It's About Gender, Stupid - Why Clinton's Campaign Still Matters
Did Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign blossom and then wither on the vine due to poor political strategy? Baggage carried over from her husband's presidency? Or the impact of gender bias?We may never come to a consensus regarding the answer. But as Jodi Cantor notes in an article entitled "Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton's Hopes Dim" in the New York Times on Monday:
Clinton's political position 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 political office in the first place.I don't know whether or not a large number of Hillary supporters would resent Obama's nomination enough to vote against him - or not vote at all.The answers have immediate political implications. If many of Clinton's legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination, how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?
"Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them," said Marilu Sochor, 48, a real estate agent in Columbus, Ohio, and a Clinton supporter. "Sexism has played a really big role in the race."
....Mrs. Clinton seemed to channel the lives of regular women, who often saw her as an avenging angel. Take Judith Henry, 67, for whom Mrs. Clinton’s primary losses stirred decades-old memories of working at a phone company where women were not allowed to hold management positions. “They always gave us the clerical jobs and told us we didn’t have families to support,” she said. At a rally last month in Bloomington, Ind., she sat with her daughter Susan Henry, 45, a warehouse worker, who complained that her male colleagues did less work and made more money than the women did.
But I do know that her candidacy has renewed a belief that many 'women of a certain age' had lost - the belief that we can do something other than quietly accept that we'll be paid less, promoted less, and sidelined more because of our gender.
Hillary Clinton's run hinted that we might see the tide turn in our lifetime - that our daughters would grow up in a world where the statement 'you're a girl' would be no more of a put-down than 'you have brown hair.' It would be a neutral statement.
But that will not come to pass. Instead, the writing on the wall has been retraced with even bolder strokes.
The fact that Hillary's been constantly pummeled by the media, the pundits, the bloggers (both anonymous and accountable), and YouTube in a way that runs roughshod over gender neutrality - well, that's the red flag newly thrust in front of any woman considering a run for public office.
It's the frustrating reminder that gender may likely trump issues, qualifications, even accomplishments when it comes time for the media to frame a candidate who's a woman. And frame they will, because it's much easier to deal with a gendered archetype than with a flesh and blood human being, particularly one of the female persuasion. And it's that frame that shapes voter attitudes to a large extent.
How many of us have a thick enough hide and a sufficiently steely will to resist the personal attacks (including the 'B' word) that a woman candidate often engenders?
At the national level, how many women have the name recognition, the financial resources, and the support structure in place to effectively mount a presidential campaign? Beyond Clinton, few to none.
The likelihood of another viable female candidate rising through the ranks in the next 4-8 years and getting as far as Clinton has gotten in her presidential bid is doubtful. Hillary Clinton is not Everywoman. But she is one woman who, however briefly, inspired big girls - and little girls - to dream.
Photo © ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images
Comments
Hillary is an extremely, extremely close 2nd to be the nominee for major party. Does the fact that she’s not in first mean sexism is the issue? On the contrary, the fact that she’s so close illustrates that sexism hasn’t been a major barrier for her in terms of votes. We know the surveys that show how significant race has been a barrier to Obama in some places like KY and W. Va.–extremely high barrier. What surveys or vote results demonstrate that gender has been a significant barrier for Hillary? None.
How far ahead would Hillary have to be for these angry women not to claim that sexism is a major barrier? Would the change in the 200 delegates or so (about 5%) that would put Hillary in first and Obama in 2nd be enough? Or would they still be complaining that it should be an even greater lead? How much so?
Hillary joins the hundreds of candidates who didn’t win their party’s nomination. Only 1 gets it, but Hillary is almost as close a 2nd as there has been. For the first woman running are we to believe that she has gotten as far as she did despite extraordinary sexist-based voting? Whatever additional votes Hillary would have were sexism a non-issue, it’s abundantly clear from the evidence that Obama’s vote totals are much lower than they would be if racism were not an issue.
What sort of excuse should be blamed for why Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd finished far, far behind her?
Crying wolf won’t help, and in the long run, it only hurts women. I lose respect for the claims about sexism costing Hillary the nomination the more I read them. No evidence, just emotion. Show me the polls, and the voting results that demonstrate the effect of the issue and I’ll give it another thought. None are forthcoming.
jackstpaul,you’re missing the point.
The sexism that exists is endemic and structural, and it’s not simply ‘those angry women’ who are pointing it out.
It exists in the Lilly Ledbetter case where a woman was paid a quarter million less than her male counterparts over nearly a 20 year period. Republicans in the Senate effectively stopped a vote that would have passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
It allowed the following to happen with very little attention or media coverage:
All these are examples of misogyny, and it’s so pervasive that nobody asks, “Why does this happen so often and yet so few people flinch or point out that it’s wrong?”
