Time to start throwing tomatoes at this vaudevillian shite.

Saturday, May 24th, 2008 @ 3:58 pm | Clintonitis, Disappointing Dems, Election crap, Women

We sure would like to move on with the election to Obama smacking McCain around, but somebody keeps insisting it isn’t over yet…though we’ll be blamed and attacked for listening to her, the question must eventually be answered: When is Hillary Clinton responsible for her own actions?

Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want.

Instead, she’s throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war.

I can’t imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither.

Feminists should document and take note where Hillary Clinton was subjected to sexism, but this woman is not a victim. She lost on the merits and plenty of women know it too. To be judged on one’s merits rather than one’s sex…what more could one ask for? Hillary’s work for female equality has been done, and if she doesn’t exit quickly and reasonably and unite behind Obama, she risks doing more harm than good for the cause.

-jb

4 Responses to “Time to start throwing tomatoes at this vaudevillian shite.”

  1. ellen Says:

    It has been mentioned on here several times how unfortunate it is that two monumental trail-blazers have been pitted against each other for the nomination.

    It’s not happenstance that we would finally have the first strong female candidate and the first strong black candidate in the same race: America is desperate for change from the current administration and willing to go to historical extremes to get it. God knows we’ve been disappointed enough by the prickish pasties that have held the position up ’til now.

    I know I’m not telling you guys anything you don’t already know. My question is this: If HRC had backed out when things started going downhill, don’t you think she would have been chastised for not representing feminism like she should by not taking it all the way? There’s added pressure on both of these candidates to bring on huge change in our society. How can she step down without looking like she’s abandoning the cause? I’m not a Hillary fan personally, but this has to be executed perfectly if women are to have any credibility in future politics.

  2. Thomas Tallis Says:

    Feminists should document and take note where Hillary Clinton was subjected to sexism, but this woman is not a victim

    I think that you minimize the depths of the attacks. One of my favorite blogs, the Obama-supporting Feminist Law Professors, has this, which you might read with an open mind:

    http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=3577

  3. jeromy Says:

    TT: I appreciate the documentation and, again, say it is good to talk about it where it happened.

    What I am done abiding, however, is talk of “minimizing” from people who cannot seem to factor in the facts that Hillary came in on top, barnstormed over several men, and only met her match in a black man who she was all too happy to play the race card against. Yes, he’s a man, but you can be sure that if Hillary had won there’d be just as much temptation to see her whiteness as being overpowering (and it hasn’t failed for a lack of trying on her part).

    Again, “…while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination.” Hillary made enough mistakes to end five candidacies.

    And that’s what the point is now: her behavior has sunk even lower than thought possible, and she’s only making the case that she’s temperamentally unfit for the presidency. A discussion of sexism is important, but not as a distraction or excuse for clear and obvious failings that would condemn any man just as quickly (and which have sullied Bill Clinton’s reputation just as badly).

    The presidency really almost was Hillary’s to claim, but she expected to waltz home with it. While Barack Obama never underestimated her, she sure as hell underestimated him.

  4. jeromy Says:

    Ellen: Surely your point is valid, Hillary did have to give it her best for the cause. She didn’t need to back out when things started going downhill, which would have been right after Iowa. After Barack’s 11 state string of victories, however, the math was already against her. She made a case for holding out and seeing if Barack could really withstand the heat as a general election candidate, but unfortunately for her he could.

    However debatable it has been, it is certain now that Hillary has definitely overstepped the line. The Wright debacle failed to sink Obama, and she’s had nothing left except to talk about “hardworking white Americans” and make gaffes that suggest to people she’s waiting around just in case somebody blows Barack’s head off. Again, my point is that a graceful, dignified exit and a consolidation behind Obama would be expected from any candidate by this point, and any claim that she’s still going for the cause of feminism will only damage it.