And this I will agree on, definitely:
If I were Hilary, I'd be frustrated to be out-campaigned by Obama in the primaries, just because she had more years of politics under her belt.
I know the Clintons believed that the press was giving Obama a lot more air-time and favourable coverage than her campaign - a black candidate being viewed, apparently, as more interesting than a woman? I don't know, but I know the Clintons believed it. There is a fascinating series of articles in
Newsweek - link is to the URL for the magazine edition - which chronicles the McCain, Clinton and Obama campaigns from the inside, based on reporters being allowed full access to the campaigns as long as nothing was reported until after the election. There are some really interesting insights - in relation to Clinton, that reveal her and Bill's frustration with the media, with the campaigns and so on, and that also reveal some of the mistakes her campaign (all the campaigns, in fact) undoubtedly made.
I think, all the same, that Clinton has done women candidates a huge favour, as has Palin: between them they have normalised the idea of a woman candidate for president. Unfair media treatment and sexism (which did happen) aside, I hear people talking about a Clinton or a Palin candidacy as if it's nothing unusual. There's no 'oh, my gosh, a woman!' about it.
In the same way, I hear Bobby Jindal's name being mentioned as a possible Republican candidate for 2012, and I Googled him today to learn more about him... I had
no idea that he is of Indian heritage. Again, he is discussed as 'a possible candidate', not as 'a minority candidate'. It really seems to me that so many barriers were broken down this year, and that's impressive, whatever else we may have thought about the various campaigns, media coverage and the outcome.
Wendy
