Must Hillary Be Perfect?

How perfect will the first woman president have to be?

Too perfect to be human, I suspect. And in Hillary Clinton's case, the demand often comes from women.

Take Maureen Dowd's recent New York Times column that summed up many women's grievances about Hillary.

"As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you can't take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies."

That's the nub of the problem many of my friends have with Hillary. She didn't do it on her own. She's attached at the hip to Bill, and riding his coattails in her quest for the presidency.

These women, and thousands more like them, became lawyers, doctors, journalists, and managers mainly on grit, guts and ability in a very tough world. They didn't have mentors. They didn't have the older guy-rabbis like many of their male contemporaries Many of them knew they wouldn't have an easy ride and learned early on that they'd have to use their talent like a battering ram to smash through doors that were closed to them.

I am woman, hear me roar was the anthem of the feminist movement, and when many of us roared, we figured we'd do it with little male help. We disdained the women who climbed the ladder by sleeping their way up, or who attached themselves to powerful men who could advance their career. Sure, maybe in her day Clare Booth Luce had to marry Henry to get her dazzling career, we figured, but not us. We'd do it the hard way, on our own. And often, we did.

Which makes Hillary a conundrum. She's not the independent pioneer who did it all her way.

On the other hand, she's hardly an appendage to Bill. She has a list of accomplishments in her own right, from Yale law to Watergate staffer to legal eagle, to new-style First Lady who really was a policy advisor to her husband. She ran a Senate campaign that was not, as Chris Matthews suggested, built on sympathy for a wronged wife. It was an energetic campaign in which she convinced even crusty upstate New York voters that she'd be an effective senator. Which she has been.

Of course Bill Clinton has been an important part of her story. And yes, there's been what Dowd calls the "ick" factor of the drama of their marriage. But there does seem to be a double standard for women -- and especially this woman -- as far as family help is concerned.

Let's look at some of the men who ran for president. Without George H. W. Bush, does anyone think that George W. Bush would be anything more than a mid-level executive someplace? The whole story of W. is that of a man buoyed by his family.

As Robert Trigaux wrote in the St. Petersburg Times,

"Once upon a time, a rich and powerful father gathered his four young sons and urged them to become rich and powerful, too. Take risks. Push yourselves. Influence others, he ordered in a bold voice.

"Then he whispered, 'And if you muck things up, a fairy godfather will always appear to make things better.'

"Those may not have been the precise words spoken, but this is no tall tale. It's the business model adopted long ago by George and Barbara Bush to propel sons George W., Jeb, Marvin and Neil into the high ranks of industry and, at least for two boys, politics."

The formula, Trigaux noted, went like this:

"STEP 1: Leverage the Bush family name and a small personal investment into really big money, always provided by others.

"STEP 2: If any deal goes sour, exit early with personal fortune intact. Or rely on a bailout from one of Dad's fairy godfathers: some of the thousands of wealthy Republican fundraisers and longtime supporters of former President Bush.

"Of course, playing off the privileged and famous Bush name is inevitable. To a point. But to the Bush boys, dubbed the "Shrubs" by detractors, it's become a chronic dependency. A habit of striking consistency."

W.'s whole career followed that pattern. Old Yale pals of his dad helped finance his venture with the Texas Rangers, and when W. sold his share of the team, he came out a rich man, with $15 million to finance his political career.

Then there's Jack Kennedy, whose multi-millionaire father once said "We're going to sell Jack like soap flakes," and old Joe called in plenty of political chits and spent hundred's of thousands of dollars in his son's campaign. At a Gridiron dinner, Jack Kennedy held up what was supposed to be a telegram from his dad and joked that it said, "Jack, don't spend one dime more than is necessary. I'll be damned if I am going to pay for a landslide."

When Ted Kennedy first ran for the senate, his credentials were so thin that his opponent, Edward McCormack, nephew of house speaker John McCormack, said, "If your name was simply Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy, your candidacy would be a joke."

Coattails and family dynasties are as American as apple pie. There were two Adamses as president (John and John Quincy) and two Roosevelts (Teddy and FDR). President William Howard Taft begat presidential contender senator Robert Taft; the president's grandson, another Robert Taft, served in the senate in the 70s and his great-grandson, Bob Taft, served as governor of Ohio. There's the Rockefellers (New York governor and presidential candidate Nelson and West Virginia Senator Jay) and the Gores, senators Albert and son Al, the Nobel Prize winner. Add the Romney's, Mitt and dad George, who was Michigan governor and a presidential candidate in his own time, the father-and-son senator Dodds of Connecticut, Pat and Jerry Brown, governors of California, the Bayhs of Indiana (dad senator, Birch, and son senator and governor Evan, and so on.

