Vote Hillary, you sexist pigs!
I don't often link to Ed Morrissey, but he nails what Gloria Steinem is saying in this column.
What Steinem demands is that voters stop considering Hillary as Hillary, and instead think of her as Generic Woman. Steinem doesn't want equality of opportunity; she wants grievances addressed. And she makes it clear that Women come before Black Men on the grievance agenda, writing "Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women[.]"
It's time for Generic Woman, not Black Man, on Steinem's dance card. Sorry, Barack. You're not scheduled to be Generic Black Man until 2016.
I do believe, and can if pressed come up with considerable evidence of, the fact that women in politics have a rough go of things. But I had always though that the liberal ideal was that people be chosen on their merits rather than some physical quality. This kind of shameless pandering to identity politics is a sign of desperation from Clinton supporters.
And as for the title of Steinem's article, Hillary was, and in some measures still is, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination from before she even announced her candidacy. Hell, she even polled better among blacks than Obama did last I checked. The nomination is hers to lose.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
Obama is seen as unifying because he preaches unity in his campaign. Hillary is seen as divisive because of the name Clinton and all the baggage that accompanies it. His race and her gender aren't the critical factors here, particularly among the progressive voters in the Democratic primaries.
We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
If I believed the first, I wouldn't need to add the second.
