of intense political polarization and a widespread belief that the country is on the wrong track, Ms. Clinton should make it clear that she will work for the common good, including those who weren’t with her from the beginning.

Ms. Clinton’s victory speech on Tuesday night is encouraging in that regard. After paying tribute to the struggle for women’s equality in the United States, she celebrated our “big-hearted, fair-minded country” and returned to the “it takes a village to raise a child” theme (for which she’s been ridiculed by opponents since the 1990s). “We’re stronger when we respect each other,” Ms. Clinton told the crowd in Brooklyn, “listen to each other and act with a sense of common purpose.” That shouldn’t be a controversial message, but it seems to be meeting uncommon resistance this year.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Crystal Watson
1 year 4 months ago
I voted for her. I think she was the best candidate and will be a good president. She's willing to reach out to the Bernie supporters but many of them have said they will vote for Trump instead.
ed gleason
1 year 4 months ago
As for Sanders voters, they love his policies and so they will never vote for Trump. Sanders' charisma is invisable to me. [Fox News interviewed at their studio a nerdy guy with a bow tie and big glasses who claimed he was a Sanders supporter who will now vote for Trump.. I think I heard them say 'your check is waiting at the desk out side] ' . Hillary will endorse Sanders' policies with a robust attention to income inequality. She will win 40 states if the GOPers don't dump Trump before the convention.. Elizabeth Warrens' endorcement will turn 95% of Sanders' followers. .
Crystal Watson
1 year 4 months ago
I hope you're right. In a couple of articles I saw about Bernie's speech in Santa Monica, reporters asked his supporters if they would vote for Hillary and many of then said they would vote for Trump instead, others said they would never vote for Hillary even if Sanders endorsed her. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html?_r=1 ... and ... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/among_the_deadenders_of_bernieworld.html
ed gleason
1 year 4 months ago
I'M sending $27.00 to Hillary campaign.
Vince Killoran
1 year 4 months ago
Don't expect an invitation to spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom: the Clintons are used to receiving checks for (at least) $27,000!
Crystal Watson
1 year 4 months ago
Actually, I've donated about $20 in $5 increments to Hillary, and I have been invited to attend a number of events (haven't gone, though).
Vince Killoran
1 year 4 months ago
I'll vote for her. But no lawn signs, donations, or canvassing. I'll let her enthusiasts do the heavy lifting. I can't debase myself again w/the Clintons. I will donate small amounts to specific Bernie-endorsed candidates.
Crystal Watson
1 year 4 months ago
I'm not saying she's perfect. I thought she had the best chance to accomplish progress on a large number of progressive issues.
ed gleason
1 year 4 months ago
Vince ... Won't Warren as surragate or VP be enough for your vote?
Vince Killoran
1 year 4 months ago
No, she cannot bring change. She is a neoliberal, establishment politician. Her record on the environment is dismal; ditto for campaign and big banking reform. Her position on the death penalty is unacceptable. She is weak on the living wage, labor law reform, and loves just about every free trade pact.
Joshua DeCuir
1 year 4 months ago
"The demographics favor Ms. Clinton; as Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said four years ago of his own party, “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” It would be unfortunate if the fall campaign denigrated into tribalism, with each political party turning out their own zip codes and whipping up resentment of the Other." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/upshot/there-are-more-white-voters-than-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Tim O'Leary
1 year 4 months ago
Now is the winter of our discontent made even more dismal by the prospect of two most highly flawed and epically unfavored candidates nominated for President of our nation. Hope usually springs eternal for me but I am most likely going to sit this one out, barring some act of God, the FBI or common sense. In my view, barring an indictment (about a 30:70 prospect), Hillary should win, and she will secure abortion-on-demand for another generation by 2-3 supreme court picks. Religious freedom and the American family will be further weakened and the politics of division will only increase. Hillary already has her Nixonian enemies list and certainly has the capacity to follow his tactics. And Trump would only be worse. God help us. After the election, both are at high risk of facing an impeachment process in their first term. Just think - Hillary could make history as I don't know of any husband and wife president of any nation who have both ended up being impeached. To search for a silver lining, I will enjoy seeing one of these two candidates lose very badly.
Chuck Kotlarz
1 year 4 months ago
Over 40% of abortion patients live below the federal poverty level. https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion/demographics The National Marriage Project notes: “What’s clear is that economic opportunity…matters. The breakdown of the traditional family is overwhelmingly occurring among working-class Americans.” http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/01/family-structure-class-sawhill If congressional obstruction ends, perhaps something can be done about trickle-down abortion and trickle-down divorce.
