PRIMARY OF ONE

WHY A WOMAN

(OR
MANY
WOMEN)
SHOULD

RUN AGAINST HER

BY REBECCA TRAISTER

I SPENT A LOT OF 2008 FEELING CRUSHED. IT WAS EXHILARATING

covering Hillary Clintons historic run for the presidency, but
there was so much about the race that was backward and retro, more 1958 than 2008. It wasnt just the medias goggle-eyed
questions about whether the country was ready for a female
president or the inane things that spilled out of peoples mouths
on cable televisionthough lets remember that Christopher
Hitchens called Clinton soppy and bitchy, Mike Barnicle compared her to everyones first wife standing outside a probate
court, and Keith Olbermann suggested that the Democratic
Party needed somebody who can take her into a room and
only he comes out. All of that was grim. But it was symptomatic of a far bigger problem: that in the first decade of the

twenty-first century, the nation still had difficulty imagining a

female president as anything other than an exception, a somewhat threatening anomaly.
Should she run, as she almost certainly will, people will be
idiots about Clinton this election, too. Theyll call her a bitch
and express their distaste for her through fantasies of misogynistic violence. But when I consider the distance we have traveled
since 2008, I find myself strangely hopeful about whats ahead.
The degree to which our cultural attitudes about women in politics have matured is astonishing.
Most print and online political publications now employ writers who cover politics and media from an explicitly feminist perspective. Cable news features far more women, as both anchors

and pundits, as well as more men who are as likely to engage

in spirited gendered critiques as they are to unspool freakydeaky gendered nightmares. And all over social media, there
dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to
launch hashtag campaigns and circulate change.org petitions in
response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps.
But we havent come far enough. Instead, were in a tricky,
potentially explosive stage: bursting with ideas about how to
normalize the concept of women in power, but still constrained
by a system that politically, economically, and culturally remains
dominated by white men. We are tweens, caught between
an awareness of the injustices of our past, yet not grown up
enough to seize control and right them.
So how do we catapult out of this cusp period? Having a woman in the White House would certainly help. But in advance
of that, and perhaps just as crucially, other women in the Democratic Party need to do what theyve so far shown no stomach
for: They need to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

To primary or not to primary: Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

19
THE NEW REP UBLIC JULY 14, 2014

WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES; MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES; ASSOCIATED PRESS

FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, THERE ARE FOUR DEMOCRATIC

women who could plausibly run for president, four women
whose names get mentioned on short lists and in wishful-thinking
conversations among party faithful. Of course, only one is
ready for the job today. Nobody of any gender has more
experience, name recognition, fund-raising capabilities, or
real-world preparation for what awaits in partisan-riven Washington than Hillary Clinton.
But the other three arent laughable candidates. Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren is the troubadour of the populist left
and the one challenger Team Clinton legitimately fears. Kirsten
Gillibrand, who sits in Clintons old Senate seat, has built a reputation as a savvy strategist by moving from center to left and
makes no secret of her presidential ambitions. Theres also Amy
Klobuchar, the two-term Minnesota senator whos popular in
her state and in her party, and who has already made a couple
of exploratory trips to Iowa.
The imperfections of these potential contendersinexperience,
lefty politics, lack of name recognitioncertainly hurt their
chances. Its also worth pointing out that presidential campaigns
cost time and money; theyre not to be entered lightly. But think

