Monday, January 7th, 2008...7:36 am
Oh, Puh-leeze…
Last week, Hillary Clinton claimed that women were somehow disadvantaged in the caucus process and this would make it difficult for her legions of female supporters to come out and caucus for her. This may have just been pre-caucus spin in the hopes of down playing an expected loss.
This was ridiculous given that in the 2004 caucus, 54% of Iowa caucus goers were women. This time, 57% of caucus goers were women. It would be hard to argue that women are intimidated by the process if they keep showing up in larger numbers than the men do. Also, Clinton failed to get a plurality of the women’s vote, losing it 35-30 to Barack Obama.
But what disturbs me the most is that it looked like Clinton was falling back on the old “Oh, we women are so weak and easily intimidated…” saw that should have gone out of style when Ozzie and Harriet went off the air. It is silly and offensive to say that women aren’t able to stand up in front of their neighbors and express their political views. You’d think that her own political career would be evidence of that.
7 Comments
January 7th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Probably should check the privilege here. Look at the uproar over Hillary supposedly “losing it” in the debate:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9421
Saying “there’s no sexism in politics, look at this one solitary example of a woman running for office!” is privilege speaking.
If it were as easy for women to express political views without being marginalized as you say, then why is it that we have one woman running against a dozen men?
January 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
As a strong woman myself, I would request that men refrain from deconstructing both a strong political woman’s motives, and the political realities that most women feel on a daily basis. Hilary may have been stretching it a bit, but her premise is still valid. What you are missing here as well in your analysis are the additional barriers of race, class, and caretaker status of women when they attempt any leadership or organizaiton position. I am no supporter of Hilary for president, but she has my admiration nontheless.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Deconstruction or not, I don’t think her premise is valid at all. She lost because many women voted for Obama.
The biggest problem was her campaign. Iowa caucuses benefit those with a great organization and those who excite people to come out. She was SUPPOSED to have the better organization and it appears that she was out organized. It is also clear that she was out excited by Obama and Edwards.
I said this early, but Obama’s win was major. He far exceeded expectations, he beat the front-runner pretty badly, and the person who came in second will bleed support to him over her.
Hillary only has a chance of winning the nomination now if she wins NH tomorrow or is something really terrible happens to Obama or his campaign. His bump has been significant, she cannot afford another loss, and a win by him will only bump him up further.
Hillary is impressive, no question. I am more impressed with the leadership of Obama however. Tomorrow is a big big deal. She can get it back if she wins, but if she doesn’t it will sadly get worse for her campaign more quickly.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Oh, and Kiva, it appears that it has been Hillary’s campaign doing the attacking of Obama, not so much him attacking her. When you attack you can score points but you also risk going overboard and doing yourself damage. That has nothing to do with sexism, it is about tactics falling flat or not working when desperation time is afoot.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Here is quite another reason why I think Hillary’s campaign is starting to fall apart. It’s arrogance…obviously this is not her…but a major supporter in New Hampshire. I found this offensive and frankly, if it is emblamatic of what people in her campaign think of young people, then she deserves to lose.
Quote from yesterdays major story in the Washington Post about her campaign in New Hampshire:
“Mary Louise Hancock, the 87-year-old grande dame of the state’s Democrats, said she “resented” that independent voters were poised to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary, saying it turned the vote into a “personal-liking affair” dominated by “students and the trendies.”
Many of those students and trendies are democrats. They have been taken for granted. She didn’t win when most voters in Iowa were Democrats. She more than anyone knows that independents…and especially young people…are what it will take to win this election in 2008.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
As a woman, I’m frankly insulted by Senator Clinton’s paternalistic attitude.
While not in her camp, I have so far admired her and her campaign for fighting the good fight in an historic election. This, however, is truly tasteless. “They would rather just keep their vote to themselves”?? Not me… I happen to support Barack Obama for president, and I’m happy to shout it from the rooftops!
I don’t think that makes me so very different from the other women in this country. Surely women have not become CEOs of major corporations and even taken over the role of Speaker of the House because we have a bad habit of keeping our opinions to ourselves.
On the contrary, I believe women made their voices heard decisively in Iowa, and will continue to do so throughout the primary season.
Senator Clinton, as I woman I would like to say please STOP playing the gender card so much… it’s unbecoming and it undermines the gains we’ve already been making, both in politics and life in general!
January 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Playing the gender card is insulting and politically stupid–the person playing it looks weak when doing so. Saying that women would rather keep their votes to themselves–GET OVER IT. [Personally, I think that the non-secret voting of the caucus system is not good for men or women, but that’s what Iowa has–at least for now. ] Defensiveness and excuse-making are not indicative of leadership.
Leave a Reply