Sexism and Hilary Clinton

by Ron Giusti, Political Writer

The idea is now being spread by Hilary Clinton’s top supporters and some in the press that the latest Clinton campaign was the victim of a vast sexist media bias, and that this contributed greatly to Hillary’s defeat. Katie Couric, the anchor of “CBS Evening News” makes this argument:

“Like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued - and accepted - role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media,”

Mark Aronchick Hilary’s finance co-chair also expressed this sentiment:

“A lot of the women, and not just the women, were very emotional about how she’d been treated during the campaign, the sexism, and wanted her not to yield,”

These lamentations miss the key point. This year’s media reaction to Hilary had little or nothing to do with her sex and everything to do with the kind of campaign she chose to run against Barack Obama. Sadly, her campaign often descended into pure slime.

Typical was Hilary’s response when asked if she thought Obama was a Muslim; “No, (pause) not that I know of.” Sweet. Then there was her outright lie that she had come under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as First Lady or her phony charge that Obama supported the policies of Ronald Reagan. And what about her attempts to remind voters that Obama really was a black guy by bringing up Reverend Wright again and again, long after Obama had renounced the preacher’s support?

The Clintons often used race against Obama. In debates, Hilary attempted to link Obama to Farrakhan, while Bill tried to trivialize Obama’s early primary victories in the South by telling reporters they were just a black thing. Late in the campaign, Hilary even spoke proudly of the support she was getting from “hard-working white Americans.”

Perhaps her worst moment was her claim in South Dakota (while running against the first serious black presidential candidate in American history) that it was smart for her to stay in the race despite Obama’s growing lead, because after all, JFK had been assassinated on the eve of claiming the nomination in 1968. Later, with typical Clintonian tastelessness, she apologized to the Kennedy family but not to Barack Obama, who must in some very private part of his soul wonder each morning if this is the day that some racist skin head takes his shot.

There was no sexist media conspiracy to bring down Hilary. There was rather an honest gut reaction on the part of commentators and columnists to a Presidential campaign that was both desperate and slimy in its conduct. Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review got it right:

“She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself, whether it was the Bosnian snipers or not conceding on the night of the final primaries....She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician and she was covered that way.”

Barack Obama beat Hilary because he ran a better campaign, putting a well organized effort on the ground in state after state and generating excitement in the caucus states which Hilary’s campaign ignored until it was too late. In the primaries, Obama’s demographic of African Americans, young people, independents, and college educated professionals matched Hilary’s demographic of older white blue collar voters and Hispanics. Part of the reason that the Super Delegates broke so decisively for Obama at the end was the genuine disgust many of them felt about the way Hilary’s campaign had been run.

Ironically, while successful in winning the nomination, it was probably Obama’s campaign that was most hurt by embedded prejudice. In Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana, Hilary used the Reverend Wright issue to paint Obama as being someone who stood outside of the American mainstream. This strategy paid off, enabling her to roll up huge margins among white working class voters. Exit polls show that 20% of the people who voted in Kentucky’s Democratic Primary were influenced by the issue of race. Within this group 90% voted for Clinton.

Beginning in April, as her chance for the nomination began to fade, Hilary and her surrogates started using the issue of gender, claiming that a sexist press was ganging up on her and attempting to force her out of the race early. This was an obvious effort by Hilary’s campaign to create a backlash among female voters and to create a legitimate reason for her to continue her campaign. This tactic, combined with her exploitation of the racial issue, gave Hilary victories in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Using claims of media bias in Presidential campaigns was first perfected by Richard Nixon when he successfully ran in 1968. Since then it has been a strategy usually employed by conservative Republicans. This year, the Clinton’s added the issue of gender to give this old tactic a new twist: run a brutal, slashing, ruthless campaign, then when the media reacts to the grime you rally your followers with loud claims that you are being victimized by a biased media. When this strategy failed to stop Hilary’s slide, the candidate and the people around her began to believe their own propaganda, as this gave their losing effort meaning and allowed them to play the role of bloodied martyrs to the feminist cause.

Ironically, had Hilary been able to somehow get beyond her guarded narcissism and run a campaign that revealed her feminine humanity, she might well have won the nomination and all the firsts that she so ardently desired to achieve. In the end, she never did take off the mask.