Feminist Nostalgia – Is Hillary Being Pilloried?
posted by Carrie Menkel-Meadow
A day after Iowa one of my very own feminist colleagues said “it’s all over for Hillary. Good — she is telling an inconsistent story.” I, who had not made up her mind yet about who to vote for, was suprised by my own reaction–anger and disagreement. What politician ever tellls a totally consistent story? Was Hilllary being pilloried?
In the early days of Bill Clinton’s presidency an op-ed appeared in the Washington Post criticising him for being a “compromiser without principles.” I almost wrote an op-ed myself to remind the public of the “good” side of Machiavelli who reminds us that good leaders sometimes cannot have rigid principles if they are to lead a diverse polity. This is another version of “you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” Yes, leaders need some principles and policy plans but they also need to be flexible, take into account very different values of a diverse polity and in my mind. be able to change positions when changed facts and circumstances call for change. In this election campaign much is being made of “change.” Change is “good” if it means deposing Bush and current Iraq and economic policies. Change is “bad” if it demonstrates a change of position, mind or rhetoric. This is problematic and in my view, Hillary is being unfairly criticized.
The treatment of Hillary in the last few days reminds me of an old feminist issue — that the range of tolerated behaviors of women leaders is much narrower than that of men. Hillary tried to fix health care; it didn’ t work –we all learned painful lessons. Her husband has been unfaithful –an experience many people have and she chose her own way to deal with it and stay in a relationship that had many rewarding and redeeming features. She achieved office on her own and in recent debates has demonstrated the strength, judgment, and steeliness needed of a leader in tough times and against critics. Yesterday she demonstrated, like all of us, she is human and can be, and has been, personally hurt. A few tears are a human sign, not a sign of weakness, and I have always valued those who can “feel”, work through their tears, and think at the same time –not to mention govern.
She has a long list of accomplishments and a long list of “mistakes” (though some she is blamed for –like disloyalty to friends like Lani Guinier, etc.– are her husband’s, not hers) –at least she has a list of things she has done and actions she has taken (both in public and sadly, for her, in private, which have become public).
When asked if I thought things would be any diffferent if a male front runner began to sllip and fall in the face of a charismatic candidate like Obama I had to say Yes. Media manipulation of adversary fights in elections, politics, legal stories, wars, and stories in general is nothing new…but I fear the “Hillary, you are down for the count” is premature, biased, and insufficiently appreciative of how this leader has been strenghened in the crucible of a committed political life with hard decisions, much pain, as well as achievement, and lots of learning. I will be happy to vote for either the first African-American or Woman President of the United States (and I remember the charisma of the youthful John and Bobby Kennedy (for whom I campaigned as a young person), but remember out of that we did get the Bay of Pigs and the Civil Rights Acts were only passed after JFK’s death.
Why are one man’s charismatic words so much more valorized than one valiant and tough (if conventional) female politiician’s actions.? Just something to think about…….
January 8, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Posted in: Politics
Print This Post
Responses (17)
Silvia F. Faerman - January 8, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I couldn’t agree more. I would think that flexibility on the part of the leaders should include the capacity and willingness to acknowledge wrong decision making. It would be so refreshing! And it would be a “change” indeed.
Silvia F. Faerman - January 8, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I couldn’t agree more. I would think that flexibility on the part of the leaders should include the capacity and willingness to acknowledge wrong decision making. It would be so refreshing! And it would be a “change” indeed.
Dave - January 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Of course, here’s the counter to your problem: is Hillary being “pilloried” because she is a woman, or is it simply that many people do not think she is that great of a presidential candidate? Should we vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman? Hillary would not be a candidate for President if she was not married to Bill. Say what you will about her, but she is not a natural politician, and for all of her talk of experience she doesn’t have much more than Obama. She was a lawyer, then she was the first lady. She won a senate campaign against a sacrificial lamb (whose name I have easily forgotten)who filled in for Giuliani as he fell apart. Why is it an article of faith that this background is that much more impressive than Obama’s?
I have a highly-subjective sneaking suspicion that Hillary’s “tears” incident was planned. I have watched the video a number of times, and it didn’t look all that natural to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if the campaign is trying to steal away the “this campaign is personal for me” approach from Edwards, and personalize a candidate who, deservedly or not, has a reputation as being a cold and calculating power-monger.
As a San Franciscan, I am very proud of my trifecta of female senators and representatives. I sincerely hope that I might one day have the opportunity to vote for any of them for President. But I am growing weary of those that are pushing the idea (like Gloria Steinem in today’s NYT op-ed) that whether or not we vote for a relatively uninspiring candidate riding her husband’s coat-tails is some sort of referendum on the status of women. I will certainly vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee, but in the meantime I will stick with the person that I believe is the better candidate.
