The talk on the street is that a win for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would be a win for radical feminism. On the surface such thinking appears to be a no-brainer. After all, Hillary Clinton is the reigning princess of radical feminists—the most visible, best-known, and, arguably, the most successful member of the women-who-want-to-be-men club. To have one of their own in the White House—not as wife of the president, but as the President of the United States—would be the crowning achievement of feminism, or so goes conventional wisdom. But with politics, things are rarely what they seem. The truth is, few things scare those who lead the feminist movement more than a successful run for president by Hillary Clinton.

To believe that leaders of the radical feminist movement want Hillary Clinton to win the presidency is to believe that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want to see racial harmony in America. What feminist leaders have in common with Jackson and Sharpton is an unhealthy dependence on victimhood. Like race hustling, feminism has grown into a thriving industry, an industry that must be continually fed with copious amounts of cash from donors who are true believers. Consequently, the poor-me syndrome is both the lifeline and the Achilles Heel of radical feminists in the same way it is for the corporate titans of the race-hustling industry.

Leaders of the feminism industry, like their race-hustling counterparts, know that the only way to keep money flowing into the coffers of their organizations is to be able to claim that the constituents they represent are poor oppressed victims of a patriarchal society controlled by domineering white men determined to hold them back, a difficult argument to make with one of their own in the Oval Office. Just as Barack Obama’s election to the presidency made things difficult for Jackson, Sharpton,, Hillary Clinton’s election would undermine the very rationale of the feminist movement. Like race hustlers, feminists are now grappling with the inescapable irony that successfully achieving their stated goals will mean the beginning of the end for their movement. In this they are like cancer researchers whose entire industry will crash and burn if they ever manage to actually find a cure for cancer.

Feminist leaders have observed with interest how progress toward racial harmony in America has undercut the relevance of opportunists who turned the Civil Rights movement into a money-making industry for a select few rather than the push for equality and dignity envisioned by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Jackson, Sharpton, and other race hustlers fear the day that all Americans truly follow Dr. King’s advice and judge people on the basis of their character rather than the color of their skin. We now have black Americans turning away from the entitlement snake oil pedaled by liberals and becoming conservatives. Out of desperation, liberals, both black and white, have taken to calling these pioneering political entrepreneurs “traitors,” “Uncle Toms,” “racists,” and other even more derogatory pejoratives. If black Americans can be convinced to reject the politics of victimhood, it will mean the end of the race-hustler’s relevance, power, and income. Astute feminist leaders can envision a similar fate for themselves, and the picture—at least for them—is not pretty.

What all of this says is this. If Hillary Clinton can overcome Benghazi, an anemic record as Secretary of State, health problems, age, her on-going behind-the-scenes feud with the Obama’s, and questions about her philandering husband’s shenanigans, she will be the Democrats’ most viable candidate in 2016. On the surface and in public, feminist leaders will lend their support to her candidacy. They will have no choice. But in reality they will be hoping for some kind of knockout punch that will derail the Hillary steam engine and, by so doing, give them a reprieve in terms of their relevance and financial viability. In politics things are not always what they appear to be, but one thing is certain, with feminists as with race hustlers and opportunists of all stripes, one need only follow the money to find the truth.