Hell hath no fury

The most blatant forms of sexism directed at Clinton have been well-documented by now: 8220;Iron My Shirts8221; placards, the Hillary Nutcracker, in which a leering Clinton doll promises to bust your nuts with her stainless steel thighs; the merry amusement or cold indifference of the media. Television commentary against Clinton plunged to disgraceful testosterone-charged lows: first reprimands for sounding like a 8220;scolding mother8221; and a 8220;nagging wife8221;; then 8220;every man8217;s first wife8221; and eventually a 8220;she-devil8221; and a 8220;white bitch8221;. At times, it was a struggle to remember that political punditry did not always sound straight out of men8217;s locker rooms.

Equally frustrating for many were more coded forms of sexism where Clinton was held to standards that would never apply to her male counterparts. One such notable example was the frenzied paranoia about the dynastic implications of a presidency by a second member of the Clinton family, when political dynasties have existed at all levels of American government. Jeb Bush was once considered an inevitable candidate; the presidential aspirations of all three Kennedys were treated indulgently by the Democratic populace. This newfound resistance to the idea of a political dynasty that just happens to coincide with the possibility that a woman might become the most powerful person in the world has left many Clinton supporters sceptical and resentful, as did the unprecedented hubbub calling for her to prematurely withdraw from the race, when many recent campaigns with less support have gone all the way to the convention.

Even her most loyal supporters would acknowledge that Hillary Clinton8217;s chequered past includes some poor decisions. What drew many voters to Clinton nevertheless was her grasp of a wide range of important policy issues and her genuine passion for progressive causes such as universal healthcare. It is also important to note that scattered displays of arrogance, ruthlessness and the ability to tell the occasional tall tale did not, by any means, make Clinton an unusual contender in the presidential race. In fact, we would expect no less from the typical presidential candidate. The over-the-top attempts to cast her as a modern-day Lady Macbeth reveal a widespread failure to accept a female public figure who is not afraid to wear her ambition brazenly on the sleeve of her no-nonsense pant suit. Double standards continue to flourish among the many who feign openness to the idea of a woman occupying the highest political office in the US but are privately put off by the fact she could not find a way to get there by sipping on iced tea with other nice ladies who lunch.

The misogyny hurled publicly at Clinton by a few was effective only because of its silent acceptance by a majority. For this, the No-Dealers hold the Democratic Party responsible. Early rumblings from a handful of gender activists about the disturbing tone being used against Clinton were met with deafening silence from party leaders. In response to those same leaders now arguing that a threat to boycott Obama would be counter-productive, as the differences between Clinton and Obama are small especially on abortion rights, No-Dealers point out that, if so, then the merciless pillorying of Clinton by supporters of Obama until only a few weeks ago merits further explanation. Second, the US women8217;s movement cannot be defined through the narrow lens of abortion rights alone. If the Democratic establishment offers its implicit support to the ugliest forms of sexism against the first viable female presidential candidate, its claim of being committed to the rights of women loses much of its credibility. The hope for many No-Dealers is that if their protests and boycott have an impact on an election like this one which should have been a cake-walk for the Democratic party, then the party will be forced to do some soul-searching and, in future, respond appropriately if one of its own becomes the target of race or gender-based prejudice. And finally, for those outraged that a more experienced candidate was casually disposed of in favour of the thinnest resume to seek the presidency 8211; and believe that such experience is what is necessary to convert campaign promises into good policies 8211; boycotting Obama is not that irrational at all

None of this may matter in the end. As gas prices continue to skyrocket and the economy looks to be sinking into a recession, Obama might win in spite of opposition from the No-Dealers. But it would be a mistake to dismiss their protests as petulance when what many of them really want is a debate about principles. The timing of this discord is probably not perfect for Democrats who are keen to take back the White House at all costs. But for a country which consented to an unnecessary and violent war with cold hard cynicism not so long ago, a grassroots rebellion fuelled largely by idealism may not be such a bad outcome after all.

The writer is Assistant Professor of Economics and International Business Diplomacy at Georgetown University ad369georgetown.edu