Tom, I take your point about Clinton campaign finger-pointing at Patti Solis Doyle, and it’s an important one. But who is the rest of your post on Hillary and sexism targeted toward? After all, the vast majority of women writers and pundits who’ve called attention to sexism toward Clinton have overtly stated they don't blame misogyny for her loss. Examples:
Jeanne Cummings, Politico: “Clinton is losing the nomination fight just like hundreds of men who have come before her — because she made a few more political mistakes than her competitor."
Katha Pollitt, The Nation: “Please note: I don’t claim Clinton lost because she’s a woman. (I think it was her Iraq vote, which she could never justify or renounce; assorted strategic mistakes; the bumptious interventions of her husband; and, most of all, that Barack Obama, a prodigiously gifted, charismatic politician, took the banner of change away from her.)”
Rebecca Traister, Salon: “I’d prefer to think of [Clinton] as she actually has been: a pain in the ass to support, an often inept and ungainly campaigner. She was ill-behaved, she made mistakes, and waged an often dirty and tone-deaf campaign, performing precious few electoral pirouettes.”
Gail Collins, The New York Times: “I get asked all the time whether I think Hillary lost because sexism is worse than racism in this country. The answer is no. She lost because Obama ran a smarter, better-organized campaign.”
I could go on. Even Kim Gandy, president of NOW (whose website still refuses to laud Obama as the pro-choice nominee of the Democratic Party), keeps cool-headed enough to point out media misogyny without blaming that sexism for Clinton’s loss.
Again, talking and writing about sexism directed toward Hillary is not the same as attributing her flawed campaign's failure to misogyny. Geraldine Ferraro I’m not so sure about, but most of the rest of us are smarter and more informed than that.
—Dana Goldstein
