Marie Cocco’s article in yesterday’s Washington Post sheds an uncomfortable light on the reality of the Democratic nomination process that seems to be finally coming to a conclusion.
When I have mentioned the role gender has played in the race, far too many people have dismissed as nonsense the possibility that Clinton has in any way been discriminated against for being a woman. I have had difficulty deciding if this is because they don’t think misogyny is a problem, or they don’t recognise misogyny at all.
Similarly, when all that nonsense with the (blissfully) EX taoiseach’s slush funds was going on, there were far too many people actively denying that there was any corruption involved. Even when a full list of the amount of money involved was presented.
Cocco raises questions that at some point are going to require an answer -
Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?
What worries me is the prospect that they won’t be answered in the lifetime of this generation. What with all this equality and how women are grand now that we’re allowed to work sometimes for 17% less pay.
I have been swayed by Obama’s apparent ability, and I have loved watching the level of engagement he seems to have inspired, particularly in young people. But if he is to be the Democratic nominee, and if he is to be the next president, then will he rise to this platform, and challenge this discrimination?
Surely nobody has watched the press coverage of Hilary Clinton’s campaign as closely as he has.
If he is as intelligent as he seems, he can’t have missed the ‘highlights’ that Cocco’s article lists.
If he is as worthy as he claims, he can’t miss the opportunity to make this change.