Marie Cocco vs. Obama Supporters

I have no doubt that sexism plays a role in a lot of the political opposition to Hillary Clinton, and that her gender is possibly a bigger obstacle than Barack Obama's race. But Marie Cocco's column in today's Washington Post, titled "The 'Not Clinton' Excuse," implies that all the other reasons that people dislike her are weak covers for their sexist prejudices. Ridiculous. The Clintons (and no, it wasn't really possible not to take Bill into consideration) are far better than the person presently in the White House, but there’s a constellation of legitimate arguments against Hillary for Prez: the dynasty thing (even if other countries are OK with it, as Cocco says), the Clintons’ confrontational attitude toward the press (though again her hostility is nothing compared to Bush's), the need for a relatively non-polarizing president after eight years of W, her shady campaign tactics, her questionable general-election prospects, and, most importantly, the fact that Obama is simply a better candidate.

Cocco also quotes a political scientist saying that now that Clinton has been rejected by the electorate, it could be a generation before there is another credible female candidate for the presidency. That too is a dubious supposition. Five years ago, how long would you have guessed that we’d have to wait for the son of a Muslim Kenyan to make the White House? Eight years ago, who would have said that an obscure academic named Condoleezza Rice would soon be a conceivable candidate for the presidency? Circumstances change, and, for all we know, the woman who’s to be inaugurated in January 2013 could be brokering compromises among city council members in Charlotte as we speak. To automatically assume that no woman will be able to succeed where a very flawed female candidate happened to fail is quite a leap.