And to think, it only took 17 months....
So the primary season is finally over, with Senator Clinton having conceded in impressive fashion yesterday afternoon. In the wake of her concession, I find one item noteworthy, one that will certainly continue to be a thorn in Senator Obama's side as the build up to the general election proceeds. Senator Clinton implied, and her supporters will continue to maintain, that she lost in part because of sexism. There is probably a measure of truth to this among some of the electorate; however, I don't believe it is significant enough to have cost her the nomination. Let's go through a couple of points.
1) Sexism and bias toward Obama in the media - I don't think the media bias had anything to do with sexism. First of all, at the beginning of the primary campaigns, every single media member was ready to hand Clinton the nomination. Google it, YouTube it, whatever you like - MSNBC's Joe Scarborough even suggested Obama should throw in the towel before the campaigns started. If the subsequent coverage started favoring Obama, I think this is mainly due to the fact that media folks don't like the Clintons - the lies, the cloak and dagger secrecy, and the shady dealings of both President and Senator Clinton turned the media away from them years ago, and has little to do with sexism.
2) OK, so what about the electorate? - Here, I'm sure some sexism played a part, but I don't think it was enough to cost her the election. She was the front-runner, and by all accounts won the majority of votes in states where Obama had little recognition among a less-educated electorate. She lost because she ran a poor campaign, plain and simple, and did not anticipate that a candidate with a clear and concise message and a positive, powerful tone would capture the attention of a Bush-fatigued electorate. She acted like a front runner who expected to win just by showing up. In sports terms, she was the Patriots, showing up at the Super Bowl and expecting to win; Obama was the Giants, well-coached and well-prepared to stand up to the huge favorite. If she had been as magnanimous, as powerful, and as positive throughout the campaign as she was during her exit speech on Saturday, the results may have been different.
However, I'm sure her supporters will continue to play the sexism card. I'd love to hear all of your comments with regards to this.
As an addendum, here's a link to Maureen Dowd's June 8th column.
1) Sexism and bias toward Obama in the media - I don't think the media bias had anything to do with sexism. First of all, at the beginning of the primary campaigns, every single media member was ready to hand Clinton the nomination. Google it, YouTube it, whatever you like - MSNBC's Joe Scarborough even suggested Obama should throw in the towel before the campaigns started. If the subsequent coverage started favoring Obama, I think this is mainly due to the fact that media folks don't like the Clintons - the lies, the cloak and dagger secrecy, and the shady dealings of both President and Senator Clinton turned the media away from them years ago, and has little to do with sexism.
2) OK, so what about the electorate? - Here, I'm sure some sexism played a part, but I don't think it was enough to cost her the election. She was the front-runner, and by all accounts won the majority of votes in states where Obama had little recognition among a less-educated electorate. She lost because she ran a poor campaign, plain and simple, and did not anticipate that a candidate with a clear and concise message and a positive, powerful tone would capture the attention of a Bush-fatigued electorate. She acted like a front runner who expected to win just by showing up. In sports terms, she was the Patriots, showing up at the Super Bowl and expecting to win; Obama was the Giants, well-coached and well-prepared to stand up to the huge favorite. If she had been as magnanimous, as powerful, and as positive throughout the campaign as she was during her exit speech on Saturday, the results may have been different.
However, I'm sure her supporters will continue to play the sexism card. I'd love to hear all of your comments with regards to this.
As an addendum, here's a link to Maureen Dowd's June 8th column.
I think Clinton lost because of her being a Clinton. For some odd reason, lot of people harbor this seething, unhealthy hatred towards her and familiarity sort of breeds contempt.
Although some people were being sexist in a sub-conscious way. I met this desi doctor couple (no points for guessing which way they were leaning), whose main complaint about Hillary was that she seemed too "ambitious" and I was like, how is that a bad thing?
I am not a big fan of the "dream ticket". It's just an invitation for all the racists and sexists to combine forces.
Also, Maureen Dowd reads more like a closet republican nowadays. WTF is wrong with her?
RE: desi doctor couple - people are dumb. Actually, I think Hillary would've been a great presidential candidate, but she never planned a proper campaign, assuming there were no other qualified candidates. This will probably haunt her and Bill for a while, maybe Bill more so.
I think most media types sell out their own beliefs to adopt some ideology so they can make money. I don't think Billo and Rush really believe the swill they shell, but the idiots who follow their programs do, and consequently their ratings go through the roof.