He Said, She Said: Point-Counterpoint on Clinton And The "Gender Card"

If you've been following their posts on politics, you know that Kathleen Reardon and RJ Eskow are not always on the same page when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Now they've teamed up in a point-counterpoint to discuss why.
______________________________

Kathleen,

Last week the "gender" issue broke to the surface, and people are still talking about it today. Here's my take: Many of Sen. Clinton's defenders (including Clinton surrogates Patti Solis Doyle and Mark Penn) made specific reference to the fact that she's a woman in their post-debate spin. The implication, now being amplified by some bloggers, is that the "boys" ganged up on her because she's a woman. The Senator herself said that Presidential politics is a "boys' club" (which of course it has been until now) and that - in effect - they want to keep "girls" out.

I think that's a cynical move to have it both ways - to allow their candidate to dish out criticism without having to take it, and to play for sympathy when an opponent makes a telling point. (I mean, really - is Dennis Kucinich a male chauvinist bully?) But, Clinton's strategy aside, I also know that our reactions to these kinds of events depend to a large extent on our conditioning and history. And that I'm not a woman who has faced workplace prejudice or other forms of discrimination.

So, what do you think?

-- RJ Eskow
______________________________

Richard,

Clinton came under attack Tuesday because she's the front runner, not "because she's a woman." But she is a woman. And while all Clinton team post-debate discussion of the role gender played in the dynamics can be easily dismissed as sour grapes, the truth is most people partially see the conflict between Clinton and the other Democrats as a male-female conflict because she's the only female. It takes some pretty hefty cognitive stretching to avoid using the lenses tinted by gender stereotypes that most of us wear.

I also don't think for a moment that Clinton expects to dish out criticism without taking any. And if Doyle and Penn defend her, well, that's what they do. Clinton has been under fire for a long time. She tends to thrive under pressure and under attack. The other night she had some wobbly and vague moments. And she does play to the center too often for my taste. But I couldn't help thinking about the World Series and the great pitchers who got tired and had to be relieved in later innings. She didn't go the distance Tuesday. She buckled under the attack at a few points. But she had no where to go except down, and so to some extent that's where she went.

- Kathleen Reardon
______________________________

Of course Doyle and Penn are going to defend her, Kathleen. That's their job. It's how they defend her that is telling. They both referred to her sex, and Penn explicitly invoked the idea that women will rally to her defense because of gender. I don't fault Clinton or her team if Tuesday's performance was not her best. That happens. It's the response I question. I think they were using gender as a strategy, then pretending they weren't. Three of them hit that talking point in 24 hours, and so did the head of AFSCME when he stood beside her and endorsed her.

Also, I question the idea that "most people partially see the conflict between Clinton and the other Democrats as a male-female conflict." I fully agree that this colors the debate - and that there has been some horrifically sexist and offensive coverage of her campaign. (It's sad to see how juvenile our press corps can be.) But I have never seen this as a male/female conflict, and if she's trying to paint it as one that strikes me as cynical.

I mean, really: Does that mean Clinton gets to paint the others as bullies based on gender whenever it suits her? Do we really have to read posts with titles like "Russert Leads the Boys in Hillary Hit Job" if they make telling points (points that, frankly, sound right to me)? Frankly, I think stereotyping her opponents as "boys" is sexist, too. And I think it trivializes and marginalizes the many people - male and female - who have real concerns about a Clinton candidacy. Yet I suspect the authors of these blog posts are being true to their own experiences.

- RJ Eskow
___________________________

Richard, you have every right to be angry if you feel that using "boys" is offensive and trivializing. But a blogger has every right to support Clinton and defend her. Blogs are about opinions. And the best thing about them is the interplay among people who otherwise wouldn't be read or heard. Nobody has to read any of them.

About her team "using" gender to paint the others as bullies, that seems a perceptual leap to me. They may ride the gender difference wave a bit, but they didn't create it. And I haven't seen any reference to Clinton calling the other candidates "bullies." I wrote a blog last week -- before the debate -- about how attacking Clinton could evoke a defensive reaction from a significant cluster of female voters. I was referring to Republican attacks, but the debate showed that a less intense response is possible when the detractors are male Democratic presidential candidates.

This cluster of women voters doesn't so much sympathize with Clinton as they identify with her. When she's attacked, it reminds them of experiences they've had in their careers. And, think about it this way, Richard, voters identify with candidates because of their race, region of the country, upbringing, religion, values, and whether they came from rags or riches, so why shouldn't gender specific experiences enter into their considerations? Since they do, Clinton's team is bound to occasionally manage them.

She knows none of the Democratic candidates is a bully. If she or her team go down that road, they'll pay big time. No, I don't think that's where they went or where they're going. It's too risky. And Barack Obama's mocking Clinton -- putting pathetic words in her mouth like "Don't pick on me" -- isn't going to do him any good either.

