To be clear, I am a woman, and a feminist, and caught between the official ages of female Obama supporters and female Clinton supporters (late 40s.)
I have never been a fan of either of the Clintons, and have loathed Hillary Clinton since her carpetbagger win of the NY Senate seat, based on her twin strengths of her husband's connections and her claims to victimhood -- despite all the evidence that she had known and accepted her husband's philandering for decades, and aggressively demonized the usually disempowered (by virtue of age, income, education or sometimes all three) women he preyed upon. These are not the actions or values of a feminist.
Now, at the end of a Presidential run where she started out the front runner (again primarily due to power and money accrued through her husband, and the sympathy of women earned by her claims of victimhood), was given glowing press as the front runner for months, aggressively sought to block all possible challengers (remember the threats to donors that they could NOT give to anyone else?), and then finally fell to a challenger who ran a superior campaign, raised money through unconventional channels, and better reflected the will of the electorate -- and she STILL came in a close second -- she and her "feminist" supporters are claiming her biggest problem was that darned sexist media, and the horrible sexism in our country.
This is patently untrue, and poisonous to the furtherance of female candidates in the future.
I'm not claiming that the media and the culture are not sexist -- I used to work in the film business. I know there's plenty of sexism out there. But let's get real. Her challenger had to have early, extra heavy secret service protection because of the color of his skin. He has never ONCE vented publicly about it. People in West Virginia are on record as saying things like "let's hang that darky from a tree" (that's a paraphrase.) The only known overt sexism is from two guys with silly signs, and there's some evidence that they were planted by the Clinton campaign (who had already been caught planting questions at public forums.)
Are there people who refused to vote for Mrs. Clinton because she's a woman? I'm sure there are. But it is unhelpful and dishonest to focus on that. If she had run a competent campaign -- if she had legitimate executive experience -- if she had been the right candidate for the moment -- she probably would have won.
A major problem female candidates have is that the entrenched power interests won't bankroll them. Mrs. Clinton being seen as a surrogate for her husband got around that problem. But the Obama campaign provides a template for truly feminist candidates -- candidates who are both female and embody and pursue feminist values and policies, as Mrs. Clinton does not. This year has laid the groundwork for a woman to run and win. For feminists, it is good news. For women, it is good news. For progressives, it is good news.
The female Clinton supporters currently flooding the media claiming it's all about sexism are doing more than just missing the point. If they achieve their goal of influencing and setting the conventional wisdom on the outcome of this race, they will make it more difficult for other women to launch successful Presidential campaigns. How feminist is that?
I would really like it if they could act like grown-ups, acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton, her husband, and her staff made mistakes, take a moment to glory in the fact that Mrs. Clinton got further than any female candidate in American history, and then get to work electing a male feminist candidate in a partnership marriage, who will protect the values that these feminists hold dear -- if indeed, they haven't lost sight completely of the values they espouse.
Sorry; this is my first diary,and I'm pounding it out in a fury before going back to work on a project that's on deadline. But this issue is really bothering me, so I had to share. And I think frank discussion in the blogophere could help keep this meme from setting in stone.
Thanks.