The Real Sexism in this Campaign.

[last1standing]

I've seen plenty of my fellow Obama supporters stating that there's no sexism at play in this election but I've never agreed with them.

I've seen plenty of Clinton supporters stating that most Obama supporters are sexist and I've certainly never agreed with that.

I think the real sexism running rampant in this campaign happened six years ago when Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution against her better judgment and against her previously stated beliefs. She voted for IWR because she felt that a woman couldn't be seen as weak on military issues and have a chance at the presidency. She became a hawk on military matters even though that ran not only against her beliefs but against the beliefs of her constituency, the state of New York.

The problem is, I can fully understand why she did it. She's an ambitious person, like most politicians. She had a goal that she felt could only be obtained by voting for a bill she didn't honestly agree with. I'm sure she, like most people at the time, thought the war would be quick and precise, with little bloodshed.

None of this excuses her vote, but it does provide a glimpse into the cost of real sexism. If Clinton had voted her conscience, instead of pandering to the bigotry of sexism, she would likely be the Democratic nominee at this moment. Unfortunately, she made an incredible lapse in judgment that has helped cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and the perpetual misery of untold millions.

Very few of those who support Obama over Clinton are sexists just as very few who support Clinton over Obama are racists.

The real sexism is what caused a good person to support a war she never honestly believed in.

And the cost of that sexism is steep.

[polichick]

1. I absolutely agree! Hillary knew what she was doing with that vote...

...and it's sad for two reasons: the one you cited, and the fact that she'd risk the lives of Americans for her presidential ambitions.

My prediction (and I mean this in a caring, sisterhood kind of way): Hillary will hit rock bottom when her dream does not materialize ~ but, once she's allowed herself to get back in touch with her heart and soul, she'll write an amazing book that REALLY WILL make a difference to women.

[last1standing]

4. I think you're right.

There's a lot of good in Hillary that needs a chance to re-emerge. If it gets that chance she'll become a great elder statesperson for the country.

[SoCalDem]

11. Her committee choices/assignments were a tip-off

and the papers even announced it at the time.. She was running for president the instant she signed the papers to run for NY senator, and the papers pegged it..and with her committee assignments, they said it proved that she was out to "burnish" her resume for later..

No one can ever convince me that she was just itching to be a senator from a state she had never even lived in.. It was just a convenient way for her to start her presidential campaign..

[last1standing]

12. It was obvious when the Clinton's bought the house in NY.

She was always going to run for president and I think everyone knew it. That in itself was neither good nor bad, it just was.

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. There's an interesting truth in that. Hillary has encountered a lot of sexism.

But its subtle....It deals with, as you say, the unclear standard for what a female politician is supposed to be. I've seen Hillary attacked for things male politicians do all the time. Like the tears. She is held to a different standard. Did it this play into her IWR vote? You may be right. All that I know for sure is that whatever we want a female politician to be, she isn't it.

Note that this is beyond why she is losing, which deals with her policies like the IWR. I don't think sexism has cost her this thing, but it has been a real factor.

[ShortnFiery]

5. In 2003, HRC stated that her heroine was Margaret Thatcher.

Too bad she didn't follow Maggie's lead of *outperforming the boys* at their own game. I despise the political ideology of Ms. Thatcher, HOWEVER, I admire the fact that Ms. Thatcher never played "the gender card" NOR "rue about a double standard for women." Thatcher for all her horrific "warmongering" views, played political hardball without EVER baiting "the refs" (the M$M).

If HRC loses the Democratic Nomination it will have little to do with sexism. She's managed a piss poor campaign as well as thrash her "trustworthiness" with repeated demonstrations of duplicity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29977-2003Jul8.html

[last1standing]

6. If she loses it will have a lot to do with sexism.

The point of my post is that Clinton, herself, was the root of her own sexist victimhood. She made her decision on IWR and other military matters based on what she thought other people would think of a woman who seemed weak on defense. Because of this, she voted like a hawk instead of voting like the intelligent person she is.

No, that's not the only reason she's losing but it has certainly been a factor. There is a good percentage of the population who will never vote for someone who voted for IWR. Her sexist miscalculation cost her many votes.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. I think the OP has a pretty good analysis.

I agree completely that Hillary's loss stems from the IWR *in itself*. She was the right candidate to run if Iraq had turned out okay and Bush was decently popular, but neither of those things has happened. Yet confusion over how a woman president is supposed to act played in a great deal, certainly in how she has been treated, but perhaps more damagingly , how she herself chose to act. You mention Hillary running a piss poor campaign, which I suppose I agree with, but lets look a little deeper. Hillary's identity has been in question since day one, she's a blur. Unstable. "duplicitous" as you put it. If you really get right down to it, you see a woman who has no idea of who she's *supposed* to be, how she's supposed to act. Its easy to say she just should have been herself, but the reality we all know is that politicians project personas, and Hillary was never quite sure what her's was supposed to be. And that's rooted a lot in gender, I assure you.

[Avalux]

3. I see your point but think you shouldn't make assumptions about Hillary's conscience.

How do we know what is in her heart? How do we know she really isn't a hawk deep down underneath and her work in humanitarian issues isn't a show?

