Sexism charges are dishonest and offensive
I understand the frustration felt by many Hillary Clinton supporters. This has been a long, hard-fought primary race, and both sides have had their share of big wins.
However, as an Obama supporter, there is a common complaint I want to address. Recently, Geraldine Ferraro called the Obama campaign "terribly sexist," and then, several weeks later, repeated her claim, calling for an academic study on whether either campaign engaged in sexism and whether the media was sexist.
The claim that Obama's primary campaign was sexist is completely unfounded, and considering how much more negative Clinton's campaign was than Obama's, it brings to mind the old saying about people who live in glass houses. Here's how weak the case is: the "best" evidence of Obama's alleged sexism is that he called a reporter "sweetie." The reporter yelled out a question to Obama during an appearance at a Chrysler plant in which he was not taking questions from the media, and he responded "hold on one second, sweetie" and said that he would be taking questions later. He called the reporter to apologize that afternoon, and the reporter in question has said that the comment did not offend her. In addition to the lack of convincing examples of Obama's sexism, his accusers have not explained his support among female Democrats like Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, Caroline Kennedy and roughly half of white college-educated female Democrats.
What makes it even more absurd for Clinton supporters to claim that Obama's primary campaign was sexist is the relative tone of the two campaigns. Obama's campaign used kid gloves when it came to the Clintons' heavy political baggage, which would have been an easy target (and if she had won the nomination, easily would have provided the GOP with enough ammo to beat her in November). In a traditional campaign, a challenger facing Hillary Clinton would have hammered her on her husband's impeachment, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the myriad fundraising scandals, and the Clintons' associations with various controversial figures. In contrast, the Obama campaign actively avoided making these scandals into issues in the primary, to the extent that when a local campaign adviser in Iowa made a joke about Monica Lewinsky on his personal blog, it was a big deal (the Obama campaign immediately criticized the offending post, and the author apologized).
Meanwhile, Clinton's campaign took a "kitchen sink" approach to attacking Obama, which ranged from accusing him of plagiarizing from one of his closest supporters, aggressively selling the Reverend Wright, Rezko, and Ayers stories to the media, and perhaps at its lowest moment, leaking a photo of Obama wearing African garb to the Drudge Report, apparently in an attempt to prey on internet rumors that Obama is Muslim. At one point, the Clinton campaign's racially-charged tone prompted an article titled "Is Hillary Channeling George Wallace?" - and almost everyone I know agreed that it hit the nail on the head.
If Clinton supporters believe that aspects of the media's coverage were sexist, that's their right, and I would encourage them to get on the phone with the offending networks. But as I mentioned earlier, Ferraro and others aren't just complaining about the media - they have also specifically accused the Obama campaign of sexism. If Hillary Clinton really wants to help heal the Democratic Party, her first order of business should be to renounce and reject Ferraro's serious accusations about her party's nominee.
As for the separate claim that the media coverage of the primary was sexist, I would agree that some commentators have said things about Clinton that were inappropriate and/or ill-advised, but I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the primary coverage was marked by sexism.
Some of the coverage Clinton supporters have complained about involves things that just come with the territory when you're running for president. For better or worse, a candidate's appearance, image, and personal style have become a huge of part of American presidential elections, and in the last three or four, the scrutiny has become obsessive. If it was okay for commentators to say that Gore has a "boring" or "dull" speaking style, that Kerry's sounds "elitist" and "arrogant," and that Bush sounds "stupid," how is it sexist for commentators to say that Clinton's voice is "nasal" or "shrill"? And as for the claim that Clinton's gender is the main reason the media has discussed her appearance, one would expect that her diehard supporters, if anyone, would remember the incessant coverage of Bill Clinton's penchant for McDonald's, his weight gain, the way he aged dramatically over the course of his Presidency, and the bags under his eyes.
There is another category of complaints about the media coverage that involves the question of how to deal with the fact that Clinton's husband is a former president. Is it "sexist" to point out that Clinton's marriage to President Clinton was the major reason she had the political stature to win a Senate seat, despite that fact that she had never held an elected office? I would say that's a relevant issue, especially in a campaign where a candidate who has only held elected office for one-and-a-half terms is accusing her opponent of lacking experience.
Anyway, reasonable people can disagree on whether the media's coverage of the campaign was sexist. However, it is pretty clear that the deciding factors in the primary were Obama's unique appeal as a candidate and his masterfully run campaign. Here are several of the best recent articles about how strategic mistakes, various bad advice from Mark Penn, and a failure to understand basic aspects of the nomination process doomed the Clinton campaign (I still can't believe that Mark Penn didn't know that the Democratic Party uses proportional allocation of delegates, as the TIME and WSJ articles mention). Lest Ferraro accuse me of being sexist, I would point out that I just realized that all of the best articles I wanted to link to were written by women. Perhaps 2008 will be remembered not only as the first year in which a women was a major contender in a presidential primary, but also as a year in which a whole new class of female political analysts rose to prominence.