I can’t even offer you examples that would be printable if this level of comparable racism was directed at the Obama campaign; I would be called racist for propagating it, and I won’t.
My radar goes off when anyone in an argument describes the opposing side as ‘these’ people. By describing Hillary supporters as ‘these angry women’ and raising the criticism of their being ‘emotional,’ you’re showing the inherent bias in your argument.
Would you label McCain supporters as ‘these men’? Would you use the word ‘emotion’ to decribe the behavior of men? You drag out the same old argument that women are emotional creatures. Yet I’ve seen plenty of examples of websites, stickers, t-shirts and internet jokes circulating about Clinton being a bitch.
I see nothing comparable about McCain or Obama which identifies them as dicks, pricks, johns, tools, or any other gender-negative words for men.
THAT is the issue at the heart of the matter. So many attacks against Clinton are gender-based, and they’re put forth by men. How emotional is that?
If Clinton’s vote total is close, that’s because women are the majority in this country. No, all women don’t vote the same. But what Clinton says resonates with enough women that they support her.
What you failed to address is the fact that there is no other woman even close to being able to mount a presidential campaign as Clinton has done this year. And we won’t see another for quite a while. Why is that so?
There are a lot of women that will not vote for her for reasons that have nothing to do with sexism. There are no doubt people that won’t vote for her because of her gender, just as there are people that won’t vote for Obama because of his race. There are just as many people, if not more, that will or won’t vote for these two individuals because of their platform and proposed programs. While there is still a lot of room for improvement, as a society we have made a lot of progress in moving past old notions of racism and sexism, and judging people on their own merits. It is unfortunate that this glass is always described as half empty.
Linda - The answer to your why is ego, money, and blind ambition - which Hillary has in abundance. She has a lot of Lady Macbeth qualities to her - which plays to the hubris of her… All the gender-based, hackle radar raising incidents out there - and there are plenty (men are men and that won’t change, women are women - that won’t change - each eat their own and each other in deliciously wonderful displays of carnage)… Lady Clinton’s hubris was the the riding into Jerusalem attitude she took to her whole campaign. I know, I am mixing metaphors at this point. She came on with the anointed one take and despite whatever qualifications she may have really plays up a character flaw that turns off people.
I agree with you, texasgal and Whiteknyght, that Clinton has significant flaws and that she carried a lot of baggage that stymied her candidacy from the beginning. Many will not vote for her not because she’s a woman, but because she’s Hillary Clinton - a human being they find reprehensible in many ways.
She is perhaps the wrong woman at the right time. The country is willing to entertain the notion of a woman president, but not if that woman is Hillary Clinton.
Having said that, I’ll hazard a guess that there’s at least a decade’s difference in age (and likely more) between me and texasgal. The glass is half empty because I’m old enough to recall a time when water was in short supply. Women would turn on the tap and nothing would come out, or they’d be told, “nope, you can’t fill your glass here.”
If the glass is half full, you may be happy enough to leave it where it is. I take the ‘Oliver’ approach (as in the movie musical with Mark Lester and Jack Wild) because I’ll always say, “Please sir, I want more!” If we don’t ask, we don’t get.
If I were a pessimist, I wouldn’t ask. Thus I’m an optimist, fully expecting that we’ll see more advances in our lifetime. But we won’t get them by being complacent. That’s my cautionary tale.
I am a 42 year old woman and a Barrack Obama supporter. I liked Hillary Clinton before this race started though I could not support her because of her support for the war and for attacking Iran. I was an Edwards supporter and when he dropped out, I found Obama. As the race has gone on, I have found myself liking Hillary less and less. I will vote for her with my nose held if she is the nominee but I won’t be happy about it. In my book, she may be a woman but she is more of the same. I am ready for a change. I am ready for hope and optimism. So this white middle-aged woman will be cheering Obama on until he is the nominee.
You know I hear this talk about change and a change that is the elephant in the room is gay marriage. I want to vote for barack obama but he does not have nor will he have a track record on gay marriages. He always speaks about change. Change what? And when gay marriages are asked to him, he couldn’t help but dodge the question? Hillary took those questions head on and even said gay marriages are personal to her. Go on youtube type in ellen and Hillary. So this gay man is voting for Hillary Clinton. She has a proven record of standing by the gay community, even when her husband put us under the bus; Hillary was there. When Mayor Gavin Newsom was lynched by media for allowing Gay Marriages in 2004, Hillary was there. When this new ruling in California, guess who was there and to offer the gay community congratulatory remarks? Hillary. So for those that say they want change, what kind of change are you looking for? How will Barack Obama implement this change that occurs? What laws and legislation needs to be passed and are the American people ready to pay for the changes they desperately need? I am have paid years and years of being called the ‘f’ word; of people saying homosexuality is a crime, a sin; so yes I am ready for this change.
