As I watch the countless Clinton supporters claim that the cause of her defeat is sexism, I find myself in agreement, but not in a way that I think they will like. I believe that Hillary has lost the nomination first and foremost because of one reason – she voted for the Resolution authorizing the Iraq War. I say this based upon my instinct that despite a poorly run campaign, despite Mark Penn, despite all of her other missteps, she had overwhelming name recognition, money and party support. She also had, until 2002, a great deal of support (some of grudgingly given) from the activist wing of the party. I voted for her for Senate in 2000 and was happy when she won – it was one of the few bright spots of that election. When she ran for re-election in 2006, I voted for the Green party candidate. Why? Her vote on the War.
Why then, am I bringing this up in a diary about sexism? Maybe I am wrong, but here is why? I believe that she voted for the War out of an internalized sexist view that as a woman with Presidential ambitions she felt she had to. To be President, is to be Commander-in-chief. I strongly suspect that she felt that America was more sexist, than I believe it is, and that for a woman to pass the Commander-in-chief test, she needed to be tougher than any man on national security. Thus, I believe that she felt she had to show that toughness, that willingness to go to war, in order to ever have a chance at being President.
I admit that I could be wrong, and that HRC actually believed in the War Resolution. However, considering her back and forth explanations of the vote, which make little sense, I do not believe her claim that she was voting for diplomacy. Thus I am left with either accepting the explanation I gave above, or rethinking my view of her and putting her in the neo-con wing of American Politics. I see no other explanation. As I cannot believe that she actually thought the war was a good idea, I view her vote as a purely political one, and indeed a purely sexist one.