Male presidential candidates (from the Admass on down) have long had famous families, or very rich friends and benefactors to help them along the way. The only difference with Hillary is that she's a woman and that her famous family member was a husband, not a parent or grandparent.

If we apply the standard of perfection that we seem to apply to Hillary to all female candidates, will we ever have a woman president? How about Nancy Pelosi? Did she do it all on her own? Well, she comes a very old and well-connected Democratic family, the D'Alesandros. Both her father and brother were mayors of Baltimore. She didn't exactly come from nowhere to be speaker of the house.

All women who aspire to national leadership run into damaging stereotypes. A recent study by the business think tank Catalyst titled "Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don't" found that when women use assertive leadership styles, they are seen as competent but not likable; if they use more stereotypically feminine styles, they are seen as likable but weak.

Add to these stereotypes the once-again-popular ideas that women's brains and hormones suit them more to domesticity and relationships than to leadership, and you really put a ball-and-chain on women candidates.

With all that baggage, it could be many generations before any woman gets elected to the presidency, especially if we insist she has to be some kind of feminine equivalent of the Lone Ranger. That's not to say that all women must vote in lockstep for Hillary in some kind of feminist solidarity, but give her a break.

Coattails are standard issue for presidents. Live with it.

Boston University journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News media Scare Women."

Comments

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Let's talk about facts, not fluff.

Take the marriage issue, first:

Bill Clinton has been a cheater right throughout their marriage. Hillary has known about this. What has she done about it? Was she willing to accept this? Obviously she was, since he never stopped, and she didn't divorce him. She knows he's a cheater, and she lies to the American public claiming it's a vast right wing conspiracy. She lies in her book by not addressing Bill's other affairs. Why is this important, Clinton apologists ask? Because it speaks to the very core of what she is willing to accept, to enable. She is personally expedient and a proven liar.

Second issue, political expediency:

HRC becomes a Senator due to her marriage. Let's face it, would we have ever heard about HRC if she hadn't been married to the President? With all the political and party machinery behind her, she wins her Senate seat in easy blue state, with no real competition. Her votes in the Senate are the sticking point for me. How can any woman vote for war? How is war advancing the cause of women? War is rape, War is death, War is total destruction and despair. Why did she vote for the war? Was she fooled by Bush into thinking he wasn't going to invade Iraq? Her war vote was a clear way to try and move to the right, and act tough. It's backfired. She still hasn't changed her position on wars, when she voted for Kyl/Lieberman (Iran). She is politically despicable! She's enabled the deaths of one million Iraqis and 4000+ Americans. She has put her own political ambitions above the lives of human beings! Anyone who thinks that war is a reasonable answer to conflict resolution doesn't deserve the office of POTUS.

[iluvsam]

Thanks Ms. Rivers. You've said it perfectly.
There is a standard that is put on Sen. Clinton that men do not have to live up to. America is in really bad shape regarding women's rights. When the epitome of a woman in America is Paris Hilton, how is a woman like Hillary ever supposed to be voted to the highest office in the land? The sad part is, we don't expect more of ourselves. Ask 100 young women under 30, and I can guaranty that they would rather be like Paris Hilton than Hillary Clinton. It is sad and pathetic.

[shchartley]

You're right, that's her main problem. Oh, other than her Iraq war vote, supporting NAFTA, and triangulating on everything from welfare to capital gains taxes. Other than that, I'm sure it's all about gender identity and high intra-gender standards.

As for the argument that we should continue to accept familial coattails in the information age, I call bull. "George W. Bush did it too" is never a good argument. Perhaps you remember the last Dem we (sort of) elected to the presidency? He was a self-made man from a broken home in Hope Arkansas. As a progressive, that's the kind of story that you should be promoting, rather than defending presidential nepotism.

[Skepticat]

Given a US population of about 301,139,000 as of July 1 2007 with around 50 million women aged between 35 and 65, I find it very hard to believe that there aren't some women out there
who just might be less "imperfect" than Hillary.

[EspressoAtNoon]

"Must Hillary Be Perfect?"

- No, she just has to be honest. Instead she's chosen to be a liar, a distorter, a triangulator, and a ruthless rule-breaker.

That's all Americans really want - someone whom they can trust and Hillary has underestimated this importance.

[jfh]

"As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you can't take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies."

This quote from a dried up old maid; Maureen Dowd

[LeoMarvin]

How very feminist of you.

