Quote Of The Day: Peggy Noonan On Hillary Clinton And Sexism

Is the charge of sexism in the treatment of Senator Hillary Clinton something to be seriously ponder, or a basically political rationalization and a talking point?

The Wall Street Journal’s Pegggy Noon, in her column today writes, in part, about Senator Hillary Clinton and sexism:

So, to address the charge that sexism did her in:

It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias.

It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood, both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.

It is not true. Tough hill-country men voted for her, men so backward they’d give the lady a chair in the union hall. Tough Catholic men in the outer suburbs voted for her, men so backward they’d call a woman a lady. And all of them so naturally courteous that they’d realize, in offering the chair or addressing the lady, that they might have given offense, and awkwardly joke at themselves to take away the sting. These are great men. And Hillary got her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks.

It is prissy. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are now complaining about the Hillary nutcrackers sold at every airport shop. Boo hoo. If Golda Meir, a woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as party favors.

It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say “Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other’s bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it’s like that for the boys and for the girls.”

And because the charge of sexism is all of the above, it is, ultimately, undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to say anything to gain advantage.

FOOTNOTE: At this point it cannot be said definitely that Hillary Clinton is politically done in. This lady has not sung. And Clinton continues to dominate the news cycle and political chatter. The May 30th showdown over the Michigan and Florida delegations could end with Clinton going the way to the convention if she’s displeased, contradictory reports about whether the Obama camp is entertaining her reported desire to be Obama’s Veep.

On one hand, you can ask: whoever would have thought that when Hillary Clinton began this race as a proud and respected, policy-wonkish centrist Senator a campaign criticized as being polarizing would wind up with her camp suggesting that if she doesn’t get the nomination it’s due in large part to sexism? It’s as if Rush Limbaugh’s parodies about excessive identity politics in the Democratic party have been realized.

On the other, is there a part of America that is really not ready to elect a woman as President? If you put aside the talking points, is that a reality or not? Isn’t that what some say about Obama’s being a black man?

And, if these theories are true, how do Americans who want an equal playing field where candidates can discuss issues and be judged on those — and not by their gender, race (or middle name) — ensure it is level in the future?

Was Clinton impacted (and will she be impacted by it if she gets the nomination) by her gender? Was Obama (and if he gets it will he be impacted by it if he gets the nomination) by his race?

Is one of these worse the the other? And aren’t both of these realities equally reprehensible?