That's the problem with Hillary. We don't know what she's really like and what truly motivated her to cast that 'yea' vote.

[TahitiNut]

8. If there's anything more detestable than sexism and racism ...

... it's those who'd exploit those divisions for political (and economic) advantage rather than stand up for healing such divisions.

[last1standing]

10. I don't think she was exploiting sexism.

I think she fell victim to it in her own mind. I'm hoping this ends up as a political science lesson for all politicians. It's better to follow your beliefs than your beliefs of someone else.

[housewolf]

9. IMO, Hillary voted for the IWR because she BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD

Even Bill CLinton supported the war in 2003-2003 and stated that "we know that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" and regime-change in Iraq was stated policy of his administration since at least 1998. Hillary believed it too.

Plus, the RW'ers were mowing everybody down with their accusations of unpatriotism and "weakness on defense." I'm sure she was trying to stand up for the Democratic Party in an election year by trying to appear strong.

I offer this not as a defense of her actions but rather as an attempt to understand where her vote. I think the fact that she has never forsworn it speaks volumes - she believed the admin's propaganda and thinks she did the right thing at the time based on the info that she had at the time.

Of course, the fact that she did not read the NIE or research on her own as to opposing view also speaks volumnes...

[TahitiNut]

13. Along with all the other fools who watch Fox News, huh?

:rofl:

[last1standing]

15. To be fair, I thought Iraq had some WMDs.

Not many, but I thought they had some stashed away for self defense. I had no proof of that, of course. It was just a hunch and it still didn't make me think we should invade. I figured a few barrels of mustard gas left over from WWI would be unlikely to cause too much grief to anyone.

On the other hand, I never for a moment believed the bush* admin's claims of massive stockpiles and I'm sure Clinton didn't either.

[TahitiNut]

18. With all due respect, it just didn't wash ... particularly in the context of the other hype.

Maybe it's a sensibility drummed into me in the military. I don't know. But there was just no way to accept such a claim along with the "Saddam is a madman" claim and the fact that no such weaponry was deployed in Gulf War I NOR during the 10+ years Iraq was under siege by constant flyovers, "surgical" bombings, and the oil embargo. Add to that the weapons inspectors and the complete absence of an industrial infrastructure (and materials) which would be required not only for the manufacture of such weaponry, but for the storage, transport, deployment and disposal. NONE of that was present and the ludicrous and amateurish frauds were so patently ridiculous that it was clearly and unmistakably a concoction of lies aimed at creating a pretense for invasion. I, along with many others, marched in September 2002 in protest with certainty that it was a facade of lies - and many people who claim to have benn 'fooled' were clearly either not fooled or were eagerly fooled because they wanted to be fooled.

Even in the invasion, the ludicrous "precautions" taken by our military betray the fact that they didn't even believe it. Nor did any of Iraq's neighbors (the protection of whom were touted by the Cheney/Bush as one of the 'reasons' for invading) demonstrate any such belief. And you better betcha their intelligence would know.

Stated another way ... using the principle of "reasonable doubt" ... the reasonable doubt existed ONLY in the degree of certainty that they DIDN'T possess such weaponry and not in any fictitious certainty that they did.

FUD ... sheer, unadulterated FUD.


I also had the advantage of living in the San Francico Bay area at the time (and years leading up to it), but if I'd been embedded in the downriver muscle car, softball, and long neck crowd (yes, I once lived there), I might've been too awash in propaganda to think straight.
:silly:

[last1standing]

19. Of course it was all just a pretense for invasion.

But it wouldn't have surprised me to hear that some small amount of anthrax or something was found in some remote corner of the country. Remember, WMD has come to mean just about anything more dangerous than a whiffle bat where Iraq is concerned and most countries have at least a small stash of illegal weapons. Using the ridiculously lowered bar the bush* administration set, it was actually surprising they didn't find any.

Regardless, there was no legitimate reason to preemptively attack a sovereign nation based on any of the evidence provided by bush's* cronies. Clinton knew that as well as every other senator who voted for that war. We all knew it was a pretense and that's why millions of people around the world protested against it.

Unfortunately, we lost.

[last1standing]

14. I wouldn't disagree with any of that.

But many of those who though Saddam had WMDs were still against the war because they knew that he posed no threat, regardless. The Clintons knew that as well or Bill would have launched an attack during his terms.

My reason for calling her vote sexist is right in your post.

Plus, the RW'ers were mowing everybody down with their accusations of unpatriotism and "weakness on defense." I'm sure she was trying to stand up for the Democratic Party in an election year by trying to appear strong.

Clinton wasn't able to vote against IWR because she thought that as a woman it would make her look week on defense. It was her belief in other people's sexism that cast the "yea" vote, not her conscience.

[AtomicKitten]

16. In my world, political opportunism is the very WORST reason to vote YES for war.

I understand the why, I'm just repulsed by it and there's no putting that mess back in the bottle.

[last1standing]

17. I don't disagree.

I just wanted to put the whole "sexism" discussion onto the track where it really belongs. If people want to claim sexism, they need to look at the other side of it.

[last1standing]

20. Kicking for further comment.

:kick: