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
It's the race baiting & GOP-style knee-cap campaign...but other than that she's an angel....
Do the constant sexist attacks on Hillary count as gender-baiting?
Was it noble to tell her husband to turn a blind eye to the genocide in Rwanda because it would take the congressional spotlight away fromm her egocentric stand on helth care? Did nobility require her to vote for the continued use of cluster bombs that leave shiny marbles of death around school yards and playgrounds?
I was led to believe that a woman would have a different approach to foreign policy than the alpha males have had but Hills has to be more macho under "sniper fire" than any testosterone fed Rambo or Rocky Balboa to use the latest comparison of "testicular fortitude".
Since when does a feminist need beer and whiskey shots to argue equality. Honestly I expect Hills to do a Roseanne Barr crotch grab while singing the anthem at a baseball game next.
Hey, I've wanted to see a woman president in my lifetime, too, but Clinton has probably set that back so far that now I never will. I see comments about "prince" Obama -- well, Queen Hillary was expecting a coronation, she thought she was entitled.
"Does anyone wonder why women who support Hillary Clinton for president get (excuse the vernacular) PO'd at some of our fellow Democrats?"
Does anyone wonder why women who don't support Hillary Clinton get PO'd at some of our fellow women? I'm embarrassed at the way the Hillary supporters try to find every excuse under the sun to blame Hillary's lack of success on anything but her own shortcomings.
I'm with you. Her supporters never want to admit for even a second that she has any faults or that she's losing because SHE made mistakes along the way. I've said in the past, that I started out supporting her because I believed that she would take a different approach, but she has proven that she can be as mean and aggressive as Karl Rove himself, if not worse.
They seem to be so excited about a woman running for President that they think Hillary Clinton's dishonesty and gutter tactics should be excused. I see a double standard here. My jaw also dropped to the ground when Ms.Rivers argued that Clinton was every bit as noble as Obama. Please! Clinton may have exhibited some noble behavior in the past, but her behavior during this campaign has been malicious, dishonest, and anything but noble. History is going to judge her for the outrageous campaign she ran this year, not for her actions in the distant past.
Add you and Hillary to the sexist list.
Desperate to salvage her campaign, Hillary Clinton chose the put on the mantle of the new George Wallace when she should have channeled her personal heroine Eleanor Roosevelt..
What good is it to achieve the highest office at the cost of one's soul ?
If anything, Obama was getting the media tag as a "wimp" because he wouldn't slap Hillary around even as she slapped him silly. That fact alone exposes as lies any accusations that he has run less than a respectful campaign for President of the United States.
So when these "bitter" Clinton supporters attack Barack and his supporters, remember the company they keep. The poor dears cannot help themselves.
AFter reading the comments, I realized that I could not add anything else to the dialogue. I certainly hope Caryl Rivers reads these comments.
She is probably one of those who (since I don't know her age) would have burned her bras to prove how much of a feminist she is. She would turn her nose up at any man who made the chivelrous gesture to open a door for her. She would emasculate any man who so much as showed his masculinity to her.
She is everything that represents the bad in the feminist movement. She can't see the trees for the forest.
Caryl, if you are reading, I am a women of the feminism movement. And I am appalled at your take on this entire situation. You don't seem to be able to draw the fine line between butch feminism and feminism for the value for which it truly represents - equality for women - not refusing to recognized your femininity.
"We women who wanted to see a woman president in our lifetime ..."
That about says it all right there. They're not getting Ms. Right, so they'll take Ms. Right Now.
You'd better take damn good care of yourself, because I think the case can be made that Hillary set the women's presidential movement back 16 years... or at least 8, especially with surrogates like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The NARAL people recognized this.
Hillary has shown a propensity to lie, cheat, curse, cry, stamp or pout to get her way. I associate this propensity not with defects of her sex, but defects of her character. Nevertheless, not everyone can separate the two.
To them I say: she's not a bitch, she's just a garden variety asshole.
JP
Don't even get me started on Wasserman-Schultz . . .