- Kathleen Reardon
_____________________

Kathleen, we all view these events through the lens of our own experience. And everybody see the world through more than one lens. I've certainly seen many instances of blatant sexism in life, but I've also seen cynical insiders manipulating public emotion to get what they want. I think I've seen plenty of the latter this week, and - within the Democratic Party - not that much of the former. (The press, as I've said, is another story.)

I agree that some people will respond to her candidacy out of their gender-based experiences. I think Clinton and Penn know that, and are using it to play the Politics of Division. And I think that's bad for the country. Yes, I've seen horrible sexism against her, and there will be more if she's the nominee. But the "boys" in the Democratic Party aren't guilty of it.

Very few of the big liberal bloggers agree with me about this, and neither do you - but it's clear to me she is using the gender card. This is a tightly disciplined team. When several of them give the same message on the same day, it's no accident.

In closing, I'll try to be as fair to every point of view as possible: I think Clinton's a politician, so she'll do whatever she thinks is needed to win. I think her blogger/defenders are reacting to sexism in our society, and to the last seven years of media bias and unfair attacks on Democrats. And if I'm reacting strongly, it's based on years of seeing powerful insiders manipulate public emotion to promote their own self-interest and suppress genuine debate.

And I think we've seen some of that this week, too.

But you have the last word.
__________________________________________________

Richard, I'm all for intelligent debate and sinking low during them amounts to robbing voters of important information. But I see what happened Tuesday as a relatively bad night for Clinton after which some in the press and more than one candidate's team decided to bring gender to the forefront of our minds. Identity politics is going to be part of the campaign. Gender isn't going away and neither is race, religion, or other ways by which people are differentiated from others. I see this as a fact of political life, Richard. Very few personal issues are kept private in elections now days. If comments about gender, race, number of marriages, and personal issues get out of hand, if any of the candidates take it too far, the price will be high with voter segments they need.

Until then, I'm not going to label any references to gender as "playing the gender card." And by the way, the truth is that it isn't only women who can play a gender card. And much as I have a lot of respect for Obama, his "mocking" Hillary's responses came very close to showing us how that's done.

R.J. Eskow is a business executive, writer, and healthcare consultant. Kathleen Reardon is professor and author of The Secret Handshake, It's All Politics and the Harvard Business Review's "The Memo Every Woman Keeps In Her Desk."

Comments

[shutupnub]

people shouldn't look at race or gender for a reason to support a candidate.

why do her supporters always mention that she is a "strong WOMAN" as opposed to a "strong CANDIDATE"?

pisses me off.

[TJS]

What bothers many people about Hillary Clinton is NOT the fact that she's a woman. This country is clearly ready for a woman president, but the first woman should be someone of exceptional character and competence. Hillary would NEVER be in contention if she had not been married to a popular president. She has little over one-term as a Senator from a state where she never lived before getting elected. Prior to being first lady, she was a Little Rock corporate lawyer. America's first woman president should not be an Evita Peron -- a wife who tries to succeed her husband. America's first woman president should be a woman of accomplishment in her own right. That's what bugs people about Hillary, not her gender. George W. Bush proved that electing the son based on a family name is a disaster. Hillary may prove that electing the wife based on the husband's popularity is not much better.

[Giordano Bruno]

I don't pretend to be an expert on poll analysis, but from what I have seen women voters are pretty much voting for Mrs. Clinton in lock step. It is as if they are reacting (understandably) to years of discrimination and sexism. And in some ways I understand it. That said, Hillary is a power hungry politician who is weak in terms of policy and innovation. The establishment is way too comfortable with her, and both the establishment and Hillary are exploiting the gender issue. Mr. Obama has support among the African American community which is almost as deep as Mrs. Clinton's among women voters. Some polls show that his support is strongest among African American men, and once again we return to the gender card.

John Edwards, my own personal favorite, is a white male, and most of that group is Republican. So in a year when folks are voting gender and race rather than policy and ideas, John is running third. I hope Iowa upsets the apple cart. If it does, at least this time, Iowa will give a candidate who is innovative, smart and compassionate a chance to bring about the fundamental changes we need so badly. Giordy

[ljsfolly]

Clinton had to come out at some time and support her "I'm your girl" statement. Long time since she was a girl and she has to fight like she wants the job againest men who also want the job. At no time should this be a gender thing as she went into this knowing she would have to fight like them or go home and bake cookies. If she can find the kitchen.

[RAMHaiti]

First of all, debates don't count anymore and won't count again until we have a Democrat going head to head with a Republican.

Secondly, everybody better get their thick skin out of the closet because eventually people who are behind in a race will go on the "offensive" or, in the case of Reps vs Dems, the Reps will go on the "attack" (as in "pitbull attack to the jugular").

Thirdly, having a black man named Barack Hussein Obama running for president while we're defending ourselves in a holy war with muslims has been such a radical addition to the campaign that Hillary, the front running woman candidate, seems to be a middle of the road centrist.

Fourthly, according to my rules, you can use the gender card once in the primaries and once in the general election.

Fifthly, blogging isn't the opinion of the bloggers, its the opinions of the editors!!!

