Letters to the Editor
-
Not Really a Fair Test
"Maybe the answer is both."
I get what you're saying, but Hillary Clinton is such a magnet of opinion that it makes for an impossible evaluation. I haven't looked carefully -- and perhaps the presidency is a different kettle of fish -- but it doesn't seem as if female candidates in races for other positions, be it governor or senator or whatever, have drawn some of the same types of attacks. What we would need to see is what would happen if someone else, say, Kathleen Sebelius, ran for president before we could draw any firm conclusions.
-
You need a better standard bearer
And Three Names is a lousy one. She's probably one of the best examples I can name of a politician who will say whatever she thinks you want to hear and then do whatever she wanted to in the first place. Not something I find desirable in a politician.
-
Hmmm...
Hillary's candidacy showed a number of things. Some that are particular to the Clintons, such as that incessant attacks no matter the source on a family's character will have undue influence.
But as I consider what her candidacy says to my daughter, there is definitely a very high level of sexism in this country that at times can escalate to outright mysogeny. Hillary had to deal with attacks on her being a woman in a way that if Obama had been attacked for being black would have caused a national uproar.
As I think about the person in this piece who said he does not feel he is sexist or mysogenist for "loathing" Clinton I have to ask -- what is the source of that loathing and why has it been so easy to loath her? Can he point to any instance or group of instances where he could prove that her behavior and personality warrant loathing? My guess is that he couldn't and that he is having a visceral response to her candidacy that is provoked in part by twenty years of non-stop right wing attacks on her and her husband as well as the propensity to believe that she or any woman who is aggressive, strong and ambitious is a bitch.
I am not saying that to vote againts Hillary is a sexist act, but to react with such deep hatred betrays emotions that run deeper than whether her health care plan is better than her opponents (it is if you believe in universal, portable health care; for the record) or if her opponent represents an opportunity for Americans to turn the page on a very rancorous time in our politics (it does if he can overwhelm the right with public approval for his candidacy and then ability to lead).
To detest her, as many obviously do from reading months of posts here on Salon, requires something more than a policy disagreement and that often includes the sexism that is prevalent in our society.
-
Maybe there's nothing to be learned
Maybe people just don't like Hillary. Simple as that. Why isn't that a possibility?
-
Gender Lessons
I think one very overlooked aspect of this discussion is party affiliation. Would a female Republican candidate; Condoleeza Rice for example, receive similar treatment? I highly doubt it. In the world of the MSM, it is not only accepted but seemingly mandatory that Democrats be treated with little respect. This is what proves you're not part of the liberal media, but a serious and savvy political observer. Someone like Chris Matthews could never openly hate a Republican woman and still be the most popular kid in school.
-
It's Her Policies
Look, Hillary Clinton could be female, male, or an alien from Mars. I still would prefer that she not win the nomination because I completely disagree with her votes on Iraq, Iran, and a whole host of other foreign policy issues. Not to mention her Tipper-like insistence on demonizing videogames and rather lukewarm support for other important cultural issues (as much as people tout her time as First Lady as being part of her vaunted "experience," that was the same administration that passed the odious Defense of Marriage Act).
I'm male, and for my generation, the fact that she's female is irrelevant. It's her votes and her policies that are her problem, not her gender.
-
There are perfectly good reasons to loathe Hillary
At the risk of dredging up an old argument, I'd like to point out that Hillary has not just been on the receiving end of the dirty politics game. She has been a willing participant in the mudslinging.
Take, for example, the contest in New Hampshire. Obama's volunteer army was reporting for the last few days that nearly everyone was asking about his stance on abortion--hardly a surprise, given how heavy-handed Hillary was in sending out mailers attacking Obama for voting 'present' on abortion legislation in Chicago. Never mind that Planned Parenthood specifically asked him to do so. Never mind that he wanted to vote 'no.' Never mind that he gets full marks for defending a woman's right to choose. No, she chose to play dirty and send out highly dishonest mailers, and that, my friends, is the rarely-heard story of New Hampshire's primary.
I consider that kind of political game a scumbag's tactic, and so I consider Hillary a scumbag. Were it, say, Janet Napolitano, or Kathleen Sebelius, or Claire McCaskill still out there campaigning, I might question her sanity, but assuming she hadn't played dirty the way Hillary did, I would certainly not loathe her.
Now, I highly doubt that everyone who loathes Hillary has a proper justification for it, but there are certainly legitimate reasons to be found.
-
Hillary's Fall
But there are also lessons about how our culture still recoils at powerful women, the nearly impossible demand of women to be both tough and nurturing, and the gleeful grave dancing that awaits them if they fail.
I'd say the real lesson is how not to run a campaign. Hillary came into this race with top name recognition. She entered as the front runner, had the support of all the big corporate donors, had the "Clinton Machine" behind her and her whole campaign in the early days was choreographed like a coronation-to-be. The problem was that Hillary had a spotty record for a lot of voters (that war vote, among others), and she had the wrong message.
Hillary should have ran in '04. Resentment was already high against Bush, the Clinton years still fresh in people's minds, and she stood a good chance of winning. Her advisers clearly told her not to — 'you don't want to run against an incumbent'. So, she waited until now assuming that she'd sail in without much of a challenge. The problem is that, after eight years of Bush, people don't just want change. They want BIG change. Clinton can't offer that because she represents the system. She's a former first lady, and she can represent change only from Bush but not real, substantial change from what we've had for the past 16+ years — ugly, corrosive partisanship.
Obama has the right message at the right time, and it captures the imaginations of the majority of Democratic and independent voters. The Hillary campaign didn't take this threat seriously until it was too late. When they finally did face what they were up against, they went negative which only turned more voters off.
Apart from that, her campaign was very poorly managed. Look at the debt they're in now after having started out so far ahead. Look at the pandering, the negative campaigning, the attacks, the snide remarks. The usual suspects on this site (from Joan Walsh to Shawn WM) can claim misogyny, they can claim that the press were unfair, they can claim that Hillary still has a chance but it won't do them any good.
At some point Hillary's supporters, but especially her female supporters, are going to have to acknowledge a hard, sad truth — it wasn't misogyny, it wasn't a deceitful, mean-spirited Barack Obama who destroyed Hillary's chances. It was Hillary.
Hillary let you down.
When you can admit that, you can move on. We can all move on, and hopefully win the election in November by burying the misplaced bitterness and by supporting the Democratic nominee.