|
||
Ignoble Hillary
Does anyone wonder why women who support Hillary Clinton for president get (excuse the vernacular) PO'd at some of our fellow Democrats?
It's because very time we turn around, someone is dissing our candidate in ways that infuriate us. He (or she) is using sexist, insulting language about the first woman to mount a viable run for the presidency, in ways that, to say the least, we do not appreciate.
While many of us see Barack Obama as an exciting, able and worthy candidate, and will gladly vote for him if he is the nominee, we do not see the same respect given to Hillary Clinton.
Take Ted Kennedy's remark that Hillary should not be on the ticket with Obama if he is the nominee. Instead, Kennedy wants someone who "is in tune with the nobler aspirations of the American people."
So what is ignoble about Hillary Clinton? Her health care policy, which is more inclusive than Obama's? Her work in 1972 with Marian Wright Edelman on school desegregation in the South? Her work in Arkansas, in the White House, and in the senate on children's rights? Her proposal to fully fund services for children with autism? (I have two grandkids who are mildly autistic, so this proposal does not seem at all ignoble to me). Or maybe her support for the right to choose, or her sensible plan to withdraw from Iraq in a way that does not put US troops at great risk?
I'd argue that Hillary Clinton, by her deeds, has proved herself every bit as noble as Obama, who also supports good policies. But Clinton, if just by virtue of longevity, has in fact done more.
I'll admit that as much as I admire Obama's idea about bringing Democrats and Republicans together, my years of covering politics -- especially in recent years -- make me skeptical. As long as the GOP operates on the Rovian principal of winning by keeping the base in constant upheaval, always recycling wedge issues, true bi-partisanship is next to impossible.
We women who wanted to see a woman president in our lifetime have been appalled by the sexism of the campaign. I personally have wanted to throw a shoe at the TV screen (especially when MSNBC is on) when panel after panel seems to consist of male pundits giving advice to the young prince about how to defeat the wicked witch of the west.
When Boston university journalism student Melissa Nawrocki examined campaign coverage, she found that the media accused Clinton of being insane, murderous, witchlike, depressed, and egomaniacal:
• On a Dec. 20, 2007 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said that Clinton's political goal was "to smother the young senator [Obama] in his crib," using the visual of a murderous Clinton killing an infant Obama. Matthews also has referred to Clinton as "witchy" and a "stripteaser."
• In a Feb. 27 New York Times column, Maureen Dowd wrote that Clinton "has turned into Sybil," referencing the book and movie about a women with multiple whiny personalities. Just one day prior, CNN's The Situation Room commentator Jack Cafferty said that Clinton "[resembled] someone with a multiple personality disorder." Two days earlier, Chicago Tribune reporter Jill Zuckman said on MSNBC's Hardball that Clinton's recent behavior "comes across a little schizophrenic."
Sexist language has been over the top. In the course of her public life, Hillary Clinton has been called, in print, Lady Macbeth, the Wicked Witch of the East, a harridan, a virago and The Yuppie Wife from Hell, to name just a few. She's been compared to Glen Close as the murderous career woman in "Fatal Attraction." During the campaign, her "cackle" became the subject of countless media reports, as if she were indeed stirring a pot and chanting, "Double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and caldron bubble."
On the blog mediaCrit, Ashleigh Crowther noted the coverage of Hillary's laugh. Patrick Healy of the New York Times dubbed it the "Clinton Cackle," Frank Rich of the Times called it " calculating," and pundit Dick Morris called Clinton's laugh 'loud, inappropriate, and mirthless . . .. A scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech.'"
On the O'Reilly Factor, a "body language expert" called Clinton's laughter "evil." ABC's Good Morning America, CNN's Situation Room, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes and MSNBC's Hardball included stories about it.
Sexist language often gets a chuckle from male media commentators -- such as the video clips of the young men who held up a sign, "Hillary Clinton, stop running for president and make me a sandwich." Imagine the outrage if that sign had said, "Barack Obama, stop running for president and shine my shoes."
Hillary's physical attributes have also been fair game. Matt Taibbi, national political reporter for Rolling Stone, referred to Clinton's "flabby" arms in his Apr. 3 piece, "Hillary's Flimsy Case." Writers have sniggered at her pantsuits, her wrinkles, her hairdos, her makeup, etc. etc. The men running for president this year displayed an array of paunches, double chins, bald pates, and jowls, and yet rarely were those cause for comment.
This reflects what Susan Sontag called "The Double Standard of Aging." There is just one standard of beauty for women -- the nubile 20-year-old, while men like Sean Connery and Harrison Ford can be considered sex symbols in their sixties, grey hair or no hair.
