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
Hillary is a divisive liar, plain and simple. That"s why I don't support her, it has nothing to do with her gender.
Appalling is the word. And disgusting, and infuriating.
I can truly say I have come to detest Keith Olbermann, David Schuster and so many others on MSNBC. They are completely out-of-control. It is very sad.
But at least, we have Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, and Joe Scarborough!
Just as when Hillary went to the senate, and she impressed her adversaries by her hard work, and they had to admit she was impressive -- same thing with the conservative press.
Even though they may not agree with her policies, they all have stopped dead in their tracks, slack-jawed in awe of her. While the liberal media (I never thought I would say that!) bashes her day in and day out, the conservative press gives credit where credit is due. I have to admit that I am impressed that they have the integrity to be honest, and applaud and appreciate her.
Isn't it a shame that the liberal media has done to both Bill and Hillary Clinton what the right-wing zealots did to Bill throughout his terms.
And this is serious. It is no laughing matter.
Today, Keith Olbermann named Terry McAlliffe (sp?) a "worst person" because Terry said that the press was 90% against Hillary! Does Keith really not see it? That is mind-blowing. I know he is so bloated up and all puffed up with himself and his self-righteous anger, but you would think he could see it. How can anybody NOT see it?
It's the Clintonistas who are completely deluded
The fact that Hillary is in this position is HER OWN fault. When this primary season started, she was CLEARLY the media favorite. They never said anything but "front-runner Hillary Clinton".
She was 45 points ahead in all the polls and had a HUGE war chest and a ton of Super Ds and
party enthusiasm and endorsements,
She was felled by the arrogance of inevitability. She believed it was "her turn". She wasted her huge war chest on fluffy things because she was convinced she would have it sewn up by Feb 5th.
Then, her behavior deteriorated. She has been a terrible, manipulative, ugly candidate ever since.
She and Bill have ,with their racial crap and terrible sportsmanship, destroyed their reputation.
Don't blame Keith O. Blame Hillary for choosing the wrong team, the wrong strategy, and the wrong message,
I am a 60 year old white woman. Most of my friends are over 50. NOT ONE voted for Clinton in MD's primary. And, it wasn't because we wouldn't love to have a woman as president. On March 5th, we voted FOR Obama.
You just sided with Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough, and have the gall to say that someone else is blinded? Get a grip.
When you walk into a room and figure out who the sucker is...
Good God, no wonder we have a President like Bush in the White House.
Please try and see what the likes of Pat, Joe, and Tucker are up to.
Remember when the big bad wolf dressed up like Grandma and he tried to be so sweet to Little Red Riding Hood?
Well, you've been punked by the right wing conspirators!
Perhaps voting licenses would make sense?
monique
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.
Sexist attacks on Sen. Clinton are wrong and--as you document--sadly plentiful. However, you go overboard to imply ("So what is ignoble about Hillary Clinton?") that all attacks on her are automatically sexist attacks.
What is ignoble about Sen. Clinton is that she routinely (I list examples): distorts her own record (NAFTA), distorts her opponent's position (health insurance), uses unfair inuendo ("He's not a Muslim . . . as far as I know."), lies outright (Bosnia) and is shockingly self-centered (no other Democratic candidate this year has used the words "I" and "my" as frequently in their speeches as she habitually does in hers).
NOT ONE OF THOSE TRAITS, however, is gender-based: McCain has distorted his own record and his opponents', Karl Rove is a master of unfair inuendo, the current President lies outright, and Mitt Romney gave speeches this year every bit as self-absorbed as Sen. Clinton's.
Sen. Clinton is not all women: she is a woman. She is also a politician who happens to use among the most intellectually dishonest tactics found in modern American politics and--apparently--thinks that's appropriate. Not all female Senators do and I, for one, will welcome the day when a Claire McCaskill or Olympia Snowe is President. To condemn all attacks on Sen. Clinton as sexist is akin to condemning all attacks on Idi Amin as racist. (That's just an analogy! I'm not likening her to a military dictator: I'm only comparing invalid arguments.)
I am sitll stuck ast the part where you call Hillary noble.
If Hillary can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. Obama gets respect because he got it the old-fashioned way - he earned it. On the other hand, Hillary has conducted a vicious, scorched earth campaign that has denigrated Obama, damaged the Democratic Party and revealed herself to be a shallow, egotististical and elitist spoiler. I would love to see a woman president but not Hillary.
