Why Hillary’s Candidacy Is More ‘Historic’ Now Than in 2008
Why Hillary’s Candidacy Is More ‘Historic’ Now Than in 2008
Clinton’s decision to emphasize the historic nature of her candidacy is probably as calculated as her decision to deemphasize it in 2008.
By Jonah Goldberg — August 3, 2016
Among the innumerable flip-flops, course corrections, and reinventions that have come to define Hillary Clinton’s three decades in public life, perhaps the most interesting one is her decision in 2016 to go all in as the woman-candidate.
In 2008, Clinton downplayed her gender. Mark Penn, her chief strategist in that campaign, had a “FWP” (First Woman President) plan that emphasized toughness, not nurturing. Voters, he argued, did “not want someone who would be the first mama, especially in this kind of world.”
Ann Lewis, a 2008 senior adviser, told the New York Times last year that the decision not to double down on gender was the “biggest missed opportunity” of Clinton’s presidential bid. “It was not a major theme of the campaign,” Lewis added.
She’s right about the latter; I’m not sure about the former. Perhaps one reason Clinton didn’t bang the feminist gong more forcefully was that she feared it might remind voters she was a household name because of her husband’s accomplishments, not her own. Clinton successfully sponsored only three pieces of legislation while in the Senate: the renaming of a road, the renaming of a post office, and the naming of a house as a historic landmark. She had other accomplishments, but little that would have distinguished a senator named Jones or Smith.
more
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/438616/print
