Letters to the Editor

• In response to this article

  [Read the article: Bully for Nancy Pelosi!]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Ms. Traister, Hillary undoubtedly faced sexism. I think you can also agree that Obama faced racism.

  But the reason Hillary lost is simple: she didn't campaign at all in several states that Obama did, during the February primaries. She didn't even have staffs in those states. They weren't part of her strategy.

  This enabled Obama to get the delegate lead to win. And in fact the entire nomination race was sewn up once he did. You know and I know that after the February primaries, a Clinton win was mathematically impossible.

  Therefore, sexism or no, if she had put campaigns and staffs in those states, she would have won. Period. Even if it put her another $10 million in debt, she could have.

  Now to the article. First your disagreement with Nancy Pelosi:

  Pelosi, the highest-ranking woman to hold elected office in the United States, remained officially neutral during the primaries, but was widely seen as sympathetic to Barack Obama's campaign.

  Pelosi then said: "I do think that being a woman has a positive upside in the campaign, probably offset by more sexism."

  Well is it possible at all, that this is a valid point?

  Isn't it actually factually based that a lot of women voted *for* Hillary because they liked the idea of voting for a woman candidate?

  A total given. Which is why you heard it addressed by the Democratic Party with such vociferousness....

  Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic party were in the middle of a primary. As you yourself stated, Pelosi was officially neutral.

  This is why you didn't hear Pelosi *or* the Democratic party vociferously denouncing the media racism against Obama either. To do so for either, would have been publicly supporting one over the other.

  Now, Pelosi could have and perhaps should have denounced *both* the sexism and the racism...but that may have been viewed as too complicated a statement to fit into a soundbite. Who knows?

  All of this, both sexism and racism, is disgusting and avoidable. But was Clinton singled out for more mudslinging than Obama? It looks to me like both candidates caught roughly equal amounts. It was just a different kind of mud being slung.

  ...those Democratic Party leaders who seemed not to notice, while Clinton was battling for the nomination, that there was anyone but Obama making history.

  I don't see how you can say that. Every time *I* saw a Democratic party leader on TV who *wasn't* in either camp, they were neutral about both campaigns. And they either referred to both campaigns as historic, or neither.

  Two days before the end of primary season, party leader Howard Dean was moved to tell George Stephanopoulos that "there has been an enormous amount of sexism in this campaign on the part of the media ..."... And, really, what better time to address the issues of sexism than two days before the first serious female contender for president is about to lose her bid!

  And when did Howard Dean make similar remarks, about the issues of racism and xenophobia that Obama faced?

  I don't recall him doing so during the primary campaign *at all* - because he was ***Neutral***. And thus did not want to be seen as favoring either candidate.

  So thanks, Democratic Party leaders, from feminists from both the Clinton and Obama camps. Your commitment to tackling the hard issues a day late and millions of dollars short is deeply inspiring to us all.

  I did not see a lot from feminists in both the Clinton camps, addressing racism either.

  So I agree very much that the Democratic party can do more on both. But to suggest that the Democratic party's *only* problem is enabling sexism, is to my mind missing more than half the point: we're all in this together.

  Permalink Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:14 AM

• @ AKA Smith - I would like to suggest a third way

  [Read the article: Bully for Nancy Pelosi!]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Should we just ignore it if Hillary Clinton actually was a victim of sexism and just pretend it never happened so that we can go back to not noticing the role that sexism plays in the lives of women?

  Here's how I interpret that choice:

  1. ignore sexism that Hillary Clinton faced, so as to go back to not noticing sexism in general

  2. focus exclusively on sexism that Hillary Clinton faced; ignore the racism and xenophobia Obama faced; blame Hillary's loss primarily on sexism; and hate the Democratic party for not doing enough about this sexism during the campaign

  With that in mind, may I heartfully suggest this option:

  3. acknowledge that Hillary Clinton faced sexism, just as Barack Obama faced racism and xenophobia - but:

  a) *Even with* the sexism, Hillary would have won IF she had campaign staffs in the states Obama did, during the February primaries. She did not - and this blunder enabled Obama to get more delegates and sew up the nomination.

  Acknowledging this is acknowledging the simple reality of how things are.

  b) acknowledge that both sexism and racism exist in our society, that a pursuit of justice includes both, and that success against one is a success against the other.

  Acknowledging this makes it possible for us all to work together for a better future, for all of us.

  Permalink Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:28 AM