Help In These Times raise $5,000 in two weeks! Donate now!
PrintDiscuss
Features » May 2, 2008 » Web Only

Hillary for Class President

Chocolate Chip Cookies and Her Eighth Grade Campaign

By Betsy Vandercook

Share   Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine   StumbleUpon Reddit Furl Propeller

I first ate cookies at Hillary Rodham’s house on Wisner and Elm in 1960. Were they her now-famous chocolate chip cookies? Perhaps. But whether this is the recipe for the cookies I ate doesn’t matter. The main dish that Hillary served, even back then, was politics.

I had met Hillary in the fall of 1957—in the fifth grade of Eugene Field School in Park Ridge, Illinois. We weren’t best friends. She was a Girl Scout. I was a Camp Fire Girl. She was better at sports. I was better at music. We were academic rivals. In the sixth grade, we were both the spelling champions of our own classrooms. But during the championship spelling bee, I was home sick in bed and Hillary won the glory for her room. My friends maintained that I could have beaten her, had I been there. Right—just like Nixon could have beaten Kennedy.

Which brings us to 1960.

We were attending Ralph Waldo Emerson Junior High—a brand-new school that was turquoise and beige and glass and looked like a kitchen ad out of House Beautiful. It was there that Hillary came into her political own. She decided to run for class president, and I decided to join her campaign. I would go over to her house and we would drink milk, eat chocolate-chip cookies, think up campaign slogans and draw campaign posters.

For the longest time, I had one of those posters. It read, “Hillary for President. Run with Hillary.” Bounding across the poster were images of horses. I am sure Hillary recruited all the best horse drawers in the class to come over and draw stallions. (Well, geldings—I mean, we were girls.)

But it wasn’t enough. She lost to a boy named Dave Kraemer. She later told me that she lost because all the boys in the class—and a few of the girls—believed a girl couldn’t be president. That campaign was our bonding experience—I joined Hillary’s circle. We ate at the same lunch table, and together in the late fall of 1960, we experienced another presidential race—between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

For all of us, being Republican and Protestant (Hillary and I were both Methodists with dangles of Sunday-school pins to prove it), only one person was qualified to win that election—and he wasn’t Catholic.

Everybody—our mothers, our fathers, our aunts, our uncles—everybody we knew who could vote, voted for Nixon. When it turned out Kennedy had won, we couldn’t believe it. Our parents couldn’t believe it. Our aunts and uncles couldn’t believe it. It was devastating.

The day after the election, on Nov. 9, 1960, we were sitting at our table in the Ralph Waldo Emerson lunchroom, having a dismal meal. We stared around. We clenched our hands. We lamented that we were too young to vote. We were powerless. What could we do? Nothing.

We were bitter.

Then, Hillary said, “I am going to do something about it.” And we say, “Hillary, we’re 13. We’re girls. Are you crazy!”

But she continued: “You know why Nixon lost?”

We all knew why—it was Chicago and its Democratic machine. The city had voted heavily for Kennedy, and because of that, all of Illinois’ electoral votes had gone not to Nixon but to Kennedy, resulting in Kennedy’s victory. (In truth, even if Illinois had gone to Nixon, Kennedy would have still won, but that myth lives on.)

Anyway, we had to blame someone for this outrage and there were only three people you blamed for everything if you lived in Park Ridge—Nikita Khrushchev, Jimmy Hoffa or Mayor Richard J. Daley. This time, of course, it was “da mare” who had done the dirty work—the person who controlled the dead vote and had the living vote two or three times. We knew this cold, and so did Hillary. So she said: “I’m going to call up Mayor Daley right now.”

We screeched: “Hillary, nooooo!”

But she did.

We all walked with her out of the Emerson Junior High cafeteria, and up to the pay phone. Hillary took out a dime, got the number for the mayor’s office and then called. We stood there thinking, “How can she do this? How can she have the nerve?” We were thrilled.

Well it was lunchtime, and she didn’t reach the mayor. You know, here we were having our power lunch, and Daley was no doubt having his. But Hillary did reach someone in his office and she gave that person a piece of her mind.

“This is Hillary Rodham,” she said, “Calling from Emerson Junior High School in Park Ridge. I want you to tell Mayor Daley that it was wrong of him to steal the election, and that Richard Nixon should have won!”

Then we went back to our table, and finished our milk and shared our cookies. We knew that we had just been a part of something out of the ordinary—that for a moment we weren’t powerless teenage girls.

But we never would have guessed that 48 years later homemade cookies would reappear as part of another national campaign.

So, here it is, Hillary’s cookie recipe. They are good. And when Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I am going to bake them to celebrate.


