Sexism and Opposition to Hillary Clinton

[Dr Ron]

These are two related posts from yesterday and today. I'll post the first here and the second as a reply. As usual, see the original posts for links--both posts have multiple links to back up each criticism of Clinton and defense of Obama.


http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3285


Sexism and the Clinton Campaign

May 17th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

With Hillary Clinton’s campaign collapsing there have been many articles published outlining the many flaws in their strategy and arguments. One Clinton meme which has come under considerable criticism is the claim that she lost due to sexism. Scott Lehigh writes in The Boston Globe:

LET’S SAY Hillary Clinton’s remaining primary rival were not Barack Obama but a white male. Suppose she were ahead in pledged delegates, led in the popular vote in DNC-approved contests, had raised the most money, and had attracted the most contributors.

Let’s further suppose that her rival had responded to her success by suggesting he might pick her as his vice-presidential nominee. And that, as she gained more momentum, he asserted that superdelegates should nevertheless make him the nominee because he could attract the working-class voters the party needed to win in the fall.

Clinton supporters would likely find those suggestions sexist.

And yet Clinton and her camp have made the same suggestions in this campaign. Clinton’s political arguments have found a broad acceptance among her backers - an acceptance that’s hard to imagine if a similar case were made by a lagging rival in a race Clinton led.

And even as those arguments are offered, some of Clinton’s backers, as well as some commentators, seem convinced that sexism and double standards are among the principal reasons she has fallen dauntingly behind Obama.

I doubt anyone would say that there is no sexism at all, but this is hardly the major factor why Clinton is losing. Clinton started out the race appearing to be the inevitable winner, leading by a considerable margin in all polls. She also had considerable success in early fund raising, and had a majority of superdelegates backing her until the past week. If Democrats were opposed to a woman president, they wouldn’t have given her this early support.

The problem is not that Democrats do not want a woman nominee. They just do not want this woman for reasons having nothing to do with her gender. Clinton is wrong for the party based both upon her political views and her personal conduct. Clinton has increasingly adopted both the views and tactics of her new friends in the vast right wing conspiracy. Clinton backed the Iraq war, despite her attempts to hide this fact. She has stronger ties to the religious right than the presumptive Republican candidate. She backs the same types of abuses of executive power practiced by George Bush. Her campaign is all about grabbing power for herself, while failing to respect and support liberal values.

Rather than building a big tent as Obama has, bringing in new voters, Clinton seeks a party which represents the views of only a minority of Democrats. Her party is increasingly limited to working class voters as her supporters reject the affluent, and those of us who hold liberal principles, as “elitists” whose views do not matter. For Democrats to win, the Democrats must broaden their support, not make it more narrow.

The real sexism in this race comes from women who support Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, even when she uses the same tactics they have been condemning when coming from George Bush. Clinton has sent out mailers which were totally misleading regarding Obama’s positions on issues such as Social Security, abortion rights, Iraq, and health care. Clinton’s distortions on abortion rights led Lorna Brett Howard, the former President of Chicago NOW, to drop her support for Clinton and back Obama. Clinton has also raised bogus charges such on plagiarism, distorted the meaning of voting present in the Illinois legislature, and distorting Obama’s references to Ronald Reagan in an interview. Lawrence Lessig made an excellent video summarizing the reasons to oppose Clinton due to her character. I have previously posted both the video and a transcript here. Bill Bradley has also commented on Clinton’s dishonesty as as noted here.

Despite Clinton’s adoption of both many political views and the tactics of the far right, Clinton apologists are willing to look the other way because she is a woman. Someday there will be a woman candidate who deserves to win the nomination. Hopefully it will be one who competes based upon her own qualifications, not based upon who she was married to. Despite all her claims of experience, Clinton actually has far less meaningful experience than Barack Obama, and certainly far poorer judgment in matters of policy. Perhaps most importantly, she rejects the liberal values which hopefully differentiate a Democrat from a Republican. There were many reasons for Democrats to reject Hillary Clinton regardless of how one feels about a woman president.

