So, please, do not tell me I liked Obama but don’t like Clinton.
I see you took my comment personally. That’s regrettable. Clearly, you didn’t control the outcome of this election, nor any election prior. If you made that inference, I apologize. I don’t know you.
My comment was more in context of social mores. There was a groundswell of loud, pointed criticism of Clinton’s finances and her donor list. It was a much larger deal in the context of this election as a whole than it had been in previous elections, and it would be enough for a voter, predisposed to not like Clinton anyway, to vote against her, even with the prospect of Trump looming.
On the far left, this has always been a bone of contention, but it didn’t seep into the mainstream consciousness in previous elections like it did in this one.
I also didn’t erect a straw man, I don’t think, because misogyny wasn’t the only cause I suggested for this. I noted several reasons for why her finances may have been more of an issue in this particular election, and one of those reasons was that she had the misfortune of running against a comparative Boy Scout. Sanders may be one of the last politicians in America who hadn’t monetized his public service for personal gain. Compared to that figure, Clinton looks like Boss Tweed. That had an affect on her electability. That’s no one’s fault. But to ignore that reality would be a mistake.
And another factor that was at play in this election, I believe, was clear misogyny. Not just by Trump — that was too obvious — but by society as a whole and the average voter. Again, this isn’t directed at you. Please do not take offense.
We live in a racist, misogynistic society, where a lot of people are brought up, more or less, to be casually racist and misogynistic. Not overtly. Not militantly. But casually. Like, expecting the CEO they’re about to meet to be a white guy, because most CEO’s are white guys. And being momentarily surprised that she isn’t. That is not a secret. As a progressive, you have to know that’s true.
In a misogynistic culture, the barrier breaker, the first woman to do a big thing like become President, isn’t going to be the woman who is just as corrupt and cynical as everyone else. She has to be Jackie Robinson. She has to be clearly better than everyone else. She has to be able to take the abuse without complaint and without lashing out. And she has to be extraordinary in spite of it all.
Thin-skinned, calculating Hillary Clinton ain’t that candidate. The fact that she came as close as she did is attributable to Donald Trump being her opponent. A lot of people — not you, I don’t know you — but a lot of people, were looking for a reason to not vote for her. They might not have even been conscious of the fact that they were viewing her through a different prism because of her gender, but they were. A lot of people who had no problem with Obama’s donor list had a big problem with Hillary’s and they were essentially the same.
It’s also highly misogynistic of you to imply that legitimate grievances against Clinton are somehow rooted in misogyny. Why? Because it ignores that a lot of people who didn’t vote for Clinton specifically because of these grievances voted for Jill Stein.
Jill Stein was never, ever going to be elected and everyone knew that. Calling yourself a feminist because you voted for Jill Stein is like claiming you can’t be racist because you have one black friend. No one had any fear that Stein was going to win. Not even Stein. That dog won’t hunt.