Someday, when the history books are written, there will be a great chronicle of the disappointments that the Someday, when the history books are written, there will be a great chronicle of the disappointments that the Hillary Clinton campaign served up to the more progressive branches of American feminism. Such a story should focus first on her late and partial conversion to the antiwar cause. But 2008 will also be remembered as a year in which the misogyny of mainstream political journalism simply couldn't be overlooked: Remember the Chelsea/pimp incident? The massive pile-on around Clinton's supposedly "tear-filled" moments? The brouhaha over her supposedly cackling, witch-like laugh? Chris Matthews' suggestion that Clinton's successes can all be traced back to her husband's infidelities?
One of the saddest aspects of this Democratic primary has been that the Clinton campaign, while rightly and diligently combating these gendered attacks, hasn't fully risen above them by refusing to engage in racially-tinged hits on Barack Obama. We all remember Bill Clinton's foray into South Carolina, of course. And in just the latest example, Hillary Clinton said on "60 Minutes" this past Sunday that Obama is not a Muslim..."As far as I know."
Laden comments like that one make it difficult, unfortunately, to defend Clinton from stories like yesterday's Roger Simon missive in Politico...but I'll try, anyhow. The piece recounted several instances of Clinton appealing to female voters -- in part by criticizing the media's misogyny -- and dubbed this the “victim who battles back” strategy. Yes, as the headline proclaims, Hillary, like uppity feminists worldwide, is "playing victim." According to this theme, it's not quite fair for Clinton to mention actual instances of sexism in the media; it breaks the rules of how serious women are expected to behave on the public stage. (God forbid they actually mention gender difference or discrimination!) The truth is, male-dominated institutions such as the political press still, all too often, stammer and stumble at the sight of serious female leadership.
Will Hillary Clinton's foray into presidential politics, no matter what the outcome of today's contests or the general election, make a dent in the way the press treats women in politics? So far, there's little progress to be charted. A Republican and a Democratic woman agreeing that female voters are irrational still passes the Washington Post op-ed page's test for balanced commentary. One can only hope that percolating beneath the surface, rising up from younger, more diverse generations of journalists and political consultants, is disgust at the way both gender and race have been played in this election cycle, and a firm commitment to do better -- much better -- in the future.
--Dana Goldstein
