Copps weighs in on Clinton's uphill battle

Yesterday, I noted that Hillary Clinton is not the first woman -- or last, probably -- to keep fighting on in a political race with the odds stacked against her. I noted that it happened in 2003 with Sheila Copps and again in 2006, with Martha Hall-Findlay.

Copps graciously has offered some thoughts on the subject. Here they are, verbatim:

I think the issue is much deeper, not to diminish the last woman standing angle. Why is Hillary even in this position? She has received incredibly biased coverage because let's face it: For all of our claims to a lock on democracy we in North America have difficulty with women in leadership roles. Sexism is still unfortunately rampant. Hence most political watchers don't understand the significance of a Hillary loss to the continuing disillusionment of political women.

Comments

[Wascally Wabbit]

I agree the issue is much deeper - far too deep to cover here!
I'm somewhat puzzled and confused by Sheila's reply...
there are some parallels between her career and Hillary Clinton's...little or none with Martha's!
I am typing here with a couple of Sheila Copps Miller framed 8 1/2" x 11" campaign posters on the bureau behind me.
A very young Sheila Copps, in her early 20's, competing and being competitive with any man that wished to run against her. She didn't appear to need tokenism then or now - and certainly never asked for it!
Hillary's career was less elective - but she can legitimately claim to have taken on causes and fought for them - and won many! So - the similarities are there!
That's about where it ends - for me...Sheila went on and did it - in my opinion - as Sheila - not as a flagbearer for women...in fact...I suspect that her style probably made her the antithesis that the groups like Women in Politics were looking for as flagbearer! Yet she made Deputy Prime Minister - with a number of senior Cabinet posts...on her own merit...not as a token woman! That she fell short of that last ring was more a coincidence of having someone else competing that used questionable tactics, that divided a party, to become Prime Minister, even though, IMO, he didn't know what to do with it when he got it!
Hillary is also in that unenviable situation. Whether she intenrally yet recognizes it or not, her time came along coincidentally with the best candidate that has come along in at least two generations...
What she is doing now isn't flag bearing for women - whatever she says - or for that matter what women say!
What she is doing is, if she persists, to potentially poison the Democratic well and, like Paul Martin, divide a party, for what might be a quantum change in how the world, not just the US, moves forward for the next generation.

[Peter Nogalo]

Let's be clear here, Hillary Clinton ran a horrible campaign. She never provided a satisfactory accounting of her Iraq vote, which was sure to cause her problems with the activist base/netroots types. They were just waiting for an Obama to come along.

She refused to listen to anyone, actually everyone, who repeatedly told her what a negative force Mark Penn was.

She was unable to control her husband.

She spent incredible amounts of money early in the race.

She had absolutely no response to Obama's caucus strategy, which allowed him to rack up win after win.

The list goes on. Yes, the media was biased against her, but was it because of her gender or the fact the she has been a polarizing figure for over 15 years?

As for North Americans not accepting women in leadership roles; that is certainly true in Canada where we have a horrible record, but not so in the US. Since the late '90s, the number of female governors has increased exponentially. Compare that Canada’s provinces or, for that matter, the number African American governors, which stands at a grand total of two--Duval Patrick, who was elected in ’06, and New York’s governor who only recently assumed the position after his predecessor, well, assumed the position.

Gender and race both played roles in this process, but the fact remains that the candidate who ran the best, most disciplined, most strategic, and effective campaign ended up winning. As well he should have.

[Mike Cooper]

Didn't Sheila Coops call Kim Campbell, Brian Mulroney in a skirt. Also, she did everything she could to defeat Canada's first female Prime Minister.

[Damianna]

Wrong (again) Sheila! Hillary Clinton is the kind of feminist who tries to prove she can be just as good (and bad) as any man instead of proving how wonderful women are. She ran a terrible campaign based on any analytic perspective and has indeed done, and is still desperately doing, everything she can to win at any cost to the Democratic candidate who is the nominee, her party, her country and the world. The Clintons haven't changed a bit, either, it's just that now we are finally seeing who they really are. And it doesn't seem to me that the media have been biased against her: for one, they have given her wacky campaign respectful and copious coverage and, two, they have continued to perpetuate the fallacious and deceptive perception that she can become the nominee.