about all of the men who have run for high office before they
were ready in the way Clinton is. Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer,
Mike Gravel, and Herman Cain all stared in the mirror and
decided they looked presidential. Far more analogous here
are the under-seasoned but serious politicians who run all the
time. Lots of themfrom Jerry Brown to John Edwards to
Rick Santorumdont make it the distance; but they make an
impact on their party. And sometimes unlikely candidates can
get pretty faras far as a young Bill Clinton in 1992 or Barack
Obama in 2008.
Interestingly, the issue right now isnt that the party establishment is disqualifying women other than Clinton from running
for president. Its that the women are disqualifying themselves,
seemingly on behalf of Clinton.
Warren, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar reportedly signed a letter
to Clintonalong with every other Democratic woman in the
Senateurging her to run and pledging their support if she
did. In June, Klobuchar attached her name to a fund-raising
invitation for the group Minnesotans Ready for Hillary. And in
a recent interview coinciding with the release of her book, Off
the Sidelines, which she described as a call to action, asking
women to participate in politics, Gillibrand said that shell consider running for president someday, Im sure, but not any
time in the near future. Instead, she predicted that Hillary
Clinton will be our first woman president. According to some
close to Gillibrand, she is plotting a long game for 2024, but
if Clinton werent to run in 2016, she almost certainly would.
So if she can do it, why not do it? Partly out of fear of that storied Clinton political machine, sure, but also as a sign of the
esteem for Clinton that Democratic women seem determined to
put on display.
On some level, thats terrific; good for them. Clinton has not
always enjoyed the support of the women in her party, and given some of the challenges she faced in her last go-round, its
refreshing to see her poised to enter a race backed by a bunch
of smart, tough broads.
Except that this is a presidential election, not a trust
fall. And the sisterly deference being shown to Clinton by her
colleagueswhile intended as a sign of respectis doing far
more harm than good.

PRIMARY OF ONE

THE LAST THING ANY WOMAN IN POLITICS NEEDS IS THE

appearance of having won only because her would-be opponents gave her a pass. This perhaps goes double for Clinton,
whose years in the spotlight have demonstrated again and again
that she is at her most appealing when she is fighting and scrappy, and at her most loathed when she is self-assuredly coasting. Clinton and her party require arresting, attention-drawing
competition. She needs to be duking it out, and not just with
a bunch of white guys. How many people are salivating at the
thought of a Martin OMalley candidacy? 19? 20?
A predictable primary is a boring primary, and a boring primary leads to a disinterested Democratic Partya major hindrance going into a general election. Part of what hooked voters
in the mesmerizing 2008 race was the thrum of newness, the
frisson of history-making every time a woman and a black man
stood on a debate stage together. And while we could reproduce
that thrill in a variety of waysthere is, after all, a shameful
abundance of racial, ethnic, religious, and gendered history to
be made before presidential politics become remotely inclusive
one of the most realistic, ready-to-roll scenarios of 2016 is the
one in which multiple women show up to debate each other.
But theres more at stake here than the health of the party
in one presidential election. Viewing women as adversaries
ideologically and also within their own partiesis an urgent next
step in helping the nation adjust to the idea that female politicians are just like, you know, regular politicians. That means we
have to swiftly abandon the processional model, in which one
diligent woman takes her hard-earned turn, while the next waits
patiently in the wings.
Ambitious men dont behave that way. They realize that, in
politics, very few (legal) acts get you the attention that running
for president does. Primaries can bolster fund-raising capabilities and help politicians gain more influence within their party, sometimes setting them up for vice-presidential and Cabinet
slots. Driven candidates also run for president in years when
they dont have much of a shot in order to become better
known to voters and position themselves for the next round.
Ronald Reagan ran for, and lost, the Republican nomination in
both 1968 and 1976 before winning in 1980. Al Gore lost his 1988
bid for the Democratic nomination before being elected vice
president in 1992 and then winning/losing the general in 2000.
Besides, if more women dont run this cycle, next time could
be a long way off. Should Clinton remain the only Democratic

