My must read of the day is "The Vetting of Hillary Already Labeled ‘Sexist’ in the Media," by Noah Rothman in Mediaite:
It was bound to happen sooner rather than later. MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski issued on Monday what might be the most full-throated attack on Hillary Clinton’s opponents yet over what she considered their appeals to misogyny and sexism. […]
"Any Republican who is dredging this up is a misogynistic sexist hypocrite," Brzezinski declared, "because if Bill Clinton can win again with all of these problems, and Hillary Clinton, they can bring down because of this, and they think they can each go after it, they are clueless, and they are complete sexists because it’s not even her affair." […]
Those insisting such stories involving Clinton would be treated differently if the subject were a man should be required to marshal some evidence in support of this claim. Instead, credulous reporters nod sagely at the mere invocation of gender disparities. But, as recent history has taught Democrats, legitimate criticism can be discredited if the critic is branded with a scarlet "-ism." This is all very familiar.
Since Monday, "ugh" has been my reaction to the mention of Mika Brzezinski. Her comments were almost incomprehensible, because she shoved the issue of what Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) has said together with Republicans in general, and then also touched on criticisms of Hillary’s past.
I think she was jumbling together multiple issues, so let me back track for a minute and separate them.
Here’s how this Rand story is summarized in my head: Blah, blah, blah. On "Meet the Press," Sen. Paul was asked about comments his wife made in a Vogue interview, and he agreed with her and said it’s hypocritical that the Democrats claim Republicans have a war on women when they love Bill Clinton.
Then I largely stopped following what he’s saying about it. Why? Because ultimately, it is an irrelevant discussion. Bill Clinton is still incredibly popular, and I don’t think this is an argument that will resonate with people very much. Is it weird that so many Democrats and women’s rights advocates love Bill Clinton and gladly accept money from his foundation? Yes, but at this point that’s more of a bar conversation than a national political debate.
People on the left are choosing not to separate Hillary Clinton from Bill and see Paul’s comments as an attack on Hillary. I’m not convinced they are, but that’s a Rand Paul thing. What those on the left appear to be doing is lumping in reports on Hillary’s past, primarily the Free Beacon’s report, with Rand Paul’s comments.
They really are two distinct issues, but the claims of sexism that surround these discussions are frustrating, to say the least.
I think aspects of today’s women’s movement are misguided and improperly focused, but I have deep respect for the feminist movement, and I do believe women’s rights and the portrayal of women in media are important. I am one of three girls, so I grew up on the "girls rule, boys drool" motto. I’m sensitive to instances of sexism, and when they occur I firmly believe they should be called out. However, there is no double standard when it comes to what’s been brought up from Hillary’s past. This is just politics.
People do a great disservice to Hillary Clinton, and any potential female candidate, by calling the current discussion sexist. Male candidates are routinely criticized for their past. By saying such conversations are off limits for female candidates, you inadvertently imply that a woman is somehow weaker than her male counterpart and unable to handle the critiques.
That’s the thing that bothers me most about this entire discussion. Whether you like it or not, male candidates do receive this kind of scrutiny—and they should. Sometimes it can be over the top (remember Seamus?), but when you’re running for the office of the president your past—every bit of it—matters greatly. Right now, there is no stronger or more formidable candidate than Hillary Clinton.
Personal and professional histories are important because they encompass all the character and leadership traits that matter for a president. The 1990s are a part of Hillary Clinton’s "living history." She wasn’t a passive first lady in the White House or in Arkansas; she played an integral role in policy issues such as health care. Consequently, it would be negligent not to reevaluate the 90s.
These arbitrary claims of sexism are largely void of evidence. After calling it sexist, a generic "this is a double standard" gets tossed out, but the "how" aspect remains unanswered. What, specifically, about this is any different than how we treat male candidates? The answer is nothing, and subsequently this behavior gives the word sexist or misogynist less meaning.
That may be the most harmful outcome from the recent claims. When the double standard is applicable and it gets called out, it will result in a collective shoulder shrug. We all saw Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin receive sexist coverage in 2008. It would be wise to save the sexism charge for times when it actually happens.