She says she's a fighter but what has she ever fought for other than Hillary???
I see. So, let me guess--you wrote this with no intention of addressing anything in the blog piece. To do so never once crossed your mind. Am I correct?
There is a perfect reference to the respect piece: that it has to be earned. You easily accuse people of not reading the blog while you don't seem to understand yourself what the criticisms refer to. Your critique cuts both ways. Actually, in this case you are the one who is bleeding.
Magnificent column--thank you! Judging by the comments, there aren't many readers in Huff-Po's audience. They seem confused by the simplest points.
Here at Po, I'm constantly being mistaken for a female because I strongly come out for Hillary. How about that? And, boy, do people unload on me. Someone just got done calling me "sistah" in mocking response to my totally true claim that I've interacted closely with blacks since childhood. The insulter tied his final, meanest insult into gender, which I doubt he/she would have done if he/she had known my sex.
It shouldn't have to be pointed out that anyone who presumes a strong Hillary supporter to be female is erring on the side of sexism, but I don't get the impression the guilty parties have a clue.
I'll admit I'm a little shocked by the extent of the sexist attacks (here and everywhere else), and by the sheer up-front, no-apologies nature thereof. I figured we were ready for a woman president, but I had no idea how NOT ready we are.
When confronted with their attack-Hillary's-gender policy, all the Obamites can do is deny, deny, deny, and deny some more. Thus, all they can manage is a thousand variations on "You're wrong!" in response. A variation on the pre-school staple, "I didn't do it!"
Of course, I meant to type, " I figured we *weren't* ready for a woman president, but I had no idea how NOT ready we are."
I am ready for a woman president. My own country has one. She's just as good as any of the guys, maybe slightly better. I wish we could have had one in the US for the last seven years. Just not Hillary Clinton. No big deal. And if the Catholic church would elect a lesbian couple for pope, I would be the first one to congratulate them for making the right decision.
Talking about sexist attacks...
"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."
is a perfectly sexist attack on men which has nothing to do with the reality of real men and women.
If you don't agree, please discuss in 250 words or less.
No, I don't agree. At all.
Six words. How about that?
You realize, of course, that if you want to make a case for what you just asserted, it's YOUR job to do so. It's not my job to make a case against it, especially since I have no idea where you're coming from or why.
Caryl blames Hillary's problems on everyone except the candidate herself.
As a man who respects women as equals, I think the stereotypical commentary on Clinton's physicality, clothing, etc. was appalling and wrong. But that had NOTHING to do with my negative opinion of her, which grew as the primary campaign wore on.
Hillary caused that herself, by running a destructive, divisive and disrespectful campaign against Obama. The minute she was no longer "inevitable," Clinton showed us that she felt entitled to the Democratic nomination, and therefore justified in selfishly putting her own ambition above the good of the party and the country.
I take offense at the repeated suggestion by people like Caryl, that we who take a dim view of Clinton's actions, do so for superficial, sexist, even misogynistic reasons. Given what we have all witnessed from Clinton during the past few months, portraying Hillary's detractors this way is disingenuous at best.
I started the primaries thrilled at the idea of working to elect Hillary against whomever the Repugs would put up. Hillary's pants suits didn't change that, nor her hair, nor her laugh. A few shallow minds in the media who focused their shoddy "reporting" in these things didn't change that, either. HILLARY did that. All by herself.
It's time, Caryl, for you to get honest with yourself and see what really happened here, rather than trying to manufacture some alternate universe in which Hillary was the victim of sexism. It's just not so.
"I take offense at the repeated suggestion by people like Caryl, that we who take a dim view of Clinton's actions, do so for superficial, sexist, even misogynistic reasons. Given what we have all witnessed from Clinton during the past few months, portraying Hillary's detractors this way is disingenuous at best."
Oh, please. Then why does so much of the criticism of HIllary take the form of sexist insults? And we're talking not only on Huff-Po, but at the NYT (home of the Rona Barrett of political columnists, Maureen D'oh!), on NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc.
News professionals think nothing of mocking Hillary in pure gender-based fashion. But Caryl is out of line to suggest sexism is happening?