One other thing, there might be some votes that are casts because they are racist votes, but I am no racist for anyone to say that I am because I voted for Hillary Clinton, I want you to know that growing up I was bullied and demeaned because of my brown skin, brown eyes, and black hair. I voted for Hillary because she can actually talk about change and what changes needs done. Gay marriages and how she stands with them is a proven road.
Horse hockey!
I was pro-Hilary until I heard Obama speak. He made me feel that maybe we could start something new and get rid of politics as usual.
Since then, I have watched Clinton–not the woman, the politician. What can I say, she reminds me of Bush. The truth is a very slippery to her slope indeed-whatever serves her ambition is the truth of the day. (Remember how early on she said Obama was no good because in kindergarten her wrote an essay saying he wanted to be president–that’s our prize president? please!)
At the start she had all the money, all the momentum, all the expectations to win. Then she frittered it away by playing old-school, Rovian politics. She is not going down because she’s a woman, but because she is of the PAST. Obama is of the future. So I’m a woman–am I sexist? Give me a woman who doesn’t lie and pander quite so much, and I’d be happy to vote for her. There are plenty out there.
And by the way, if the positions were reversed, Mr. Clinton would be giving speeches about the nerve of this guy destroying the Democrats chance to win, which is what she’s doing. But the Bush/Rove/Clinton sophists will do anything to get their way.
Gender bias? No.
Tired of deceitful politicians? Oh yeah, baby!
womensissues says: jackstpaul, you’re missing the point.
No, you’re missing the points–plural–which are MY points.
I was talking about voting–whatever you have to say about sexism as historical & present phenom, individual and structural, has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about voting—o.k.–the other stuff you write about is prior to voting, it shapes the social and political structure of our nation, but the question–for me–is to what extent has Hillary been negatively affected in literal voting due to sexism. Lower pay scales for women don’t necessarily translate into lower votes for Hillary. Or do they? I’m a political scientist, and that’s how I’m looking at things.
“By describing Hillary supporters as ‘these angry women’ and raising the criticism of their being ‘emotional,’ you’re showing the inherent bias in your argument.”
No, I’m speaking of an empirical fact for the first issue. The vast majority that I’ve heard of–or personally encountered talking that way ARE women. It’s not sexist to refer to women as women.
Re: Emotional. You’re the one displaying your irrelevant baggage. I’m speaking of “those women” as emotional; so much of what I hear about, and have personally heard, is emotionally-laden. Are men emotional? Of course. Would I label them as such? Of course. Do you think Al Shartpon doesn’t get emotional when he’s offended or angry about something he views as racist? He’s one of the most emotional public figures around. Jesse Jackson? Yes. Does John McCain get emotional? Yes, we’ve seen it during this campaign. The point is the empirically true contingent of women that I’m referring to in this case seem–to me–to be very emotionally driven. And being emotionally-driven can be counter-productive for intellectual exercies, like trying to assess the role that sexism played in this election.
Hillary, on the other hand, doesn’t seem emotionally-driven for what she does, though she’s forceful (as am I). I see her as being hard-charging without personal emotions involved, just like with me and just like with so many of our—male– political leaders.
I understand why African-Americans voting for Barack and female supporters of Hillary are emotional because for them what is going on with the two candidates transcends them as individual candidates; they’re also bearers of identities that have been discriminated against horribly, and still are. So I understand the overdriven support, but that doesn’t make it more helpful in intellectual terms for people to be pushing an agenda fooled so heavily by emotion.
Whatever people have been sayign about Hillary with t-shirts, idiots like Chris Matthews, etc. has NOTHING to do with me and what I’m talking about. That’s you importing into the dialogue I engaged in with the author’s piece your own issues. Fine, do that, but don’t try to relate it to me. You’ve made al sorts of accusations and claims about me with zero evidence. You’re projecting onto me all sorts of things, feelings you have about men. That’s stereotyping on your part. That’s bias on your part.
No the question isn’t why aren’t there other women candidates ready to contend for the nomination–that’s not what I’m talking about. That’s you. But if you want to make that claim, the same can be said of African-American candidates. What African-Amercian would-be candidates are ready to make a go of it next time? None, in obvious terms. Those are big issues, but they’re not the question at hand of mine or in particular to the nomination race between Barack and Hillary.
Your reply is exactly what I pointed out to begin with: People importing other issues into the situation of their doing, in this case to me personally and in general.
I don’t know whether you are male or female, but I do know this: You’re angry (an emotion), very (amplifier of emotion), and you haven’t kept on my target intellectually. Instead you’ve changed the topic to vent about things I wasn’t addressing. That’s exactly the problem I was pointing out to begin with.