Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
The Change Candidate Needs to Change His Tone Towards Women
The first time Hillary Clinton ran a television ad complaining about Barack Obama's unwillingess to debate in Wisconsin, he fired back with an ad of his own about the 18 debates he's already participated in and the two more that are scheduled.
She wouldn't let it go; her subsequent ad speculated on whether he was reluctant because his health insurance care plan wasn't as good as hers.
At a televised campaign stop, someone asked him how he felt about the ad campaign. Obama, grave-faced and sympathetic in tone, opined that when Senator Clinton was 'feeling down,' she went on the attack to make herself feel better; that is, she committed an error in judgment because she was in a bad mood. That was the moment when I, and other women of a certain age, all over the country, winced.
The change candidate had embraced one of the oldest clichés in the book -- that women are held hostage by emotion, that we can't be trusted with the big decisions because, depending on our age, we're either on the rag or having a hot flash. The overtly sexist position used to be that you didn't want to entrust the red phone to a woman because women are unpredictable and irrational; a fit of hormonal pique and kaboom, we all glow in the radioactive dark. The ones who aren't instantly vaporized, that is.
The kinder, gentler version? A soft-spoken observation about what a female candidate does when she's "feeling down," the implication being that Hillary's distress over the delegate count had impaired her judgment, and that someone who loses her way like that is not strong enough to withstand the rigors of the presidency. If you think that I and the indignant gal friends I've polled are overreacting, try the acid test: Imagine any major candidate making that kind of subtle put-down about a man's psychological fortitude. In 1972, Thomas Eagleton had to have shock treatment to get us to raise a national eyebrow about his mental health, ending his brief tenure as George McGovern's running mate. Short of that, we tend to assume that the boys are steady enough to handle the job.
The interesting question is where the inspiration for the dig came from. If it was truly an off-the-cuff remark, then it's just gender-role business as usual, and the French, sadly, are right: The more things change, the more they remain the same. This might help to explain why women stick to Hillary; any woman who grew up in the transitional generation between Betty Crocker moms and Betty Friedan daughters has a special antenna for this kind of slight. We've heard it before, we know we're going to hear it again, and we'd just as soon hang with a smart girl who gets it, for all her flaws. As for the more highly educated women who poll for Obama, let's see how they feel when they find out he would think better of them if they were guys.
If it wasn't a spontaneous comment -- if someone in Senator Obama's camp thinks it's wise to use code to address and exploit our primitive fears about whether women can cope -- then whoever came up with it ought to be ashamed of himself, and the man who uttered it needs to rethink the strength of his opponent and her supporters. Beat her on better ideas, or oratory, beat her with passion and energy, but beat her fair and square, if you can. Don't talk about change and then quote from a 1950s playbook on the battle between the sexes.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
I think you may possibly be misinterpreting what he meant by "down?" Down could mean unhappy, depressed, blue ... or it could mean losing the race for the nomination ... down in number of delegates ... down in terms of momentum, etc.
I'm a 59 year old woman and I didn't interpret this the way you do ... let's perhaps give Obama the possibility that his obvious commitment to civil rights and social justice might actually mean he's not sexist?
Let's not kid ourselves. The fastest growing religions in the U.S. are those that sideline women in some respects. And misogyny is rampant. However, that is not necessarily what is hampering the Clinton campaign.
What I find troubling, however, is that there is little substance in Obama's reported positions on issues. And oddly, when he has finally come out with a position, in most cases, it has been almost a parroting of Clinton. He is overusing the word "change," but that seems to be what people want to hear, irrespective of the issues.
And I disagree with both Obama and Clinton on gun control--liberal women need to understand that firearms are the only reasonable means to level the playing field with respect to attacks by sociopaths and the mentally insane (FBI 2005 stats show only 15% of females escape violent assaults by any means--it's 34% for males). And both dems seem to ignore both the words and intent of our founders as they formed the U.S. Constitution.
I think many, if not most, voters are both ignorant of the issues and gullible, so playing to their emotions and hard-wired cultural indoctrination is the way to "reach" them. Thus, an anti-female perspective would be dominant, based on religious membership alone.
I'm not convinced any of those in the running are good presidential candidates. I do think Clinton has the best experience, the best demonstration of pragmatism, and the best demonstration of being able to stand up under stress. Men and women may show emotion differently, but it's all still just emotion. No difference there.