[Heidfeld]

The old "triangulator" attack is such a joke. If she actually does triangulate, it is only because rubes like Obama try to attack her on every detail of her record and every vote she has ever cast.

When Bill Clinton said that Obama's moronic attacks weakened most of the Democratic field, me made an excellent point. Obama is acting like a spoiled child attacking all of the good guys that have been in office fighting for a long time.

Thanks to this line of attack and the suckers to eat it up, and politician with higher aspirations now has no choice buy to triangulate, out of fear of future attacks.

But this isn't the only way in which Obama has harmed both the party and the political process.

Yes SHE Can

[PaxMundis]

")
The old "triangulator" attack is such a joke. If she actually does triangulate, it is only because rubes like Obama try to attack her on every detail of her record and every vote she has ever cast. "

Are you high? Triangulation is the entire modus operandi of the Clintons. Essentially, they argue that progressive Democrats have nowhere else to go, so they can do anything they want.

[TurnThePageGA]

You and Bill, still trying to pander to Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson supporters. Ask Biden, Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson if they blame Obama. I don't think you will get the same answer. More of Bill's BS like when he claimed that if Hillary was elected she would send He and Bush 41 around the world to clean up Bush 43's mess with other world leaders. That went well until the next day Bush 41 straightened that out. Just cause it comes out of Bill's mouth doesn't make it TRUE. "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". "It depends on what the meaning of is is".

[Reddogtcb]

She has to be as perfect as she is asking Obama to be. She can't be flawed and then call for her opponent to be perfect.

[mrqcguy]

Exactly...and why won't she release her tax records? Why is no one pressuring her to do so? These mindless people who do not understand why anyone would not support Hillary needs to only look at how she is running this campaign to see why their candidate is loosing.

[Heidfeld]

It doesn't matter because SHE is not the one claiming the moral high ground.

She isn't the one calling people out for being "washinton insiders"... while at the same time throwing lobbyist money at superdelegates.

Hillary has flaws, yes. But she isn't the one running on being different or perfect, BO is. And he has just as many flaws, and has had less time to accumulate them.

Hillary supporters are the more realistic ones. We haven't bought into some sales pitch from a guy who claims to be so different and clearly isnt.

Yes SHE Can

[stupidme]

No one is asking for perfect, but how about this something like this? ""Bill, you've been fucking around and embarrassing me for years. Now here I am, a First Lady of the United States. I have put my career on hold and been behind you at every step of yours. But enough is enough. As much as I admire your intellect, I have to be my own women. I am a part of a generation of independent women such as Taylor Marsh, Erica Jong, Caryl Rivers, Gloria Feldt, etc. who, in turn, have "passed the torch" (sorry is that plagiarism?) to the next generation of women. As such Bill, it's time to be true to who I am; so I'm out of here. Not only will the country get over it, I really think that the country will benefit. Women will be elevated- heck everyone will be elevated by seeing someone, who even in my position will make the tough and right choice. I can't be saddled by you anymore Bill, even if it means giving up the benefit of a well oiled and financed political machine that will further my political aspirations. No Bill, I must remain true to the sisterhood and not to your selfish and demeaning ways. I can and will do it by myself!

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

so, the point of the feminist fight was so that all women could march in lock-step to some new set of criteria set up by who?

I thought the point of feminism was to get to a place where all women or any one woman could make decisions that are right for herself without having to adhere to some societal standard.

Now I find out that the point was really just to replace one set of societal standards with another set.

No one outside of a marriage or personal relationship can fully understand that relationship. And because of that , you shouldn't be forcing your standards onto another woman's life.

[mamelodi]

So, staying with her husband is a gross issue for you.....since you know so much about their marital relationship? HRC went through an extremely embarrassing and demeaning time (for any wife) publicly and came through it with her head high and with dignity. She has spent her professional life working for organizations and causes that aim at making life better for others. Whether you agree with her positions or not, whether you have a dislike for the Clintons or not, it's grossly insulting to women of accomplishment to hold them accountable for their marriages. Their marriage is just that.....theirs. Why that would disqualify her says volumes about why women will wait much longer for attainment of the very top.

[joja]

In answer to Ms. Rivers' question about Hillary's state of perfection, yes, it would appear, that by her (Hillary's) own standards, she would have to be perfect.

She's an over-acheiving, obssessive-compulsive, control/neat freak. All you have to do is (try to) listen to her, and you'll discover that she is nothing more than a list of talking points (in bullet-form), pretty much devoid of any imagination or depth.

She'd make a great banker, but a lousy prez -- not exactly what we need right now.