A.J. Sutter - January 8, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Despite having lived until a few months ago in the Bay Area myself, I agree with Carrie. If Obama is the nominee in November, I do expect to vote for him — but that’s so far been true of all Democrats in the past 36 years, since I have more faith at least in whom they’d be likely to appoint as judges and Cabinet members, compared to their opponents. Hillary is a bit to the right of her husband and maybe of me, but I do feel she’s more battle-tested than Obama. To be fair about your comparison, though, Obama does not seem to have the unsavory background of the Kennedys. In any case, Bill Clinton lost both events in 1992; in Iowa he wasn’t even close (3%); maybe someone, somewhere in the US national media is mentioning this.
More disconcerting to me is the deepening shallowness, if you get my drift, of US political discourse. It’s all the more evident now that I’m living in Japan, despite this being an island nation rich in its own political mishugas. Unfortunately, the hype about the Iowa and New Hampshire results has metastasized from CNN to the usually far superior BBC World Service, which is adjacent to it on my cable service. I’m amazed at how difficult it is to find the absolute vote tallies for the Iowa caucuses — even on the Des Moines Register website. Speaking about percentages, as everyone does, doesn’t convey what a small number of votes were actually cast, to say nothing of the arcane process. Nor does anyone bother to mention delegate counts. There has been a lot on this blog recently about “availability cascades” (or to use another CNN analogy, the eclipse of weather in most of the US by “Extreme Weather” in a few spots), but what can be done to reverse this dynamic that is hurtling us ever more toward the superficial?
This is also, in principle, why I am somewhat resistant to Obama at this stage in the process. He is a terrific surface, but it is hard to see what else there is. Hillary Clinton’s recent quote of Mario Cuomo was apt. I have more faith in her than in Obama about being able to fashion the prose of governing, even if she spent her white House years to date more as apprentice than as author or editor. Being First Lady isn’t necessarily chopped liver: I suspect that Hillary’s degree of engagement as a political and policy adviser was a bit deeper than, say, Pat Nixon’s or Laura Bush’s. (I’m agnostic about the influence of chief astrologer Nancy Reagan.) She’s also shown as a Senator that she can work with folks like Newt Gingrich and even Rupert Murdoch, rather than just talking about bi-partisanship. But I speak with the nostalgia of someone who has actually voted for a Republican for a federal office (Jacob Javits, in 1974).
Steve Bainbridge - January 8, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I don’t buy it. As I observed on my blog, Ed Muskie cried in New Hampshire and got his butt whipped. Hillary Clinton cries and wins (or, as of 8-ish PST, is winning).
AYY - January 9, 2008 at 12:28 am
Prof. Menkel-Meadow, you really must be more careful in your choice of words. If there was anything overly rigid about Bill Clinton, it certainly wasn’t his principles.
As for your feminist colleague, her comment was ambiguous and none of us is in a position to say what she could have meant. or whether it was justified, although Hillary certainly has told inconsistent stories. And Hillary has, if anything, been treated with kid gloves by the media.
But then I’m not sure what your underlying assumption is. Is it that when a feminist criticizes Hillary, it’s societal sexism at work, because a feminist wouldn’t criticize a man for the same thing? If that’s what you’re saying, then it’s a bit over my head.
Hooray for Hillary - January 9, 2008 at 9:12 am
This is the best analysis I’ve seen of the media’s unfairness towards Hillary. I am so glad to see that the NH has stopped an unfair “coronation” of her opponent. You’ve made explicit what must have, or should have, been on a lot of voters’ minds.
Alice Ristroph - January 9, 2008 at 9:56 am
At the November 15 debate, Hillary Clinton was asked whether attacks on her were motivate by sexism. She replied, “I’m not trying to play the gender card, I’m trying to play the winning card. People aren’t attacking me because I’m a woman, they’re attacking me because I’m ahead.” What will she do if the gender card seems to be her only winning card? It appears that the moment she is no longer ahead, her supporters will claim that attacks on her (or just declining poll numbers) _are_ motivated by sexism.
I don’t see any more evidence that Clinton lost in Iowa because she is a woman than evidence that Obama lost in New Hampshire because he is black. I wish Clinton supporters would give other Democrats the benefit of the doubt rather than assume that support for other candidates is motivated by sexism.
Maryland Conservatarian - January 9, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Change is “good” if it means deposing Bush…”
well then I think 2008 will be a “good” year for you – last I checked even Duncan Hunter has more delegates than the President…
as to voting for strong female leaders – honest I tried!! but the reactionary Democratic electorate here in Maryland twice chose Parris Glendenning over Ellen Sauerbrey. Exhausted, I joined with them and voted Bob Ehrlich over Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in 2002…and don’t even get me going on how the liberal Democratic establishment here treats black candidates in statewide elections (see e.g. Michael Steele)
Drew - January 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I don’t see the connection between her treatment in the media and her gender. How can you so quickly isolate her sex as the reason for the criticism? How do you differentiate rough treatment of Clinton (calling her by her first name is almost more sexist, IMO) from the media shellacking that Dean took in 2004? Or that any other frontrunner regularly takes?
Perhaps it’s not possible to differentiate them at this point, which is why the post reads as more of a general defense of Clinton than a feminist analysis.