The double standard serves to silence women, keeping them out of the public arena. Mockery of one's physical attributes is especially painful. Hillary Clinton, in fact, looks great for a woman of sixty, fit and attractive. But she's often covered as if she were some kind of crone. Rush Limbaugh -- no poster boy of pulchritude himself -- spoke with dread of watching Hillary Clinton age in office. He made no such comment about 70-plus John McCain.
Might a future female candidate who doesn't resemble a pubescent supermodel shy away of running for fear of a vicious assault on her every sign of age? Or will she simply shudder at the expectation that she will be called evil, nutty and murderous? All this will give the next woman who wants to run for president a reason to pause -- and push the day of the first woman chief executive far into the future.
Boston University Journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
GNOBLE HILLARY
==============
Let's review Hillary's latest - and hopefully last - ignoble act: the desire to move the goalpost from 2025 delegates to 2210, by insisting the Florida and Michigan be seated in their entirety.
She's on the record stating her principled support of the DNC in their oppostion to counting Florida and Michigan - more than once. Her campaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, wrote in his book about how he threatened to deny Michigan seats in 2004 if they didn't submit to DNC rules.
But now, when asked, she'll say that these people turned out to vote, and their votes must be counted.
She is IGNOBLE. She has NO PRINCIPLES. She is AMORAL.
She will say and do ANYTHING in order to gain and keep power.
We've endured eight years of "leadership" by ignoble, unprincipled and amoral "leaders" - who will say and do ANYTHING in order to gain and keep power.
We want change.
You have crystalized how so many of us feel. I know you will be villifiend and insulted for your comments, but I appreciate your article. I've been subject to so much hate on this site from fellow Democrats, who apparently want me out of the party. I will keep on working for Democratic ideals. It's very sad though that apparently half of the party now has no use for me.
To ignore all the bad decisions that Hillary's made in her losing bid for the nomination and base her loss on anti-feminism is serious denial. I suggest you get help.
I see. When did she do any such thing? Just asking.
You know, I don't care for Obama. Therefore, following the logic I've seen in/on this thread, it's O.K. for me to say the following:
What a warlock. And why doesn't he bulk up a little? Skinny is fine, but too skinny is wimpy, imo. And those big ears--he can't afford cosmetic surgery, or it the Howdy Doody look back in vogue? (Never knew it was, outside of MAD magazine covers.) And what's with his look--shirt and tie? And optional jacket? Wow. He must have hired a wardrobe specialist from an alley someplace.
The skinny guy with the ears should consider dressing for TV. Ever know a skinny guy with big ears who told the truth? Me, neither.
And I hate his smug bearing and bland delivery--both conspire to make his very occasional efforts at smiling seem sinister. Not to mention smug. He has the look of one delighted that the crowd is eating up his nonsense. I guess I'd be, too. Maybe he should rent a shovel and have his followers line up, one by one, for their feeding of Obamalies.
Hey, Barack--get off the stage and play some basketball. (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!)
Just a small taste of what it sounds like on our side. Did you like it?
Well, neither do we.
As a male Obama supporter, I found most of your comments thoughtful and am sympathetic up to a point. I don't, for instance, think that comments on her multiple personalities have anything to do with sexism. The shape shifting that we've all witnessed would be just as alarming if a man was doing it. At times, it's been downright frightening.
My problem with Senator Clinton has never been her gender. It's her character that I've always found problematic. There are plenty of Democratic women that I would have no problem supporting for the presidency. Senator Clinton's just not one of them.
I have to wonder why there are so many Obama supporters out at this post. It has nothing to do with Obama. Why are you all here. It's about Hillary. It has nothing to do with your candidate.
But then I do know why you are all out here. You've become addicted to Hillary bashing. You can't stop. McCain bashing just isn't as much fun. Wonder why? Why is it so much fun to bitch, moan and complain about Hillary? Anyone? Ask yourselves, "What am I getting out of this?".
"It has nothing to do with Obama."
In their world, it does. Why? Because, to them, a word in defense of Hillary rates as a word against Obama. Childish, yes. But that's the mindset.
I wonder how B.O.'s supporters expect to survive the general election unless they thicken their skin a little? I mean, the Repubs are going to attack this guy in earnest. People who break out in sunspots the moment someone doesn't hail their hero--what are they going to do when the real fight starts? Hide someplace?
All of the guilt-trip/race-card stuff is going to have all the effect on the neocons as a snowflake on three-alarm fire. I guess we should feel sorry for these souls, though somehow I can't.
I have long believed Hillary Clinton possesses skills and holds positions that would make her a good President. I think she is opposed and even vilified by a lot of the electorate who can't even identify their reasons. There are several reasons that compelled me to never list her in my top three candidates (until there were only 2 left). She is too militaristic in her approaches to world issues for my liking. She is too comfortable with Democrat "fat cats" and big-money fund raisers. Her health care plan relies too much on private insurance and does little to contain runaway costs. She has been too timid in addressing difficult issues, such as the war, waiting until it is politically safe or expedient to lead away from public sentiment. She has changed her campaign strategies from the untimate insider to change agent to stealth attack to fighter for the middle class to gas tax panderer as the winds have blown and changed. Her current "best friend" seems to whoever or whichever constituency can help her get win. Other than that, and a few issues related to her husband's role in this campaign, I think she is fine.
Geez Caryl,
Where have you been for the past year and a half? It seems your article here is based entirely on the fact that Hillary is a female and its sad she isn't going to win, but we should respect her despite her actions and decisions. The anger at Hillary comes from the following places - none of which are based upon sexism:
1) She voted for war with Iraq and to give the pres. authority to wage war against Iran.
2) She was caught planting questions at events
3) She used fear mongering & Rovian-like manipulation
4) She hired a Republican strategist
5) She changed her positions as she saw it would fit her purpose
6) The Columbian trade deal
7) NAFTA ordel with Canada
8) Disparaging the Democrat while praising the Republican
9) Trying to change the rules when the results weren't in her favor
10) Getting caught lying about a host of issue
11) Race baiting
12) Sniper fire
But none of it is comparable to not dropping out when it was clear she can't win, and the selfish disregard for which she has shown for the importance of Democratic unity at this critical tragic juncture in our nation's history - which, because of her decisions, she is partly responsible for.
There's more, I'm sure.
How nicely you put it Conned. Kudos.
In other words, you're perfectly fine with the anti-woman statements directed at her. But you can't, of course, simply come out and SAY that you approve. You have to justify your approval.
Sorry, but sexism is sexism. None of this is an issue of liking or hating Hillary--it's an issue of fairness. Obama isn't treated in anything approaching a similar matter by the media or public, so why should Hillary? I doubt the author was asking for a laundry list of rationales for why you think it's O.K. to call Hillary a witch, slut, shrew, etc.
I don't like Obama. Would I be justified in going on TV and smearing him in terms of gender, race, height, appearance, etc.? Well? Would I?
Thanks for confirming to me that I'll never be voting for Obama. Your hatefilled rant is filled with lies and inaccuracies. Hillary has the right to stay in until Barack gets the nomination officially. I
IF YOU CARED AT ALL ABOUT DEMOCRATIC UNITY, YOU WOULDN'T TRASH HILLARY AND HER SUPPORTERS EVERY HOUR!
I think you are right in your overarching comment on the role of sexism in the snarky comments of many in the media but some of your specific examples fall into the realm of fair critiques of a flawed candidate. For example, I don't think that Kennedy dismissed Hillary as a potential VP because she is a woman but rather because she made comments like " I am qualified to be commander in chief. McCain is qualified to be commander in chief. And Obama gives a good speech." In violating the understood code that one does not criticize Democrats by complimenting Republicans, Hillary made a calculated decision to go for broke. She would either get the nomination or burn any chances of getting the VP position -- afterall how can Obama choose a VP who is going to be prominently featured in GOP attack adds.
Likewise, the woman has morphed over the course of the race from a frontrunner who stated in debate after debate that Democrats shouldn't attack each other to a losing candidate who would do or say anything to try and catch up. So it seems appropriate to reference changes in her message and the tone of her race as personality shifts.
Having said that references to her makeup or ankles or pantsuits or shrill voice should have been off limits. Moving forward, we need to focus on demanding more from those on our public airwaves.
Obama LIES every time he makes a speech since he lies about his health care plan as universal coverage. GO to his web site and he make it perfectly clear it is NOT. His proposal is WORSE for me than McCain's. All it does is get the government to buy insurance coverage for the poor from private insurance companies with MY tax dollars and I get NOTHING! I have to pay nearly $800/mo for my own insurance which will be unavailable next year! McCain will at least let me deduct all of that cost off my income for tax purposes. Clinton has a FAR better plan.
Obama cannot bring himself to say that high gas prices are BAD. He just goes along with BUSH on the high prices and thinks that we should cut back more on driving. Of course, that ONLY applies to the great unwashed masses. The rest of the privileged like Obama can afford to pay $10/gal. The rest of us will have to do nothing but work for less and stay close to home. That is NOT a Democratic Party position. I do NOT intend to vote for such an elitist, incompetent right wing Bush lite.
Somehwere between fact or fiction, Somewhere between trouser or skirt, Somewhere between hazing or campaigning, Somewhere between smile or smote, there lies your story of Senator Hillary Clinton in this Democratic primary of 2008.
Bosnia is the one story that helped define Senator Hillary Clinton as different.
For whatever reason you believe that Senator Clinton was maligned by other sources and prejuduices, you also have to give her credit for her own tears and jeers. Her New Hamphire tears were just as credible as her Bosnia boasting.... or was it theater?
First of all, if tears are that disgraceful then we'll never have a woman president. Secondly, her eyes teared up. No tears fell and she was not weeping.
Right on Caryl!
When this campaign 1st started I wondered which would have a greater impact, race or gender. I thought for sure it would be race. But as time went on, I quickly seen that sexism was playing a much larger part and predicted that because of it ,Hillary's chances of becoming the 1st woman president were slim to none.
I know there were some strategy gaffs on her campaigns part that might have put Obama away sooner had they acted sooner because of his in-experience, but, if any other of the male candidates stayed in, I have no doubt that they would be leading ,and in the same position as Obama and the same crowd, (Washington powers, MSM) would still be "pushing" her out.
I'm sick of it! For this reason, putting a rookie in the White House over a more deserving, qualified person, I am so disgusted and ready to give up on politics for good. It's insane!
Keep fighting the good fight Hillary, You've already won in more ways than one!
Blah blah blah........give up on politics, it's your prerogative. The "rookie" is kicking the "inevitible's" ass because he's more organized, people were tired of the negative attacks, the lies, the spin and the multitude of inconsistent messages.
We get it. You hate Clinton blah blah blah. Please go campaign for her Republican senate opponent, the same way you apparently supported Bob Dole against Bill in 96.
I agree that some comments about Clinton have been out of line - but seems like that's the name of the game these days. I think there will always be male/female bias because you have inconsistencies among women as to how they view their role in the modern world. For example with Hillary she purports to be a feminist yet stays married to a sex addict who on more than one occassion has undermined her success. Is that a personal decision? Absolutely. But despite her many professsional accomplishments would any mother advise her daughter (or son) to follow Hillary's enabling of Bill? Although I think being a woman gives new ammunition to pundits there's equal criticism no matter who the candidate. And because Hillary claims to be fully vetted, prepared, having been through everything, tough, you cant' keep her down - I think only encourages pundits to try and do just that. Is it right? Of course not. But Hillary herself has engaged in negative attacks against Obama and others on her own so I don't think she or her supporters can then cry foul when she is the victimg of inappropriate comments. That's been the point of Obama's campaign - if Hillary had joined in with him to keep it clean then no telling where she'd be now -- but in the end that's what separates winners from losers.
Very well said.
"Does anyone wonder why women who support Hillary Clinton for president get (excuse the vernacular) PO'd at some of our fellow Democrats?"
Has it occurred to you that people who are not supporting Clinton are doing so because of her exceptionally poor leadership skills (can't manage her own campaign, and has led a legion of female supporters by drawing upon their pity and intimating sexism is rampant everywhere), her lack of budgeting finesse, and her ignoble attacks on a fellow Democrat?
Media aside (and I have written the likes of Chris Matthews to complain about his treatment of Hillary long before she began to deserve with comments that raise the republican candidate for president above her own party member), Hillary has run an awful campaign. She hired aides that designed a campaign (that she APPROVED) that was intended to bowl over early, give her her "dues" on a silver platter so that it would be clear coasting to November. She had no respect for her Democratic competition, which is evident by the fact that neither she nor her aides could conceive that she would actually LOSE to any one of her competitors.
So many Clinton supporters are pointing to the media and to Obama's supporters (who are MORE rightly PO'd at Clinton's supporters for their strong-arm tactics) as reasons they'll never support Obama. How can anyone who is upset about NARAL's choice for candidacy because of its effects on Roe turn around and threaten to vote McCain? Ludicrous!
Strong arm tactics against Obama supporters???? When?? Have you been to the caucases? Don't lecture me about strong arm tactics. The behavior of Obama supporters was dangerous and disgraceful. Also, its sad to see that your hatred for Hillary is so high, that you approve of the majority of the hate that she receives from Matthews, Limbaugh, Shuster, Olbermann, Alter, Cafferty, and others.
I cannot understand the delusion of the Clinton supporters. All these people think it's OK to have a presidential candidate that has been a proven public LIAR? I don't get it. And that is the least of her negatives. Both she and her husband seem to think it's ok to lie and then change things around later if they are really exposed. Sleazy pols to the core.
Hillary doesnt care about the lies. Bill told enough of them.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
