After Obama…or Not
By Over at Slate, Melinda Henneberger and Dahlia Lithwick consider why Hillary Clinton won’t get a speech on gender akin to the one Obama gave on race (and imagine what her speech would sound like if she did).
Their answer on why we won’t be hearing a speech like that from Hill C.: “Because as much as Hillary Clinton the wife and the woman and the mom no doubt hates it, Hillary Clinton the candidate has largely benefited from her husband’s extracurricular activities. That’s because—and this is the tragic part—America seems to like her best when she’s being victimized—by Bill or Rick Lazio or the media. In that sense, her husband is a useful prop who reminds us of the extent of her suffering. She won’t give that speech because the whole narrative of her candidacy—and more broadly, her life—is as rooted in grievance as Obama’s is in getting past grievance.”
I’d agree that this state of affairs — if it is in fact the case — is indeed tragic. But I’m not sure how it jibes with their later suggestion that: “She won’t give that speech because she has been on the wrong side of gender bias. OK, there is no right side, but she consistently relates to and protects and stands with the oppressors in the gender wars, not the victims. It isn’t only that she stayed with Bill Clinton, but that she invariably sees him as the victim, preyed upon by a series of female aggressors.”
How can (the former) HRC be both the popular victim and the behind-the-scenes Oz, friend of oppressors? I sympathize with Lithwick and Henneberger’s desire to highlight how Obama consistently rises above the victimization, even when victimization might be politically expedient. But syllogistic arguments aren’t going to do Obama any favors…and just help HRC seem even more like a victim if she wants to be seen that way.