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."