“Gloria Steinem wrote in the Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had ‘no masculinity to prove.’ But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran. Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama.”
By way of The House Next Door, Maureen Dowd ruminates on the (almost) Tear that Shook the Granite State. “Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.“
Last night I felt deflated, but I also thought that I had probably been getting carried away during the post-Iowa high anyway. This morning though, I was angry when thinking of everything the Clinton campaign has been throwing at Obama. Hillary warns about the bombings on Gordon Brown’s first day as Prime Minister: how is this different than what Cheney has said about Democrats and terror. Mark Penn asks if Obama ever dealt drugs: how is this different than Karl Rove saying that John McCain fathered a black child? Hillary overtly uses identity politics: how is this different that Huckabee calling himself a “Christian Leader.” I used to think that Bill Clinton got a raw deal during the 1990s from conservatives, but I can now see why the Clintons enrage so many people: They will use whatever gutter politics to win, the same kind of politics we object to so strongly when used by Republicans.
As regarding the debate that accusing Hillary of being “calculating” or “ambitious” is sexist or not, I think we should describe her as she is: Nixonian.
Did Steinem really think it was an apt analogy to say that “Achola Obama” would not get such a free ride as “Barack Obama” has — is she really blind to the fact that a black woman would have a tougher time than a black man or a white woman?
And I seem to recall that Hillary was the front-runner for over a year, contrary to the grandiose title of this editorial.
Yeah, the Steinem piece is myopic to the extreme, as the Noah article pointed out. See also Robert K.C. Johnson at HNN, and the comments there. Steinem is just wrong on a lot of levels.