As Hillary Clinton's campaign winds down, commentators are talking about sexism. Good. It's infested this race, and many of us have deplored it. But reality is multifaceted. While Sen. Clinton has faced bigotry, so has her opponent. Maybe there will be a chance to learn from this hard campaign as the Democrats work on healing their party.
Many supporters of Sen. Clinton have chosen to avoid the topic of racism. That leaves the impression that they think you can't fight racism and sexism at the same time. I don't believe that. In fact, I think the only way to fight racism and sexism is at the same time, since they both come from the same root insecurities.
This could be one of those "teaching moments," where we get to see our prejudices exposed in the harsh light of day. But too often we're given vague generalities instead of information we can use. Take Libby Copeland's Washington Post op-ed. Copeland says that Americans have created the phrase "poor Hillary" to diminish her. "At some point along the way," she writes, "Hillary Clinton became 'poor Hillary' and it stuck ... You don't find too many references to ... 'poor Barry,''' she writes.1
But a Google search on the phrase "Poor Hillary" reveals only 47,000 hits. There are 25,000 for "poor Obama" or "poor Barack." Sen. Clinton hasn't been trivialized. In fact, the media that has so plagued her has also helped her: Far from diminishing her as "poor Hillary," they trumpeted her inevitability and front-runner status for many months. Clinton supporters who complain about press coverage tend to forget how instrumental the media was in giving her an early lead in this race.
Copeland writes:
"Is it about her womanhood? Or is it about this woman? Is that a false distinction? ('Poor Hillary: right gender, wrong woman,' goes the headline on the Web site of a Scottish newspaper, as if you can separate the two. (emphasis mine)
But if you can't separate the two, then there's only one way to prove you're not a sexist: You have to support Hillary. Yet her opponent is an African American. Does that mean you have to choose between racism and sexism?
Copeland continues: "The person who once conjured a vast right-wing conspiracy now refuses to exit a race she's almost surely lost, and it Drives. People. Crazy." True (and I like. the. periods.) But is that because of sexism? Think about it: Clinton's campaign keeps raising the race issue. She's told voters that McCain is more qualified to defend the country than the probable Democratic nominee. She threatened to obliterate another country. Couldn't that be why she's Driving. Democrats. Crazy?
And about those "cards" - race and gender - here's a little thought experiment: Imagine Obama had told the Associated Press last week that "real Americans, hard working Americans - American men - will vote for me." Think back to Hillary's "LBJ/Martin Luther King" comment, then imagine that Obama had said "Susan B. Anthony was a great talker, but it took Woodrow Wilson to get women the vote." And imagine that a prominent male member of Obama's campaign had said "she's lucky she's a woman, that's the only reason she's where she is."
I'll ask it again: Can you really fight sexism in our culture while looking the other way at racism?
Marie Cocco's editorial offers many more concrete examples of gender bias, and is therefore much more instructive and constructive. But, while she lambasts DNC leaders for their silence on sexist t-shirts and toys, she fails to note that they've been equally silent on those "Curious George"/Obama t-shirts - or those that read "Who Killed Obama," or "Jews Against Obama" - or all the other hideous racist items available on the Internet.
Marie Cocco's wrong to say the DNC has treated sexism and racism differently. It's hard for any rational person to argue with her main point, however. This campaign has revealed "the darker stain ... the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture."
Rachel Sklar asks, "... why are people so stubbornly resistant to allowing that sexism might have been part of this campaign?" Which people, exactly? Are there really a lot of people who think that sexism had nothing to do with Hillary's losses?
Clinton's losing for a number of reasons, including sexism. But let's not forget, she was decisively leading in Democratic polls a few months ago - and she was a woman then, too. Is her drop in approval a sign of sexism? Are Democrats that responsive to Chris Matthews or Fox News? Or isn't it more likely that voters have responded to her political choices?
As for the media, coverage of Sen. Clinton's private life has often been sexist while the Rev. Wright coverage has verged on racist. Both Clinton and Obama have struggled against prejudice during this campaign, and both of them have led the way for others that will follow. Neither is a victim, and both are pioneers.
Jodi Kantor asks the $64,000 question: "If many of Mrs. Clinton's legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination, how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?"
Here's some food for thought: More than 100 American service women have died in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi women - possibly hundreds of thousands - have also died. American women will lose control over their own reproductive rights under a McCain Supreme Court. How can any feminist remain neutral - or vote for McCain - in 2008?
In order to fight sexism and racism, we all need to teach ... and to learn. It does a disservice to sincere critics of Hillary Clinton when people conflate them with the people who sell Hillary nutcrackers or form organizations called "C.U.N.T." More importantly, it misses an opportunity to instruct. It cheapens the coin of anti-sexist rhetoric, and dulls people to the very real prejudice against women that pervades our society.
Hopefully Obama's supporters recognize the reality of sexism in this campaign, or will recognize it in the weeks to come. As for Sen. Clinton: She's had to endure ugliness and prejudice, but in the end she was the architect of her own destiny. With a different strategy and different moral choices she'd be on her way to the presidency.
The key to Democratic unity lies in recognizing that both of the party's candidates have triumphed over adversity. That understanding can be healing for Democrats and empowering for women, without losing the opportunity to teach the country about the realities of sexism.
________________________
1Related post: "Why Do Democratic Obama-Haters Keep Calling Him 'Barry'?" I don't know if it's fair to include Copeland in that number, but the question's worth asking.
RJ Eskow blogs:
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
To say that sexism is as bad as racism makes me laugh. I agree that their is a glass ceiling in America for women and it is sad. The truth is that there is still a steel boot for African-Americans.
Looks look at the facts. Women are less likely to get the CEO job. African-Americans are less likely to get a job.