[Dr Ron]

1. Follow Up Post: A Future Woman President

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3286



A Future Woman President

May 18th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

The New York Times has an article today which serves as a good follow up to my post yesterday which argues that Clinton failed to win the nomination because she is a flawed candidate, not because of sexism. The article presents a plausible hypothetical description of a future woman president:

That woman will come from the South, or west of the Mississippi. She will be a Democrat who has won in a red state, or a Republican who has emerged from the private sector to run for governor. She will have executive experience, and have served in a job like attorney general, where she will have proven herself to be “a fighter” (a caring one, of course).

She will be young enough to qualify as postfeminist (in the way Senator Barack Obama has come off as postracial), unencumbered by the battles of the past. She will be married with children, but not young children. She will be emphasizing her experience, and wearing, yes, pantsuits.

Oh, and she may not exist.

This presents two major differences between Clinton and a woman who is more likely to be successful. First, she will win based upon having actual experience, not based upon who she is married to. She certainly will not resort to using time as a corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart sitting quiet while they opposed unions as part of thirty-five years of experience qualifying her for the Democratic nomination. (On the other hand, such experience might be considered meaningful for the GOP nomination.)

Secondly, a postfeminist candidate will be far more likely to succeed. It has become increasingly clear that there is no good reason to support Hillary Clinton other than because she is a woman. She has far less meaningful experience than Barack Obama, and is on the wrong side of virtually every issue I, and many liberal bloggers, care about. If Hillary Clinton was either a man, or not married to Bill Clinton, she would not be taken seriously as a candidate. In order to be successful, a woman candidate must be able to provide a real reason to support her beyond the belief that her victory is inevitable, and certainly beyond the fact that she is a woman.

The article is pessimistic about another woman being in the wings but the key might be in their caveat that Barack Obama came out of nowhere to win the nomination. Similarly previous Democratic candidates such as Jimmy Carter and even Bill Clinton came out of nowhere to win. It is possible that a woman who is not being considered today might be the Democratic nominee to succeed Barack Obama as president in eight years.

This nomination battle is often viewed based upon making history with a black or woman candidate. Looking at this race as a loss for a woman candidate misses the fact that in many ways this nomination falls within traditional patterns.

Many Democratic battles are between the establishment candidate and an insurgent candidate. This year certainly falls into that trend, except for providing a different outcome than usual. In most years Clinton would have won as the establishment candidate. This year Clinton did more poorly than the typical establishment candidate not because she is a woman but because she was a flawed candidate, both in terms of her personal ethics and in terms of lacking a plan beyond Super Tuesday. Obama won because of having a better strategy, having the advantages of the internet which were not present in most past elections, and due to creating a coalition including those of us who typically support the insurgent candidate and black voters.

Another typical division in the Democratic Party is based upon two different interpretations of liberalism. There are those of us who are more concerned with reform of government, social issues, and defending civil liberties. Others concentrate more upon economic issues, creating the unfortunate situation where liberalism has been tainted as supporting “tax and spend” policies. There is also a definite overlap between the two groups, making the division less obvious. Young voters, as well as the increasing number of affluent, educated individuals recently voting Democratic, tend fall more in the first group. By not only winning this support but by bringing in many new voters, Obama has built an advantage over Clinton. I believe that both economic realities and demographic changes will also give such reform liberals the advantage in the future.

A successful woman candidate is more likely to represent such liberals, not dismiss us as “elitists” and cling to outdated concepts of big government and the Nanny State. One of several reasons Clinton has not won the nomination is that conservative populists such as her have fallen out of step with the times. Conservative populists are unlikely to win regardless of gender, explaining the losses of both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

For those who desire a woman president, there is one consolation in all of this. In coming very close to winning the nomination despite her major flaws, she has showed that victory is possible for a woman. If Clinton had run with a coherent election strategy, had refrained from resorting to Rove-style dirty politics, and was not on the wrong side of so many issues, she might have won. Most opposing her are doing so not because they do not want a woman president but because they do not want that particular woman. Clinton has opened the door for future woman candidates, but they will have to win based upon their own qualifications and positions, not based upon their gender.

[MonteLukast]

2. Lesson: "liberal" is not a dirty word. Not anymore.

A successful woman candidate is more likely to represent such liberals, not dismiss us as “elitists”...

What I've always been saying, as a young, white, educated (but poor) woman: if it were Barbara Boxer running, hell yeah, she'd get my vote. With bells on. Because more important even than being a woman, she's a real progressive.

The era of selling your soul to compromise is over.