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

[rwilliams1961]

Frankly, I am appalled that a woman running for leader of the free world is playing the sexism card. Is she going to do that when the Saudis or the Russians treat her with less than respect? Is she going to play it when the Chinese ask hard questions about American policy? What a piece of #R$@ that her team has chosen to play this out.

I was on the fence about Clinton, wondering if she was or was not the best choice. But this? Suddenly that old moniker of Slick Willy keeps coming to mind. Is Hillary so fragile or manipulative that when she, as the leader, is challenged she curls up and starts whimpering “foul” (or even worse, having her surrogates do it for her while she acts as though she is above the fray)? Suddenly, all those fence walking stances of hers are amplified, and what’s I’m seeing is somebody who will do anything, including crying wolf, in order to win. God help us. We don’t need another president like that – eight years will have been plenty.

[StephenDedalus82]

The media spread the gender card story. Clinton never claimed, in person or in her campaign's video, that the "piling on" was a result of her sex. She said quite clearly that it was her frontrunner status.

[lgillooly]

She is a very intelligent,compassionate Patriotic Candidate. I think the Democrats have several good candidates. Frankly,Tim Russert was a political hack. If you research the question about President Clinton's Presidential papers and the Archive rules you will see that she has stopped NOTHING!!!Russert is a neocon puppet and his" Gotcha" attack questions are sickening,especially when the FACTS are the opposite of what he is implying.
Frankly,she did a good job if you really think about it.

[chery]

The democratic field has ever right to individually take a stance and show their differences both to each other and to the opponents of the republican party. If Clinton's crowd only just recently realized she's female, we shouldn't fault her opponents on the field! If Hillary wants to attack an opponent, it's front page news and the lead story on networks at 6 p.m! So let's keep that playing field even and equal, shall we? A policy is a policy, it's not required to wear a dress.

[Dap]

Daer Brother RJ, and Dear Dr. Reardon,

No, Way! I heart ya both, I'm not getting in this one. :p :) Agape always.

[curlytop]

Thanks to both of you, Kathleen and Richard, for having this back-and-forth.

As a woman, I have felt sickened by the vitriol coming from Clinton's supporters. And they have been using the "sexist" accusation against her critics for quite some time. Tuesday's debate was not the catalyst for that kind of talk.

Sure I'd like to see a woman as president. But since I have a working brain and I have values, the only meaningful question for me is: which candidate reflects my values and vision for this country? So far, the answer is that Clinton does not.

She has not articulated her vision. She has not been specific in outlining her main policy objectives. I really have no idea what her campaign stands for except that she really, really wants to have the power of the presidency. As soon as she tells me exactly what goals she plans to achieve with that power then I'll have an idea of whether or not to vote for her.

Her supporters are like a well-trained militia. They bear their teeth and their weapons in the face of any dissenting views. Clinton doesn't ever have to utter the words "sexist" or "misogynistic" because her attack dog militia will do it for her, everytime.

It's one of the most sickening campaigns I've ever witnessed. And frankly, as woman, I'm more turned off to it than anything.

[NYDoc]

Isn't it interesting when the advantages of being female are suddenly used against Senator Clinton but it is OK for people to call her "Hill" and talk about her showing cleavage? While I don't condone hiding behind gender, I do think it is quite telling that the first time it might work to the Senator's advantage rather than disadvantage, it is suddenly a big issue.

[LeeFromVA]

Everything Hillary does is calculated. She sees an opportunity for sympathy, she takes it. Victim card, you bet. Or how about the scripted line: I'm your girl.

She wants to be president. Barack Obama wants what's best for this country.

[rssrai]

I thought that JRE was legitimate in his responses to Hillary in the debate, and none of his accusations looked sexist to me. If Obama mocked Hillary than maybe he should be called on it. I also, think that Hillary's campaign always saying every time someone has a different viewpoint or challenges Hillary on a issue they accuse that candidate as being negative. It seems to me that Hillary does not want to answer the tough questions and will use anything to not have to.

[thicky]

In this article from yesterday's NYTimes,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/us/politics/05memo.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin
former Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro unequivocally states that the reasonable questions and criticisms of Candidate Clinton's policy positions and viewpoints(or lack thereof) in last week's debate's were a SEXIST ATTACK on her.

One either realizes the absurdity of this position in a campaign for leader of the most powerful country in the world or else one cannot escape their personal prejudices and agrees that any criticism or even the mildest questioning of Hillary Clinton(or any female presidential candidate) is unacceptably sexist: if a woman makes a statement or takes a position in a presidential campaign we must not question it, we must accept it as the gospel truth, or else be condemned as blasphemers(sexists)!

Anyone who thinks rigorous yet reasonable questioning is unacceptably sexist, like Hillary Clinton's rabid defenders, must think that Clinton is a delicate flower who must be protected from normal political discourse because she cannot withstand the heat without wilting.

Anyone who thinks that the tough but reasonable questions used in last week's Democratic debate was a "sexist attack" betrays an attitude that thinks all women are incapable of withstanding such tough scrutiny and therefore incapable of withstanding the rigors of being President.