Petey seems to think that I'll be scared to mention this article about Hillary and misogyny, though it's not exactly clear why that would be. For most of the nomination battle, I leaned Edwards, and for some of it, I favored Hillary. I was actually relatively unimpressed with Obama till he actually proved his electoral appeal in the snows of Iowa. Put another way, there's an idea out there that anyone who doesn't think the superdelegates should sweep in with a counter-majoritarian decision that anoints the candidate who's won fewer pledged delegates has been some sort of implacable enemy to her candidacy. It's untrue. Moreover, some who are now ardent Hillary supporters, like Petey, were once deeply hostile to her candidacy (and my colleagues still remember being called "Clinton hacks" because they were occasionally sympathetic). The primary has been a long ride, and allegiances have proven fairly fluid.But as it's come down to two candidates and dragged into a grueling battle between them, what were once weak preferences seem to have hardened into tribal loyalties, complete with a list of grievances, enemies, and plans for insurgent warfare in case of defeat. Petey, for instance, links to this New York Magazine article on what Clinton's candidacy has shown about latent misogyny and the actual condition of feminism in this country. It's a smart piece, and should be read widely. But insofar as Petey's suggesting that all challenges to Clinton's candidacy have come from sexism, it's an odd and ill-fitting narrative. It's not hard to imagine why a candidate who voted for the Iraq War and refused to apologize has met with hostility among segments of the Democratic base. Nor is it rare for an establishment candidate with tight links to the party's centrist wing and a unique interconnection with its moneyed interests to face a powerful insurgent challenge. Now, take that same candidate, and give the insurgent substantial appeal to African-Americans, the traditional bulwark against wine track renegades, and it's easy to predict trouble for the establishment choice. ASSIGNMENT DESK: HILLARY AND THE FEMINIST NARRATIVE.
Petey seems to think that I'll be scared to mention this article about Hillary and misogyny, though it's not exactly clear why that would be. For most of the nomination battle, I leaned Edwards, and for some of it, I favored Hillary. I was actually relatively unimpressed with Obama till he actually proved his electoral appeal in the snows of Iowa. Put another way, there's an idea out there that anyone who doesn't think the superdelegates should sweep in with a counter-majoritarian decision that anoints the candidate who's won fewer pledged delegates has been some sort of implacable enemy to her candidacy. It's untrue. Moreover, some who are now ardent Hillary supporters, like Petey, were once deeply hostile to her candidacy (and my colleagues still remember being called "Clinton hacks" because they were occasionally sympathetic). The primary has been a long ride, and allegiances have proven fairly fluid.But as it's come down to two candidates and dragged into a grueling battle between them, what were once weak preferences seem to have hardened into tribal loyalties, complete with a list of grievances, enemies, and plans for insurgent warfare in case of defeat. Petey, for instance, links to this New York Magazine article on what Clinton's candidacy has shown about latent misogyny and the actual condition of feminism in this country. It's a smart piece, and should be read widely. But insofar as Petey's suggesting that all challenges to Clinton's candidacy have come from sexism, it's an odd and ill-fitting narrative. It's not hard to imagine why a candidate who voted for the Iraq War and refused to apologize has met with hostility among segments of the Democratic base. Nor is it rare for an establishment candidate with tight links to the party's centrist wing and a unique interconnection with its moneyed interests to face a powerful insurgent challenge. Now, take that same candidate, and give the insurgent substantial appeal to African-Americans, the traditional bulwark against wine track renegades, and it's easy to predict trouble for the establishment choice. 
