Reply #35: There was a very nice prominent story in the NYT - can't get more MSM than that

[karynnj]

It was also in my local paper - and it's a nice story.

The fact is that no one, other than the Clinton people in their claims of what was said, ever said either Clinton was racist. What was said by Obama supporters was that at times, the Clintons played the "race card". Saying that is not equivalent to saying they are racist.

In fact, I think HRC played the gender card more. In the NH debate, she said that electing her would be change in and of itself, because she was a woman. Think what that means. To me it implicitly sends a message - a woman, by virtue of her gender, would create change. Now, I have always thought that political change is defined in terms of issues and positions. Assuming that just being a woman means that she would create a difference in policy or the political culture IS exactly the sentiment that once were used negatively to hold women back from the tops of many professions. (I am of HRC's generation - and I saw this argument go from very strong to almost never made - and that was an important, good shift.)

This was exasperated by the worst of her supporters who attacked the "woman's issue credentials" of every politician - no matter how strong his (or her) record really was. The worst was the NOW response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement. That HRC - with the media following in tow - ended the campaign essentially defining herself as a feminist, who hordes of women were supporting and who would be shattered if she was not selected left a bad taste in my mouth. That last week, she said she will be speaking of the sexism in the campaign is not a good sign. HRC did not lose because she was a woman - she started with nearly 50% of Democrats, far more than needed to win the primaries. She had that level of support and her gender was not a surprise - it was a universally known fact. Polls showed that a huge majority( I think over 80%) of Democrats said they would have no problem electing a woman. What happened to that lead? Some left because seeing more of other candidates, they preferred another. Some left unhappy with something HRC did.

The reality is that it might just be that there were enough reasons - different ones for different people - for why not to vote for her. Had there been a candidate who was female but had all the experience and the positions of the man who was my first choice, I would have been first in line (unless someone beat me) to support her. Not because she was a woman - though that first would be good - but for all the reasons I backed the real male politician.