[strifeknot]

So this is the new angle of the Clintonistas. Instead of championing their candidate as being heavily qualified and fending off criticism of her many deep failings, they now acknowledge she has failings, but say, "So what? Just shut up and vote for her anyway! What do you want her to be, a superhuman?"

No, we just want her have at least a modicum of decency and integrity, to not be such a corporate whore, to admit she was wrong to support the war and to denounce it and commit to ending it immediately, to stop capitulating to Bush at every opportunity, to not run on the high-points of her husband's presidency while dissociating herself from its negatives, to EARN our votes instead of acting like she's ENTITLED to them, to stop crying "Sexism!" when anyone points out her ineptitude and inadequacy as a leader.

HRC is not merely flawed, she is profoundly unqualified to lead this nation out of this mess its in. She is, in fact, part of the problem.

[cowboycliff]

Hillary is highly qualified, and deserves to win the election on her own merits. In addition, it is time for a woman to serve as president of a country which claims equality for all, yet has failed to demonstrate this in a meaningful way, with 292 consecutive years of male dominated politics. True, you might argue, it is time for a black president as well. I agree, but one at a time, please. Obama can serve after Hillary has completed her 2 terms. Then finally we can say that this country offers liberty and justice ... for all. By then, we may have recovered enough economic and moral ground to withstand another Republican presidency.

[strifeknot]

It's very sad you think anyone would be entitled to my vote based on gender or race. HRC's values are the diametric opposite of mine, and I will never vote for her.

Furthermore, you're deluded if you think Hillary being elected would mean there is liberty and justice in this country. It would mean we've once again settled for too little.

[chinaski241]

Unfortunately, Caryl Rivers doesn't yet realize that she is a sexist.
Growing up, the only son of a feminist, I was reared to be as much a feminist as I could be. I grew up under the expectations of my mother to never discriminate on the basis of sexual identity or gender. I grew up with strict instructions to never discriminate.
Now that I am a grown man, I am dismayed that there is a rift betwen the egalitarian notions that I was brought up to respect and the sexism that dominates the current debate.
Should I vote for Mrs. Clinton in order to give voice to her gender or should I vote according to merit? That is not to say that she lacks merit. Far from it. She is a fine candidate.
Sadly, Caryl Rivers would frame the debate as purely sexual. She would have us all vote for Clinton strictly upon the merits of her gender. Is that the justice you seek? Or would you rather seek a justice that is inclusive? There is a generation of men, like myself, who are as willing to elect a female President as an African- American President as an Athiest President or... any qualified and deserving person. Still, I continue to discover these hostile figures like Caryl Rivers.
How can we ever expect to get beyond gender when people like Caryl Rivers make it the central focus?
I imagine that the reason that my generation is more reasonable and open than her's lies in the probability that we aren't as angry about gender. Lies in the notion that we do not see differences in gender as easily as earlier generations.
I am saddened that people like Caryl Rivers feel the need to continue the same, tired arguments of division. I am equally saddened that she has the expectation that we all vote according to gender rather than merit, because I was brought up to believe that gender is irrelevant.
Isn't gender bias the same as sexism? I thought feminists were above that.

[AnotherTry]

You are full of it.

[BonoX]

Thanks AnotherTry, my sentiments exactly!

[Kane]

Live with it? Really? What a great bumper sticker for the Clinton campaign. That seems to be the pat answer when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Live with it.

She voted for the Iraq war; live with it. Supported NAFTA; live with it. Refuses to release her White House papers; live with it. Refuses to release her complete tax filings; live with it. Has caused major divisions within NOW and NARAL; live with it. Refuses to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act; live with it. Adopts Rovian tactics to attack fellow Democrats; live with it. Proud member of the DLC; live with it.

Live with it. The words reek with status quo.

[AnotherTry]

But when Bush says, we are going to war whether you like it or nor, what do you do? You live with it. When Bush says we must eavesdrop on American citizens whether you like it or not, what do you do? You live with it. When Bush says we only torture to protect your families whether you like it or not, what do you do? You live with it.

When Hillary says, I have a marriage on my own terms whether you like it or not, what do you do? You tear her a new asshole and call her a she-devil. When Hillary is forced into votes that are designed to trap her politically, what do you do? You blame your own apathy on her.

Let's face it, even the most qualified woman in America can not get a fair shake from the men running the media show nor from the women programmed to hate themselves.

[churchlady]

Trap her politically? And she fell for it? My policy has been to not vote for a primary candidate who voted for the war. I did not vote for Kerry in the MA primary--even though he had already won. This time around, that left me with Kucinich, Gravel, or Obama. She, like men, must be accountable for their voting records. Had she not caved into the right wing machine on many votes, I would have proudly cast my vote for Hillary, the female candidate.

