You know, all this hand-wringing about young women’s alleged alienation from second-wave feminists would have a lot more saliency if Hillary Clinton were not a representative of the New Democratic wing of the party, if her campaign staff and advisers were not dominated by veterans of her husband’s campaigns, if she were not running a racially polarizing campaign, if she didn’t have severe electability issues (high negatives, issues with the truth), and if she could plausibly represent change and non-elitism after living for eight years in the White House.
People are simply voting against Clinton for other reasons than that she is a woman. Nearly every Obama supporter sees Clinton’s gender as a plus and would be pleased to vote for a woman for president. They are voting against Clinton either because they are inspired by Obama, or because they are progressives that oppose Clintonism, or because they can’t stand her advisers, or because they have been alienated by her campaign’s rhetoric, or because they believe in Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, or because they look at Clinton’s negatives and vulnerabilities and conclude she is less electable, or because they are just plain sick of the partisan bickering of the 1990’s and don’t want to live in a political climate where Bill Clinton’s penis is a constant source of speculation.
I’ve met a few people at bars over the last two years that have openly admitted that they would never vote for a woman…any woman. They weren’t Democrats and most of them won’t vote for a black guy either. I’m not saying that Clinton hasn’t been the recipient of some misogynistic rhetoric from political commentators. But none of it has come from the Obama campaign.
Clinton’s problem is not that she is a woman but that, for a whole host of reasons, she is a flawed candidate. Rejecting her is in no way a rejection of feminism.
