Hillary Can't Win

Over a year ago, Rebecca Traister wrote what I still consider the definitive piece on Hillary Clinton and women. Traister was the first to delve into the deep distaste of Hillary amongst the female intelligentsia, exploring the idea of Clinton as a Rorschach test. She was prophetic in her understanding of how this would play out for women voters (who still favor Obama 36% to 34% over Clinton), but I am more concerned with how it affects women who set the national agenda. There has been such an intense double standard in the media that has gone unexplored by mainstream outlets and it scares the crap out of me.

In the beginning of her campaign, Hillary was stalwart, strong not only because that seems to be who she is but also because the biggest fear of a female candidate must be being painted as overly emotional. In response to this she was called wooden and cold. This is a carry over from her time as first lady when she was mocked for keeping her own name, not baking cookies, etc. But then the scandal hit and Hillary was again an archetype -- this time of the scorned wife. As Maureen Dowd aptly put it "She couldn't move up until she was pushed down." This didn't stop the press from mocking her -- would anyone have dared mock Jackie Kennedy for her husbands indiscretions? No, because Jackie was demure and fragile and fit into the narrative of what we expect from the emotionally bruised wife of a great man with a known vice. It didn't break Hillary; she wouldn't let it.

Despite being the first first lady in American history to have a postgraduate degree, Wellesley's first valedictorian, a graduate of Yale Law, and a dedicated public watchdog who worked on the Watergate Committee and monitored Black Panther trials for abuses of power, there were websites dedicated to her changing hair styles, and (more recently) articles devoted to her cleavage. What was upsetting about this was not only the demeaning nature of reducing a woman to her looks, but also the fact that anytime Hillary changes her clothes there is a deep emotional resonance attached to it in the press. People mocked John Edwards for his haircut, but no one called him emotionally unstable for getting it and that's exactly what Robin Givhan of the Washington Post did when she wrote:

To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d'oeuvres is a provocation. It requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever.

This more than subtly portrays Clinton as unstable, unsure of herself and her sexuality. No one ever says McCain is ambivalent for wearing sweater vests.

The argument was and stayed that Hillary was "inauthentic." I don't find John Edwards authentic, he's a trial lawyer who talks about his daddy-the-mill-worker to secure his stance on poverty. But people don't call him inauthentic. I would argue "inauthentic" is really code for unemotional. People were made uncomfortable by her strength of purpose and personality.

After Iowa everything changed, and not for the better. She went from cold to histrionic with one welling of the eyes. And that was it. We got headlines saying we finally saw the real Hillary, that cracks began to show. And that's the ball game. Hillary was not the strong leader we thought, but the weak emotional woman we always knew her to be. I'm not saying she doesn't bear blame for invoking feelings at the last debate, and welling up on air, but where was the outrage at this media coverage? The issue here is not that these things happen, but the women we depend upon to speak out against these practices have been noticeably absent. Gloria Steinem's OpEd in the Times today was the first time I've seen a seriously respected and intellectually prominent woman come to her defense, and I'm proud she did.

Things have gone downhill fast. Mark Rudolph proposed on FOX News that Hillary lost Iowa because she reminds men of their nagging wives, and conservative blog Hot Air agreed with him. Joel Achenbach said in his Washington Post blog that "she needs a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy." We let people walk on her in the beginning of her campaign and now we've lost control. This is offensive to me as a woman, a voter, and an American. Even if you don't support Hillary, how can we let these attacks that so debase us all continue?

Follow Alex Leo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HuffPostComedy

Comments

[wildmustang]

One important point. The media is manuplating everyone by not reporting the news but commentating on the news. I bought it for a while, but I'll not buy it any longer.

While watching the Dan Abrams program this evening, I finally found televsion media who are absolutely fed up with the media manipulating statements, by turning them into right/wron­g/black/wh­ite issues and/or by distorting the candidate's comments by utilizing snipets of the entire point being made and thereby creating lots and lots of drama upon which the majority of bloggers base thier precious opinions, mine included.

Tonight, Dan Abrams, as did USA Today, distinguised the fact from the fiction of what Bill Clinton stated in his stump speech concering the "fairy tale" statement. This program, as did USA Today, quoted, in whole, the statement Mrs. Clinton made, and left it to the viewer to determine his/her own point of view.....

So, ladies and gentlmen, its up to us, "we the people", as corny as that sounds, to let the print, radio, and televsion media know that they do not determine how I nor you will vote based upon their obvious predjudices and polls.

Thanks,
wildmustang

[Roses]

Does anyone remember the election of '92, back in Hillary's black hair-band days, when she appeared on a daytime show in a desperate attempt to get votes for her husband? She allowed herself to engage in a cooking segment and shared her favorite chocolate-chip cookie recipe. I didn't know her then but I look back on this segment now and choke to think about it. I'm sure she has time to bake cookies!!!­(sarcasm-i­n case you miss it).

I think she is a very smart, savvy woman who does what needs to be done. However, don't mistake the fact that she works within the present system and does not represent any remarkable change to the power structure in Washington DC with all the drawbacks of corruption and money in politics.

Obama/Edwards'08 or Edwards/Obama'08 (whatever)
a winning team!

