Occam's Razor Slices Faludi's Argument

In today's NYT, famed feminist Susan Faludi, author of Backlash in addition to other less remarkable books, makes her case that Hillary Clinton advanced the cause, i.e., electing a woman president of the United States.

Not because she will finish second, but because she has attracted white male votes for, "joining the brawl."

To wit:

"Notable in the Indiana and North Carolina primary results and in many recent polls are signs of a change in the gender weather: white men are warming to Hillary Clinton — at least enough to vote for her. It’s no small shift. These men have historically been her fiercest antagonists. Their conversion may point less to a new kind of male voter than to a new kind of female vote-getter."

Emphasis on the word may. Yet, what about racism Ms. Faludi, did that play any role?

"Pundits have been quick to attribute the erosion in Barack Obama’s white male support to a newfound racism. What they have failed to consider is the degree to which white male voters witnessing Senator Clinton’s metamorphosis are being forced to rethink precepts they’ve long held about women in American politics."

I admit such a "rethinking" is likelier among Democratic voters, but, honestly, isn't that a little too convenient for your argument, Sus? Furthermore, given that white male voters have supported a Republican candidate in every presidential election since 1964, why should we think much of the minority that support Democrats?

"For years, the prevailing theory has been that white men are often uneasy with female politicians because they can’t abide strong women. But if that’s so, why haven’t they deserted Senator Clinton? More particularly, why haven’t they deserted her as she has become ever more pugnacious in her campaign?"

Racism, soft or otherwise. It does not mean these men support the KKK or even partake in redlining African-American families, it may simply mean that since Barack Obama does not look like them and takes liberal positions altogether alien to them (don't leave out the second part), he will not pick up their vote, either in the spring or the autumn.

As much as I love women and have created female presidential constructs in novels, I would question how much we should truly learn from the HRC campaign vis-a-vis women presidential candidates. After all, without the name "Clinton," would the New York senator have ever started with a lead of any variety, let alone thirty-plus points? Would she have enjoyed a superdelegate margin for nearly 90% of the race? Would she have recovered from a third-place Iowa finish? Mrs. Clinton, a sexy, sardonic woman of brilliance, still has no greater identity than the wife of a former president. She is one of the few US senators not primarily known for being a senator (John Glenn was another example), rather a former First Lady.

The attractive Ms. Faludi, sultry in her own right, completely ignores the question of just what it will fricking take to elevate a woman to the presidency if the wife of the most popular one in more than a generation cannot defeat a one-term US Senator with a skin color that has never sniffed the presidency. Didn't something similar occur in Argentina? So we wait for Chelsea, the not-yet-eligible dyamno that seems to have inherited the best from her parents? Al Gore's exquisite daughter, Karenna? If not them, then whom and when? Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano have shown about as much interest in the job as the DNC has in them as candidates. If the most charismatic female politician in America, the foxy Barbara Boxer won't attempt a run, who will?

Sexism has a different hold on this country than racism, but, for goodness sake, compare the number of white female Democratic senators to black ones! Maybe Ms. Rodham could have been the first, but we'll never know since she did not run under her own name nor without the support of the nation's most powerful Democrat. Mrs. Clinton was a special case, both in terms of tenacious ambition (seemingly found nowhere else among political females in America) and her last name.

Susy's bizarre (official Times word) coda:

"Whether Senator Clinton’s pugilism has elevated the current race for the nomination is debatable. But the strategy has certainly remade the political world for future female politicians, who may now cast off the assumption that when the going gets tough, the tough girl will resort to unilateral rectitude. When a woman does ascend through the glass ceiling into the White House, it will be, in part, because of the race of 2008, when Hillary Clinton broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys."

????

The fact remains that obtaining working majorities of both blacks and whites is almost impossible (for reference, examine the vast disparity in TV watching during the 1990s), no presidential candidate since LBJ has carried both constituencies. Mrs. Clinton, until proven otherwise, received her victories for two reasons: steadfast female support and an uptick in white male favor after the nation learned more about Mr. Obama's past. She did not, let us reiterate, obtain her votes at the expense of a white man. There is no reason--NONE--to assume that she would have done nearly as well with those white guys had she battled, say, John Edwards or Evan Bayh or Mark Warner for the nomination.

Ms. Faludi's hope that "getting down with the boys" and acting more as a participant than an umpire (???) will somehow prove a harbinger of things to come or at least push the ball closer to the goaline for female wannabe executives strikes me as awfully naive. I will agree that Mrs. Clinton's campaign peaked in March and April, but it is much easier and less stressful to run as a decided underdog, which HRC has been since a February to Forget. I am well aware that it only takes one female, but, well, still looking...