"The Five Mistakes Clinton Made" [TIME]
"Death of a Saleswoman: How Hillary Lost Me - And a Generation of Young Voters" [Slate]
"Clinton's Road to Second Place" [Wall Street Journal]
"Why Didn't More Women Vote for Hillary?" [TIME]
However, as an Obama supporter, there is a common complaint I want to address. Recently, Geraldine Ferraro called the Obama campaign "terribly sexist," and then, several weeks later, repeated her claim, calling for an academic study on whether either campaign engaged in sexism and whether the media was sexist.
The claim that Obama's primary campaign was sexist is completely unfounded, and considering how much more negative Clinton's campaign was than Obama's, it brings to mind the old saying about people who live in glass houses. Here's how weak the case is: the "best" evidence of Obama's alleged sexism is that he called a reporter "sweetie." The reporter yelled out a question to Obama during an appearance at a Chrysler plant in which he was not taking questions from the media, and he responded "hold on one second, sweetie" and said that he would be taking questions later. He called the reporter to apologize that afternoon, and the reporter in question has said that the comment did not offend her. In addition to the lack of convincing examples of Obama's sexism, his accusers have not explained his support among female Democrats like Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, Caroline Kennedy and roughly half of white college-educated female Democrats.
What makes it even more absurd for Clinton supporters to claim that Obama's primary campaign was sexist is the relative tone of the two campaigns. Obama's campaign used kid gloves when it came to the Clintons' heavy political baggage, which would have been an easy target (and if she had won the nomination, easily would have provided the GOP with enough ammo to beat her in November). In a traditional campaign, a challenger facing Hillary Clinton would have hammered her on her husband's impeachment, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the myriad fundraising scandals, and the Clintons' associations with various controversial figures. In contrast, the Obama campaign actively avoided making these scandals into issues in the primary, to the extent that when a local campaign adviser in Iowa made a joke about Monica Lewinsky on his personal blog, it was a big deal (the Obama campaign immediately criticized the offending post, and the author apologized).
Meanwhile, Clinton's campaign took a "kitchen sink" approach to attacking Obama, which ranged from accusing him of plagiarizing from one of his closest supporters, aggressively selling the Reverend Wright, Rezko, and Ayers stories to the media, and perhaps at its lowest moment, leaking a photo of Obama wearing African garb to the Drudge Report, apparently in an attempt to prey on internet rumors that Obama is Muslim. At one point, the Clinton campaign's racially-charged tone prompted an article titled "Is Hillary Channeling George Wallace?" - and almost everyone I know agreed that it hit the nail on the head.
If Clinton supporters believe that aspects of the media's coverage were sexist, that's their right, and I would encourage them to get on the phone with the offending networks. But as I mentioned earlier, Ferraro and others aren't just complaining about the media - they have also specifically accused the Obama campaign of sexism. If Hillary Clinton really wants to help heal the Democratic Party, her first order of business should be to renounce and reject Ferraro's serious accusations about her party's nominee.
As for the separate claim that the media coverage of the primary was sexist, I would agree that some commentators have said things about Clinton that were inappropriate and/or ill-advised, but I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the primary coverage was marked by sexism.
Some of the coverage Clinton supporters have complained about involves things that just come with the territory when you're running for president. For better or worse, a candidate's appearance, image, and personal style have become a huge of part of American presidential elections, and in the last three or four, the scrutiny has become obsessive. If it was okay for commentators to say that Gore has a "boring" or "dull" speaking style, that Kerry's sounds "elitist" and "arrogant," and that Bush sounds "stupid," how is it sexist for commentators to say that Clinton's voice is "nasal" or "shrill"? And as for the claim that Clinton's gender is the main reason the media has discussed her appearance, one would expect that her diehard supporters, if anyone, would remember the incessant coverage of Bill Clinton's penchant for McDonald's, his weight gain, the way he aged dramatically over the course of his Presidency, and the bags under his eyes.
There is another category of complaints about the media coverage that involves the question of how to deal with the fact that Clinton's husband is a former president. Is it "sexist" to point out that Clinton's marriage to President Clinton was the major reason she had the political stature to win a Senate seat, despite that fact that she had never held an elected office? I would say that's a relevant issue, especially in a campaign where a candidate who has only held elected office for one-and-a-half terms is accusing her opponent of lacking experience.
Anyway, reasonable people can disagree on whether the media's coverage of the campaign was sexist. However, it is pretty clear that the deciding factors in the primary were Obama's unique appeal as a candidate and his masterfully run campaign. Here are several of the best recent articles about how strategic mistakes, various bad advice from Mark Penn, and a failure to understand basic aspects of the nomination process doomed the Clinton campaign (I still can't believe that Mark Penn didn't know that the Democratic Party uses proportional allocation of delegates, as the TIME and WSJ articles mention). Lest Ferraro accuse me of being sexist, I would point out that I just realized that all of the best articles I wanted to link to were written by women. Perhaps 2008 will be remembered not only as the first year in which a women was a major contender in a presidential primary, but also as a year in which a whole new class of female political analysts rose to prominence.
"The Five Mistakes Clinton Made" [TIME]
"Death of a Saleswoman: How Hillary Lost Me - And a Generation of Young Voters" [Slate]
"Clinton's Road to Second Place" [Wall Street Journal]
"Why Didn't More Women Vote for Hillary?" [TIME]
posted at 7:55:00 PM | permalink
<< Home