-By Barry Slaff

In her June 5 New York Times column “Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge,” Judith Warner laments the supposedly misogynistic “zeitgeist” that accompanied the fall of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Of the first 25 or so comments on the article, at least 20 supported Warner’s analysis, but one finally hit the nail on the head:

“I understand and welcome a discussion of gender roles in our society, but it’s unfortunate that it has to come couched in this Hillary context. Hillary Clinton lost because she is a truly lamentable and morally destitute person, not because of anything nutty old Mathews said or of her portrayal on South Park (which by the way, released a movie in which blacks were strapped to the outside of tanks in order to provide them extra armor).

“Subtle degradations of every demographic can be found quite readily if one just looks - it is in no way unique to women and they suffer no more than *any* demographic, even including old white men in black suits who run banks. Where’s the outrage when John McCain’s speech the other night was panned as looking like ‘cottage cheese in a bowl of lime jello’?…”

— Posted by Jon

From last year through most of January 2008 I was not sure whether I wanted to support Clinton or Obama. Several events prior to Super Tuesday pushed me towards supporting Obama, and Clinton’s behavior following Super Tuesday solidified that support. It became clear to me that the two candidates had truly different philosophies of politics, debate, and progress.

One conspicuous difference between the two candidates was that Obama seemed committed to ideals and to the big picture of making America better, while Clinton seemed constantly stuck giving petty partisan shots that she must have thought would raise her in the public eye. For instance, On January 18 of this year, CNN reported Obama’s making the following unconventional statement:

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,” Obama said. “He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Obama’s campaign has said the Illinois senator disagrees with much of what Reagan did, and he was merely pointing out that the former president changed the political landscape. [End of CNN excerpt]

A little later in the same interview, Obama said: “I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

Clinton responded as follows: “I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years. I don’t think it’s a better idea to privatize social security. I don’t think it’s a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don’t think it’s a better idea undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don’t think it s a better idea to shut down the government to drive us into debt.”

Now, in any intense political campaign there is going to be some twisting of opponents’ words. But this goes beyond just twisting: this is absurdly dishonest crap, to be blunt. She essentially invented the comments she wanted to criticize and then jumped on them. Every sentence after the first is a view she and Obama clearly share but that she tried to imply they do not share. Politics can be dirty, but they can and should be dirty in the sense that politicians attack each other with the bottom line that they want to make American better. This critical latter concern is noticeably absent from Clinton’s response in this case and in many others.

More recently, for instance, Obama opposed the notion popular among his supporters that Clinton should exit the race so the Democratic Party might unify around one candidate more quickly: he stated that she should “stay in as long as she wants.” Nevertheless, just a couple days later in Montana, Clinton said: “My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama’s supporters want to end this race because they don’t want people to keep voting. That’s just the opposite of what I believe. We want people to vote. I want the people of Montana to vote, don’t you?”

Obama’s campaign dismissed her assertion, correctly, as a laughably false claim. Even those of Obama’s supporters who want Clinton to exit want her to exit so the party might unify, not because they “don’t want people to keep voting.” By making the childish implication that Obama is somehow anti-democracy, Clinton not only stoops to a deplorably low level of debate but implies that she has nothing more productive to say.

Additionally, Clinton’s dialogue with Republicans is truly not focused on improving the country. Recently I watched her debate a budget bill in the House (yes, she’s a Senator). She took the floor and began as follows: “The democratic party is the party of fiscal progress. During President Clinton’s administration, the budget developed a substantial surplus, which was squandered by President Bush’s administration” (inexact quotes because I watched the presentation some time ago).

That kind of speech does not lead to progress! While her statement is true, it is polarizing and irrelevant from the perspective of actually seeking fiscal solutions. Obama would never begin a debate over legislation like that– he is too focused on productive discussion to bring forth something that useless.

The point is that Obama’s style of dialogue will lead (and has lead) to successful bipartisan efforts focused on making America better. Clinton, on the other hand, buries herself in petty political sparring matches and remains too far divorced from the ideas she claims to uphold to effectively generate real solutions for the country.

That is why I went from indifference towards Clinton to outright dislike. And while I know many peoples’ reasons for voting Obama are different than my reasons, I bet many people had an experience similar to mine.

Since Obama has effectively won the nomination, why do I still care? Because the legacy of this primary should be something other than the myth that misogyny sunk Hillary. (Incidentally, a Paul Estabrook left a comment in which he criticized the frequent use of “Hillary” and not “Clinton.” Would it be silly of me to point out that there were two Clintons in this race and the use of her first name is probably more an attempt to clarify the subject than anything else?) It would be entirely characteristic of Clinton’s campaign to scapegoat the “zeitgeist” for her loss rather than acknowledge the legitimate differences between the two candidates.