Discourse and the end of the Clinton campaign

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Hillary Clinton has finally left the building — and, though her loyal followers would disagree, none too soon.

Only now can the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, Barack Obama, begin challenging John McCain for the presidency.

Clinton’s campaign hit so many low points it’s hard to remember them all.

For the past 30 years, academics have led the way in changing the very way we talk. They have taught us that words have consequences, that our very discourse can insult and marginalize people.

This is why we now speak of ‘flight attendants’ rather than ‘stewardesses’, and ‘police officers’ instead of ‘policemen’. We are careful not to use terminology that reinforces sexism, racism, and homophobia.

So why, pray tell, did the Clinton campaign get a free pass when derogatory language rarely heard outside back rooms was used publicly by her surrogates in this election?

Clinton operative James Carville called New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson a “Judas” back in March, on Good Friday no less, for switching his support from Clinton to Barack Obama. As the man who, according to the Gospels, betrayed Jesus Christ to the Romans, Judas has been vilified for centuries by those propagating anti-Semitism and religious Judaeophobia.

In late April, Governor Mike Easley of North Carolina, during that state’s primary campaign, said Hillary Clinton “makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.” This is a nasty epithet often hurled by homophobes at gays.

Paul Gipson, president of a steelworkers local in Indiana, admired her “testicular fortitude” (as opposed to Barack Obama’s) as that campaign heated up during the same period.

Male chauvinists have made use of this and similar terms in their representations of women as being ‘weak’ and therefore ‘unfit’ for the serious, tough work of running companies — or countries. Was Clinton trying to show she was really ‘one of the guys’?

In none of these cases did the Clinton campaign apologize for such statements.

Hillary Clinton began this race with a political machine that was unequalled by any of her competitors. “She had virtually exclusive access to the chequebooks in the Democratic fundraising pool,” noted Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson.

“Her web of connections, oaths of fealty and debts owed spread throughout the Democratic Party, which she viewed as an extended family.”

In various national polls, Clinton was running ahead of Obama by at least 20 to 35 per cent as late as the fall of 2007.

As well, women’s groups such as Emily’s List, the National Organization for Women, and the Women Count Political Action Committee (WCPAC) provided unconditional and uncritical support for Clinton, held rallies on her behalf, reviled women who supported other candidates as “traitors,” and considered any criticism of Clinton as being motivated by misogyny and chauvinism.

Such ‘gender nationalism’ also provided her with advantages over Obama.

Women make up more than half the American population, blacks about 13.5 per cent.

Yet not only was Hillary Clinton not ready to be president on “day one,” it turned out that, despite her immense early lead over Obama in name recognition, money, and support from the party establishment, she wasn’t even ready to beat a rookie senator whom she initially dismissed as just another bump on the road to victory.

She now blames sexism for her loss. No doubt it was a factor, but it’s mainly hubris that did her in.