[PaxMundis]

"But when Bush says, we are going to war whether you like it or nor, what do you do? You live with it. When Bush says we must eavesdrop on American citizens whether you like it or not, what do you do? You live with it. When Bush says we only torture to protect your families whether you like it or not, what do you do? You live with it."

Um, we live with it for the same reason people lived under Pinochet or Saddam; we have no choice. Now we have a choice, and frankly Hillary comes up short.

"When Hillary is forced into votes that are designed to trap her politically, what do you do? You blame your own apathy on her."

Nobody forced her into those votes. She could have taken a principled stand, damn the popular opinion. And she would have been right in the end.

No, Hillary doesn't have to be perfect. I would settle for good, and she ain't measuring up.

[cynara]

I didn't vote for Bush, I fought against him every step of the way. And if given the choice for his successor between someone who voted for the Iraq war, and somone who didn't; someone who voted for the Kyle-Leiberman amendment, and someone who didn't; someone who championed NAFTA and someone who didn't, I will vote for the one that didn't. I don't care if the someones in question were men, women, tranny, I want a leader who's voting record and political stances are in line with my values. And Hillary is not that leader.

I may be forced to live with her, just like I've been forced to live with Bush. But your argument that just because we've lived with Bush, therefore we should live with Clinton, is horrific.

[PinkoAttic]

" When Hillary is forced into votes that are designed to trap her politically, what do you do? "

- This is precisely why so many people object to HRC. Nobody "forced" her in to voting with Lieberman on Iran. Nobody " forced " her Iraq war vote before that. Being a feminist is surely more than towing a warmonger line isn't it ? - Whatever happened to the world being a better place if women ran it ? It sure was a better place when Indira Gandhi was in power, or would she not fit your ideal of the " perfect" female candidate ?

Hillary is very imperfect for the job of President because she is a divisive figure with apparently very few scruples, and she would be so if she were a man. I comparison to other successful female politicians, she has neither the backbone of a Margaret Thatcher or the principled convictions of a Golda Mair. I'll admit that despite all this I'd have been inclined to vote for her in the absence of an alternative to strict Bushism, as I'm sure many would, but she represents a status quo porkbarrelism that most people find offensive and long to leave behind, AND THAT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH HER GENDER SO GET OVER IT.

[GiggidyGeshmoygen]

ms. rivers,

with all due respect i must say that i do not believe that any rational person would expect perfection from a presidential candidate, regardless of their gender

what i, and others, DO expect is a president who is sincere and authentic - a person of character and integrity whose motivations transcend the greed,self-interest and ego so prevalent today in washington d.c. politics

americans have an opportunity, for the first time in many years, to elect such a person and, sadly for you and taylor marsh and all the women in america, it is not hillary clinton

[AnotherTry]

And where were you oh so thoughtful people over the last 8 years? Out to lunch?

Obama is more of the same, the difference is the media has dubbed him the MAN to beat. And in America, no woman, even Hillary, can beat the appointed MAN. End of story.

[jungfookid]

This article would have been better conceived as simply an argument against the "dynastic" theme. I think its bullshit anyways, but it would have made more sense than painting her as the victim of unattainably high expectations.

If HRC was more well-liked in terms of her voting history, integrity, and all the other character traits presumed to be necessary in a president, I doubt people would be trippin at all over any supposed dynasty.

[StillAmused]

Must Hillary Be Perfect?

Nope... just free of the flaws, inconsistencies, hypocrisies and shortcomings that so many of her critics gleefully accept in their own spouses, children, families and coworkers.

It's the humanity thing that bugs 'em... too close to home.

Give 'em a water-walker.

This IS entertainment... isn't it?

[AnotherTry]

I'm not amused.

[StillAmused]

Here's a tissue...

[PaxMundis]

Ah, yes, Hillary really shows her humanity when she votes for the PATRIOT Act, War with Iraq and says very little about torture.

[StillAmused]

Read the "Joint Resolution", ALL of it :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

AND Clinton's floor speech -- ALL of it -- on the occasion of the vote :

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&

Inconvenient detail: Junior assured BOTH the Congress AND the American people that "military action will be the last resort".

The "Patriot Act"?

Yeas -- 357

Nays -- 66

Not Voting -- 9

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

As late as August of 2003, 69% of polled Americans thought the law was "about right" or didn't go "far enough".

My, how memory fades...

[Xiexie]

I really do agree with you, Ms. Rivers. It's sad that many a commentator has missed the point of this article.