Women are more likely to be harassed by a police officer.
African-Americans are more likely to be shot by a police officer or to go to jail.
Women are less likely to be paid as teachers for the service they provide.
African-Americans are less likely to graduate from high school.
Women are less likely to get a good settlement in a divorce hearing in front of a judge.
African-Americans get longer sentences in front of a judge.
I don't remember any woman being lynched in the south.
I don't remember women being forced to sit on the back of the bus because they where woman.
Hillary has brought out the worst in this country with her race baiting "Hard Working Americans, White Americans" and has proven everything that the Republicans had said about the Clinton's is true.
Winds down? Terry McAuliffe must told Chris Matthews they're going to the convention, and laid out just exactly what their strategy to win is.
In that vein I must say that my primary concern has been the biased campaign rhetoric against Senator Clinton that was engaged in by the DNC and by some national and state members of the Democratic party, but particularly abhorrent were the blatant sexist attacks by the MSM and pundits when it came to Senator Hillary Clinton's candidacy.
Collectively, what those behaviors prove is that the Democratic party is not the political party for women should join. Not even one stalwart male [or female for that matter] in the Democratic party stepped forward to denounce the demeaning language used by the MSM or pundits against Senator Clinton throughout this campaign -- and that includes her opponent, Obama.
The Republican party stalwarts would never have remained silent and permitted the sexist/misogynistic rants that were repeatedly aimed at Senator Hillary Clinton if she were their candidate. Bottom line message to women -- consider joining the Republican party, make it into a party that values women and families -- vote for McCain in the general election.
"That understanding can be healing for Democrats and empowering for women, without losing the opportunity to teach the country about the realities of sexism."
Unfortunately, "that understanding" will take decades and the lack of it will most definately affect the outcome of this election in the fall.
So, stop your whining white women. i'm tired of it.
Chisholm again: "Racism is so universal in this country, so widespread and deepseated, that it is invisible because it is so normal." The same can be said of sexism -- yet when the subject of sexism comes up, so few people call to account those who say things like "these girlies asked for a 'fair' fight" and so many think "Citizens United Not Timid" is actually clever.
I wonder it it wouldn't have been easier if Edwards (or another 'traditional' candidate) had caught lightning -- instead of grappling with racism and sexism and, too frequently, ageism, we could be absolutely focused on routing the Republicans. But we are the people who grapple and there's honor in that. "Both Clinton and Obama have struggled against prejudice during this campaign, and both of them have led the way for others that will follow. Neither is a victim, and both are pioneers," Mr. Eskow notes and I thank him for that.
They really don't get it that being a champion of women's rights is to be a champion of the issues that are important to real women - the mothers who want to protect their children from a regime who would so readily sacrifice them up for oil interests, the working women who leave their children at daycare to go to work making half the salaries of their male counterparts, the women who want affordable healthcare for themselves and their children, equitable public education and affordable college tuition. Seriously, do I need to go on?????
Senator Clinton - you lost because YOU got lost. It has nothing to do with your gender, except that you turned your back on women's issues to advance your personal ambition!
I encourage truly progressive democrats to vote for all Democratic candidates with the exception of Obama. Write in Hillary's name.
After eight years of watching the Clintons in The White House, the current discussion certainly fits into their pattern of blaming everyone but themselves for whatever situation they're in. Clinton's problems have less to do with her gender than her character. Had her campaign been less arrogant and better managed and had she done less pandering and fact meandering, I don't think we'd be discussing sexism to the extent that we seem to be.
There was nothing wrong with this observation which accurately describes our system. Citizens can march and protest and present the case but it still takes the people in power to make the law. We have to work together -- so it matters whom we elect. Everyone has to do their part or nothing gets done. LBJ was no prize but he did his part on that one.
How is this racist?
The past two terms of incompetence should have solidified the party. We had finally found common ground and would move forward to reclaim the office and begin restoring civility amidst this storm of chaos.
However the party has fragmented terribly. We're failing miserably to capitalize on the repubican's weakness thereby allowing them time to regroup. McCain's hope is to sway the moderate voters (that will be deciding this election). fortunately McCain's incompetence has been the dems saving grace.
It's a tremendous spectacle to see the dems break the wasp mold and present two vibrant candidates. However, a fragmenting of the party has occurred.
Here's the conundrum: Clinton is correct in saying she has the Reagan dems, but it's because she's running a moderate platform. Obama is the likely winner of the primary, though his supporters have been saying this since January haha, but his platform is decidedly more liberal.
The moderates will decide this election. If Obama wants to win he must reach the moderates. If he can't he will lose.
Clinton could do well with the moderates, but she's being called a republican by the more liberal dems. Which may not vote for her in a general election.
Neither camp is open to working with the other, and so we've reached a stunning impasse.
All the while giving McCain what he sorely needs..... more time..
There is a big difference in how the two remaining campaigns handled the racism/sexism.
Obama's campaign fights all the racist websites, racist Tshirts, racist posters, racist emails, racist comments from Hillary supporters - by informing people, and by minimizing the impact in various ways. That's why Rachel wasn't aware of it.
Hillary, with all her campaign expertise, decided to attack the media, complain that she was being treated "differently," have media pundits censured, etc. She and her surrogates made all the sexist stuff very noticeable. The "reinscribed."
A second difference is one that Michael Moore pointed out - Hillary attempted to exploit the racism, and generate fear of a racist response to Obama, through her campaign. Obama responded, but never in kind. He never tried to make people afraid that Hillary would lose the general election because she's a woman.
Because Hillary's prominent supporters chose to harp on the sexist stuff, we're more aware of it. But that didn't help Hillary. Nor did her attempts to exploit the racism that still exists in this country.
Obama's strategy in this, as in almost everything, was superior. And that's why he won.