Evidence against the sexism argument
Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:20:28 PM PDT
First, let me state that I agree with Hillary Clinton's supporters that there has been a certain degree of sexism in the media coverage of her campaign. While in the mainstream media it has mostly been unintentional sexism (i.e., the stories about whether her blouse was showing too much cleavage, which I don't think was meant to demean her as a woman but was just an example of the media looking to sensationalise anything they can), there has been a great deal of blatant sexism coming from the right wing media for years (let us not forget Rush's "Hillary Clinton Testicle Lockbox" or Tucker Carlson speaking of feeling emasculated by her speaking voice). And yes, Chris Matthews has been a pig at times.
There is a logical fallacy often written in latin as "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", or "after this, therefore because of this," and I believe that is what is going on here. Just because there has been some sexism in the coverage of this campaign does not mean that it prevented Hillary from winning. So join me after the jump for a comparison of public service resumes that I feel argues pretty strongly against the "sexism did Hillary in" argument.
If sexism were the true reason that Hillary is not our nominee, then why is she the last one standing against Obama? I would like to argue that running as a first time candidate she beat out six of the seven men in a field of candidates who could all have been a strong candidate against John McCain (well, maybe not Gravel, but even he might have won on the "I'm a friendlier grandpa than McCain" angle).
(note: I have rounded ages based on the year of birth. if anything I've listed here is incorrect or imcomplete, I'd welcome corrections).
Here, based entirely on information I could get from wikipedia, are the public service records of the eight candidates who made it as far as the Iowa caucuses. I have not inlcluded all of their other experience because, well, it just gets too complicated. I will acknowledge that Hillary did have years of experience as a lawyer before she became Arkansas first lady, but Edwards had 20 years also, and many of the others had plenty of other life experiences as well. So let's just look at their records of public service:
Joe Biden
Age: 66
US Senator for 35 years
Chair/ranking member Judiciary Committee 1981-1997
Chair/ranking member Foreign Relations Committee 1997-2003
Has run for president four times
Hillary Clinton
Age: 61
First lady of Arkansas for 12 years
First lady of United States for 8 years
US Senator for 7 years
Chris Dodd
Age: 64
US Representative for 6 years
US Senator for 27 years
John Edwards
Age: 55
US Senator for 6 years
Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2004
Has run for president two times
Mike Gravel
Age: 78
Alaska State Representative for 4 years
US Senator for 12 years
Dennis Kucinich
Age: 62
Mayor of Cleveland for 2 years
Cleveland City Council member for 2 years
Ohio State Senator for 2 years
US Representative for 11 years
Has run for president two times
Barack Obama
Age: 47
Illinois State Senator for 8 years
US Senator for 3 years
Bill Richardson
Age: 61
US Representative for 14 years
US Ambassador to the UN for 2 years
US Secretary of Energy for 2 years
Governor of New Mexico for 5 years
Now, there are two ways we could read this if we're trying to say who "deserves" to be president the most. I say that because it seems to me that the feelings of offense being expressed by Clinton supporters who feel she was "robbed" due to sexism come across very strongly as "Hillary has worked hard her whole life and she deserves to be president now."
One way, is if we include only years of official service (elected or appointed). Based on that, here is the order:
Joe Biden - 35 years +++
Chris Dodd - 33 years
Bill Richardson - 23 years
Dennis Kucinich - 17 years +
Mike Gravel - 16 years
Barack Obama - 11 years
Hillary Clinton - 7 years
John Edwards - 6 years +
(I gave a + for each additional run for president or commitee chairmanship)
Or, similarly, if we took "experience" to mean raw life experience (i.e. age)
Mike Gravel - 78
Joe Biden - 66
Chris Dodd - 64
Dennis Kucinich - 62
Bill Richardson - 61
Hillary Clinton - 61
John Edwards - 56
Barack Obama - 47
Based on that, it would seem that the true bias in the media is toward the newest candidates, either in terms of political lifespan or actual lifespan.
If we include Hillary's years as first lady in the list, as her supporters do
Joe Biden - 35 years +++
Chris Dodd - 33 years
Hillary Clinton - 27 years
Bill Richardson - 23 years
Dennis Kucinich - 17 years +
Mike Gravel - 16 years
Barack Obama - 11 years
John Edwards - 6 years +
That certainly pushes her up the list, but it still doesn't explain why she would beat out Biden and Dodd, if sexism were the cause.
I know that some Clinton supporters will take the list I've given above and say it's "proof" that Obama does not have the experience to be president. I would say that the fact that he has run such a brilliant campaign and is winning the race rather prooves something else. But that's an argument for another time.
Hillary Clinton was one candidate out of eight. The fact that she came in 2nd out of this field--many of whom have had much more hands-on direct experience in national and international affairs--pretty much kills the argument that sexism held her back.
Hillary was the first female candidate with a legitimate chance of winning, in a year when the Democratic party was blessed with an abundance of great candidates. I really wish that women could see what a success her campaign has been for women, and realise what it means for the prospects of a woman president in the very near future.
Permalink | 14 comments