[amberglow]

I think looking at Hillary's life and choices might alert people who are supporting her. She wasn't a Governor, and never ran for President, but "stood by her man" while he did. She stayed with her cheating husband, and gave up her law practice for him. I still wonder the appeal and that she's held up as any kind of good role model when her life reads as very pre-feminist and very unlike her generation, especially political figures--until Bill left the WH, that is. Is that the lesson girls should get? Is this how women should become President? Really?

[lafrance]

The most powerful woman in Washington, who doesn't need to brag she is tough as nails, or whine about one bad night and turn it into a week long candidate as victim, Nancy Pelosi, came out and reproved clinton's tactics.
In other words, Nancy pelosi is secure and strong and a real woman of equality and knows that if her rivals fight her, it is because that is politics and not cry 'oh poor me, I;m a woman.'
I wonder how she would have acted if it was her. Probably like Obama did. with grace and class and knowing it's the process. and then go about her business.
but, because Hillary is calculating, doesn't want to answer the questions and thinks she can get away with the poor Hillary playacting.
she had one bad night out of the whole year. and the week since shows she wants special treatment and is weak and not presidential.
The fall out will come from Hillary and her campaign's behavior this past week. Not the debate. And people will wonder if she is right for the job.
Too bad it's not Nancy running. that is who is the real role model for girls and women. Not an opportunist like Hillary.

[RealBlackGirl]

What I find interesting in this post debate discussion about the gender card is that both men and women feel so proficient in discussing it. What I find more interesting is that neither men nor women, unless they are of color, do not feel comfortable and will not raise the issue of race in relation to Obama's campaign. Is it possible that between the blatent racist and soft bigotry of suburbia Obama will never get a bump in the national polls? He has as much money as Clinton, he gives a much better speech. His policy proposals are out long before her's are, yet he gets no movement. He talked about his approach to Iran. What did the Sunday morning shows lead with: his dancing on Ellen and a SNL appearance. (By the way she was offered one too.) Sure they (generally an all white group) will discuss race in relation to polling of African American voters, but I know there is significant polling on how white voters feel about voting for a black man. Can anyone say the Tom Bradley effect? What does it say about pundits that they will not even explore the possibility that race may be more of factor in his national poll numbers then any of us is comfortable admitting?

[bronceye]

At least, she isn't home baking cookies.

[The Collinbrandt]

It is very strange but, the men I hear(which is all of them except myself and a couple of others) (out of many thousands) hate Mrs. Clinton because she is more successful then themselves. They have the same beliefs regarding Senator Obama. I have never seen white men so hateful of any candidates before then for the current Democratic nomines. These types of men dominate their wives so, because by hook or crook( ballot stuffing, false counts) these white males control about 70% of the election process, how in the hell can a Democrat win. Only if these men are held accountable under some sort of "crime of high treason" will anyhing change. Without Robbes Pierre, America is doomed!

[Independent voter]

I don't know why Hillary complains about the 'boys club'. This woman would be NOTHING - would be NOWHERE - just a fart in the wind had it not been for Slick Willie, Patrick Moynihan and other 'boys'.

[Tennessean]

I really admire Hillary Clinton. She's a woman who hasn't let her gender define her; and she refuses to let her gender limit her. She's ambitious, knowledgeable, and a risk taker, who's willing to play and beat 'the boys' at their own political game. She didn't do so, but if Clinton chooses to 'play the gender card,' it seems to me to be quite fair, since men have been playing the 'gender card' for about 400 years in this country. We've had the vote--as women--only since 1920; finally, after all that time, we have a presidential candidate who also happens to be a woman. Listen, we're on the dark side of history when it comes to gender. Most westernized democratic nations are decades ahead of us when it comes to having women candidates, much less choosing a woman to lead. I hope America is finally catching up to the rest of the modern world now. Viva Clinton. You go, girl. Thank God for you.

[Jjc2006]

Here's hint:
HINT: Gender is an issue in running for this office. Race is an issue in running for this office. Religion is an issue in running for this office. If these things were not issues then we would not have had all 43 presidents being exclusively male, white and Christian.

All of sudden some want to blame the woman for playing a gender card when for 232 years the gender card has been played in this race. Are people really so clueless to think that gender has not been an issue in presidential politics before this.

Just because women were never before this taken seriously for this position does not mean that WE didn't want to be taken seriously.

Denying that gender is an issue is inane.
Blaming it on Hillary Clinton or the women who support it is absolutely comical.

[laurenc]

As a professor of women's studies, I'm weighing in on RJ's side. It's a reflection of the privilege of (some)women bloggers that they are defending Hillary. The women I teach will never end up blogging on HuffPO, but they desperately need a new America, one that John Edwards--and NOT Hillary Clinton--can bring us.
So her failed candidacy would be a catastrophe for women and women's rights.

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

I'm afraid that any attempt by Clinton's supporters to paint the other candidates as sexist backfires because it plays into the hand of those who believe that her gender really should be an issue.