Hillary lost because of the speech she did not give

That’s Nick Kristof’s very interesting theory. Kristof, who can provoke good thought in me even when I disagree with him, says Hillary Clinton should have given a speech on sex similar to the one Barack Obama did in race.

In fact, he considers the matter so important, he calls on Obama to now give the speech Clinton didn’t. (An even better idea might be for Clinton to give that speech at the Democratic National Convention.)

Kristof has several talking points about the need for this speech, too:

Racism is deeper, but sexism may be wider in America today. In polls, more Americans say they would be willing to vote for a black candidate for president than for a female candidate, and sexist put-downs are heard more publicly than racial ones.

That’s probably true even once you allow for the Tom Bradley effect. Beyond that, the fact that there is no “Geraldine Ferraro effect” that has to get factored in for polling about women candidates underscores Kristof’s bottom line.

We aren’t always aware of our own biases. Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are sure that she was defeated by misogyny, while those who voted against her invariably are dismissive. … The catch is that abundant psychology research shows that we are often shaped by stereotypes that we are unaware of.

Or, we get committed enough to our biases to defend them and argue for them.

A conservative may end up the first woman president. The first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, wasn’t “very Catholic.” In the same way, the first black president probably won’t be “very black,” either in complexion or in any personal history with the civil-rights struggle.

Beyond that, a liberal black like Randall Kennedy might say “so” to the idea that a conservative black could be elected before Obama. I would hope women would say the same.

He’s got more thoughts on the issue at this very good column.

Will Obama be reading?