HILLARY'S ELEANOR ROOSEVELT MOMENT

  Hillary's Eleanor Roosevelt moment

By Ellen Goodman

December 5, 2008

Text size – +

IT WAS a moment bound to give anyone second thoughts about Hillary Clinton's nomination as secretary of state: Rush Limbaugh called it a "brilliant stroke." If Rush, who had famously said America wasn't ready to see Clinton age in the Oval Office, was ready to see her age at Foggy Bottom, what was I missing?

 Of course, it turned out that Rush was being his old cynical self. He wasn't praising Hillary's talent, but Obama's cunning at keeping his enemy close.

So it went with much of the analysis before and after Clinton was chosen for the premier Cabinet post. The political story line asked if she would be a "teammate" or a "rival" in the "Team of Rivals" metaphor du jour. And was she close enough to the president to be his international right hand?

The psychological story line asked, however, whether we were getting yet another new Hillary. A National Review blogger described her as an "enigma who is best seen in stages; as a series of parts, not a whole."

A series of parts? Not a whole? Hillary, lawyer, wife, mother, first lady, senator, presidential candidate, secretary of state.

I was reminded of Mary Catherine Bateson's classic book, "Composing a Life," which describes life as the art of improvisation.

Life is not a straight and narrow march of achievement, but a quilt made of many parts. Reading the trajectory of many women's lives with their interruptions and conflicts, twists and turns, Bateson saw creativity, not confusion. "These are not lives without commitment, but rather lives in which commitments are continually refocused and redefined."

One of the lifelong commitments Clinton will bring to her new role is to improve the rights and everyday lives of the world's women. These issues will not be the "women's page" in her portfolio, but integral to the way she views the world and, perhaps, to the way America can exercise its power.

Says Melanne Verveer, who traveled with first lady Hillary Clinton through more than 80 countries as her chief of staff, "she didn't just drop by the palace." She was always engaged in the struggles of women.

In 1995, Clinton led the US delegation to a UN conference on women's rights in Beijing. There, she electrified the delegates and challenged the hosts, saying, "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, once and for all."

Thirteen years later, those words are still radical in parts of the world. We have learned from the Taliban and others that the enemies of American values take their first shots at the freedom of women. But the Beijing conference jump-started change. The world understands that rape is not a byproduct of war but a war crime. The United Nations now defines violations of women's rights as an international security issue, and nearly 90 countries have passed laws against domestic violence.

Still, the new secretary of state will be operating in a world in which three-fifths of the world's poorest people are women and girls. Seventy percent of the children not in school are girls. Half a million women die every year in childbirth. One in three women will suffer from the pandemic of violence - rape, honor killings, genital mutilation. But only 16 percent of legislators are women, and less than 3 percent of the people at the table when peace treaties are signed are female.

"What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish," Clinton said in Beijing. "If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations do as well."

Part of a life? Or a whole life composed and recomposed? Well, Hillary regarded Eleanor Roosevelt as a role model. Mrs. Roosevelt's second or third or perhaps fourth act was to get the world to agree to the first Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was adopted exactly 60 years ago this month. Now it's Hillary Clinton's improvisational turn.

Comments

[Lori McMaster]

Lynette,
This is a wonder post and true. I am very proud that we have Hillary Clinton as secretary of State. We all know what happened during the primaries but to know we have her in the front lines makes me feel a whole lot better. You are right; why are there not more women in office? I am in Washington State and am disabled but if thier is anything I can do to help, count me in.
Sincerely
Lori McMaster

[pumabear]

Lynette,

Although I think getting a group of guerrilla women together for actions in Wash. D.C. is commendable,I believe you could get a great number of women in actions in other big cities like L.A. and New York. They could stage something at Federal buildings, newspapers, etc. They could be a quick strike force or something long term. They could suddenly appear at a press conference, etc. Maybe Think Pink? does this, don't know.

I saw a website called meetup.com. It gets like-minded people together. Youtube might give some access. Younger women might like to help. There's a site called hollaback.com, great site of young city women fighting back against gropers and feelers, etc. They are savvy and have terrific energy!

Good luck.

[Anna]

1. This thread is quite beautiful.
2. I agree with Marlowe and have found a disturbing number of feminists to be conveniently concerned about women's rights in various places in the world at various times, while ignoring the plight of other women in other places and situations. Sad.
3. Though off topic, glad blogforceone posted what he/she did. I went to sleep last night buzzing about the very scenario you describe: Hillary gives up her Senate seat, works at the pleasure of the President ("Mr. President" to her), is replaced in the Senate with a "yes" person in Caroline Kennedy and then Clinton is left in the vulnerable position (a positon she's in irrespective of who is appointed to replace her if she accepts the SoS job) of being able to be fired by Obama, leaving her with no official political power. Meanwhile, Obama will have advanced his cause by one in Caroline Kennedy. I hate to think in paranoid ways, but it has occured to me that this is indeed, part of a strategy. I hope like hell I'm wrong, but after what I've witnessed this year, I'm a complete cynic and believe anything's possible and put nothing past Obama and the DNC machine.

[Marlowe]

It's too bad that Ellen Goodman doesn't feel as much for the women of the USA as she does for the women of the world. She wrote an absolutely abusive column about Palin. While I believe that a Hillary visible as SoS is great, a Hillary visible as president would've been better.

[BBF]

Concerning Caroline Kennedy's possibly being "given" Hillary's Senate seat! A post from the NoQuarter site that I agree with:

Comment by blogforceone | 2008-12-07 18:35:47

With this development I think Hillary Clinton should withdraw her name from consideration for S.O.S. This is a clear plan to deep six Mrs. Clinton from the national stage. Obama will find some excuse to can her within the first year and replace her with some anti Israel Carterite! Can anybody say ”Zibigniew?” for S.O.S ? This is a clear and present danger to Mrs. Clinton's political future! Caroline Kennedy is a sweetheart but has no fire in her belly for the rough and tumble world of politics in todays world. She is a total lightweight! Gov.Palin may well be our next president and if Mrs Palin works hard, studies the issues and as a bonus if she studies Spanish! so she is fairly fluent by 2011 she can win the latino vote and the election! $@”&2″@!!! HILLARY, WITHDRAW YOUR NAME NOW,!!!!!!!!!!