Learn to think. Please. And I'm male, so please tailor your insults accordingly. Thanks.
Sorry, but I haven't seen that many purely sexist insults. Yes, there are some exceptions, but it seems to me that the vast majority of negative posts even on HuffPo about Clinton over the last 3 months are reactions to the specific things that she has said or that her official campaign members or surrogates have said that are effed up. Like the Bosnia LIE. (Had to tack that on seeing as how you're so obsessed about a post addressing some specific point in the associated editorial, even though it seems to me that someone can legitimately post some commentary or opinion about an issue at question without doing so.)
HuffPost's Pick
You missed his point. Hillary and her supporters disingenuously interpret every criticism about her as sexist, as a shield to keep her from being properly "vetted."
Questions about her truthfulness = sexist. Questions about her so-called 35 years of experience = sexist. Demeaning Barack Obama's candidacy by playing the race card = sexist. Questioning her judgment about the Iraq war = sexist. Questioning her taking PAC money = sexist. Questioning anything about her at all = sexist.
Who's drinking the Kool-Aid now??
Insults about her looks or clothing ARE sexist and inappropriate. I think that she is still beautiful at her age and well-dressed. But that has nothing to do with what I think of her as a candidate, and the level of distaste I have for her or her politics. Not mere distaste but disgust.
If she could be trusted to not pander in the name of so-called bipartisanship on Iraq, I *would* vote for Hillary if she were the nominee. But she'll capitulate to fearmongerers on Day One. She's so desperate to show that she's tough enough to be President that she uses reckless rhetoric such as "obliterating" Iran to blatantly pander to Jews. She showed that she bought Bush's bluster about Iran wholesale, and that she would continue Bush's ineffective Middle Eastern policy.
Her campaign became about trash, not vision. She's smart, tough and capable, but the only vision she has is getting into the White House for her own narcissistic gain.
Please give concrete examples. It is tedious to listen to your rant without understanding what you perceive as sexist.
Sexist characterizations did not make Clinton vote for the Iraq war, it did not make her vote for the motion on Iran revolutionary guards, it did not make her tell the tale of dodging sniper fire, it did not make her support the flag burning resolution nor the bankruptcy bill, it did not make her accuse Barack of being a clone of Rev. Wright nor did it make her accuse Barack of being a Jihadist or accuse say that McCain will be a better president than Obama or make forcefully appeal to racist hatred to make people not vote for Obama and I can continue forever and all these are incontrovertible facts. She did all those things to herself and that is why she is ignoble to characterize in the least demeaning term.
Interesting thread. I haven't been back since posting the comment atop this thread.
Why is it always the dullest among us who like to use little jabs like "learn to think" without having a grasp of the subject under discussion. I hate to break it to you Zanti, but ending your exhibition in missing the point with a statement like that doesn't make you look any smarter.
Since you missed it, I’ll say it again. I think the stereotypical commentary on Clinton's physicality, clothing, etc. is appalling and wrong. When people do that, especially in the context of a presidential election, they do more to make themselves look stupid than the candidate (though I’ll not deny that the presence of sexist characterizations has a real, negative impact).
None of this changes the fact that there are significant issues with HRC’s actions that are totally unconnected with sexism. Yet, Caryl (and you) seem to focus only on the sexist part, apparently hoping that doing so will divert everyone’s attention from Clinton’s real problems.
Hillary is no more losing this primary race because of sexism, than Obama is winning it because he’s African American.
Hillary tried a time-tested approach. She went negative. She walked away from all the issues and just tried to tear Obama down. And it didn’t work. It failed to stick. It backfired. Now, she’ll have lots of time after the primaries to think about where she went wrong.
Each side can claim unfair treatment in regards to gender and race. So What? Is one worse than the other? No. Racism and sexism are each great walls that are dividing us. If we are ever to tear them down and joins hands, we must begin to understand they are equally unacceptable. And equal in strength.
Hah?? Quote the racist cracks coming from NBC, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, and Huff-Po. Please.
In fact, feel free to quote from Fox. Even THEY aren't likely to say about Obama anything on par with the sexist vitriol tossed at Hillary on a daily basis.
What sexist vitriol? Care to cite a few things? And then care to explain how any of that has anything to do with Senator Obama?