I don't think Clinton will win, but if she and Obama were to share a ticket, I suspect McCain would be toast.
Some things won't go away until we let them.
The Clintons are self-seeking and calculating; I can change the tone to self-gratifying and narcissistic. They are liars; I can change the tone to cheaters. They will do whatever it takes at all cost to secure self-gain; I can change the tone to they are really scary people.
It's worse than you say....his actual quote was "periodically" when she gets upset "out come the claws"
that is why....he is going to have a hard time getting the vote of this liberal.
His haughty tone turns me off....and has since the beginning...me I just don't get it...
The real irony is that it's Hillary supporters like this blogger, and her campaign, who are the ones depicting HRC as a shrill, humorless, whiny crybaby who can't engage fairly on the issues (yes, I'm aware of the loaded language, that's my point). Way to sabotage your candidate, people!
Bitter, old-school second wave pseudo feminists who are too invested in a Hillary Clinton presidency and too comfortable playing the victim game need to change the way they think and speak about politics.
Hillary Clinton is losing this race because she has run a bad campaign, and she has run a bad campaign partly because she is a weak candidate, and partly because time has moved on and leaving the Clintons by the side of the road.
She is not losing this race because of anyone's sexism.
Perhaps you should take issue that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who has publicly "teared up" with voice cracking in this primary cycle.
If she is to represent that women are not held hostage by their emotions, and you claim she is the one champion the feminist movement, she should stick with her "I'm the toughest to fight the Republicans" mantra and not cry while under pressure.
As a woman, I can say that I cry all the time, but I don't do it in public and I don't do it to get anything for it.
Concern that she "teared-up" is argueing that in order for a woman to run for president, she must first become a man.
MERHABAABI......GOOD POST......HOW ABOUT WHEN BUSH "WEPT" AT THE GIVING OF A MEDAL TO SOMEONE WHO DIED IN IRAQ OR WAS MAIMED IN IRAQ?? HE IS THE SOB WHO STARTED THAT TRAVESTY OF A WAR AND I HAVE SEEN NO CRITICISM OF BB BUSH, WHAT HYPOCRACY
Hillary does not have to become a man.
What she does have to do is become honest.
Not at all what I am implying. Just that she has succumbed to the stereotype of women - that they are too emotional.
I'm not saying it is a correct charaterization, just that it was demostrated.
The point is there was NO concern at the time that she "teared-up". Quite the contrary, the media gave her points for it. It supposedly made her more "human". Arguably, it won her New Hampshire.
If one of the male candidates had "teared-up" in such a way, he would have been pilloried, just as Ed Muskie was pilloried for allegedly crying in 1972.
I wish people could see Obama as the cockey phony he is. He fell in love with him self and his words and come to find out a lot of his words are not his. Yes, everyone will say a word or maybe two or three that another person said but not a whole speech that had already been given by another person. I think the Gov. of Mass. should stop trying to cover for Obama because it makes him sound like a person without values. Obama has always acted toward Hillary like she wasn't really a person he needed to be concern about. He is sure his bros, news medium, etc. will get him the nomination. If Hillary had given a complete speech by that was given by another gov. or senator, the news medium would be up in arms and that would be all one could hear on the news. GMA, ABC in general has taken him as their love child and they hardy mentioned anything about him being arrogant, anti female, and giving other prople's speeches. Even this post is so bias it isn't even believable.
"cockey"
Hmm - Hillary's team would be charging sexism and calling the networks for free air time.
The rest of us are sensible enough to know better, so I'll spare you the Karen rant about obvious gender references and code words, etc.
Hillary has plagiarized "I'm the Change candidate!" and "Fired up and ready to go!" from Obama! Oh, and "YES WE WILL!" . . . . Or does it not count when Hillary does it?
By the way, the quotes Obama used were from JFK, MLK, Roosevelt, and Lincoln. All of us, including most politicians, use these quotes frequently, and it's not plagiarism to do so.
HILLARY IS "DOWN" IN POLLS & DOWN IN DELEGATES. SHE NEEDS TO ATTACK. AND IF EVERYTHING WAS UNRAVELING FOR ME IN THIS SITUATION, I WOUL DBE FEELING BAD TOO. BUT OBAMA DID NOT SAY IT WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN, OR THAT IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING A WOMAN.
