« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Thought experiment: What if Hillary were Hill (Bill's younger brother)?
Harriet Christian (and Geraldine Ferraro) posit that sexism has played a large role in Hillary's campaign troubles. Christian went so far as to say that the only reason Barack is in this race is because Hillary is a white woman.
So here's the question. If Hillary Clinton were a younger brother who had served in Bill's cabinet before pursuing a New York Senate seat, would "Hill" Clinton be the nominee?
Or would "he" be John Edwards, part deux?
Advertisement
Comments (10)
Did younger brother Hillbert run the exact same campaign? Did Hillbert like about the Tuzla sniperfire? I think that lie from a male candidate would have ended their campaign.
June 3, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
*LIE about the Tuzla...
(Firefox spellcheck is no substitute for proofreading boys and girls.)
June 3, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. For the sake of this first round of argument, let's presume that all of Team Clinton's assumptions, strategies and "mistakes" are intact (minus pantsuits of course).
Love the Breakfast Club avatar, BTW.
June 3, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case you haven't seen it Jeanne Cummings has a really good article on this subject up at Political.com.
June 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ask you this: if a woman was a first term senator from Illinois, do you honestly think she would become the nominee of the Democratic party?
June 3, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you honestly think a black first term senator from Illinois would?
June 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean without the coattails of a two-term president? Probably not, but I wouldn't expect a second term Senator from any state to nail it either.
I don't think her biggest problem was her sex. I think her biggest problem was the hubris that the Clinton brand entitled her to the nomination--overwhelming any and all other considerations. Despite her spin, the Clinton's drama hand delivered us into a two-term Dubya presidency and six years of unchecked GOP dominance.
Her prevarications on NAFTA, Tuzla didn't help. Neither did her expressed preference for the opposing candidate over her fellow Democrat.
June 3, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hill didn't have the balls to admit his mistake in authorizing Bush's War, I don't believe he would be the Democratic Nominee
June 3, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hill were Bill's younger brother, s/he'd be a marginally employed ne'er-do-well.
HRC lost because she had a poorly planned, mismanaged, fiscally irresponsible campaign, which compounded the problems posed by her DLC leanings and the Clinton baggage. She was defeated by a less polarizing, more progressive candidate who had amazing organizational and fundraising abilities.
The Clinton name, and perhaps her gender, were the only things that kept her going--had it not been for those qualities, people would have paid a lot more attention to her indefensibly hawkish positions (Kyl-Lieberman, "nuke Iran into oblivion").
June 3, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hadn't seen that. Thanks. It was Harriet Christian and G. Ferraro's comments that drove this idea for me.
Personally, I think it's hard to argue that the intensity of Hillary's female support far outweighs the advantages of Obama's Black base. After all, women make up more than 50% of the electorate and ALL Blacks are less than 15%.
You don't see Edwards, Dodd, Richardson and Biden supporters screaming that John McCain is their new choice, but there are scores of clips of white women expressing their anger at Obama (instead of the media) because he has earned the nomination.
June 3, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment