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."

Comments

[ruthinking]

A voter's job is to vote for the best candidate. It is that simple. With the internet, and the coarsened media, it is unfortunate that Hillary Clinton took some "below the belt" blows, but do we dare say, "she asked for it,." and not because she is a woman, but because ..........­...... (read the posts above).

[RThM]

Rivers personal analysis is precisely one the reasons Clinton has lost the race. Ultimately, it was about excuses.

[Beaucat]

I think the more pertinent question, professor, is how can any intelligent person write anything about Hillary Clinton without mentioning the blatant lies (remember the Bosnia tale?), the nasty innuendoes (he's not a Muslim -- as far as I know), the slanders and put-downs (the Republican candidate is more qualified to be commander-in-chief than my Democratic opponent), the arrogance (I will be the nominee), and so on.

Please tell me how you can overlook these facts. I'd have a lot more respect for Hillary's supporters if they would say something like, "Yes, I know she's made these mistakes, but here's why I think you should overlook those missteps and support her anyway." Instead, it seems that her staunchest supporters can only rage that those of us who are thoroughly disgusted by her performance in this campaign are unfair, or biased, or sexist, or ignorant, or any number of shortcomings that place the blame for her failure elsewhere. She has run a monumentally stupid campaign. She started out with huge advantages, and she threw them away and totally bungled everything. And you think all of this was due to a biased media? You think we should support someone who is so inept and out of touch that she couldn't win what should have been a cakewalk? Why?

It doesn't matter what Hillary Clinton did earlier in her career. This is the most important campaign of her life, and she's fallen flat on her face.

[RThM]

Rivers is a journalist. You should take what any journalist says, even a professor of the subject, with a grain of salt. They're trained, hopefully, to present their personal conclusions and opinions is a pleasing manner. They are not scientists or researachers. No serious researcher would ever make the fundamentally biased mistake of throwing something at the television because it doesn't agree with their opinion. There are no right or wrong answers for researchers,only a search for the truth. If a journalist, on the other hand, need some fact to support their opinion they will pick up the phone and get a couple of quotes from an expert in the field. Hopefully the facts hidden in the quotes won't be too seriously twisted out of joint.

[MSaldana]

Beau-boy,

I think you missed the part about the hateful spewing you "people" resort to about the personal attacks on Senator Clinton's looks, voice, demeanor etc. After all, heve you ever heard anyon comment on Junior's ridiculous ears?

-MS

[Beaucat]

Since you've addressed this to me personally, I'm responding. Maybe you'd be kind enough to explain why you put "people" in quotation marks. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's because I don't agree with you, and so you consider me sub-human and therefore fair game for Hillary-style snarky innuendoes. That's just a wild guess and has nothing to do with my opinion of women in general.

By the way, you often hear the phrase "you people" used by right-wing nutjobs. That phrase is actually listed on the Racial Slur Database http://www.racialslurs.com/search?sort=reasons&q=you+peoplee). So if you had the guts to say that to my face, we'd be having a very vigorous discussion about it.

[disgustedbyitall]

There's more than enough vitriol to go around this year, but to lash out at Senator Clinton's detractors simply based on the sexism exhibited by some is getting, how shall I say this?... tedious for being so sexist.

I despise Senator Clinton because of her policies, her record, her arrogance and her nasty old-school politics. I'm a voter and I get to use my gut to tell me whether or not I'd trust the decisions I think someone is capable of making behind the closed doors of the Oval Office. Nothing George W. Bush did surprised me in the least because I had a gut feeling about the absence of character I perceived when he ran for office.

Senator Clinton has no vision, no discernible ethics. I'd pay good money to see her humiliated in her next senatorial campaign just to warn off other opportunists.

She is, in short, a fantastically negative force in our nation's public life. If that makes me a sexist, then you just go right on rewriting the dictionary. I prefer the one I have.

[LABC]

I am not as harsh about the Clinton, but seriously, do you think her campaign management was flawless and this was all about sexism? Maybe if there was any examination that went beyond the list of grievances against the media (I don't need pompous, overpaid jag-offs to funnel thoughts to me) and cries of sexism, I might be able to read the latest navel gazing screed with some empathy. As it is, it is another set of excuses that glosses over Hillary Clinton the person and her real problems.

[OrcinusOrca]

Constant liars are rarely seen as noble...

[Enlightened22]

I would argue eactly the opposite. If Hillary were a man, there is no way she could have gotten by with her "in your face" lies (Bosnia, Nafta, not knowing about Penn's trip, etc.). There is no way you would let a male candidate play with the goalpost and the numbers like she did. if there is sexism going on right now, it is in the lack of agressivity shown by the journalists, who let her go by with all the spinning.

So probably the truth is somewhere in the middle, but certainly not in your point of view that has one major flaw. Intended to defend someone, it loses track of the big picture.

[dutch2008]

I don't think that has anything to do with her being a woman, but rather EVERYTHING to do with her being a Clinton. Her negative numbers also don't have anything to with her being a woman, but rather her being a bad speaker that is unable to connect with people on a grand scale (I have no doubt she is most likely charming in person).

Her main problem is that she thinks politics is about trianglulation, which worked for her husband, but as most things what works for one doesn't always mean it will work for all. When she uses triangulation it comes off as less then genuine and sometimes as an out and out lie.....

I am sick of people on Clinton's side saying that the only reason I don't support her is because she is a woman....i­ts not, I just don't think she is a leader. No sexism there.

[MSaldana]

Dutchyboy,

Regarding her negative number, please note that the popular vote in the primaries is almost 50-50! Thanks for paying attention.

-MS

[Softnsweet]

Enlightened22, I could not have written that comment better. Thanks!

[vsign]

I see exactly what you see. MSNBC got me interested in watching them when they followed FOX and started programming with anchor commentary. The commentary seemed more Democratic in perspective.

Now MSNBC repulses me in a way FOX never could. If they represent the Democratic thinking now days - I want no part of it. Their Hillary hating, white hating, woman hating. race baiting and hating of old people is worse than FOX.

I have always voted Democratic. No longer. I hold Obama responsible. When Obama got Imus fired - MSNBC started groveling at his feet.

I think Obama has the personality and the policy positions of a dictator. His policy does differ alot from Hillary. He doesn't even know his positions. He will flip flop alot more now that he has the left of the party behind him and needs to appeal to Hillary voters or the moderate Democrats. I cannot trust anything he says.

But I do trust he doesn't know how many states are in the union.

[Softnsweet]

VSIGN,

Obama did not get Imus fired. You need to go back and do some research. There were a lot of African American leaders, including numerous others that were appalled at Imus's comment.

This man called the AA woman not only nappy-headed hos on in program but (JIGABOOS) do you have any idea what that means? It mean the (N) word.

Obama was just ask his opinion and he gave it. I hate to have to burst your stupid bubble but Hillary felt the same way.

Now that said, goodbye to you leaving the party as well and good luck!

[going2ireland]

You have been listening to Wolf Blitzer and Pat Buchanan too much.

[Oeht]

Got Obama fired?? WTF are you talking about. First and foremost, Imus got himself fired. You say that MSNBC is woman hating, but don't ya think calling a group of young WOMEN "nappy-headed hoes" was a bit sexist? I don't hear Chris Matthews or anyone else using that kind of language against Hillary. Even David Schuster was suspended for just using the word 'pimping' in regards to Chelsea. Seriously, which is worst?

You can trust what Obama says, so i guess you believe the whole Bosnia lie? Or how much relief that gas tax would put in your pocket. Get real. I won't even say you're biased against Obama, just stupid. "As far as I know!"

[MSaldana]

Not to worry about the idiots responding to your comment. When you stop voting democratic, you'll have LOTS of company (including this lifelong democrat)!

-MS

[azcamp]

We can not overcome what the author describes as sexism, by excusing Hillary's strategic failures. She hired the wrong man, Mark Penn, as a chief strategist. Maybe she should have found a brilliant woman to outline her message. Second, she could not control Bill and he set the tone in South Carolina that drove Black voters away. When asked if Barack was a Muslim, she failed to emphatically squelch a rumor that her campaign had circulated.

That she did not have a post-super Tuesday plan, has nothing to do with her gender. That she could not raise money at the same pace as her opponent did, means that her campaign did not take Barack Obama seriously.

Now, she can blame her defeat on sexism, or she can learn from her mistakes. The next woman who runs for president will not repeat the same mistakes. She will hire a competent staff, manage the message, build a stronger grass-roots fundraising machine and plan for a long competitive race. She will unite voters by focusing on a positive message, respecting her opponent and finding her voice early in the campaign.

In the 21st century, race and gender should not be the center of a Presidential campaign because younger voters want to dream of a better America rather than fight the old battles of the '60s. Let the Republicans cling to old ideas while Democrats move our nation forward.

[going2ireland]

In reading your comments, it suddenly dawned on me. Because of all the mistakes Hillary has made in her campaign, she has opened the doors for women to run again and make a successful run at the Presidency.

Her campaign will forever be used as the "what not to do" in campaign strategy.

[PorkBelly]

It's easy to make a case like this when you cherry pick examples to support your case.

What about Margaret Carlson, Peggy Noonan, & Rachael Maddow? All are pundits and all are very tough on Clinton.

You seem to be conflating the fact that she is an unappealing candidate with the fact that she is a woman.

[westminster]

Sorry. I'm a woman but I do NOT like the woman. Hillary has NO class and she certainly does not ingratiate herself to those of us who do not care for her. All this shift shaping to prove that she is as competent as a man is an insult to women. Women can be strong without having to behave like a man or throwing back a shot. She should take a page out of the books of Sandra Day O'Connor and Nancy Pelosi. Women with steel and grit but ALWAYS a lady.

[talli]

Hillary is not ignoble... as far as I know.

[JUSTME]

Caryl,

You ask, So what is ignoble about Hillary Clinton? I can only answer for myself, of course. But in my mind, what I find ignoble about Hillary Clinton is the fact that she lies like a rug; that her ambition has come close to destroying the Democratic Party; that she puts her own self-interest ahead of anything else; that she has willingly and intentionally used the issue of race to win votes and smear Obama.

Anything else? Yes.

Remember the parade of women who claimed to have had affairs with Bill or who were harassed by Bill or Bill actually boinked even though they were young enough to be his daughter? First Hillary denied, denied, denied, and then slandered these women every which way from Sunday. All along the women were telling the truth, it was Bill who was the pig, but that didn't stop Hillary from attacking. Naturally, she's never apologized.

Hillary is a self-serving opportunist of the very worst sort. That's what so ignoble about Hillary.

[DaveJ19]

Agree with you 100%. Hilliary just lacks character one can be proud of. She is not the right person to be the first woman president.

[MSaldana]

If you're going to spout republican talking points, just vote for McCain and get it over with...

-MS

[mcw123]

There is zero comparisson between Clinton and Obama when it comes to nobility or class. She has acted like a spoiled brat (of either gender), pouting and throwing temper tantrums because she was dared denied something she felt was owed by us to her.

Obama did not once bring up any of the Clinton scandals (and there are many the Republicans would have had us revisit), even when she was throwing the "kitchen sink" at him. She twisted his words and relationships to deliberately mislead the public, including her supposedly beloved supporters. She is using them, as she has used everyone else, purely for the sake of gaining undeserved power.

As a woman, I in no way identify with her. She does not speak for me. In fact, I think she is a disgrace to the gender, continually moving goal posts and acting as if she were not directly to blame for her current situation. It's not Obama's fault. It's not his supporters' fault. It's not the pundits' fault. She ran a lousy campaign. Period. She would make a lousy president, pandering to the fears of one part of this country instead of leading the whole country. She is McSame.

Women deserve to win and lose on their own merit, just like men. Were she to do what is best for this country instead of being so incredibly selfish and self-absorbed, maybe then, she would have an ounce of class.

[calluna]

'She has acted like a spoiled brat (of either gender), pouting and throwing temper tantrums because she was dared denied something she felt was owed by us to her.'

Ah, the entitlement meme! Haven't see you in about 10 minutes!

Yes, Hillary Clinton began the campaign confident she would win. What candidate doesn't? Why would you run if you didn't think you were going to win?

Since her announcement, even when it looked like she was the "inevitable" nominee, she has campaigned incredibly hard. I'm sure her campaign keeps running totals of the number of events, speeches, rallies, town hall meetings, interviews and debates she has done, and they must number in the thousands by now. She does more press avails than Obama. This is not the behavior of someone who expects something to simply be handed to her.

Until we get to a point where female presidential candidate can be confident about her abilities without being tagged as "entitled" or "egotistical" or "arrogant" or otherwise less than ladylike, we're not going to get very far.

[strifeknot]

Some meme are facts. Dismissing something as untrue simply because its widely believed, without bothering to disprove it, is intellectual laziness worthy of a Clinton apologist.

[condew]

"We women who wanted to see a woman president in our lifetime " wanted it so bad that they could not see Hillary's faults or Obama's virtues.

Curiously, Hillary lost by trying to run like a man, and Obama's style is one that would work well for a woman.

[Dustee]

My thought's exactly!

[RThM]

Boy, has THAT fact been lost by the apologists.

[KYSmiling]

Yep, got it in one!!

[prithimp]

So suddenly a couple (a man nicknamed as being the "First Black President" ) who ,in over 25 yrs of public service, have been called all the most vile names by a most vicious Republican machine but have never been accused of being racist stand revealed as racist on the eve of an important primary where the majority voters are African American..­.how convenient for Barrack!
Hillary Clinton had solid spport amog the AA community going into the SC primary..s­he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by making a racist comment... BUT Obama had everything to WIN by casting the Clintons as racists...­by doing so he solidified the AA vote and WON SC ..food for thought!

Of all the insults and abuse that has been thrown at her the most offensive was the story that now seems to be accepted as fact that the Clintons are racist...f­or a person who has a documented record since she was a student of working for the rights of the African American ,I think that must be the most painful..
As for her comment about "white working class Americans supporting her.".she was refering to it as a demographic in reply to a specific question . The exit polls use this as well as " African American" etc to see how each demographic votes .Obama's campaign is constantly talking about his support among the Africacn American demographic and the educated urban vote to prove his case .

[KMan1]

Try to be honest if possible. Obama NEVER called the Clintons racist. Maybe if the Clinton's and some of their supporters stop making racially insensitive remarks then people will not 'mistake' them for racist.

[Softnsweet]

prithimp,

Show me the link of Hillary working with African Americans? Come on with it.

[JimR]

"Obama had everything to WIN by casting the Clintons as racists...­"

That is a very serious charge. Can you back it up with a link?

[RThM]

No, of course it can't be supported. It's just the same old "flip the blame" diversion that was ready from day one.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

And they say Hillary plays the victim card.