Has Anyone Hurt the Women's Movement More Than Hillary?

There's been much made of Hillary being the first viable woman candidate for the Oval Office and she's gained the support of most women's groups but is she worthy of that support? Let's take a look.

The women's lib movement was founded on the precept of "empowering" women and advancing their collective rights. One of the main points of their platform was the concept that a woman doesn't need a man to get ahead, that woman can do things on their own. Of course there were other issues central to their cause such as "reproductive rights" and equal pay for equal work, etc, but the main battle cry was that they don't need men and that the paternalistic and oppressive paradigm in the country was a major problem.

Enter Hillary Clinton. She rode the coat tails of her husband into the highest office in the land and was featured front and center--the Clinton's made it clear that you got two for the price of one when they were elected. She was of course a dismal failure whether it be the health care initiative or any of the myriad other issues she was entrusted with. But that's not an argument for this post.

No, she was exulted as the new standard-bearer for women; independent, strong and confident. Then things went awry for the movement, her husband, the man they supported, was caught in a lie about whether or not he had received...er, favors from an intern. This after he had allowed his wife to defend him in front of the nation and world. Well, being that she was the new example of the liberated woman, she wasn't going to take that from a man, no sir, no how.

Not only did she stay with him for political expediency, she defended him and a funny thing happened--the leading women's groups said nothing. In many cases, some women actually defended the President as well. Their cover was blown--all the talk of not needing a man and the empowerment of women was a lie writ large. Hillary--their icon--needed Bill Clinton to achieve her goals of gaining power and the various organization's like NOW were mum.

Now, whatever remnant of the movement still survived was buried by a single moment in history. In New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton answered a question with tears in her eyes and it was a major reason for her comeback win in that state. Sure, it was as fake a moment as any we've seen since Bill Clinton pulled fake tears at the Ron Brown funeral but it was effective. She showed that just like every other cause, the women's movement would be tolerated as long as it suited her needs. She needed a "moment" in NH and she got it by selling out all that had been fought for. If it had been a man crying (see Edmund Muskie), it would have spelled the end of his campaign but for a woman it was the right move at a crucial moment.

Equality was the goal of women such as Steinem and others for 40 years. Hillary set that back a century in this campaign.

Update: Camille Paglia has her say.