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

[dplfdr]

I am not irked by Hilary or by Barrack in this context. I am sure they are slugging it out as best they can in this media environment.
I am certain that Barrack, as a man is sexist. It is insidious in all men. I respect his wife, her strength and expression and I feel certain that she has tempered his sexist views and I find him refreshingly candid and open about his views and opinions.
I am equally certain that Hillary as a white woman is racist. The society has perpetrated and continues to impose these views on all of us. It is also evident that she tries to understand and expose herself to different perspectives and counter-beliefs in knowing well our diverse society.
However, for me the deciding issue is that Barrack emerged on his own energy, initiative and challenge through barriers of racism that have been strongly rejecting to all who have tried in the past.
Hillary has also surmounted considerable sexist barriers to get further than any woman politician so far. And though she is to be admired and respected for her considerable strengths and accomplishments, she did not get there on her own. She rose from the platform created by her husband. It is not enough to say she was part of the creation of this platform
It is just important to say that a woman or a man has to get to be president on his or her own. Not as part of a dynasty nor as a political pass on from a spouse.

[psatm]

Ms. Stabiner, give me a break, and give Senator Obama one too. He makes a remark specifically aimed towards his opponent (who happens to be a woman) and you pounce on him as if slandered NOW. He was speaking about Hillary Clinton, not all women everywhere.

This is what the right-wing radio talk show hosts do, they look for ANYTHING they can take out of context or exaggerate and do just that. You've taken a page right out of Rush's attack book.

Could there be any chance that Obama knows Clinton a little better than you or I, and that his statement may be accurate? Any chance that he was misunderstood? Are you so thin-skinned that you would allow this remark to overshadow the important issues both candidates are trying to address?

[djcny]

All of you detractors of this article make me laugh. It was fine for the press and everyone else to swarm all over the Clinton campaign when they thought there was even the hint of a statement in the context of race, but Barack throws out a sexist remark or some other negative comment and you all rush to give him a pass. It's incredibly hypocritical but very predictable as he is, presently, Mr. Untouchable.

[TiredReader]

Please go to Half-Price and read "The Audacity of Hope" for an eye-opening lesson in sexism.

[metanoia2k]

Oh...I get it...

Here are the Hillary Rules. You CANNOT accuse her of emotion, though she can display it to her advantage (e.g., New Hampshire);

Even though her campaign has demonstrated a conniving and manipulative apparatus we dare not call it that because those are the way men describe women in a bad way;

Even though Big Bill has proven himself to be a protective attack dog, we dast not comment thus because it is sexist to suggest that he is anything other than a trusted advisor...

Jesus Christ, get OVER it!

Imagine the hypergynocentric Hillarites if they have to deal with REAL attacks in a REAL campaign against REAL enemies like...oh...I don't know...Republicans who hate her?

[Giordano Bruno]

I agree that women make too many decisions with their emotions. Having said that, I would also like to say that they are by no means unique in this rather unfortunate defect. I believe that GWB is president due to emotion. He was successful in spreading fear among women, pushing hard on the security issues so that the soccer moms would be swindle into the concept that they were supporting their kids. Now that the 12 year old soccer players are nearing the age of potential conscription, the stakes have been raisedm, and many of the soccer moms are now seeing the absurdity of the failed militarist/ corporatist policies of Mr. Bush.

Men however have shown themselves to be equally manipulated by their emotions. Not so much fear, as that of revenge and prejudice. They have been tricked into supporting the Republicans based on more abhorent emotions: those which seek to distance themselves from immigrants, homosexuals, unemployed, African Americans and of course, the number one on the hit parade, "the terrorists."

Overvaluaing emotions is not the exclusive frailty of the XX karyotype. The XY karyotype in some ways is worse. All that said, I am not able to find much rational discourse to sink my teeth into coming from either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. Very disappointing campaign in terms of focusing on policies and innovation. With the loss of Senator Edwards, it seems like we are getting back into a mud slinging donny brook. Mud pie anyone?

[TommyD]

As a man raised in the upper lower class (known as the working class) of the 50's and 60's I have been completely caught off guard by the gender prejudice that is running rampant in the Democratic primary. The media seems determined to run away from this issue just as fast as their little sheep legs can carry them.
I also identified with the "special antenna" comment. I learned in my formative years to sniff out do gooders who are filled with talk and self interest. I have had my fill with Bush, we do not need another Snowman.

[Tankan]

I think Obama is pointing to the emotional mood swings of Hillary Clinton in particular, not women in general!

I'm delighted to note that not all women seek to emulate her conduct!

[KarenZipdrive]

I like Obama, but I am not a Black man, I'm a white woman.
All this pissy he said/she said is a waste of time.
Compare their words and deeds, contrast them, then vote for the woman who best matches your values and hopes for America.

[CitizenDick]

Then vote for the WOMAN who best matches your values and hopes for America?

LOL

[MikeMidCity]

I have more hope for America then immoral and unjustified wars.

[MrsGreebers]

Would that be the woman who supported the banks' ability to hike your credit card interest rate to 30% even if you have never paid them late... just because the bank say something ELSE in your credit report that has nothing to do with them?

[bklynsam]

This is beyond ridiculous. I'm a 56 year old woman and long-time feminist. I'm getting really tired of the Clinton campaign trying to paint Senator Obama as a sexist. This is yet another desperate attempt to smear her opponent. Well, this feminist 'of a certain age' has fought the long hard fight and I am appalled at the attempts by Hillary Clinton to try to push an agenda using gender. I'm even more sickened by pseudo feminist surrogates doing the same.