woman on the ballot and win the nomination and the presidency, thats good for her and perhaps good for the country. Its not
necessarily good, however, for the other female prospects in her
party, who would have a decade sucked from their presidential
timelines. There are surely other ways for these women to build
their profiles, and its true that Clinton has a strong record of
hiring and promoting women, which would help lots of future
leaders. But its clearly not the same.
By getting over their impulse to defer to Clinton and instead
show her the real presidential respect of taking her on, Warren,
Gillibrand, and Klobuchar would dramatically improve the tenor
and content of political discourse on the left. Because heres another benefit of women challenging each other, in presidential
and other races: It alleviates the pressure of only-ness.
When a single avatar stands in for womankind, womankind projects onto that avatar its own varied ideas and priorities and standards. Clinton suffered from this last time,
metaphysically unable to satisfy a million divergent hopes.
She couldnt be progressive enough, authentic enough, strong
enough, stoic enough, or well-dressed enough for everyone.
Thats part of why its dangerous for one woman to mean so
much to so many.
Being The Woman Candidate also means donning a straitjacket when it comes to policy issues that make a direct
impact on women. Just as Obama has been limited in his
ability to directly address racial injustices out of fear of being
tagged The Race Guy, a lone Clinton would find herself hamstrung in debates over reproductive rights and social policy. On her book tour, she has already sounded too hesitant
in talking about paid family leave, a wildly important issue
she should be all over, having claimed credit for pushing the
Family and Medical Leave Act during her husbands administration. But now, hanging out there all alone in her lady-ness, Clinton is behaving like someone who is (not unreasonably) worried
about being feminized.
But what if there were other women out there to shoulder
some of that weight and contextualize these crucial conversations? Whether or not Warren, Gillibrand, or Klobuchar could
topple Clinton, they could make sure that certain issues got talked about. John Edwards, before melting into the oil slick of his
own loathsomeness, performed a real service, nudging Democrats in a direction they badly needed to go on poverty and the
class divide (in advance of the Occupy movement, Dodd-Frank,

BROOKS KRAFT

HANGING OUT THERE ALL ALONE

IN HER LADY-NESS, CLINTON IS
BEHAVING LIKE SOMEONE WHO IS
(NOT UNREASONABLY) WORRIED
ABOUT BEING FEMINIZED.

and Warrens rabble-rousing, no less). And he did most of that

work as a candidate who in neither his 2004 nor his 2008 bids
ever had a strong shot of winning the nomination. This time
around, the Democratic Party would become a stronger party
if it got to listen to Clinton argue paid sick days, reproductive
rights, day care, and equal-pay protections with a few other
women who know how serious and far-reaching these policy
questions are.
Democrats would also be able to hear those arguments more
clearly, since they wouldnt be filtered through the inevitable
scrim of either over-solicitousness or condescension that comes
when a bunch of guys take Clinton on. Remember Youre likeable enough, Hillary? Remember Edwards telling her he didnt
like her jacket? Yeah, that was ear-splitting. We dont need
two years of that, and if Democrats had more women around,
thered be less of it.
Relatedly, getting a bunch of women into the race would help
us power through this irritating stage in which the media obsesses over likeability and pantsuits, cankles and hair and heels,
and speculation over whether a candidates electoral support
derives from some moony ovarian affiliation. Thats all clutter,
and it lingers as the surest sign that female leadership remains
exotic and weird.
Im obviously aware that a primary with multiple women
would make certain parts of the process worse before they

got better. This cycle, wed be presented with a whole new fetishized motif for presidential electionsthe catfight. But this,
too, is a developmental hurdle we must clear. If withstanding
a season of hair-pulling jokes and MEEEOW!-ing New York Post
headlines helps us get used to it and move forward, then by
all means, lets do it now, when the possibility is in front of us,
instead of simply postponing it for next time. Ambitious, promising young politicians including Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner,
Grace Meng, Kamala Harris, Kathleen Kane, and Stacey Abrams
will be so much better off as a result.
Let me be clear: Very little of the blame for the tentativeness
of other female pols should be laid at the feet of Clinton, who
at the moment is the only womanand the only Democrat
behaving like a future president. That she lugs around such a
huge symbolic burden is the structural reality in a nation that
has historically and uniformly excluded women from executive
power. Clinton is a trailblazer, capable, tough, and strong. She
damn well should take advantage of her position of power entering the election. But her individual fate shouldnt have to carry so much overwrought meaning. Which is why Im pleading
with the talented and well-positioned women of the Democratic
Party: Run. Run right now. Run for yourselves. Run because the
country, the party, and Hillary need you to. Just run already.
Rebecca Traister is a senior editor at THE NEW REPUBLIC.

The once and (probably) future candidate, all by herself, in New Hampshire.

21

GUTTER CREDIT TO COME

THE NEW REP UBLIC JULY 14, 2014

Copyright of New Republic is the property of TNR II, LLC and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.