A few nights ago, Hillary Clinton became the first woman in American history to win the Iowa caucuses. And no one is reporting on this monumental accomplishment. Instead, media outlets continue to label the caucus results as a tie, or too close to call. True, Hillary Clinton only one the state by .3 percent, but that is still a win damnit. More important than percentages, Clinton won 23 delegates to Sanders' 21 delegates, a wider margin of victory for the former Secretary. Yet news organizations are not reporting the Iowa results as a win for Clinton. I understand the media appeal of reporting the race as highly competitive, but Clinton's win, even though small, is a historic development that should not be dismissed for the sake of horse race political coverage.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders played an impressive ground game in Iowa, and both deserve recognition for their accomplishments. However, it stings that the significance of Hillary's candidacy as the first female candidate to win Iowa is undermined to report on the rise of a Democratic Socialist. Socialism is fine, but very few American citizens identify as Democratic Socialists, while roughly half of the American population identifies as female. Clinton's win here is much more significant in the grand scheme of equal representation. What we should really be hearing in the news is questions regarding why it took so long for a woman to win in Iowa, and to scrutinize our political system in which women are incentivised not to run for higher office.
--Sydney Spreck is a St. Olaf sophomore from Stillwater, MN, majoring in Political Science and Women's and Gender Studies. She is in New Hampshire as part of a St. Olaf political science class studying the presidential primary elections.
