Hillary Clinton has been fighting to be not just the Democratic nominee in the upcoming general election, but also fighting on behalf of women everywhere that feel misrepresented and voiceless in politics. Hers wasn't the perfect campaign, but she proved herself to be relentless and tough, often the match or better than her male counterparts.
However, as has been said elsewhere, it seems to be easier to make jokes about sexism than racism, and thus I would concede that Clinton would be a relatively easy target for those wishing to make such jokes. But to claim that her campaign was viciously attacked by unrelenting sexist opposition while still claiming to have won "more votes than any primary candidate in either party ever had before" seems to be a little counter-intuitive. If you care to claim that the sexism was perpetrated by superdelegates or any high-standing officials, well then please show some proof.
Nevertheless, even though it appears that Obama is clearly wrapping up the nomination, Clinton should not be pushed to call it quits ahead of her time because she does have more than just the candidacy at stake. She has devout supporters who are looking at Clinton as their voice; a voice that they have never had in such prominence. And that is certainly significant.
The ultimate question, however, is how can she continue to put a positive spotlight on women in politics without becoming irresponsible? Aside from Obama moving ever closer to reaching an undeniable delegate lead and Clinton's chances of securing the nomination becoming even more remote, Clinton's campaign is stepping further and further into debt. Is the women's movement and their voice worth the current $30 million price tag that's been dug? How deep will that hole end up being when the nomination race is finished?
How would John Edwards be viewed if he were in Clinton's position, with less delegates, decreasing odds, and a deepening hole of campaign debt? Would the Democratic party leaders be more vocal in calling for him to call it quits at this point, assuming he were in a similar position as far as campaign debt and delegate proximity, or would Edwards be pressing onward as relentlessly as Clinton's campaign, making similar arguments?
Is Clinton pressing on to truly attempt to be the Democratic candidate, or is she continuing onward to be the voice for a misrepresented gender? Will she give credence to and demonstrate the political responsibility of women in politics, or will she leave the campaign race with a burgeoning campaign debt that ultimately hurts the image of female politicians? Or is she pressing onward simply to heal the Democratic party in the best possible way, lessoning previously harsh criticism of Obama as she attempts to persuade her devout followers that whoever the Democratic nominee is, it is better than the Republican alternative?
This article was written by angelduzt. Send thoughts and comments to duzt@lifeduzt.net.