Some Voters Say Sexism Less Offensive than Racism

This CNN headline caught my eye about a week ago: "Some Voters Say Sexism Less Offensive than Racism." These words are practically identical to those delivered by feminist icon Gloria Steinem, who, while lecturing on campus earlier this month, cautioned Wellesley women against voting for a candidate by virtue of their sex or skin color. The Democratic nomination, unfortunately, seems to have come down to a choice between a 'black man' and a 'white woman'- all policy and substance seem to have somehow magically evaporated into thin air. If things continue along this path, CNN's article implies that we can expect a win for Obama: America, many agree, suffers from 'racial guilt,' a sense of tremendous responsibility over the lives lost for civil rights. This one thick layer of guilt, however, has overshadowed other important layers; women were for a very long time considered the property of their fathers and husbands, and were denied basic rights in a fashion that today would be considered appalling. 

Still, while voters are caught up in Obama's rhetoric of 'Change,' it seems that all cameras are on Hillary's hairdo, cleavage and ankles, waiting for the minor crack in her voice or tear in her eye to pounce on her and make her out to be a vulnerable, emotional candidate prone to dangerous 'female' forms of human expression. Wait a minute- wasn't she previously criticized for being too hard, too "tightly scripted" and not human enough? I lay much of the blame for this sexist caricature of Hillary on the media. Get this: as Hillary was in the process of delivering the infamous answer, a local reporter broadcasted live that Hillary had "started crying." Soon enough, headlines like "Trail of Tears" began to pop up everywhere. Just to be sure, I went onto YouTube and watched the clip at least half a dozen times- at no point was she crying; her eyes may have temporarily welled with tears (come on, she's exhausted!), but there was no 'trail of tears' to be seen. Rather, journalists' intense coverage of the 'emotional moment' greatly overshadowed a previous hour of serious, detailed policy talk.

I find the media's handling of the Clinton campaign to be oftentimes blatantly sexist and tasteless. "Did the Emotional Moment come too late?" asks a reporter, manipulating Clinton's emotions into some sort of campaign ploy. My question is: is it too late to reverse the damage done by the media?