Carlos Orozco
1 year 4 months ago
I think it is telling that the word "change" could only be found once in the article, as part of the opening question. And of course the answer is NO. Hillary Clinton is the ultimate status quo candidate. Want more disastrous wars of aggression in the ME? Want more dangerous confrontation with Russia? Want to make sure too-big-to-fail banks don't loose their "social security net"? Want to keep funding and promoting abortion and the homosexual agenda worldwide? Then answer with enthusiasm "I'm With Her!" Say what you may about racist Donald Trump, he does not have blood on his hands as Hillary Clinton. For her crimes against the Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian people as Secretary of State she belongs in prison, not the White House. Too bad softie Bernie Sanders let her off the hook so easy and never mentioned her role in backing and supporting the "moderate" head-choppers for the purpose of destabilizing the ME, although constantly hitting her on the much lesser sin of voting for the Iraq war of 2003 in the Senate. For the moment, enjoy the circus and hope for the two candidates to self-destruct, going off script, so people can open their eyes.
Crystal Watson
1 year 4 months ago
If Hillary is such a monster, why would Jerry Brown and Elizabeth Warren endorse her? Why would two important environmental groups endorse her? Why would most women and LGBT people and racial minorities vote for her and not Bernie? Why did most lower income people vote for her and not Bernie?
Tim O'Leary
1 year 4 months ago
Her venal character doesn't matter to them for at least two reasons: 1) She is the only viable vehicle for left-wing success, and 2) She is possibly mean and corrupt enough to take on Trump on his own terms. Bernie is a better person but far more extreme on money matters and most Democrat Politicians are rich and only want to spend other people's money,
Crystal Watson
1 year 4 months ago
Bernie's a better person? Really - you've looked into their hearts? I guess this explains why Bernie gave such a smaller percentage of his income to charity than Hillary ... because he's a better person. http://religionnews.com/2016/04/18/how-sanders-charitable-giving-may-undermine-his-central-message-commentary/
Tim O'Leary
1 year 4 months ago
Crystal - I only meant his public persona, in that he is probably not a pathological liar, or criminally inclined, which one cannot say about Hillary, given the public evidence we have today. Bernie is certainly not above hypocrisy when it comes to some of his political positions, and some of his policies are guaranteed to bring more injustices into the world. You know I can't stand Trump (another chronic liar, and many other things), but he does have a knack for succinctly getting to the heart of his opponent's greatest weakness. And Crooked Hillary seems to hit the mark. I bet you would jump at supporting any other pro-abortion women candidate, if you had the option. But many on the left of politics will hold their noses while they vote for what they judge the lesser of two crooks.
Crystal Watson
1 year 4 months ago
I don't like her because she's a pro-abortion woman. I do like that she is a feminist and abortion rights is part of that, but so is Bernie pro-abortion. I would have been just as happy to vote for Al Gore if he had run. At the end of the day, I think what President Obama said about Hillary is true - that she is very smart, compassionate, and capable, and will make a good president ... https://youtu.be/S9W0F2mz1jc
Tim O'Leary
1 year 4 months ago
I like your first sentence: "I don't like her because she's a pro-abortion woman."
Carlos Orozco
1 year 4 months ago
And that is just for starters... Imagine a First Gentleman Bill Clinton. Yeah, right.
Crystal Watson
1 year 4 months ago
.
Carlos Orozco
1 year 4 months ago
Pretty sure Hillary and Bill will want to keep girls of America "safe". May the Lord have mercy.
Carlos Orozco
1 year 4 months ago
That a 74 year-old Socialist, that never really committed to fully attack Hillary, and yet managed to put serious heat on the anointed queen and the whole Democratic establishment, just shows how weak her candidacy really is. And her actions in the ME demonstrate she is evil. Her own words with respect to the Libyan adventure damn her: "We came, we saw, he died!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM Have no doubt Republican warmongers like John McCain and Lindsey Graham recognize in her one of their own.

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

by Jaclyn Clark for Unsplash

After Bella

In truth, I know nothing
of her secret or public life.

Kwame DawesOctober 17, 2017
In a zombie world, the good Samaritan would be toast.
Patrick GallagherOctober 17, 2017
Pope Francis answers questions from journalists aboard his flight from Malmo, Sweden, to Rome Nov. 1. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Pope Francis confessed that while he has “chutzpah,” “I am also timid.”
Gerard O'ConnellOctober 17, 2017
Callista Gingrich, wife of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has been nominated by President Donald Trump to be the new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. She is pictured as her husband speaks at Peachtree Academy in Covington, Georgia, in this Feb. 29, 2012, file photo. (CNS photo/Erik S. Lesser, EPA)
23 senators voted against Ms. Gingrich’s confirmation, a departure from previous nominations that faced little opposition.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 16, 2017