From “He can’t win” to “I can’t win.”(Reading between the lines)

I watch Morning Joe every morning while going through my daily routine. I consider Joe Scarborough to be an extremely obnoxious blowhard, but I’m a creature of habit and find myself tuning into MSNBC at 6am when my alarm goes off. For the past week or so, Joe has been MIA and Mika Brezenski has taken over the helm of the ship. While she isn’t necessarily my favorite on-air personality, she has been much more productive and enjoyable when having the opportunity to speak without Joe browbeating and verbally manhandling her. This morning, around 6:30am, she made an observation while discussing the state of the Democratic primary with our favorite jerk off windbag, Pat Buchanen, and she really made me think.

More below the fold

Mika’s comment was something to the effect of "Hillary Clinton’s claims of sexism being the reason for her position in the race is essentially telling voters and Supers that she’s the weaker candidate in the general election." I don’t have the clip or the exact quote (if anyone else does, feel free to add it in the comments section), but the quote itself is not what I find to be of most importance, I’d prefer to elaborate on the thoughts I had after hearing the quick blurb, which was barely recognized by the panel and not discussed any further.

It is no secret that race and sex have played a role in the Democratic primary race. There are, unfortunately, people in our country that will not vote for a woman or an African-American under any circumstances. Despite that ugly fact, I don’t think that either race or sex has been a major handicap for either candidate. Was it a factor? Yes. Was it a deciding factor? No.

Many Obama supporters have cried foul at what we’ve perceived as race baiting by Hillary’s campaign and supporters, and have been vocal about it. We were infuriated by the perceived whisper campaign of the Clintons, who were said to be telling insiders "He can’t win," alleging that Barack’s race would seriously hinder his chances in the general. Hillary’s supporters have complained of sexism, some of these complaints have been warranted, but in most instances I feel as if it was the media who was more to blame than Senator Obama’s campaign or supporters, despite Geraldine Ferraro’s recent claims that Obama’s "Annie Oakley" and "brushing the dirt off his shoulder" were mocking and sexist. (I feel these arguments hold little water, especially in reference the Jay-Z’s ‘dirt off your shoulder’ reference where in the song he says ‘Ladies is pimps too, go brush your shoulder off’) I think the most disturbing aspect of these arguments is that they are occurring within the Democratic Party, a party that is inclusive to all regardless of age, race, religion, sexual orientation, ect. We expect this from Republicans, but not from fellow Democrats, and it is disheartening.

Although most have agreed that all three candidates have a demographical handicap, either race, sex, or age, none of these handicaps have prevented them from making it this far in a very hotly contested primary season in both parties. So why are Hillary and her supporters suddenly blaming her sex, misogyny, and the good ol’ boys club for her failed campaign, and what does it say as her strength as a candidate? What does it say about her being more viable than Obama in the general election against McCain? From the campaign that insinuated (in the opinion of some, including myself) that Obama couldn’t win the general because people won’t vote for the black guy, how can they then pivot and claim they were robbed of the nomination by sexism? The basic argument that Barack can win over Democrats, but has no chance against Republicans because they are perceived to be less tolerant of racial differences. But now, Clinton and her supporters are saying that Hillary can’t win the Democratic Nomination because of sexism. If the Democratic electorate as a whole is more liberal and accepting than Republicans, how does her inability the overcome the alleged sexism of the Democratic Machine translate to strength against the Republicans in November? The "Barack can’t win because he’s black" argument has morphed into the "I’m not winning because I’m female." Is she not making the argument that her campaign would be doomed as well?

There have been Obama supporters, many people of color, who have expressed their outrage over the prospect of the Superdelegates handing the nomination to Hillary despite Barack’s lead in every metric available. Many would’ve viewed it as the nomination being taken from a black man, which is understandable considering race relations in this country, but I don’t believe that the Supers would vote against Obama because of his race in that scenario, they would be voting for whom they believed were the stronger candidate. It would certainly have racial implications and disenfranchise a large portion of African-American voters, but I think we all would agree that decision itself would not be made because of Barack’s ethnicity.

In conclusion, I’d like to state that I do not mean for this to be a Hillary-bashing diary, a slight to her or her supporters, nor one of the open letters that have been plaguing the site as of late. For the past few days, I’ve honestly been pondering why the Hillary campaign and her supporters have increasingly been touting the gender bias, and what they anticipated to gain from it. Was she angling for 2012? Was she trying to make herself the "Gore" of 2008 by winning the popular vote but losing the nomination? Was she trying to push herself onto the ticket by proving that Obama cannot win over women without her? I’ve mulled over these questions extensively, but until this morning, and Mika’s little comment, I never thought of the implications and how self-destructive her argument could actually be, not only to herself, but to all women candidates in the future.