So the Washington Postreports, perhaps superfluously. It’s interesting that Clinton is hitting this note–elect me because I’d be the first woman president–much more frequently, explicitly, and personally than Barack Obama made the analogous argument for himself. Other people made that argument for Obama more than he did in 2008. His allies have portrayed his critics as racist much more than he has. Clinton, on the other hand, is taking ludicrously contrived offense to supposed slights against her sex at every opportunity. I get the feeling that she will spend much of the campaign baiting Republicans into calling her shrill.
Why the difference? I can think of a few theories. Maybe the sexism card is more powerful than the racism one, there being more female than black voters. Or maybe it’s less powerful, and thus she has to make a big deal out of being able to be the first female president while the historic nature of Obama’s candidacy was in the front of voters’ minds? Maybe it’s less powerful for her, because she is such a familiar figure that people are more inclined to think of her particular characteristics–for example, that she’s untrustworthy–than about her sex? Maybe the country has changed over the last few years to make claims of victimization more politically rewarding.
Or maybe she’s miscalculating. After the first Democratic debate, Alexandra Petri mocked her heavy-handed messaging: “Hillary is a woman. As such, she would be the first female president. This would be historic, because we have never elected a woman before, a woman such as Hillary, who is female.” I would like to think that this strategy will backfire on Clinton, and that people will tire of false indignation. If there is a risk for her–if it is possible for a presidential candidate to go too far in playing the gender card–she seems like someone who could easily cross the line without knowing it.