This is the third installment of a six-part piece regarding sexist and inaccurate views of Hillary Clinton, adapted from an essay published on my website.
To read Part 1 of the series, addressing the claim that Hillary is "crooked" or untrustworthy, click here.
To read Part 2 of the series, addressing the claim that Hillary is not "likable," click here.
I haven't been a big fan of Saturday Night Live in a long time, but I do enjoy many of their sketches involving political satire. Over the years, multiple comediennes have played the role of Hillary Clinton. Like most satire, impressions of Clinton on SNL are painted with a broad brush until they are a caricature of the person we think we know and understand. Kate McKinnon is the latest in a string of "Hillary Clintons" on SNL. Her take has this very interesting yet somewhat troubling feature--she portrays Hillary as a woman who has a laser-like focus on becoming president that dates back to childhood (or in one sketch--see second video below--"fetus-hood").
While funny (Kate is a comic genius), I can't help but wince when Hillary is portrayed like this. Why? Because while my guess is that Kate's sketch of Hillary comes from a point of admiration, she is playing right into the stereotype about Clinton being an overly ambitious, power hungry woman, who doesn't care about anything other than her own success. This portrait of Clinton is not only inaccurate, it is unfair, and comes from a sexist viewpoint about women and ambition.
When we laugh at McKinnon's impression of HIllary Clinton, are we laughing because we admire her, and think there's nothing wrong with a girl growing up daring to dream of being president and pursuing that goal, or does our laughter come from a view that Clinton's ambition is unseemly and embarrassing? In other words, are we laughing at her, or with her?
Fallacy #3: Hillary Clinton is too ambitious. All she cares about is her own success.
How It Continues to Arise:
She dares to—gasp—run for the presidency. Not once, but twice! Even though a lot of people (especially a lot of white males) wanted a man to win the Democratic nomination, she is persisting in her goal of becoming the leader of the free world.
The Counterargument:
This fallacy is so obviously sexist, even the mainstream media can’t deny it. For comic relief, check out the Onion’s spoof of this sexist trope. But it’s become increasingly unfunny as time passes and it continues to be recycled.
Interestingly, as early as March 2008, there were calls for Hillary to step aside when she was battling against Barack Obama for the nomination and she was doing better at that time in the race than Bernie Sanders has done against her, at the end of the primary season. Once Hillary conceded defeat to Obama on June 7, 2008, she immediately pivoted for the good of the progressive movement to support and even campaign for him, and encouraged her supporters to do the same. Even as of earlier today, Sanders is saying only that he will "probably" vote for Clinton and still has not formally withdrawn from the race for the nomination. Why is it ok to push or expect the female candidate to withdraw and support her opponent, but not the male candidate? Short answer: it’s not. There would have been an uproar if Hillary Clinton hadn't admitted that she lost to the male candidate fair and square and it would be evidence that she isn't a good sport or a team player. I haven't heard many people saying that about Bernie Sanders.
In any event, what person running for president isn’t ambitious? Doesn’t it go with the territory—almost like a prerequisite character trait? Yet, a woman running for president is overly ambitious and even selfish (said some of Bernie Sanders’ more strident supporters, as anyone who reads comments on social media well knows).
Beyond that, let’s go back in time to when a young Hillary was setting forth her vision for America. She actually entered a life of public service because she cared about the downtrodden in our society—women, minorities, children, etc. As a young law student in the early 1970s, she traveled to the Deep South to work on school desegregation. She was for universal health care long before President Obama was – in fact she was ahead of her time on this issue and faced criticism from many corners -- but nevertheless passionately pushed for it as head of a task force while First Lady. Faced with defeat over universal health care, she turned her attention to helping to enact the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which today provides insurance to millions of children who otherwise would be ineligible.
So, it’s unfair to say Hillary only cares about her own success. First off, it’s not true. And secondly, it’s unfair and unrealistic to expect that anyone running for the highest office in the land—male or female—does not care at all about personal success. Ambition is not the sole domain of men and we need to get past that notion as a society.
Watch Kate McKinnon's portrait of Hillary Clinton in two different sketches from SNL. Do you think that it furthers the sexist stereotype of Hillary as a woman who cares only about power and her own success?