I find the cause-and-effect relationship implied to Sen. Clinton's failure to win the votes needed for the nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency to sexism (genderism, really) problematic. There is absolutely no doubt that gender bias exists and some people decided not to vote for her because of that. Is it not also true that racism exists and some people (I saw some video evidence of it) were very clear about not voting for a black man? How is it that Senator Clinton was 20 to 40 points ahead of Sen. Obama when the race started, even just before Iowa? Did that reflect just her women supporters? It is only when the debate began that Sen. Clinton started to lose ground. I am sure it should be possible to figure out what percentage of men and women voted for whom; that should be some empirical measure of genderism’s influence in this election. Similar analysis is possible to get some indication of the role of racism as well. True, numbers do not tell the whole story, but it is a pretty good substitute for speculation.
Most people I know, men and women, but progressive liberals, did not vote for and campaigned against her because of her politics. We view her as a closet neoconservative. If there is one single reason why she lost, it is her support of the Iraq war, buttressed by her pronouncement that if necessary, she would obliterate Iran. She really missed the mood of the country, a rejection of America’s unpalatable place in the world today; this is her other major failure. Sen. Obama, on the other hand understood very well what the new attitude in the country is, and has indicated that he will do his darnedest to change that. He will try at least, and that is all we ask; how successful he will be, that is another question.
Chevy Chase, MD
Jun 6 2008 - 12:32pm