Did she help or hurt?

In 1988, Congresswoman Pat Schroeder ran for President. When she withdrew from the contest, she was criticized for crying during her withdrawal speech because it was felt that her tears reinforced the sexist notion that women are too emotional and weak to hold positions of high political power.

Oh, what a difference twenty years makes. Hillary Clinton cried in 2008 on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, and many credit that moment with "humanizing" her and establishing an authenticity that propelled her to victory. If she had not won New Hampshire, this nomination battle in all likelihood would have been over months ago.

As she struggles to stay in the race, to explain why she should still be around, and to gin up her supporters to fight for her candidacy, Clinton and her surrogates have often played the "sexism is afoot" card to explain why she has not won this race already. I have problems with this argument, because I think Hillary Clinton's candidacy if nothing else has shown that a woman candidate CAN be taken just as seriously as a man. I say this even though I was bothered by the idea that our first major party nominee for President might be propelled into that role not on the strength of her own merit, but because her husband happened to recently be President as well. I wanted the first woman president to succeed because of who she is and what she did, just like a man would be treated.

In the end, while I still believe that Clinton started this election process as the frontrunner because of her husband's political apparatus and connections, she stayed in the race and performed as well as she did largely because of her own strong performance in debates, her political team's skill, and by casting herself as the toughest person in the race. I don't doubt that sexism still exists or that some voters never gave her fair credit or consideration because she is a woman. I don't deny that the media has engaged in sexism in some of their treatment of Senator Clinton. But the media always screws over the candidates to some extent, and the public is always biased and prone to silly decisions on traits that should be irrelevant. The fact is, from a pure standpoint of whether Hilary Clinton was treated to the same unfair process and treatment that male candidates are subjected to every year, I think the answer has to be yes.

But Johnathan Chait argues that in earning her right to be in the race, and her right to be taken seriously just like the men, Hillary Clinton may have had to pay a price that will hurt the women who come after her. It was important that she establish a hawkish, tough position on all things military and national security to combat the perception that women can't make tough choices about things like going to war. But in puffing her chest and showing her cojones, did she go too far? By rushing to establish her manly cred as evidence of her fitness for the office of president, did she inadvertently solidify the notion that presidents SHOULD be manly, and thus by definition not womanly? Did she reinforce the notion that being female is inherently a lesser, bad, unfortunate thing if you want to be a world leader too?

It's a complicated question, but one that troubles me.