[Can't tell the difference between politics and policy? Need personal advice of a political nature -- or vice versa? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]
Dear Stumped,
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s attempt to be the first woman to be the most powerful politician in the world has been momentous. It has also been the most revealing political campaign in American history. Does the wide availability of offensive anti-Hillary paraphernalia in stores and on the Internet provide evidence that sexism reigns supreme? Would the many personal, gender-based attacks on Clinton and her supporters be tolerated if she were not a woman? Would the deafening silence on this topic prevail if such crude references were made in relation to Sen. Barack Obama or his followers? Is the hatred of women that has been exposed in this campaign an accepted part of our culture?
– Tony
Dear Tony,
There is plenty of sexism in America, but I disagree with your contention that Hillary Clinton’s failed candidacy, and the way it was covered by the media, revealed a widespread disdain for powerful women across the country. It would be insulting to the American people, and grossly unfair, for Clinton and her supporters to push such a postmortem.
Clinton’s candidacy was always more about advancing the cause of one political dynasty than it was about advancing the cause of women — and much of the visceral reaction against her bid was a visceral rejection of her familial claim to the throne. Clinton had a chance to become the first woman to occupy the White House, yes. But another historic milestone would have been her status as the first presidential spouse to be elected president. That she and her husband would have moved back into a White House most recently occupied by the son of a former president would have only perpetuated the notion that our nation’s presidency is in danger of becoming a nepotistic trophy.
When Clinton first embarked upon her quest for the Democratic nomination, there was no sense that hers was a long-shot candidacy seeking to break through the proverbial glass ceiling. No, her candidacy was first and foremost the establishment/dynastic steamroller. The other Democratic candidates were deemed hapless underdogs. And remember those rumblings about whether staffers who dared to join other campaigns would ever again find gainful employment in Washington?
Clinton’s campaign enveloped itself in a degree of inevitability practically unheard of in a non-incumbent primary campaign. (That’s what accounted for much of the early negative press coverage; if journalists hate anything, it’s a foreordained result.) Her seeming inevitability didn’t stem from the novelty of her gender, of course. But it wasn’t undermined by her gender, either. What made her the formidable front-runner, in a field in which she was neither the most experienced candidate nor the most charismatic one, was the fact that she was a Clinton — able to command her husband’s political network and to rely on the strength of the family brand.
Clinton’s core problem was that too many Democratic voters, regardless of their fondness for Bill Clinton, weren’t in the mood to back a quasi-incumbent or a restoration. The strength of “Brand Clinton” wasn’t enough to overcome the thirst for Barack Obama’s call for change. And Clinton’s campaign was unable to reconcile its own pitch to go back with the electorate’s desire to move on.
Her desperation at seeing the nomination drift away from her grasp fed the impression that she and her husband would say anything, or do anything, to win. Harsh criticism of Clinton’s opportunism had nothing to do with sexism. Indeed, it’s myopic to equate “negative” coverage with unfair coverage or to demand that all candidates receive equal doses of negative coverage. Candidates don’t all behave with equal measures of callousness.
Tuesday’s odd non-concession speech echoed Clinton’s speech on the night of her Iowa primary loss way back when (was that really this year?!). Both nights, she seemed incapable of acknowledging the possibility that she might not be elected president. At other times, her campaign seemed exasperated merely because she had to compete for the crown Clinton so richly deserved. Bill Clinton’s ugly efforts to downplay Obama’s strong performance in South Carolina was one sad manifestation of this exasperation. So were Team Clinton’s over-the-top attacks on those, like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who didn’t remain loyal to the family dynasty.
Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly capable and qualified to be president. But her failure to secure the nomination cannot, and should not, be interpreted as a repudiation of women in politics or as a sexist verdict. Consider it a repudiation of dynastic arrogance.
By Andres Martinez | June 6, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: The Ex-President Tax | Next: Were the Media Ever Nice to Clinton?
