A reader writes:
I am a solid Obama supporter. During the dead-end of the primary, I was just as disgusted as you with Clinton. I also believe her campaign was racist, in a way Obama’s was never sexist. In fact, while many thought her concession speech was graceful, I was fairly ungenerous with my reaction. But regardless, I am surprised to read this from you (which I realize I shouldn’t be):
"Inarguable? Please. She did her usual victim act once she lost an essentially unlosable race. This hyping of a failed, principle-free, uninspired and uninspiring machine politician is really, really tired. She’s over, ok? Can’t we simply rejoice that she is no longer someone we even have to think about?"
I agree. Inarguable, it is not. But the rest of the post? I am genuinely surprised that you seem to give her absolutely no credit for the campaign that she ran. Uninspiring? Even I can see that calling Clinton uninspiring is just false.
No matter how much one dislikes Clinton, it really is inarguable that the next time a female presidential candidate runs, it will be "unremarkable". I genuinely believe that our nation’s tolerance for many of the sexist antics of the mass media has been much reduced. There will be no "nut-cracker" novelty items, and there will be embarassment over political analysts calling presidential candidates "a bitch". Clinton had much to do with this road-paving. That’s not "tired", and it certainly doesn’t benefit anyone to stop remembering these lessons, to stop thinking about what Clinton’s campaign meant for women politicians in America.
The Dish 