Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Via the LA
Times:

As her chances of becoming vice president recede, some of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s supporters are pushing for the Democratic Party’s new platform to state that the primary elections “exposed pervasive gender bias in the media” and to call on party leaders to take “immediate and public steps” to condemn future perceived instances of bias. The push for the plank in the party’s statement of principles reflects a lingering unhappiness over Clinton’s treatment during the Democratic primary, and over what her supporters say was an inadequate response from party leaders. … … .. “There were so many examples in the media of sexist comments where we never heard from the party leadership or Barack Obama,” said Stacy Mason, executive director of a political action committee called WomenCount, which claims thousands of members. The group ran newspaper ads in the spring urging Clinton to stay in the contest. “We’re focused on why the Democratic leadership was so silent about it during the campaign,” Mason said. “It was their obligation to come to the defense of one of their own primary candidates, and they didn’t. They stayed silent during the campaign, and that’s not OK.” … .

But the title of the article, For Clinton supporters, it’s a gender issue,
takes a very short view into what was wrong. It was about the disrespect of
competency offered by Senator Clinton, not simply her gender. It was seen recently
through the shrug off of Senator Obama over the Ludacris insult, which from
one sentence to the next from Obama and his team had the thug pronounced “talented,” but that he should be “ashamed.” Still not getting the importance of
Clinton’s candidacy, as she was lumped in with all the men; the slight to her just another verbal b*!-# sighting.

It’s the ignorance of the DNC to think that by saying something about the horrendously
sexist coverage of Clinton, before the outcome had been decided, that they would
have been seen as biased towards her. Like they wouldn’t have said something
if Obama was attacked because he’s black. They’d have rightly been
all over it. Instead, everyone stood silently. She can take care of herself.
But it’s impossible to combat the cable onslaught, which is fighting for ratings and using Clinton as the ranting point.

The truth is that Clinton had to work decades to get where she was to even
be considered as a presidential contender, but she was considered old news and
part of the past because of her husband. Ah, yes, the husband. Can’t get there without him. Can’t divorce him. But considered the “third term” even if she’s got her own agenda. For a woman trying to be commander
in chief in John Wayne’s America, until Clinton’s historic candidacy, there was only one way there. Decades of hard
work and knowing someone who can help you, but even when you do you’ve
got to combat a media, even after beating all the boys in the debates. A media so gender biased against women in leadership that it wasn’t
until the late Tim Russert was replaced by Tom Brokaw (through November) that “Meet
the Press” had two strong women guests battling for the presidential contenders in a policy duel. Just
try counting the women on the Sunday shows talking about foreign policy. It
will be a very short exercise in futility.

Women are still second class citizens, especially when it comes to leadership, but particularly in politics.
Hillary Clinton represents what happens when a woman dares to challenge that
bias. Ask yourself this question: What would have happened if Barack Obama had been
a woman, Hillary the man? The answer is obvious.

But she still almost beat him. We’re getting there and Hillary Clinton paved the way.