Liberal guy catfight! Pompous progressive twits battle over whether backing Biden is “sexist”
Is it misogynistic–or just human–to prefer Joe to Hillary?
And best of all, it’s a liberal-guy catfight over whether you’re a sexist pig if you don’t much care for Hillary Clinton, you think she’s running a campaign that puts the “bung” into “bungled,” and you love seeing Joe Biden run against her because: 1) He’s just plain more likable than Hillary; and 2) He’s so darned entertaining. Just looking at a photo of Joe perks me up.
On the sexist-pig side: Scott Lemieux at the U.K. Guardian (What is it about some newspaper from Blighty always sticking its nose into U.S. politics? Remember when the Guardian asked its readers in 2004 to send letters to the residents of Clark County, Ohio, telling them why they ought to vote for Kerry, not Bush? The Clark County voters told the letter-writers where they could stuff those letters.):
“Biden probably isn’t running, almost certainly wouldn’t win if he did and doesn’t bring any new perspectives to the party debate in the way Sanders’s campaign does. But he does have one characteristic that makes him seem more “presidential” to too many journalists: a penis.
“At this point, the sexism of the contingent eager for Biden to run becomes hard to deny. We need to find a generic white male with Hillary Clinton’s policy positions to head the ticket, even though his two previous primary campaigns were flaming wrecks on the highway? This is tantamount to putting a ‘No Girls Allowed’ sign on the door of the White House.”
***On the non-sexist-pig side: Jonathan Chait of New York magazine:
“This particular form of illogic has gotten endemic on the left. A racist would oppose Barack Obama, but that doesn’t make all opposition to Obama racist. Likewise, a sexist would hate Hillary Clinton, but maybe we shouldn’t spend the next 15 months — and possibly the subsequent four or eight years — defining all opposition to her as sexist.”
Lemieux again, this time at Lawyers, Guns & Money, which does at least seem to be a Yank blog (don’t the Brits say “barristers”?):***
“Clinton will almost certainly be the first woman to head a presidential ticket in more than 200 years. There has never been a female governor of New York or California. Women are underrepresented at every level of political office. In that context, I don’t think it’s radical to conclude that the search for a white guy with Hillary Clinton’s views to replace Hillary Clinton that lands on a someone that already has two massively failed primary campaigns under his belt and has shown no interest in running is motivated in part by sexism. I agree that it would be wrong to conclude that intraparty opposition to Hillary Clinton is motivated entirely by sexism — but I don’t argue this, and I think it’s a willful misreading to conclude otherwise.”