Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Sexism Isn’t the Reason Hillary’s Finished

avatar

As many of Hillary’s true believers will have us believe; this country is irredeemably misogynist and this is the primary reason she’s about to be defeated in the Democratic Primary. 

 

Since the 2004 election, she’s been the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination.  She started this campaign out with a sense of inevitability, $200+ million in the bank and around 200 superdelegate endorsements – not to mention worldwide name recognition and the backings of her husband, a popular former president.  The race was hers to lose, and this is exactly what she did.

 

She chose her campaign staff based on loyalty, not competence (remind you of somebody?).  Given this; it’s not really surprising that they didn’t pour enough resources into Iowa and didn’t have any real plan for taking this thing past Super Tuesday.  Christ, seeing that Mark Penn didn’t even realize California’s delegates were to be awarded proportionally; you could make the argument that they didn’t even have a plan for Super Tuesday! 

 

Worse yet, her bumbling campaign put absolutely no effort into the caucus states, which enabled Obama to ring-up 11 straight victories and allowed him to build momentum. 

 

When Hillary first started losing and then really fell behind, it’s not at all surprising that the press jumped all over this.  The story of a charismatic underdog taking down the most powerful political family in the Democratic Party is practically porn to them!

 

Not only did the Clinton campaign not plan for the caucus states; they’ve also managed to piss off a huge chunk of the Democratic base.  Their involvement in the DLC, their strategy of political triangulation, which created Republican-lite economic policies (which personally I agree with) did not sit well in Democratic circles.

 

AND LET’S NOT FORGET HER VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE WAR IN IRAQ and her complete and total refusal to own-up to this horrible error in judgment.  At the risk of not wanting to look weak on national security; she later voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization – a position many believe might be used by Dubya (or perhaps McCain if he’s elected) to start a 3rd war with Iran. 

 

Is it any surprise at all that so much of the Democratic base turned against her and that she was absolutely pummeled by Obama in states she hardly paid attention to?

 

Let’s not also forget how many people the Clintons pissed off in the Democratic Party.  1992-98 was good for the Clintons, but it was not good for the Democratic Party.   True, the Republicans did launch an unforgiving war, but Republicans are douches and this was to be expected.  The Clinton’s practiced an extremely heavy-handed style of governing, perfectly exemplified by their ham-fisted attempt at universal healthcare during Bill’s first term.  This is seen by many as a key factor in the Republican electoral landslide in 1994. Throw in Bill’s extracurricular activities and his idiotic attempt to cover it up and it’s not surprising that the Democrats lost both houses of Congress, a huge number of governorships and many state legislatures.  This is remembered well in Democratic circles and this goes a long way in explaining why so many in the party were quick to move towards Obama.  It’s not because they didn’t want a woman in the White House. 

 

When Hillary started to run into trouble around South Carolina, her campaign really started to get ugly and the Clinton’s started playing the race card and we started hearing incredibly scummy statements (and I’m paraphrasing here) such as: “Obama’s not a Muslim…that I know of.”  Let’s also not forget the incredibly cynical move of leaving her name on the Michigan ballot, when all the candidates had early pledged to keep them off.  Worse yet, she starts pushing to have the MI and FL delegations seated, even though it was her campaign that played an instrumental role in having their primaries disqualified in the first place.  I believe it was Terry Mcauliffe (if I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will let me know about it in the comments section) who personally lobbied to do so!  This is also the time where we started hearing crap about how the caucus states shouldn’t count, or were otherwise unimportant. 

 

For good many people, this was interpreted – rightly in my opinion – as: If at first you don’t succeed; try changing the rules. 

 

Let’s not get started on Clinton’s attempts to paint Obama as a scary black man.  This is a subject I find beneath contempt and don’t even want to go into…

 

For an entire generation of young voters who’s only experience with politics has been the disastrous Bush Presidency, the scandals of the Clinton year and their incredibly cynical 2008 campaign; Obama represents a hope that politics can be a vehicle for good.  For many of us who are a little older; he’s a refreshing reminder.  Regardless of whether or not you think it’s a good reason to vote for somebody; hope is a powerful motivational force!  It’s not ONE of the many good reasons to support Obama, but it’s a very powerful reason which generates a lot of passionate support. 

 

And yes; African Americans played a major role in Obama’s success – in the same way that female support has played a major role in Hillary’s.  I can completely see why both groups are so passionately behind their respective candidate and don’t begrudge them for doing so.  It would be great if someday we create a society where we don’t discriminate based on race or gender, but sadly, we’re not anywhere near that point.  As such, the symbolic nature of both candidacies is HUGE. 