All of this bullshit is really turning me into a hardcore Obama supporter. Doesn't Clinton realize that part of the "change" message is changing from these sort of games. We're broke, we're at war, our kids still aren't home from Iraq, our houses value is declining, the American dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar, our medical coverage is unaffordable, yet I'm supposed to take this ambigious remark about Clinton's obvious anger or Obama borrowering his friend's response to an identical attack as newsworthy. That divisive bullshit might have worked on 2000 and 2004, but Americans know we can't afford it now.
I would hope that the change Obama wants to bring about would be honesty. Even he said he should have given the Gov. credit for the speech. If Hillary gave an entire speech with most of it consisting of a speech that another person had given, Obama and all his followers would be up in arms. Hillary's hands have been tied since this contest started. She needs to take the cuffs off and come out fighting. Every thing that comes out of her mouth or Bill's, there are his people critizing her. He and his people have brought race into this more than any one else. His wife said she didn't know if she would vote for Hillary (a true Democrat). Can one imagine if Bill had said he didn't know if he would vote for Obama. Why don't all of you sit back and be fair with your opinions, any way there is no way that Obama can bring about change with the hate mongers he has following him.
I agree, Snikta. It is exactly the divisive bs and scare tactics that turned many off to the Bush campaigns (as if there weren't enough other reasons) and there is way too much of it coming from the Obama camp. The Democrats have a rare opportunity here - a natural advantage thanks to the worst President in recent memory. I hope they don't they squander that advantage by eating their own young.
What I find really pathetic is that so-called feminists are crying wolf at every remark sexist or not in hopes to influence women to vote for Clinton. They are using accusations of sexism where they don't belong and that can only hurt feminism.
And by the way, Hillary Clinton has plagiarized this whole attack on Obama from the Republican opponent of Deval Patrick when he was running for governor of Mass. The Republican attacked Patrick for his speeches (and in one of his speeches, Patrick used Obama's 'Yes We Can' by the way). The Republican used the whole 'words don't matter' schtick and Hillary has completely ripped off that same strategy.
At least Obama plagiarized a fellow Democrat, Hillary steals from the Republican playbook. That's hardly 'a true Democrat' in my estimation.
DADUMDEE........YOU'RE IGNORANCE IS SHOWING. HAS OBAMA LISTED/ITEMIZED OR ACTUALLY EXPRESSED A "PLAN" THAT WILL PERHAPS WORK? COME ON NOW...ANOTHER MAN WHO CAN'T STAND A STRONG INTELLIGENT WOMAN
Indy is correct
Her sings Say Hillary. Stabiner and her brand of feminists and Hillary and her supporters have so much self-pity and entitlement that they are blind to how petulant and ineffective they are.
I found it interesting that Olbermann ran this segment of Obama's speech on his show --- then when in the commentary portion with his buddy news correspondents, made some snide asides about Senator Clinton yet never discussed Obama's remarks. Is Countdown turning into the new Faux News?
While I can't speak for Keith, He did cover the comments somewhat. I think he thinks it's a non-issue, and said as much by saying news outlets were picking this up and the trend is to focus on these non-issues and skirt the real stuff.
And he made his case of WHY he thought it was a non-issue. I believe he also mentioned, or his guest did, rather, that the Clinton campaign"s game was to grasp at anything at this point, and they cited the comments from campaign sources as examples.
The new feminism:
If a woman runs for president, she has to be allowed to win, without challenge, because she is a woman and we can't hurt her feelings. Is this the kind of equality you want?
Seems like the Clinton camp has come up with a new strategy of having all their supports say "boo hoo, she's the woman so everyone is against her." I think it is another misstep, because a lot of feminists are not going to go for it. Quite the contrary they will probably vote against her to get a real woman candidate, one who can stand on her own without asking for men to hold the door open for her to win.
But hey, I'm a man, what do I know.