Please explain to us how Senator Obama has acted or spoken in a sexist way, or forever hold your piece.
No one is slamming Obama for being black, at least not to the degree people are slamming Hillary for being female.
Worse, it's quite often the Obama supporters ladeling on the misogyny.
I'm not big into ideology - religious, political, or feminist. Camille Paglia has a fascinating column in Salon today about Hillary http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/05/14/tarantella/ (some might need a day-pass, just sign in).
She does seem to exude signs of multiple personality disorder at times---you have to admit that. Her tactics throughout this campaign have been shockingly disgusting. She has the tendency to blatantly exploit issues/prejudices for her own benefit. Some pundits have run off at the mouth sometimes, but for the MOST PART she has been treated fairly. More respect than they have shown Sen Obama (as much as Clintonites want to argue to the contrary). If circumstances were reversed and she was the frontrunner, having won 11 straight contests, had more delegates, more popular vote, more states won and now more SD's, EVERY PUNDIT, Clinton surrogate and the Clinton's themselves would have demanded Obama drop out. Yet, because of the respect they have for the Clinton legacy, they have given her more exceptions than anyone else.
She keeps talking about how she's been vetted, WHEN??!! Maybe in the past, but NOT THROUGHOUT this campaign. No one has touched her on Peter Paul, gone into it deeply with other corrupt fundraisers like Hsu and Gupta, they haven't shred to bits and pieces her ties with The Fellowship cult, they haven't rummaged through Bill and Penn's deep involvement with the Chinese and Colombian governments.
Oh and by the way, people have tried to emasculate Obama on more than one occassion, they have called him all kinds of names and have accused him of all sorts of deeds................ so by comparison, your little Ms. Liar has had it pretty darn easy.
So Caryl,
you object to sexism and use sexist arguments to back your stance? Nobody could possibly hold any of Hillary's actions over the past 30 years against her without being a sexist pig? Nothing exists? If you like Hillary a whole lot that is certainly your business, to insist that I have to because she is a woman is not your business it is mine and I refuse to judge a candidate on the basis of their race, religion, or gender. You either deny anything came out about Hillary in the 90s or claim it was entirely a Republican fiction. Quite simply it was not made out of whole cloth, there was an underlying reality and some of us don't like it. Some of us don't like autocrats, male or female - see Health Care and Travel Office. Some of us don't like AUMF, flag burning bills, Iranian votes, and a few other little issues that are plain facts - not misogyny.
Reflection on your article leaves me unconcerned that you're unhappy since I don't think I like your version of politics, either. Since you want to play sexist politics, maybe you should have run some other woman as your agenda.
"Nobody could possibly hold any of Hillary's actions over the past 30 years against her without being a sexist pig?"
She didn't write anything of the kind. But you sure read it that way.
What do you do, skip every third word, or...?
I found this hilarious.
20% of Obama supporters won't vote for her.
45% of Hillary's supporters won't vote for him.
The vitriol is amazing. How does that add up
to Obama's supporters not being fair?
We make fun of her to counteract the fact
that her tearing the country apart is making
us cry inside. It seems to me that you were
on another planet this whole primary.
Hillary's has been a campaign of dirty tricks, innuendo, and outright lies. Adding pants to that image makes her the equivalent of a scheming, untrustworthy, left-brained man--and that's what this over-sixty psyche focused in a white female body has against her. I want someone who's kind, intelligent, AND principled sitting in that office--someone using both sides of his or her brain--and she isn't. Her behavior makes it apparent to me that, rather than having the welfare of her nation, her fellow citizens, and the world at large uppermost in her head and heart, her predominating goal is self-aggrandizement!
Hillary is a liar and a cheater and a manipulater. My not voting for her had nothing to do with her being a woman. Hell, if I had my choice then Elisabeth Edwards would be President. I'm holding out that we'll get a cure for cancer over the next decade and she'll run in 2016.
You are right in much of what you say about the sexism that abounds in the media. This is wrong and not correct. What is right and correct however is the fact that Obama has been chosen over Hillary. Unfortunately she is extremely dishonest and definitely not genuine with the people. So let us not mix the sexism with the fact that she lost. She lost because she just does not have what it takes to be the type of candidate the people can be enthused about. The sexism is horrible but that is not why she has lost.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
