Hillary’s 2008 campaign: women vs. women
Recently, I read an interesting article, here, about why Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign for presidency lost appeal to America’s women. Hillary’s campaign, it states, became more about class and race than about a feminist revolution. African-American voters of all classes were voting for the African-American candidate (now President Barack Obama). Men were voting for the male candidates. Women, however were the only voting bloc not voting for their bloc. For the Clinton campaign, this divided feminist bloc was devastating. Why, you ask, were women so fragmented? The only possible conclusion is that American women aren’t strategic or confident enough to form a consequential political movement aimed at putting one of their own in power.
From almost the very beginning of Hillary’s campaign began, female voters divided themselves among racial and socioeconomic lines. African-American women stood behind Obama by more the 78 percent. White women, however, remain the single largest demographic of the Democratic party, and make up 44 percent. If the women in this demographic body had voted as a whole, it would only have taken a little bit more help from another group to elect Clinton. White women, in fact, favored Clinton.
So why, then, did she not win her campaign for presidency?
Hillary Clinton did not win her campaign because of the socioeconomic lines that split the white demographic. The more educated the woman, the more likely, it seems, that she favored Hillary. This was a split different than had been predicted. It had been predicted that more lower-class women would back the female candidate, due to her more generous and ambitious social platform and reforms. The female franchise, stubborn and fickle, however, could not work together. Even feminist leaders could not stick together, with many choosing instead to rush into the arms of the Obama campaign. Will women, fickle and stubborn as we are, ever be able to work together? Only time will tell.