[ObamaEdwards]

ANOTHER apology for Clinton based on the assumption that we can't criticize her without being anti-feminist! Alex, I am a 50-year-old feminist who has voted Democrat for three decades, and I will not vote for Clinton even if she gets the nomination because she makes nice with corporations and lobbyists, is wishy-washy when she ought to be clear, and would drag back into the White House a husband from whom I do not want to hear another word--and who will not shut up. If Clinton wins this election, it will be a setback for the nation in ideological terms that have everything to do with greed and corporate corruption and nothing to do with Clinton's gender. And if she wins, I predict the first "victory" press conference will be called by Bill.

These two have got to go. The Bushes and the Clintons have got to go home. They are a menace to liberal society.

THAT is the issue.

[Democrab]

I guess because I don't have a "nagging" wife
I can vote for Hillary.

My wife is awesome and so is Hillary Clinton.

[Cathexis]

Hillary is not my first choice, based on issues. But she is worlds ahead of any GOP option. IMO, any of the Dem candidates are completely acceptable -- we have the luxury of evaluating a very strong field and trying to determine which is strongest of this impressive lot.

IMO, the shrill critics of Hillary show us more about themselves than they do about Hillary. Misogyny is as alive and well in this country as racism -- amusing, in a sick way, to wait and watch, to see which is more pervasive.

[cinemaven]

Thanks for this column Alex. I've come to dread coming to Huffpo (or watching MSM) because of the incessant HRC bashing. Tonight has been so enjoyable as I watch those who this morning were predicting doom after Hillary's "histrionics" stammer and make excuses.

I don't understand this phenomenon of eating your own that has been so present in this campaign. I admire HRC but there is also much to admire in all of the Democratic candidates. I find this an exciting time and I look forward to seeing America be led back on track by whoever wins the nomination.

[nightslider]

Great post but you forgot something

[larstein]

Two thoughts. 1. Politics ain't beanbag.
2. Pundits are the most emotionally unstable class of professionals in public life.

This is the greatest election campaign I've ever lived through. It is an only-in-America thrill ride, and I'm having a great time. I just hope we can all try not to take it so seriously that we wind up feeling frustrated and angry because it can't live up to anyone's hopes for a dignified process. Fortunately or not, national schizophrenia is our inheritance and we have to deal with it. Might as well have a good time.

[poeticjustice4all]

The nasty attacks on Clinton don't debase us all -- they debase the attacker. We should welcome the ridiculous attacks. The more outrageous, the better. They keep the issues front and center and force reasonable, rational people to take a stand.

So . . . Bring it on.

[nightslider]

As a 62 old year Harley rider, (no I'm not a Rich Urban Biker Rither)AKA RUBE, I have ridden since I was 17 years oldIhald 4 A.As, B.A and 2 Masters certificates,
Retired Master Chef
Master Horologist, Clock maker.

Ihave been around women all my life, in every setting imaginable,Didn't get married till I was 50, shes ten years my JUNIOR AND LOVELY.

MY POINT HERE IS THAT THE OVERLY EDUCATED WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY ACT STINKS, THEY ALONE SHOULD BE UP IN ARMS OVER HOW HILLIARY HAS BEEN PILLORY'ED IN THE PRESS, INSTEAD THEY LANGUISH IN THEIR PURFUMED BOUDOIRS SNIFFING OLD DICKS,
Or trying to appease one with whatever comes handy, Martian Luther King United the black race to cast aside the ugly yoke of overt racism. To this day we cherish his contribution for his addition to the fabric of this country.

A broad weave of many patterns and many hues, and yes there were the the detractors who said the black man couldn't fly an airplane,(can anyone name the Black Pilots that flew combat missions in Europe? how about leading a football team as a Quarterback? Who in the hell was Eugene Robinson?

Wehave shortchanged our daughters, mothers, sisters, far to long at the expense of our great nation, Isn't it about time to tell the religious zealots and their enablers to fuc- off, and to tell their enablers, the pious Hype-O-Crites (politician's) to go with them?

Whats it gonna take for this country to realize that there are great women leaders who can actually lead and have, (Margret Thacher ring a bell anyone)

[Truth789]

Well luckily Hillary will win the presidency!

Clinton/Clark 08!

[patriotscholar]

Even with all the rhetoric, even with all the false and true accusations, it should still be a race to see who is the best candidate. As much as I think it would be great to see a woman be president, I wouldn't use her gender as a reason to support her. The facts are all that count.
Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. Dig into all the candidates backgrounds and decide.

[lynnn]

I do not like how she tells (or has her campaign managers) the progressives that Obama is not as progressive as she is and then she tells the moderates that Obama is far left. The chickens will come home to roost!

[Mariel]

I think I know tonight why Hillary will win.

The CNN analysis showed that she got more than 50% of people who are strongly concerned about the economy.

The economy will remain the main issue throughout the campaign.

The Republicans will probably nominate Mitt Romney because he will come closest to their ideal. The mavericks McCain and Huckabee will have their afficianados, but Mitt will be all that will be left standing at the end.

The public will, sensibly, reject Mitt. Eight years of Bush will be too much for him to overcome.

Hillary will win.

I have been supporting Edwards, but this is how I see it.

Hillary is not winning tonight just because she "teared up." She is winning, or coming on strong, because of her very specific speech given Sunday night, in which she delivered "the beef."

Obama may be her vice-president. All will be forgiven, as usual.

[WHATEVER7]

Sorry to disagree Alex. It's not sexism. It's ideas! Hillary is living in the past...as most people my age do. Barack is the next generation and let's let them make a better world than we have!