I'm pleased that you acknowledge your bias as you explain your hypersensitivity to Senator Obama's words. I imagine that you go around mentally respelling "woman" as "womon," and dash to open that door yourself before that male chauvinist pig can get to it. I'm one of those well-educated but over 50 and under $100,000/year female Obama supporter blips in the poll results. I grew up a feminist, my mother was a member of the "click" generation, and frankly, I got over such knee jerk reactions to unintentional "sexism" quite a while ago. Let's get down to substance in our voting, okay? It would be highly sexist to vote for Clinton over Obama because of gender, don't you think?
Amazing how it's always hypersensitivity when someone notices and mentions a deliberate or sub-conscience slight. I've read and heard Senator Clinton's given name used more often than her surname. This hasn't occurred with a presidential candidate previously. Barack likely has antennae sensitive to racial remarks. Atheists are highly aware of deist assumptions. It happens everywhere and nearly constantly. Race, religion and gender biases undermine equality and those who practice them throw out the hyper-sensitivity card.
I believe the reason for this might be that she is campaigning as HILLARY! Look at her signs. There's nothing to see here. How about focusing on meaningful issues, huh??
obviously you don't look at the signs, the website, and the commericals. DUH!!! THEY ALL SAY, "HILLARY"
AAAAHHHH CAEATMAGNUSFRATER.....GREAT POST~~~ I HAVE NOT THOUGHT OF THE "GIVEN NAME" RATHER THAN THE "SURNAME" SITUATION OF THIS CAMPAIGN. BUT IT IS "HILLARY" MORE SO THAN "BARACH" ALL OF THE TIME.....WHAT DOES THAT SHOW??
How about voting for Hillary because she is superior in every way commpared to Obama. He has pretty words or he and his friend have pretty words and he can sure walk like the king of the road but what is really in that stuffed shirt. It would be highly raceist to vote for Obama over Hillary. A lot of that is being done but I don't anyone saying anything. Obama and his people have made this contest into a race issue and a gender issue. That way people can get stirred up and he doesn't have to make any speeches on what really matters. Like you said let's get down to substance in our voting. I sure haven't heard any from the Obama camp.
i certainly could not say that about any of the current candidates. I have heard substance and plans on all fronts. Unfortunately, it"s drowned out by the distractions campaigns feel they must do in order to win. Negative. False. Fluff n Stuff. Spin 2 Win. Four tries for a $1.
How you can say honestly you have heard nothing of substance makes me wonder if you have been listening to anyone other then your preferred candidate?
SNIKTA.........I'M STILL WAITING TO HEAR SOME "SUBSTANCE FROM THE OBAMA CAMP"...I'M A REALLY OLD WHITE LADY AND LEARNED AND HEARD A LOT BUT ABSOLUTELY IMPRESSIVE FROM THE OBAMA CAMP. AND IT'S NOT RACE EITHER AS I HAVE "RACIALLY MIXED GRANDCHILDREN AND GREATS" THEREFORE MY POST IS COMPLETELY W/O PREJUDICE.
I've heard plenty of substance from Obama. I've also read all of his platform and policy outlines on his website. That's probably why I feel he is the better candidate. And he didn't vote for the Iraq invasion or support NAFTA as Hillary had in the 90s.
I've weighed both candidate's policies. I prefer his approach to health care, it's more pragmatic and likely to be the first step towards Single Payer which is what we really need. It doesn't force mandates on citizens who can't afford premiums or fine them/garnish their wages.
Loading comments…
Naked tweeting: the next frontier in staged celebrity...
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY! The American flag has been painted on bathing...
***SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO OF PALIN'S RESIGNATION SPEECH...
I wish Hunter S. Thompson had lived to see this. As Hunter said, "When the going gets weird, the...
Anyone who is in any way surprised by Sarah Palin's announcement today that she will...
I'm starting to believe that's a destination; the next step in life once you get...
Bar Refaeli stars in a new black and white video floating around the internet. Set to music and with...
Reporters are beginning to piece together an explanation for Sarah Palin's...
Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis is one tough cookie. Last week...
Fox News' Shepard Smith was having some trouble with a...
The U.S. economy lost 467,000 jobs in June as the...
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, or follow me...
WASHINGTON — Now it can be told: President Obama says one of the best-kept secrets at the...
From The Post Chronicle: Cankle Awareness Month is in July - Forget...
CNN's Anderson Cooper reports on a frisky sea lion and the boat it apparently tried...
Posted February 17, 2008 | 07:07 PM (EST)