P.S. Ruckman, Jr. - January 9, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I agree that the approach of this post is one strategies that can be employed in a manner that Machiavelli would appalaud. But I guess I am curious as to how effective it can be if deployed large-scale this early in the race. It might be better to just sail on the wings of partisanship, spin, celebrity, high name-recognition, and a great deal of money.
suosu - January 9, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Leaders need to have some principles and policies, plans, but they also need to take a flexible approach, taking into account the very different values of pluralistic polity, and in my heart. As the state’s leaders should proceed from reality, understand the aspirations of the people.
Searcher for Truth - January 9, 2008 at 9:58 pm
This post leaves me scratching my head.
Here we have Hillary campaigning on the theme that “I’m your girl”, she wants to break the glass ceiling, that she’s Mrs. Bill Clinton, that it’s time for the boys to move aside. And then we have you saying she’s Bill’s Clinton’s long suffering wife, and she tried so hard, and learned so much and made such hard decisions, as if she were running for student of the week.
Then you tell us that she’s not being treated the same as if she were a male.
See any problem here?
AYY - January 10, 2008 at 11:34 am
Maybe the media does have it in for Hillary.
From Newsbusters 1/8/08:
“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign stop was interrupted Monday when two men stood in the crowd and began screaming, “Iron my shirt!” during one of her final appearances before the New Hampshire primary.
Clinton, a former first lady running to become the nation’s first female president, laughed at the seemingly sexist protest that suggested a woman’s place is doing the laundry and not running the country.
“Ah, the remnants of sexism — alive and well,” Clinton said to applause in a school auditorium.
More are like the Houston Chronicle who proclaims that “Clinton brushes off sexist taunts” as if she did something wonderful.
The New York Daily News actually did some old fashioned reporting and tracked down the two disrupter’s names, though. On their news blog called Mouth of the Potomac, Michael McAuliff gives us the scoop.
We followed.to ask what the heck they were thinking.
Nick Gemelli, who is 21, and born at least a decade after “iron my shirts” was an anti-women’s rights slogan, didn’t have much of a rationale. “I just don’t think a woman should be President,” he said.
At least he got some attention. His friend — a la Bart Simpson — said his name was Hugh Jas, but The Mouth later learned that his real name is Adolfo Gonzalez Jr.
So far, the Daily News is the only one that I have seen go farther than just reporting the incident.
Then from the folks over at HotAir.com, we get some further sleuthing. After some speculating that it might have been a Hillary plant, the tipseters at HotAir tracked down the truth. It’s a simple radio stunt.
It turns out the guys who the Daily News named work for Boston station WBCN 104.1 FM, and are members of the Toucher and Rich Show.
So much for real political protesting, eh? But it amuses me that few news outlets bothered to do the leg work to find all this out and went ahead to report this incident like it was legitimate. It did give the MSM a chance to show Hillary looking PC by claiming she was being confronted by examples of “sexism” run wild, though. So, maybe that is why they didn’t want to look into it too hard. It would destroy the illusion of Hillary’s “strength” and place the focus on a radio stunt.”
Strength and Experience = Special Pleading - January 11, 2008 at 7:02 am
the post reads as more of a general defense of Clinton than a feminist analysis.
Any “feminist” who writes one of these “fight the patriarchy by voting for Hillary” columns loses my respect. Hillary Clinton isn’t facing off against the patriarchy. She’s facing off against a feminist black dude.
This is a calculated campaign to remove Obama from the mental picture by making the entire race about Hillary. Because people think he’s a better candidate than she is. But they would vote for her if he wasn’t in the race. So let’s make it about Hillary versus men or Hillary versus the sexist press, instead of Hillary versus the feminist black dude who whupped her ass in Iowa and punctured her self-inflated balloon of “inevitability”.
Strength and Experience = Special Pleading - January 11, 2008 at 7:03 am
the post reads as more of a general defense of Clinton than a feminist analysis.
Any “feminist” who writes one of these “fight the patriarchy by voting for Hillary” columns loses my respect. Hillary Clinton isn’t facing off against the patriarchy. She’s facing off against a feminist black dude.
This is a calculated campaign to remove Obama from the mental picture by making the entire race about Hillary. Because people think he’s a better candidate than she is. But they would vote for her if he wasn’t in the race. So let’s make it about Hillary versus men or Hillary versus the sexist press, instead of Hillary versus the feminist black dude who whupped her ass in Iowa and punctured her self-inflated balloon of “inevitability”.
Feminits Unite! ...against the black guy - January 11, 2008 at 7:04 am
This is a calculated campaign to remove Obama from the mental picture by making the entire race about Hillary. Because people think he’s a better candidate than she is. But they would vote for her if he wasn’t in the race. So let’s make it about Hillary versus men or Hillary versus the sexist press, instead of Hillary versus the feminist black dude who whupped her ass in Iowa and punctured her self-inflated balloon of “inevitability”.
Leave a Reply