Handwringing over Hillary
(posted by Angelica)
I really don’t understand much of the handwringing and lamentations from some feminists over Hillary Clinton’s tanked campaign.
It’s true. She faced a lot of misogynist crap. It’s also true that she did not get the nomination.
But it’s also true that she rose above the misogynist crap thrown at her and nobody seriously suggests that being a woman was what lost her the nomination. Indeed, her own campaign, have indirectly pointed at Obama’s race in suggesting that he would be less electable than she in the general.
So, why all this negativity?
But for many women, whether or not they support Mrs. Clinton, the long primary campaign has left them with a question: why would any woman run?
Many feel dispirited by what they see as bias against Mrs. Clinton in the media — the “Fatal Attraction” comparisons and locker-room chortling on television panels.
“Who would dare to run?” said Karen O’Connor, the director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University. “The media is set up against you, and if you have the money problem to begin with, why would anyone put their families through this, why would anyone put themselves through this?”
For this reason, she said, she doesn’t expect a serious contender anytime soon. “I think it’s going to be generations.”
Others say Mrs. Clinton had such an unusual combination of experience and name recognition that she might actually raise the bar for women.
From another NY Times article:
Along with the usual post-mortems about strategy, message and money, Mrs. Clinton’s all-but-certain defeat brings with it a reckoning about what her run represents for women: a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few pursue high office in the first place.
And yet another, from the NY Times Magazine:
Will the senator be my example of how far we’ve come as women or how far we have to go? Is she proof to my daughter that “you can do anything” or of the hell that will rain down on you if you try? Voting against Clinton does not make a person sexist — there are other reasons to reject her. But contemplating the “Life’s a Bitch, Don’t Vote for One” T-shirts, the stainless-steel-thighed Hillary nutcrackers, the comparison to the bunny-boiling Alex Forrest of “Fatal Attraction,” I struggle over how, when — even whether — to talk to girls truthfully about women and power.
For the first time, we had a historical match-up where both the Democratic frontrunners were not white men. Of course, they can’t both win the nomination. So if Clinton prevailed and Obama lost, we probably would have seen a whole slew of articles about how we won’t see a black president for generations because Americans chose a white candidate over Obama. It’s all so unnecessary. There were so many points in the primary where it really could have gone either way.
Anyhow, I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out. I will be overjoyed when the first female or the first black prez is elected. But I happen to believe that picking the best candidate is more important than symbolism.
I want to say to women like Jackson’s Mom, and a lot of the depressed ladies in the articles, please, keep heart and look on the bright side. Just because Hillary didn’t doesn’t mean women can’t.
Tags: campaign 2008, Hillary Clinton
May 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Angelica, you write “nobody seriously suggests that being a woman was what lost her the nomination” and yet all the articles that you quote seem to suggest exactly that. Lots of people seem to seriously believe that she lost just because she is a woman.
Aside from that issue, I agree with what you wrote - only one candidate could win, and so I’m going to vote for the one who sounds the most committed to getting out of Iraq soon, which would be Obama. But I’m not voting against Hilliary because she is a woman.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I’m sorry, maybe I wasn’t paying that much attention, but what exactly was the misogynist crap she had to face? I heard this same thing on NPR tonight, so I’m a little presprung on the issue. The NPR pundit responded to some question about this with a “huhuhuh, of course she faced a bias, duh, it’s so obvious we don’t even need to explain it.” But, … really?
* Imagine a man running for the senate whose career consisted of being a mediocre and probably less-than-ethical lawyer married to a successful and much less than ethical woman go. That’s a nonstarter, but now imagine the same man running for President on a very lackluster Senate record and his wife’s accomplishments. Only in fiction. She gets a total pass by the press on this and many other issues. Obama’s past gets scrutinized (in part because he promotes it), Hillary apparently transported here in 2000 as an adult female with a famous husband and no past life. Or perhaps in 2007 as a Senator.
* Between two men, how many votes go to either because they are men? None. Between two women, how many votes go to either because they are women? Well, now you have some men refusing to vote for either and some women voting who had not previously voted. Between one man and one woman? A few men don’t vote for the woman on principle, a few extra vote for her for the novelty, many women do just *because* she is a woman, and lots of new women come out to vote who hadn’t voted before. Women are (a) a majority of the population, and (b) rapidly becoming a much more educated group than men (college graduation ratios are approaching 55:45) and therefore more likely to vote anyhow.
* Personal appearance? How many short, fat bald men are in the race? If you’re going to hold personal appearance as one of the factors, you have to consider those who don’t run as well as those who do. You simply don’t see that many non-photogenic men or women because the others take themselves out of the race, so she is wrong to complain about having herself scrutinized in this way.
* Power hungry men are noted for their drive, power hungry women for appearing to be grasping. That’s why Oprah is such a pariah and Desperate Housewives was dropped after the first season.
* And to believe the bias angle, you also have to believe that Obama faces no bias of his own. Women, 51% of the population, blacks, 12%.
Incidentally, I suppose everyone has seen the video in which Code Pink gives Hillary the Pink Slip? It speaks volumes about the race.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
That should say “woman governor”, not “woman go”. Sorry, fat fingers.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:07 am
Jackson,
Angelica, you write “nobody seriously suggests that being a woman was what lost her the nomination” and yet all the articles that you quote seem to suggest exactly that. Lots of people seem to seriously believe that she lost just because she is a woman.
The read I got from the articles were slightly different. I think there is a double dose of disappointment. First, the sense that if Hillary didn’t do it, then a better-placed woman candidate is just not going to come around forever. The second, disgust that she faced so much misogynistic crap. However, I don’t think it’s the overall view of the articles that “she lost because she’s a woman.”
It’s more like, “ick, she had to put up with so much crap. And now she’s lost it’s all for nothing and we’ve missed our chance.”
Eric H,
Hillary nutcrackers anyone?
* Power hungry men are noted for their drive, power hungry women for appearing to be grasping. That’s why Oprah is such a pariah and Desperate Housewives was dropped after the first season.
You’re talking about a talk show host and a soap opera people watch for titillation. Not the best examples of respected women in power I think.
* Personal appearance? How many short, fat bald men are in the race?
You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Have you not noticed that john McCain is bald? Yeah, maybe being of hit with the ugly stick will disadvantage a male candidate, but the press is going to write articles criticizing the appearance of a perfectly presentable candidate the way they, say, dissects Hillary Clinton’s cleavage.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
The point about Oprah is that people don’t seem to hold it against her that she has a TV show, a magazine, produces, etc. She proves that women don’t turn people off as they become more powerful. It’s the power-seeking behavior — in either sex — that does that.
Yes, McCain is bald. His age comes up every day. Not exactly short and fat, though.
Jackson is right: both the articles and the NPR interview I heard feature people who state that she didn’t lose on account of being a woman, but then go on to wring their hands over how much the press was against her, etc., without noting any of the other reasons she might have lost *and* without once noting that her main opponent also faced a bias. You have to go with what they are saying, despite their claims that they aren’t saying what they are saying.