Of late Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been crying foul over alleged sexism directed at the New York senator. But is that really what’s broken the back of her once-promising campaign? Andrew Stephen says it is and blames media bias for causing her defeat. But is Hillary’s real problem simply that she’s a Clinton? Or was she simply out-thought and out-fought by the Obama campaign?
Being Bill Clinton’s wife did not help Hillary during this year’s primaries. How could it when the former president repeatedly made an arse of himself in print and in front of the cameras? He didn’t have a big upside to begin with, even before he started talking. The problems started when he reminded Americans that he’d be back in the White House if Hillary won the nomination and the general election. This mistake resulted in the key phrase of the early primaries: Clinton Fatigue.
Hillary’s effort was also hurt by the seemingly constant tinkering with her message and campaign staff. It was clear early on that her campaign was not running smoothly simply. There were too many changes and reverses of field, too many comings and goings. It all smacked of desperation, even before things got desperate.
At my day job I work with a woman whose opinion I respect. Her take on Hillary Clinton is that she’s a politician and not a leader. And not a woman who is exceptional enough to lead a nation the way that Margaret Thatcher was. The sexism argument doesn’t completely wash with her. Too many people in the Democratic party despise the Clintons and were/are determined not to let them take control of the party again. How could they stop that from happening? By manufacturing a Clinton-killing candidate.
When Barack Obama was running for the U.S. Senate it was obvious that he was going to crush Alan Keyes like a bug. Even though he’d never held any sort of national public office, people were already talking about him as a presidential candidate. I ignored this because I knew that this Obama upstart, whoever he was, would have to pay his dues for years before that could ever happen. Wrong, obviously.
My friend says that’s the explanation for Barack Obama’s meteoric rise to the top of the Democratic party. He was sought after, found, recruited, and vaulted to prominence with one purpose in mind: to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primaries.
To which all I can say is, "Wow." I can’t really believe that. But if the goal of some Democrats was to defeat Hillary Clinton, they would need a special candidate. Another woman, perhaps, though no other female Democrat compares well to Hillary. If a male, the candidate would have to be a minority, hence Obama. Her theory, while Machiavellian, makes a certain amount of sense.
My own two-fold theory is simpler. First, being a Clinton is a double-edged sword and Hillary was cut down to size by the very thing that made her candidacy viable: her name. Clinton Fatigue is the disease that doomed her. Second, Stephen is right, in part. I offer as proof my wife, who says that she could never vote for a woman as president. Too many hormones, too much power.
On the contrary, I think that most Americans could accept a woman as president if she were right for the job. But the fact is that too many people feel that Hillary is not that woman. That’s not sexism, that’s reality. That’s unfortunate too. Despite her liabilities, Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Barack Obama.