Hillary’s Chocolate Chip Cookies

1½ cups unsifted flour

1 tsp. salt

1 tsp. baking soda

1 cup solid vegetable shortening [unsalted butter]

1 cup firmly packed light brown sugar

½ cup white sugar

1 tsp. vanilla

2 eggs

2 cups rolled oats

1 12-oz. package semisweet chocolate chips


Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Grease baking sheets.

Combine flour, salt and baking soda.

Beat shortening, sugars and vanilla in large bowl until creamy. Add eggs, beating until light and fluffy.

Gradually beat in flour mixture and rolled oats. Stir in chocolate chips.

Drop well-rounded teaspoonfuls of batter on greased baking sheets. Bake for 8 to 10 minutes or until golden.

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Betsy Elich Vandercook, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, left the Chicago suburbs long ago. But unlike Hillary, she returned to Chicago, where she raised a family, worked as an environmentalist and wrote occasional commentary for the Chicago Tribune. Currently, she serves as a chief of staff to Democratic alderman Joe Moore in Chicago's 49th Ward. She has no higher political aspirations.

More information about Betsy Vandercook
Share   StumbleUpon Facebook Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Propeller Furl
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Is there anyone out there who likes both Clnton and Obama?  Am I the only one?

    Posted by anthony.phillips29 on May 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM

    If only she had kept to simply making cookies. . .

    (Anthony - not me! I like Obama, but detest HRC. And even more, detest family dynasties, including the current one.)

    Posted by wolf on May 2, 2008 at 7:32 PM

    Oh my goodness!  Hillary political?  You bet!
    Although I have been supporting Obama since a year ago, and am a fourth-generation MidWesterner (N. Michigan) and given my birthright
    I grew up reading the Sunday Chicago Tribune since the 1940’s—my dad was a diehard Republican Sheriff for 12 years—and gave me Dewey posters to nail to telephone poles in Marquette County, MI just prior to the presidential elections in 1948), it’s interesting to know that Hillary was most likely caught in her parents’ political leanings.  (Certainly a ‘considerable distance’ from Obama’s more recent experience/work in Chicago in the late 1980-90’s )
    Maybe this is really what this election is all about—a time for serious and considerable change. 
    Obama is the so-called, “less politically experienced” new ‘Lincoln’  from Illinois—
    Thank God for us, when one considers both parties’ timeworn “DC Beltway” PAC-bought (and its results) of the last two decades
    And Obama is ready to lead this country to some needed changes, versus the Republican (and ‘old Demo’) “politics as usual and beyond” that we have been paying dearly for—(and will continue to do so for several more years), given all that the Neo-Con Bush oligarchy has wrought upon us since 2001…

    Posted by Douglas Scott Treado on May 2, 2008 at 7:57 PM

    I don’t think the Liberal/Progressive Left has any idea how seriously they have alienated those of us who are also liberal/progressives and are still supporting Hillary Clinton.  I keep telling myself I am going to do the mature, sane thing and vote for Obama in November but after reading articles like this one I want to mark my ballot for any other available alternative to McCain.  Maybe I’ll save that recipe and bake those cookies when I vote for anyone but Obama in November. After spewing hatred of Clinton for months and months, how do you imagine we are going to all come together?  Where are you getting those happy mushrooms you all must be taking?
    I am supporting Clinton because I don’t think Obama can win the Presidency.  I hope I’m wrong, but my gut tells me I am not.
    I am also supporting Clinton because I am a liberal Democrat and I want a candidate who is also a Democrat and proud to defend the positions and the accomplishments of the party.  I don’t want a candidate who make nice about Ronnie Reagan and wants to talk about all the good ideas the Republicans have had. 
    Finally, YOU ARE WINNING AL RIGHT ALREADY!  It really would take a miracle for Clinton to win the nomination at this point.  You need to back off from the nastiness now and hope the rest of us can forget what little you know whats you’ve been to date.

    Posted by soisam on May 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM

    I believe that if there is some nastiness being directed at Her Majesty from us deluded, cultist Obama supporters, a bit of that might be a result of the fear-mongering, race-baiting and utterly Rovian campaign she has been (and will continue) running.

    There might also be some residual nastiness among many of us due to her support for the (illegal) Iraq war and her giddy delight in signing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, something none of those running against her (Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson, Obama) were comfortable with. They must have missed the DNC memo that declared that designating the entire Iranian military a terrorist organization, thus giving Bush yet another Muslim nation to target, is a liberal/progressive ideal.

    I guess there’s still a few of us “liberal/progressives” that drwa the line at “obliterating” 70,000,000 people and generally approving of things like murdring 500,000 children through sanctions. Call me old-fashioned, but that just doesn’t strike me as liberal/progressive.

    Posted by opeluboy on May 3, 2008 at 1:24 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 14 posts.