[lisakaz]

I consider 'em fake feminists too, given they are supporting a wife filling a former job of a husband as some kind of accomplishment. Doesn't sound like a glass ceiling to me, just nepotism (like some 18th century woman getting Dad's academic chair in Italy).

These supporters of HRC set the women's movement back not ahead.

[LeftCoastOracle]

I would agree with your assessment. It's a good thing he didn't say this before the CA primary. I would have voted for Hillary instead.

I'm beginning to believe that Obama is too slick by half. He's got a vision and recognizes that we need a paradigm shift in the way we do government but he apparently doesn't recognize that we also need a paradigm shift in the way we treat women.

Think I'll get myself to Ohio and do some campaigning for Hillary before March 4th.

[MrsGreebers]

Have you people bothered to research Obama's pro-family, anti-poverty, equal-rights record? It's not that hard. They have this thing now called the Internet.

[vanessar]

I also find what he said offensive and we all know that men use the 'emotional' card on us women of all ages. Those of you who don't see anything wrong with it only serve to perpetuate sexism.
If only Obama's biggest flaw was that he (like most men) is sexist. People wake up! Don't just go for 'change' for change sake. Read about him, about his background, about his ideas, about his plans and then make an informed decision.

[PortiaElizabeth]

Do you sometimes feel like Cassandra?
If I'm not mistaken, she was the woman who tried to warn the people of Troy that doom awaited them, but nobody would take her seriously. And then Troy fell...

[CitizenDick]

I'd like to see what some of those outraged over this alleged sexist comment think of the Clinton's planting the "iron my shirt" guy a while back to foment such righteous indignation.

[Teddy12]

CitizenDick...(What an appropriate name)....Provide your PROOF that it was a plant. If someone had yelled to BO to "shine my shoes" the giant talking heads would still be going insane. People would be marching in the streets!

[Truthortradition]

Does anyone in the media notice that anytime you raise the subject of sexism, the blogs go crazy? Look at all the posts on this blog, compared to the other stories posted today.
This is just another clear-cut pattern that proves sexism is alive and well and women are screaming foul to the tops of their voices---but seems no one is listening.
Yes, we earn 25 percent less than a man in the same job on average in America. Yes, we only have one woman on the Supreme Court. Yes, we are still second class citizens, even though we are the majority.
Go Hillary

[lafemme]

I'm a Hillary supporter who would gladly vote for Obama at expense of losing another election that is the Democrats-to-lose. That said, although I agree with this analysis, I don't necessarily think this circumstance is the best example and think more focus and blame be laid upon the press.
No candidate has been micro-scrutinized in such distracting detail as Hillary Clinton. It is insidious sexism fueling this tendency, and it is, first and foremost, the media proclaiming her the symbol of establishment due to the unending attacks on her husband during the 1990s. As certain media personalities have conceded, reporters want fresh meat instead of what they deem, without critical thinking, "more of the old."
There ain't nothing old about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency other than her already being known. Given what this country faces, this is not such a bad thing.
To give but one example, that the public judges Hillary Clinton on decision to stay with husband during late 90s is ludicrous. Women, in particular, who tout this reasoning, beware. Primary among them, Maureen Down, should be docked her pay to spout such trash under the euphemism "journalism."
Obama is an amazing discovery for our body politic, and his youth promises many years to develop into an even more powerfully political force. But the tendency on his or anyone else's part, especially the media, to criticize Hillary in that oh-so-insi­dious-way-­you're-not­-quite-sur­e-he/she-j­ust-said-t­hat is letting the body politic get away with much-too-shallow acceptance of political thinking, which in itself is more of the same. Time to be responsible citizens and think more critically about our options.

[PortiaElizabeth]

Brilliant!
Well done you!

[gcswift2]

How do you get any more "establishment" than Hillary Clinton? John McCain gets to run as an outsider next to her.

"Time to be responsible citizens and think more critically about our options".

How can you have it both ways with a Candidate "ready from day 1" and "Mrs Outsider".

>>>his youth promises many years to develop into an even more powerfully political force

[Lisette]

Please don't try to speak for all women.
I am a woman and I did not wince at all.
Some women are too sensitive. There are many things in the world to take up a banner for, this is not one of them.

[MrsGreebers]

Yeah, way to fight the stereotype of women being oversensitive and shrill. Hold your fire for something real. If Obama is the sexist clod you think he is, surely he'll provide stronger amunition.

[VicPerry]

Karen Stabiner and everybody else in the world know perfectly well that MEN AND WOMEN AND BOYS AND GIRLS who are down often go on the attack to make themselves feel better. Hillary supporters male and female are doing it around the clock lately, most famously, alleged Hillary Clinton supporter Bill Clinton. Too bad for Karen's argument, so she has helpfully added the part about it just applying to women. Now color inside the lines, kiddies....

Next up: Obama speeches played backwards reveal subliminal misogynist messages!

[calebbullen]

By putting men and boys ahead of women and girls you are only furthering the sexist trope shame on you.

Whatever. One democratic candidate voted for the war. One didn't vote against torture and that same one supported a flag burning amendment while there were REAL problems going on. I just don't know what Senator Obama can say that would erase that record.

[VicPerry]

"By putting men and boys ahead of women and girls you are only furthering the sexist trope shame on you."

So let me get this straight, you want women and girls listed first in a negative comment about all people? When the original statement I was trying to refute was that this only applied to women?? So I should list women and girls first - wouldn't that make it seem like my effort to include men and boys in the negative assessment was kind of half-hearted? Try these sentences on for size, get back to me on which one you like better:

Women and men often behave like fools.
Men and women often behave like fools.

Simple, isn't it, you definitely prefer the first just because it doesn't "further the sexist trope". Don't you?