When did women become so pessimistic?

Cool article on Slate this morning that laments the bullshit cries that there will not be another viable female candidate for the Presidency for a generation or more, that somehow Hilary Clinton is the only real hope for a female president now, and that mostly because she was lucky enough to be married to a president. And this article was written by — wait for it — that’s right, a woman. What is most lamentable is that this opinion is being pushed mostly by other women. What the fuck? Can they see nothing positive in Hilary’s presidential run, even if she does not ultimately win the nomination?

Well, the author of the piece, Dahlia Lithwick, apparently can:

We all know these double standards exist for females in public life—voters demand toughness but not bitchiness, confidence but not shrillness, authenticity but also glamour. If the Clinton candidacy has taught us anything, however, it’s that a woman can straddle all those irreconcilable demands and still win. She can win more than 16 million votes in the primaries and around 1,779 delegates. Clinton has shown that a woman can win huge at the ballot box and bring in huge money, and even if Obama ultimately secures the nomination, those facts will not change. Faced with all that evidence of success, how do the naysayers prove it can never be repeated?

In fact, the naysayers can not prove that “it can never be repeated” because you can’t prove a negative, but apparently this hasn’t stopped some from trying, and in the process are undercutting the accomplishments of their candidate:

They argue that Clinton had a legitimate shot at the presidency only because she represented a once-in-a-lifetime lightening strike of marriage, fame, and experience that is not only unique to her but that will die with her failed nomination. Silva quotes commentators who have argued that “only Clinton, a former first lady in an administration that presided over eight prosperous years and a second-term senator who has established her own credentials, could have achieved the successes she has this year.” Zernike’s experts echo this: “Mrs. Clinton had such an unusual combination of experience and name recognition that she might actually raise the bar for women.” Under this theory, Clinton was never really a strong woman candidate; she was just the lucky one who’d married a future president.

There was at least much calculation as luck involved in Senator Clinton’s bid for the presidency. Anyone who says otherwise is either fucking blind or stupid. You don’t have to be a political junkie to see that. But what if it wasn’t calculated? What’s the possibility of a woman candidate throwing her hat in the ring, just to see how she’d fair, only to suddenly find a ground swell of support that lifts her to forefront of the pack and finally as the nominee? You know, sort of like what happened to, oh, say, Obama. Well, according to Dee Dee Meyers… “[n]o woman with Obama’s résumé could run.” Way to believe there Dee Dee.

One of the main naysayer claims is that the overt and overwhelming sexism that played out in this campaign will discourage another female from running for president. First of all, I agree with Lithwick. Why would this be so? Lithwick points to the sexism against Elizabeth Dole’s 2000 bid for the Republican nomination yet somehow that did not dissuade Clinton from running.

Of coures, there was plenty of sexist mudslinging in this campaign, but there was plenty of racial bullshit as well, and by  no less thatn Mr. Clinton himself. The dude race-bated in South Carolina. He didn’t miss-speak. He wasn’t misunderstood. It was clear. Anyone who claims otherwise is crazy as the Cajun rat man, James Carville. And then, on a radio show, Clinton claimed that race card had been played against him. What the fuck?  But if sexism is such an issue in this race then how is it that Clinton is getting so much support from working class white guys? It sure as shit isn’t because they’re wives are telling them how fucking vote for.

No. Utlimately Hilary’s problems less from sexism than from Clintonism. Enough people are sick of the Clintons. And her inability to take this fact more seriously has hurt her. That and her overwhelming sense of self-entilement. She should have cast herself as the underdog years ago, and acted accordingly. But she did not do that. She, and her staff, assumed this thing would be done come Super Tuesday at the latest. So they did not plan past that day. They were not prepared. They underestimated Barack Obama and his supporters. She and her supporters should take a closer look at that fact and see how the next they can keep from allowing it to happen again. And if Hilary and her legion refuse to, then might one suggest that the other qualified female candidates do.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s