I've been wanting to write this post for a while now, but now that I'm actually taking the time to write it, I'm not sure where to begin. I was going to write a piece that tackled both sexism and racism, but I'll go ahead and break it down into chunky, bit sized nuggets.

The Clinton camp had to deal with sexism while they campaigned. I think this much is clear and obvious. I recently saw a montage of clips from various news agencies that were saying some of the most outrageous and sexist statements about HRC. It was further proof (as if we needed it) that sexism is alive and real in today's society. If pundits were comfortable saying sexist remarks in front of a television camera, then I can only imagine what people say in the comforts of their own living rooms.

And being a reader of numerous blogs, I know that there is a large population of people out there that don't like HRC for any other reason than her being a woman. And I also know, being a reader of numerous sports blogs, that sexism is very much a part of our social fabric.

I always knew that computers had a good way of removing any kind of social filter and that people are rarely more honest than when they're behind a keyboard. I know, it's all very passive aggressive, but I think that the internet has really revealed a lot about people's true feelings on social matters.

But I was somewhat surprised that many pundits would be so open with their sexism. I think the Hillary Clinton campaign has a legitimate gripe with many pundits who made jokes about "closing their legs" when HRC spoke and being reminded of their mothers and wives who "nagged" them to take out the garbage.

And because the punditry is almost exclusively male, it would often have the appearance (and rightly so) of a cigar-smoking boys club ganging up on Hillary Clinton because of her sex. Any objective observer can look at the attention HRC received from the punditry and others and see an obvious sexist slant to much of it. From talking about the way she dressed to the way she laughs to contemplating whether the US was ready to see a woman in the White House age in front of them, I think the sexism case had been disgustingly made.

I've found much of the vitriol thrown towards Hillary since the 90's to be disgusting. You couldn't turn on talk radio in the 90's without hearing Rush or any of the other bozos talking about Hillary Clinton, not so much critiquing her substance but instead harping on her for the aforementioned reasons.

The yes, but...

We should not confuse disliking HRC, even strongly disliking her, as a sexist act in and of itself. There's a fair amount of disentangling that has to happen here.

For a lot of people, sex does play a role in this. So by the very definition of the word, sexism is at play. Some people just have a difficult time seeing women in power. I think this is ingrained in us as a culture, so even if people don't intend sexism to inform their actions and words, it's almost impossible for that not to happen.

I'm not excusing anything. But I don't want to paint people who are trying with people who aren't. That's far too broad of a sexist brush.

It's also virtually impossible to disentangle the love and/or hate relationship many people feel towards the Clintons as a couple. It's impossible to disentangle Bill from Hillary. When you get one, you get the other. That's always been the case. They are a packaged deal. So it'd be wrong to confuse not liking Hillary because of Bill as a sexist act.

In some ways, I see my not liking the Clintons as an act of feminism. I never ever ever understood how feminists could rally behind Bill Clinton. Beyond his policies, which I feel weren't really all that progressive in terms of championing feminist causes, the man is just a snake. He cheated, not once, not twice, but numerous times. And feminists who should have known better stood behind him. WHY? I've never understood that. The man was hardly a feminist and he treated his own wife like a piece of crap by cheating on her numerous times.

Here's where it gets tricky. I do not like judging people's personal choices and try to make it a point to not do so (anymore). So I'm not going to harp on HRC for sticking with Bill after all of these years. Maybe they have this connection that all of us don't see, so who am I to say that she should have dumped him while he was in the White House?

But you can only read so much about the Clintons' insatiable lust for power and control before it starts becoming a narrative in your head. You can only read so many articles about the ability of the Clinton political machine to manipulate any situation to suit its own self-serving needs before it starts creating a narrative in your head.

So if you have this narrative in your head, as I admittedly do, then you start reading every single thing the Clintons do as being for purely political purposes. So in 1998, as the country was embroiled in the impeachment of the president for lying under oath about something he should have never been asked in the first place, you start hearing these rumblings about Hillary contemplating running for the United States Senate. So if she's running for Senate, she's going to need to stand by her husband. And if you have this narrative in your head, you know that this is headed towards a run at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Just so I make this clear, I don't find anything wrong with ambition. I don't think you can run for president without being ambitious on an almost hyper level. No, this is more about what I perceive to be a blind sense of entitlement. And I think that is my main reason for not liking the Clintons.

If there's one thing I hate, and if there's one thing I think our country doesn't want in 2008, its another political family who feels entitled to live in the White House.

I've gotten a bit off track here, but I felt that had to be said. As I mentioned above, Hillary Clinton has been the focus of blatantly sexist language and media coverage.

There's another yes, but...

I've found much of the attention thrown Clinton's way to be paternalistically sexist.

Hillary maintains that she ran as a "woman and not because she was a woman." I say right on to that sentiment. That's the Jackie Robinson appraoch and it's necessary for nearly all trailblazers to have that attitude. I'll get into this when I write my piece on racism in the campaign, but I think Barack proved how you pull this off. I think Hillary failed on a couple different fronts.

Although she tried to run "as a woman and not because of," I think she enjoyed a different standard that was afforded to her over other candidates.

This is a bit tricky to write because I think talking about this double-standard can bring up a lot of hurtful stereotypes, so I should apologize ahead of time.

But...hmmm...Like take the time she complained about getting the first question in debates. I just don't think that a male candidate would have mentioned this. I think it was an instance of HRC trying to stoke some sexism flames when sexism really wasn't even at play.

Or how her other Democratic candidates would hold back in attacking her because they felt that they would be perceived as "ganging up" on Hillary. Part of that is the paternalism that I mentioned before. But how great and forward thinking would it have been if Hillary had stood up at a press conference (or at the debate itself) and said, "Look, I'm a woman. Don't go easier on me than you would on anyone else. Treat me like you would any other candidate." That's a sentiment people should and would rally behind. Its taking yourself out of the role of a victim.

I also didn't understand her tears. I think they hurt her, sure, but you can't deny that they helped her win New Hampshire. And I find that a little disgusting. Maybe this has more to do with how we treat boys and men, but I think if Barack or Edwards had cried, really for no other reason than losing, I think they would have been eaten alive, not rallied around.

I also see the tail end of her campaign as fitting into this mold as well. First, I think that it's wrong to infer sexism from the pundits who were talking about her dropping out after she had fallen so far behind. Again, if she wants to be treated as any other candidate, then she should be open to any of the same criticisms that would have been thrown the way of a male candidate.

In hindsight, I do think it was wrong to ask HRC to drop out after she had fallen so far behind. Running or not running is a personal choice and no one should be bullied in or out of any race. And she did win a lot of primaries after her 11 state losing streak.

But was it so wrong for people to at the very least wonder why she was staying in, especially because it was impossible for her to catch his pledged delegate lead? I think that was another case where sexism shouldn't have been called into play. It's using far too wide a brush.

And one last statement, it was also not great for HRC and HRC supporters to read sexism into people wondering why she didn't concede on Tuesday night after he had clinched the nomination. The race was over. He had won the necessary delegates needed for the nomination. There was no reason not to concede. I don't think it's sexism at all. If anything, people were being too gracious with HRC not conceding. "Oh, she just needs time to think things over." I think that's a little paternalistic, don't you? If she wants to run as any other candidate, she would have done the right thing and conceded on Tuesday.

So yeah, it's a bit of a mixed bag here. I'm all worded out, so I turn it over to you all. There was no editing here, so excuse any typos/grammar errors.

paz

- Matthew