Let’s Not Overthink This
Meghan Daum speculates on specifically gendered reasons for resistance to Hillary Clinton as president. I don’t want to say there’s nothing to that. One of Daum’s passages indicates that the gendering can come on a “meta” level, e.g. I think of myself as a liberal and I don’t like the female candidate so I feel guilty. Why is that?
But the truth is, no candidate is pulling close to majority support in either party’s primary campaign. John McCain isn’t. Barack Obama isn’t. Mike Huckabee isn’t. Nobody. It’s a crowded field in which, for the moment, the best anyone is going to get is a plurality. Come the general election, whoever gets the Dem nomination is going to lack Republican enthusiasm and vice verse. A lot of independents will dislike one or the other. It’s normal that most people in the country, at this point in the process would rather not have Hillary Clinton as President. Right now most people in the country would rather not have any given candidate from either party as President. So Daum et al are trying to find reasons why Hillary’s gender specifically has put her in the same electoral position as . . . all the other candidates.
Via Kevin Drum, even though what I wrote strikes me as an Imitation Matthew Yglesias Post for some reason.
Comment by diana —
January 12, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
I find it amusing that an article decrying sexism has this pseudo-observation: “Clinton, whose stridency can grate even on those who agree with her ideas.” What is that, a prophylactic declaration of non-oversensitivity?
In any case, Jim, I interpret this article as saying that if it weren’t for sexism, Hillary would be beating the competition hands-down on merit. I think that Daum is reacting to the very real sexism Hillary was treated with by the media post-Iowa and coming out with unwarranted conclusions. In other words, she’s making shit up. Politics is very much a popularity contest. Merit just happens, sometimes.
Something as reptilian as discrimination based on gender is difficult to speak of rationally by definition. How can you prove the difference between “not liking Hillary because she’s Hillary” and “not liking Hillary because she’s a woman playing a man’s game”? You can’t, because every individual is different.
Dianne Feinstein, for example, is much more Presidential in demeanour than all of the current male candidates, and if she were running, a Christopher Hitchens barb (”aging, resentful female”) would be impossible. Her very persona and grand physical presence would simply neutralize and deflect any possible sexism directed her way. And ain’t she a woman?
Comment by diana —
January 12, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
PS, let’s not forget blogging like this:
“A baby plays with a cobra. All resemblances to the Obama-Clinton fight are accidental”.
–Andrew Sullivan. (sorry, no link.) The Atlantic should be ashamed to pay this hack.
Comment by Nell —
January 12, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
reasons why Hillary’s gender specifically has put her in the same electoral position as . . . all the other candidates.
In fact, in a better electoral position than most of the other candidates, if national and upcoming-primary polls are taken into account.
Comment by Eric Scharf —
January 12, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
What I wrote strikes me as an Imitation Matthew Yglesias Post for some reason.
Your post lacks signifying typos. Resisting the Daum-Dem-Drum-dumb possibilities, I propose:
“I think of myself as a liberal and I don’t like the female candidate so I feel quilty.”
(Go Hawks!)
Comment by bdr —
January 12, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
It’s a good thing Mitt Romney doesn’t seem desperate to be president, cause then he’d really be icky.
Good thing he can pee standing up!
Comment by First Little Pig —
January 12, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Perhaps it’s the whole “empire” thing. Nice parochial social democracies can have distaff titular heads… but New Rome cannot be lead by Caesar’s sister.
Britain held off until the sun finally set somewhere on the Empire….. Of course Maggie had more balls than 80% of the male candidates we have up.