« William F. BuckleyShe Can’t Testify … »

Sex in ‘08

And why it shouldn’t be an issue in this year’s Democratic race, but like race, it is, according to the Boston Herald’s Margery Eagan: 

If you don’t like Hillary, are you a sexist dog? A male chauvinist pig? A self-loathing woman?

No, none of the above, and I’m so tired of hearing the charge.

True: the media has throttled Hillary and fawned over Barack.

Not true: the big reason is sexism, as many Hillary supporters insist.

What’s true is that reporters don’t like her. Half of the nation doesn’t either. We’ve all seen those negativity ratings. What’s true is that she’s rarely likable.

Margery, as non-didactic a feminist as I’ve ever met, has rarely liked her, and is an admitted Obama fan, though as noted last week, the shine’s coming off that apple, too. Here’s Margery’s closing on this week’s column:

Remember how many disliked know-it-all Al Gore in 2000 and condescending John Kerry in 2004 and Stepford Mitt Romney this year. None of them are women, as far as I know.

This isn’t to say there’s no sexism in the race for the White House, 2008. The best of many examples comes from Gloria Steinem: “Imagine if a woman running for president had a resume like this: became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father, she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.”

Could such a person be elected to the Senate, never mind the presidency?

No, she couldn’t, which begs the question of whether a white Obama would be where he is today. No, he wouldn’t be, either. But that’s about race in America - and that’s another story.

Like I said, she may be a lefty, and in love with Obama, but there are no stars in Margery’s eyes.

A flaming ’60s lefty holdover at work, a good friend, after we argue and discuss for a while, tells me in low tones what I have to understand is that when he was growing up, black people were being lynched in this country.  Actually, that’s happened more recently, I point out to him.  But I don’t see it as a reason, absent other qualifications, to elect a black man.  Otherwise, we’d have had Presidents Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes by now. Those men may have other attributes and deficiencies, qualities or disqualifications, according to your view. But what did they lack, if the Obama candidacy is a guide? Sufficient charm.

I am awaiting the opportunity to vote for a qualified, viable black man and/or woman for president.  It could be a great thing for the United States and dramatically move us forward, beyond the wretched legacies of slavery, racism and sexism. But I haven’t had that opportunity yet.

One of the shocking things about ‘08 is what a selection of scoundrels, bounders, mountebanks and clay-footed heroes we’ve been offered across the board, as if this the best this great nation can do. It’s a mystery, and maybe has to do with the grueling nature of the process: The best men and women would have nothing to do with it, or would be spat out soon by this merciless system that punishes honesty and clarity first. That’s a pessimistic view, though, and as a practical matter the presidency is something that, once we’ve been stuck with a result, the winner has to rise to.

I just heard a funny remark on PBS. Not sure who made it. “Hillary’s conducting a job interview. Obama’s on a date.” The whole sex thing is being turned upside down, as is the race thing, where a candidate’s charm is magnified by a matter of race that would once have been a great hindrance, and a woman who has spent her adult life in her husband’s shadow is seen as the more experienced.  So maybe the Dems are doing all of us a service this time around, as a sort of rinse cycle, getting a lot of these issues out of everyone’s system. So the next time women and/or blacks run, maybe it won’t be that big a deal and we can focus on whether, other things being equal, they will actually make good presidents or not without the accusations of sexism and racism. We’re part of the way there, but not quite, and hopefully by November people will have figured out they need to look at who might actually make the best leader at this critical time in our history.

Topics: pols, racism, sex

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:45 am on Thursday, February 28, 2008

7 Responses to “Sex in ‘08”

1. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   February 28th, 2008 at 9:39 am

   I don’t give a damn what the sex or race of the candidate is; what are their philosophies and qualifications? Anything else is gravy.

2. Don Surber » Blog Archive » What fear is being mongered, Obama? Says:
   February 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am

   [...] My weekly column in the Daily Mail is posted. Also, columnist Margery Eagan of the Boston Herald has a good one today, via Jules Crittenden. [...]

3. PoliGazette » Race and Gender Says:
   February 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

   [...] Crittenden writes: “I am awaiting the opportunity to vote for a qualified, viable black man and/or woman for [...]

4. RebeccaH Says:
   February 28th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

   I am awaiting the opportunity to vote for a qualified, viable black man and/or woman for president. It could be a great thing for the United States and dramatically move us forward, beyond the wretched legacies of slavery, racism and sexism. But I haven’t had that opportunity yet.

   My feelings exactly, Jules, only because it will finally shut up a lot of idiots. It’s a great disappointment that Obama is so charming and a good speaker, and yet has none of the qualities I look for in a leader. As for Hillary, unlikeable she is, but I might have considered her if not for Bill. I don’t think she’d be all that different from McCain, except that she has to side with the lunatic fringe of her party in order to distinguish herself, and she’s saddled with an egomaniac who would shoulder her aside the minute he dropped his bags in the White House.

5. saltydog Says:
   February 28th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

   TRJS: Ditto.

6. Robert Says:
   February 28th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

   RebeccaH: You need to take a D ballot on 3/4 and vote for the Hillbilly. We can’t let the entertainers off the stage.

7. sarah rolph Says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am

   The Rinse Cycle theory is the most cogent thinking I’ve seen yet on the election.

   No matter how strange the candidates or how interesting the political dynamic or how important (or unimportant) the issues, the thing that always amazes me the most about our elections is what I learn about how people think about them.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.