Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

In Montana, Clinton Invokes Suffragette Icon, Botches Suffragette History

April 07, 2008 8:09 AM

On Sunday in Montana, which will hold its primary on June 3, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, invoked a legendary state icon, former Rep. Jeannette Rankin, R-Mont., the first woman ever elected to Congress.

"Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote," Clinton told a crowd in a Missoula airplane hangar. "So who says men don't vote for a woman?"

But Clinton's description of Rankin's election is rather free from the constraints of historical fact -- Montana as a state gave women the right to vote in 1914 and even as a mere territory had given women the right to vote in 1887.

Check out this classic New York Times story from the year Rankin was elected, November 5, 1916, in which she is described as "a handsome and vigorous woman, with a wealth of red hair," and noting the states that allowed women the right to vote as of 1916: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Anyone could mess up a fact like this. But it's also true that those whose hearts contain special space for suffragette history will no doubt be disappointed by Clinton not knowing some of this basic history.

Several suffragette historians on the web -- Cliopatra, and others HERE and HERE have corrected Clinton's error, some expressing chagrin that she would get this wrong, others pointing out that Rankin was a pacifist, voting against going to war in World Wars I and II, and would doubtless take issue with Clinton's October 2002 war vote. (Though, c'mon, guys -- Rankin was clearly on the wrong side of history on those votes, my historian friends…let's not take this too far.)

- jpt

April 7, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (30)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is a lot of effort for a non-story. Now the media is a "Clinton Lies!" frenzy. Why is she held to a much higher level of veracity than both Obama and McCain? Is it because "boys will be boys"? For every one of these "lies" you could come up with an equal example (and more) for both Obama and McCain. Sadly, the media seems more interested in piling on Clinton.

Posted by: Mara R | Apr 7, 2008 9:38:33 AM

Sad but true, Hillary is already low on electability because she is woman. See the results of a recent poll by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN and Essence magazine: 76% of Americans think that our country is ready for black President, against the 63% who think it is ready for a woman President.

What percentage would think that an untrustworthy woman who stood by repeatedly cheating husband is ready for the job?

Posted by: Kira | Apr 7, 2008 9:30:40 AM

If they stay in the race, the Clinton team should do some personnel shuffling. This should have been a 1 minute Google fact check. They need to sharpen up.

Posted by: higherpurpose | Apr 7, 2008 9:23:26 AM

There goes the last role Hillary tried to play with some conviction. Millions of American women have come to see her campaign as the literal embodiment of common sense feminism.

"Now Clinton's methodical, dogged history of work for the Democratic Party is treated just like the methodical, dogged histories of so many women in the workplace," wrote columnist Marie Cocco. "She must step aside to take the smaller office, with the lesser title and the lower pay to make room for the younger guy with the thinner resume."

That's how many of Hillary's supporters feel; just read all those women's comments on her site's blog. In the same column, Cocco concedes, "Maybe it is true that Clinton has no realistic way to win the nomination."

So, that's quite a concession! That is, if you consider the presidency as an instrument for legislation and policy change, rather than a vehicle for Hillary Clinton's self-actualization and feminist self-indulgence.

Posted by: geraldine | Apr 7, 2008 9:21:38 AM

Hey Jake
Is like all the rest of the media with the obama campaign points:
Hillary is liar lets exploit that angle now.
And all the media goes along with that obama lies everyday about something an all you do is clean it up as what obama really meant(worm). Instead of calling it lies.
obama lied about not taking lobbyist money he made an ad claiming it. LIES
obama lied about only do 5 hours for rezko. LIES now says he still friends after 17 years
obama lied about never hearing that crazy man in church when everyone was going crazy congratulating him and he didnt know. LIES
obama lied about Kennedy family helping his father come to America. LIES
obama lied about his mother and father meeting because of Selma, Alabama. LIES
Make a blog point about those things for a change.

Posted by: toby | Apr 7, 2008 8:59:35 AM

"a handsome and vigorous woman, with a wealth of red hair"...

Susan Sarandon for President!

There are SO many women in the USA that would make great Presidents.

Hillary is just not one of them. She's Bill's wife, and that's why she is this race.

Posted by: karen | Apr 7, 2008 8:52:35 AM

Hillary didn't even pass her DC bar exam. Hillary is where she is because of her husband.

There are many women out there who would make fine presidents. These women made it on their own unlike Hillary.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 7, 2008 8:48:51 AM

See, Hillary will do everything just to win, even twisting history to her advantage, if this thing goes on and on no one will believe her in the future, this lady is a nuts.

Posted by: alexis compton | Apr 7, 2008 8:42:55 AM

Hillary teams needs to do a better job of researching facts. If she gets the nomination, she would not do well against McCain with this sloppy team.

They need to vet the personal stories, double check facts and do basic research well. Hillary makes it easy for the press to find fault with her statements.

Posted by: Michaele | Apr 7, 2008 8:41:54 AM

I WAS already highly disappointed in Hillary Clinton, and her lack of knowledge of suffragette history only confirms that profound disappointment.

Clinton only has the superficial knowledge of American history that her text, book and speech writers provided her with over the years. In her lousy campaign team she clearly has some unknowledgeable speech writers as well.

At the end of this campaign I hope a lot of women and other Americans will finally have learned how mediocre she really is behind that facade of White House experience and glamorous fighting for the poor.

Posted by: Greta | Apr 7, 2008 8:32:58 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS