Does Clinton Camp Talk of Sexism Risk the Democrats' Future?

This is how the Clintons could pull the Democratic Party down to general election defeat alongside their fading presidential hopes: a pointless fight over gender politics.

That's the thought I had watching Geraldine Ferraro on the Today Show Tuesday morning press a point echoed by both Bill and Hillary Clinton in different venues over the last few days: that Clinton's increasingly apparent loss in her quest to be the Democratic nominee has occurred because of her gender.

It's a notion that not even Air America host Rachel Maddow was willing to concede Tuesday morning on Today, noting that one example cited by Ferraro of Obama's supposed misogyny -- acting as if he was flicking off criticism from Clinton during a campaign rally -- actually a reference to a Jay-Z video that delighted his young audience.

Certainly, Clinton faced hurdles as a female candidate, particularly among some of the punditocracy, which seemed to struggle for words to describe her and Obama that didn't echo insulting stereotypes. But it has always been difficult to separate the different reactions to Clinton; are people reacting to Clinton's current policies, reacting to Clinton's history with her husband, reacting to her gender or reacting to her campaign tactics? It seems insulting to suggest that every person who didn't vote for her or criticized her did so because they don't like women in power.

That's not to say that Clinton shouldn't talk about gender and the role it has played in the election. But Obama has provided a potent example for dealing with these issues; while he has often acknowledged that race plays a role in voters' choices, he rarely if ever concedes it is the sole factor in their decision making process.

The Washington Post's Shankar Vedantam has done some interesting work on Obama, the election and race, citing academics who believe that his problems with Rev. Wright stem from the way the preacher's fiery rhetoric resonates with stereotypes of the Angry Black Man. During a conference at Columbia University, Vedantam talked about how some anti-Obama voters may even be unconciously reacting to race in their choice -- and I have no doubt Clinton has faced that as a woman.

But Clinton has to be careful and specific; anything else sounds like sour grapes. Indeed, Ferraro's examples of how sexism may have limited Clinton sounded more like objections to any criticism of her at all. And now that Clinton's hopes of winning the nomination are more distant than ever, this talk seems less about helping her campaign and more about hardening the attitudes of her supporters against Obama.

More than one pundit has said the success of the Democratic nominee will be determined by the way the loser loses. Talk which encourages the loser's supporters to hold a grudge helps no one but the Republicans, who are hoping the record turnout for Democrats is diminished in the general election by ongoing discord over the primary results.

Already, Clinton can blame her campaign for tarnishing her family's legacy of connection to America's black voters. Will she also risk taking blame for sinking the general election by losing badly?

Comments

[PulSamsara]

Anointing a woman based upon her relationship with a popular former President does NOTHING for gender equality. It simply reinforces negative stereotypes about feminism. Hillary Clinton should NOT have been placed on this mantle and the supporters who put her their have only themselves to blame for this outcome.

I elected Hillary Clinton to her senate seat. After her 2002 vote - and her cynical negative campaign this year - I will never support her again and will actively work against her selfish ego driven political aspirations - as long as she chooses to attempt this ruse.

Clinton's supporters should do some very serious self examination.

This has become an absolute disgrace.

[tojoi]

Now aint that the pot calling the kettle black... no pun intended. Who's "ism" is greatest? Rac-ism or Sex-ism. Guess it depends who crys about it the loudest... Hillary.

[NDNlady]

As an Indian woman, I have experienced both racism and sexism in my fifty-plus years, along with the truly sick greasy mixture of the two that only women of color know. I would be willing to bet that any independent media analysis of campaign coverage (minutes/words devoted to topic, placement of statements/responses, etc) would prove that racism, both overt and covert, has been far more prevalent in the media than sexism.

Sen Clinton, herself, has undermined the definition of "feminist" by shamelessly adopting male stereotypes in order to portray strength, ie: gun-toting, shot-tossing "I'm just one of the guys with balls to spare" type messages. Not to mention, her derisive belittling attacks on Sen Obama's ability to inspire people, a gift I'm sure she wishes she had in equal measure. Her constant attempts to "remake" herself and her message in response to each primary, each political "puff of wind" that blows have hurt her more than any "sexist" pundits. Equal rights mean equal responsibilities. For Sen Clinton to consistently refuse to accept responsibility for the state of her campaign and the destructive behavior she must pursue to try to claim a nomination she has not earned is the very antithesis of a feminist.

Yes, she has the potential to cause great harm. Women who passionately believe that she was "entitled" to this and it was "stolen" from her because she is a woman may very well bite off our noses to spite their faces.

[pompmom]

p.s. i love how you have set hillary up to take the blame when obama loses.

[ReportThis]

Hillary has zero charisma and a style that only "inspires" women of a certain age. Her "policy wonk" schtick didn't work for Al Gore or John Kerry, and blinks the fact that she has failed to convince her colleagues in the Sentate to enact any of her ideas as solid legislation. At the end of the day, Geraldine Ferraro's dismissive characterization of Obama applies more accurately to Hillary: her campaign wouldn't have gotten this far but for the fact she's a woman. To ignore the fact that gender played an enormous part in her historic success, while simultaneously blaming "sexism" for her ultimately failed campaign is the height of hypocracy and delusion.

[pompmom]

clinton is not complaining that people are not voting for her because she is a woman. clinton is complaining about the constant, overt sexism and misogyny with which she is treated. if you are not deliberately missing the point, then you prove it.

[ReportThis]

Would you please give a concrete example of the "constant, overt sexism and misogyny" with which Hillary purportedly is treated? Just one valid example will suffice.
Thank you.

[MaureenSharkey]

Even Saturday Night Live did a skit about how, at the debates, the pundits were much harder on Hillary, and offer a pillow to Obama.

Wipe the sleep out of your eyes.

[Bettysdad]

Don't you understand? If a woman fails what she wants, it's sexism. When I was working with my women friends in the '60s and '70s, feminism was a philosophy that promoted fighting against stereotypes to succeed. It has devolved into a way to blame sexism for one's failures. The world-class feminist I live finds women like pompmom nauseating.

[IntelligentDesign]

The Hillary Clinton-Geraldine Ferraro spectacle is a heart wrenching disappointment to all - at a time when we face unprecedented challenges at home and abroad, an insipid enemy running the US Government, a formidable enemy reconstituting in the rugged foothills of Pakistan, and a whole litany of unfinished/unstarted domestic issues, these two women selfishly and brazenly suck the air out of the room to the point of suffocation - these two just do not get it and/or they just do care; a disgraceful display indeed.

[ReportThis]

Dont' stop thinking about tomorrow -- when Hillary next stands for re-election in New York and can be voted out of office forever.

[Simone]

Hillary's camp talks of sexism, and there is certainly plenty of that, but it is too bad she doesn't talk about what her election would mean to women other then electing her as a woman.

[pompmom]

has obama talked about what his election would mean to black people other that electing him as a black person?

[tojoi]

No.

[feelfree]

It is disingenuous to try to compare how Barack Obama handled racism to how Mrs. Clinton is addressing sexism.

Obama had to talk about race because he was FORCED to in order to contain the Rev. Wright controversy. Let's not pretend he talked about race as if he WANTED to. Further Obama has distanced himself from the civil rights community. His white supporters call him the post-racial candidate and the candidate that transcends race. The reason why is they live in latteland and pretend race no longer affects the lives of black people. That's the label he hung on Wright and those people from the civil rights community. His supporters eagerly embraced the "angry" label.

Sexism isn't something Mrs. Clinton is forced to discuss. Sexism happened to her. It has been blatant, overt, direct, and vicious. The Democratic Party has not uttered a single word in her defense. When Bill Clinton compared Obama's win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson they labeled the Clintons racists and complained about "tone". In latteland comparing Obama to a black man is heresy. Ted Kennedy was so incensed he came to Obama's aid and endorsed him. Howard Dean appeared on FOX News and accused them of race baiting. Silence on sexism, he speaks out on racism.

Some Hillary supporters are disgusted with the Democratic Party. Don't expect more from women than the party is willing to give. If you do you are supporting taking the women who are disgusted with party for granted.

[sytgrl]

Your assessment is a little off. Repeatedly, when Obama was asked about race, he deflected the comments. When asked if he thought voters were voting against him because of race, he repeatedly said that he did not think that was the case, despite clear evidence otherwise.

Clinton, however, has talked about her gender from the beginning, far from being silent. She has repeatedly called for women to vote for her because she is a woman. One poor person told of getting several robocalls stating that a vote for Clinton was a vote for women.

What sexism has Obama's campaign dealt to Clinton? Please list examples. Because if you are just pointing to the media bias, they have both dealt with that, and he can not apologize for the media.

[Bettysdad]

Time and time again, the fake feminists supporting Mrs. Bill Clinton whine about sexism from the Obama camp. It never happened. There may have been some remarks from themedia, but no one cancite a single remark from the Obama camp. If Hillary was actually a feminist, she wouldn't talk about it; she'd just fight on to win, But sadly, she's talking about to garner sympathy. and win on that basis.

[zbearlady]

PART 1:

Hillary says that by staying in the race, she is not dividing the Democratic party, nor diverting votes to McCain? She also adamantly states she'll campaign & fight hard for the Democratic nominee, so as to assure a victory over the Republicans in the fall?

Yet, everytime she gives voice to allowing the Michigan & Florida votes, she not-so-subtly implies that Obama is the one standing in the way of these voter's rights. While playing into the paranoia of 'unfairness' & 'undemocratic vote-counting', she's creating division & outrage in their minds -implying that she's the only one championing for them -not Obama- chipping away & souring their opinions about his character & integrity. Subsequently, come the general election -when she is long gone- the fall-out from such underhanded insinuations may well result in Obama being seen as the man who supposedly stood in the way of these voter's rights to be heard.

As most of us already know, this mess was not Obama's doing. Those states broke the primary rules, the voters knew their votes wouldn't be counted, the candidates ceased their campaigning (Obama wasn't even on Mich. ballot) & Hillary agreed to it all! Yet now that she has all but lost the race & is desperate to 'steal' votes wherever she can, she's conveniently spinning it all as if this whole mess is somehow Obama's fault?