One example why we hate Hillary . Her Lie, Steal, Cheat, and Whine technique. Starts with the DNC declaring that Florida-Michigan will lose delegates by moving their primaries forward (mainly for some of the street money ("campaign contributions") the big 3 campaigns were donating). Candidates agreed not to campaign or be on the ballot. Hillary does not oppose the DNC decision at the time at all. However, her name appears on the ballots and she makes a visit to Florida anyway. Don't worry she says, it makes no difference because everyone knows the votes won't count! (The Lie) Then she falls behind when her Super Tuesday strategy is a bust and suddenly she needs more votes and delegates. Okay, she says, lets count Florida and Michigan and give me all the delegates in Michigan because only my name got votes and give me most of those in Florida because I beat Undecided. (The Cheat). So she went on and on about it, posing as the champian of the poor Florida and Michigan voters and their right to vote for the nominee (like there were not many other years when their vote and the vote of many other states were moot when it came time for their primaries). The Whine. Eventually they will give into her whining so as not to offend her female supporters (Reverse Sexism) and work a deal where she gets the majority of votes in elections she had agreed not to run in or count (The Steal).
point of fact-
Is it sexist to note that in the last election, 48% of women voted for george w bush? When I see people complaining about lack of loyalty by groups such as NARAL, I want to scream, FOURTY EIGHT PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!! Exactly what do democrats owe women for that loyalty? I thought democrats voted for who they thought could best provide progressive ideals. I thought that feminists believed that women should be judged by their character, not their genes. Do you REALLY believe that HRC has not been given a fair chance to be heard? For the first 15 or so of the debates, all she did was triangulate to the middle despite being given a plurality of the time to talk. Where were her policies then?(or when she had a vote in the senate; Oh wait, she was sponsoring an amendment to ban burning the flag...good stuff, just the serious and important work I want from my candidate) She only started the populist rhetoric when she was losing, and Edwards was out. I was pretty mad at the "media" when no one listened to Edwards because they were concentrating on the "historic" candidates. Well, one of those historic candidates wasn't going to get nominated, so lets see who believes in character and democracy now, and who just believes that it was their gender's "turn."
Sexism can't possibly be an issue. It's just Hillary. Look at all the other female presidents we've had. They've never complained and we loved them.
dear, the same can be said about all of the black presidents (senators...only 3) we've had. they have never complained and we loved them so it CAN'T be about racism, now can it? see, learn something. stop playing the gender card. we have ALL suffered. its just HRC. she has ran an awful campaigned. she thought it would be a coronation. she didn't work hard enough at all.
Dear? The post deals with sexism. Not racism. Or coronations. Sexism.
what, exactly, is noble or feminist about supporting a candidate that exploits racism to acquire votes?
What is noble or feminist about wanting to obliterate other countries?
You are appalled by the "sexism" of the campaign? Yet the Clinton's have wallowed in racism. Get over your double standard! Face the fact that many of us older white women have been appalled at Clinton's LACK of backbone in dealing with Bu$h and wrote Clinton off before the campaign even started.
Sexism indeed. You, like Clinton and many of her supporters, would put winning above decency and support of those things which are really important. Clinton is not the leader Obama is nor is she the strategic thinker we need now. Her campaign and her votes as a Senator say it all. Sexism is beside the point but her racism is the point.
Get over it. You backed the wrong woman to fulfill your dreams.
It's not the gender; it's the Clinton.
the non-gendered clinton lost a race in which she held EVERY advantagew, including name recognition, money, and power (remember when bill was the dems rock star?) the non-gendered candidate was unable to take advantage of these tools, while her non-gendered insurgent opponent ran a terrific and smart camapaign and took away her inevitability strategy while building an impressive grassroots movement. Virtually every policy idea, especially populist ones, were announced after the campaign started (often seemingly foisted upon her, remember the quote that lobbyists are people too?) and John Edwards had received such good response to them, ESPECIALLY healthcare. The non-gendered candidate, who already was trounced attempting to reform healthcare because of poor management decisions, and her inability to garner allies as the corporations fought to prevent reform, received more money from insurers and drug companies than any other candidate from any party, making her allegiances questionable. The nongendered candidate raised the issue of her gender at every moment her camapign faltered, and early in her campaign offerred her spouse's experiences as if theywere her own. This non-gendered candidate was willing to favorably compare the republican nominee to her democratic opponent in order to get votes in primaries. I can't wait to vote for a gendered female, one who I believe has plans to serve us, is sincere, and motivates others to help our democracy move in directions that I would like. Until then, I'm gonna vote for the other non-gendered candidate.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