 

Given all of Hillary’s weaknesses listed above; the incredible support of African Americans was enough to put Obama over the top.  Had Hillary planned her campaign better and not resulted to low-ball tactics, the female vote would have done the same for her. 

 

I’ve only begun to scratch the surface (and not very articulately at that), of the many reasons the Clinton’s campaign is going to fail.  While sexism certainly may play a role for some, I think it’s obvious it was a minor one.

 

Feel free to flame away and call me a Kool-Aid drinking simpleton…


Comments (10)

avatar

You're talking about the primary here. What's fascinating is how it will play out in the general.
Check out this analysis based on SUSA polling.
MISOGYNY SEXISM, & THE 2008 ELECTIONS—PART 2
REGIONAL COMPARISONS & BEST AND WORST STATES
As the author himself points out, all the differences can't only be attributed to gender - other factors such as race, liberalism, party must play a part, but still it's interesting.
It's striking how regions factor in:
"By far, the best region for Democrats overall is the Northeast. It’s the best region for both Clinton and Obama, not merely overall, but among both men and women. But there the similarities end. Clinton’s next best region is North Central, where she all but breaks even among all voters. And her worst is the Mountain/Plains states. While Clinton loses the male vote in every region, only in the Mountain/Plains states does she also lose the female vote.
Obama’s second best region is the Far West, and his worst is the South. The Northeast is the only region where he wins the male vote outright, and the South is the only region where he loses the female vote.
But what is most interesting is that in most regions, the size of the gender gap in Clinton v McCain (Line 4) is almost twice the size of the gender gap in Obama v McCain (Line 8). The only region where its not close to twice as large are the Mountain/Plains states – the only region where Clinton lost the female vote."
Lukasiak analyses all the regions. It's an interesting read.
http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=clinton+female+vote&sourceid=Mozilla-search

avatar

Clinton supporters have never been able to come to grips with he fact that its her character that's the problem. Therefore, Obama's success must be attributable to his being a cult leader, or because he's black, or male. It always has to be something outside of HER.

avatar

But remember guys, we support whoever's the nom. I'm and Obama guy now, but woe is us if McCain gets it.

Well, since Hillary thinks McCain would be a better CiC, she'll probably vote for him, and so will those who believe her words to that effect. I still think Obama will win, though. McCain, besides being scarey, a war-monger, and not very bright, is 879 years old!

avatar

Time to look forward. Why keep fighting the last battle.

Senator Clinton has turned her focus on going after the Media coverage. I think that by doing so, she is doing Senator Obama a service. If she can re-direct the blame to the media, then many of her supporters will follow, and no longer take their disappointment out on Senator Obama.

Senator Clinton could be very helpful to Senator Obama during the fall by putting pressure on the Media to play fair. If she is willing to do that, it would be of tremendous service to the party.

Compare the fall campaign buttons:

McCain/Past

Obama/Future.

McCain is Nightfall in Winter.

Obama is Sunrise in Summer.

avatar

Time to move on, people.

Hillary's supporters, and Hillary herself, are not moving on. That is the problem. There is a blog (not going to mention it, they dont deserve the traffic) that has been anti-Bush / Pro Democratic party since 2000. This woman who runs the blog is a boomer, supports Hillary. She and others of her ilk are pushing for a Hillary Write-in Campaign for November. They WILL NOT vote for Obama. They really believe this is all due to sexism. As a female (Gen X-er) I really dont get where these women are coming from. It's insane.

avatar

I really don't know of too many people who argue that Hillary Clinton lost because of sexism. So it seems to me you've set up a Hillary strawperson here. It also seems to me that the issue is not whether sexism caused Hillary Clinton's defeat, but rather whether and to what extent sexism influenced this campaign. I mean, I assume you wouldn't excuse a sexist media or component of Hillary's opposition simply because such conduct wasn't the ultimate determining factor in this process. Such conduct or lack thereof is what is material, now and perhaps for years to come until the next woman pursues the presidency and then beyond. There is a need to look and see how we did this time around, and I'm sure many folks will be doing just that for years to come.

avatar

Hmmmmm Keep drinking. Jonestown is not so far away anymore.

avatar

GULP! It was delicious. Much better than the Bullsh*t Berry flavor Clinton is serving...

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


October 6-10

Book Cover

October 13-17

Book Cover

October 20-24

Book Cover

November 17-21>

Book Cover

December 1-5

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address