So, how is that not being divisive? And how does that not have a long-term negative impact on the Democratic

[Bettysdad]

You can take a few words out of this article's title so it reads "Does Hillary Risk The Democrat's Future?"

[OKRevmar]

Earth to Hillary. It's NOT about you. We're not sexist -- just anti-Clinton. You are embarrassing yourself and harming your party.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Earth to OKRevmar,

Stifiling debate on issues is what got us into this war. Your attempt to intimidate this discussion over sexism is anti-american. There are plenty of reasons not to support Hillary, but the cries from people who say that she is a monster for pointing out Obama's weaknesses during the election is sexist and offensive to me. Nevermind that every single man that has ever run for president has done that to win. By attacking Hillary for that, it really hurt her chances with undecided democrat voters. That to me is the worse sexism in this campaign.

IT IS NOT THE ONLY REASON SHE LOST. Got it. I'll say it again. SEXISM IS NOT THE ONLY REASON SHE LOST. But the discussion of its existence in this campaign is healthy for Americans. Don't stifle debate--it's like the republicans who did that regarding the opposition to the war.

[Kynn]

You have interesting views on what counts as sexism. Criticizing for attacking Obama is sexist?

Hurting her chances with undecided is sexist?

I hope you believe that she was racist when she criticized Obama for attacking her.

I hope you think she was racist when she hurt his chances with undecided dems.

The poster was also not stifling debate anymore than you are. And don't call someone anti-american for stating their viewpoint. Doing that is unamerican.

[kee]

It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that Hillary Clinton is trying hard to torpedo Obama's chances of winning in November. She's a sore loser who refuses to accept responsibility for her own defeat. Unfortunately, that is the Clinton way.
The supers who have said they will honor the pledged delegates should come out now and shut Clinton down, but she is deliberately using the sexist card to threaten those who would come out against her and these wicked tactics.
it's absolutely appalling and typically Clinton-esque...

[AbbieXHoffman]

"It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that Hillary Clinton is trying hard to torpedo Obama's chances of winning in November. She's a sore loser who refuses to accept responsibility for her own defeat. Unfortunately, that is the Clinton way."

Your comment shows me that we on the left have just as many non-critical thinkers as the right. This woman has fought for the democratic values all her life. There a multitide of compassionate things she has done before during and after her years in the Whitehouse that were real grass roots incredible successes for children, women and the poor.

There is no way in hell she is 1) going to run in 2012 if McCain wins. (Almost no one can run for the presidency twice unless they are VP--the Clinton's know that) 2) hoping McCain wins (Get a grip please. She will fight for Obama and the democrats like she has done all her life.) 3) hurting Obama at all. (Having his weaknesses exposed now are the best thing for his success in the fall.)

I do not want to replace one group of non-thinking pie eyed right wingers with a group of non-thinking pie eyed democrats. Critical thinking to unveil the truth is the true goal of the progressive movement. Replacing one right wing lie for another left wing lie is intellectually lazy.

[Berynice]

Well, she didn't fight for the democrats ALL her life - she was a Goldwater Girl after all.

[knighthowl]

People who have run for President twice (or more): Adlai Stevenson, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Ralph Nader, John Edwards . . . This is just off the top of my head. Only one of these was ever a VP.

The Clintons know this, they do not know your fantastic statement that no one can run twice.

I too would like to see some critical thinking.

[HansB]

I think it would be useful to separate two things, which are at present conflated.
(1) Hillary Clinton's former front-runner status, which was no more a model of emancipation than the elections of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Indira and Sonia Gandhi in India, or Mrs Bandaranaike and Mrs Kumaratunga in Sri Lanka. Reaching high office on the coattails of a husband or father doesn't further equal rights but, instead, reinforces the idea that women can't get anywhere without men.
(2) The misogynic jokes and misogynic expressions of disapproval of Clinton. As if people couldn't find her flawed without transposing that on all of womanhood.
Personally I think that Hillary Clinton lost not because of sexism but because she's a mediocre candidate; but many people couldn't resist adorning their choice with misogynic terminology which had nothing to do with it.

[JAJ2007]

There has definitely been sexism on the part of the media in this campaign. There has also been racism (Pat Buchanan anyone?). However, I can think of nothing more sexist than to say "We should just give it to Hillary because she's a woman."

What has happened in this campaign speaks more about our nation moving beyond sexism and racism. At this point, Senator Clinton is being treated as any male candidate would be treated... It's been a well fought race, but she lost - fair and square, under the agreed upon rules.

Thought experiment - Senator Henry Clinton against Senator Barack Obama - Senator Obama leads in pledged delegates, super delegates and states won... Wouldn't everyone be saying - "Henry - it was a good race - now it's time to concede."

Second though experiment - Let's reverse the primary wins from February and March - Senator Hillary Clinton wins 11-straight post Super Tuesday contests and takes lead in pledged delegates which is mathematically improbable to overcome... Wouldn't everyone have pressed Senator Obama to drop out?

It's better for gender equality if Senator Clinton acts like a Senator and a statesperson, and does the best thing for the party. Gender equality means men and women treated equally, not women getting a free pass even if they lose.
BTW - I'm a woman