When America’s liberal bloggers are telling Hillary Clinton to cool it with the “sexism” smears, you know something strange is going on. But since Clinton used her Shield of Sexism against liberal darling Bernie Sanders, these navel-gazers are suddenly being forced to (temporarily) put identity politics to the side.
Clinton got the ball rolling last week when she took a shot at her rival for the Democratic nomination. After Sanders claimed that “all the shouting in the world” would not keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, Clinton told attendees of the Jefferson-Jackson dinner that she was being maligned due to her gender.
“I haven’t been shouting,” she said. “But sometimes when a woman speaks out, some people think it’s shouting.”
Here we go.
The liberals came out to defend Sanders on this one, but they’ll be right back in her corner when the general election arrives. No matter who Clinton winds up facing next year, the media is going to back her up every time she levels the charge of sexism against her Republican opponent. This is the cornerstone of her campaign, after all. Why else would she admit in the last debate that the biggest difference between herself and Obama was that she was a woman?
We’ve already been through eight years of this idiocy. Barack Obama’s acolytes have insisted that his critics are racist since well before he took office. With this strategy, they are free to ignore the facts of any criticism he might receive and focus only on the tone. Will they repeat this strategy for Hillary? Of course. They already are.
A Daily Kos blogger, discussing the email scandal earlier this year, said Clinton’s gender was to blame for Republican attacks. “Since the story broke the press has justified their decision to cover it ad nauseam by claiming that it was newsworthy because it reinforced the narrative that Hillary was not trustworthy,” wrote the blogger. “A narrative that cannot be divorced from the sexist trope that any woman who seeks a position of prominence or power is some sort of Lady MacBeth figure.”
And after the debate, Amanda Marcotte at Salon was incensed that pundits were not sufficiently impressed with Clinton’s performance:
The most disturbing is the already-forming narrative that Clinton only looked good by comparison to her opponents. Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker came out of the gate early with that one:
“Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible”
Lizza no doubt didn’t mean to come across as sexist, but it’s hard to escape the implication that if any of the men in the contest had been halfway decent, they would have beat Clinton.
You know you’ve constructed a poor argument when even laying it out in detail still fails to drive the point home. Ms. Marcotte, that “implication” was hard to escape because it wasn’t an implication. That’s exactly what he said. And it has nothing to do with sexism.
Liberals are desperate to drive this election away from substance. Substance doesn’t energize psycho feminists and college freshmen to the polls. Name calling and word-policing is the way to go. And if Clinton can ride through to November decrying every attack against her as a form of sexism, she’ll never have to worry about making a coherent case on merit.