Your Gleeful Liberal Takedown of Hillary Clinton Is Affirming Institutional Sexism

This might have been a reasonable argument against those few who do have an immature negative emotional reaction to Clinton, if not for the fact that no accompanying case is made with regards to any other female leader in the Democratic party. Do they attack Warren due to her gender? Ridiculous- she’s also the left’s darling. How about Wasserman-Schultz? She’s been accused of choosing sides, but there’s nothing sexist about those charges, only political. Something worth remembering: misogynists hate all women, not just your candidate. To prove this thesis, more than anecdotal evidence collected to support a political narrative is necessary. Otherwise, the accusation is meaningless.

But it is telling in its political gamesmanship, by completely ignoring the fact that liberals actually have serious concerns with Clinton’s record which do not include petty Republican talking points. So why bring these up? Simply- to distract. That’s par for the course: nothing seems to matter to Clinton more than winning. Not issues, not the truth and certainly not a fair democratic contest. And if the cost is alienating Sanders supporters- well, you can’t win the war if you lose the primary. So with declining margins and more lost states, she’s repeating 2008’s slinging of mud at a Democratic candidate, and even trying to claim victory before the contest is over.

Ask yourself this: have you ever seen Sanders accuse Clinton of having surrogates (let alone random fans on the Internet) who are… I don’t know- antisemitic or ageist? Or booking interviews to falsely accuse Clinton of being rude? Again- no, because he’s not interested in manipulating the press using artificial drama and scoring pity points. He and his campaign are- by any fair critique- entirely motivated by political issues.

It’s time the Hillary campaign gave up trying to milk this dead horse. Because this isn’t about sexism or feminism- it’s political theater. Clinton is employing non-issues for political advantage, seeking to conjure up some wedge on which she’s finally on the right side (that is, the progressive side).

This particular feminist is overjoyed to see women on a ballot, and doubly so for a high office like Gov. Hassan and Sen. Shaheen. But I won’t be made to feel obligated to vote for women on account of gender. Especially when accused of being something I’m not. I had no hesitation in voting for the candidate who best aligns with my political views in this primary, and I will do the same when I vote for whichever gets the Democratic nomination. I don’t “hate Hillary Clinton”, not because she’s a woman and not because I have a genuine and longstanding disagreement with her track record of centrist, militaristic, and corporatist views. But I’m not so blinded by political allegiance to suggest she is the same as the Republican candidates, and I won’t engage in amateur psychoanalysis of someone’s views.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.