Defending Hillary at Feminism's Expense

When is a feminist not a feminist? Apparently, when the goal is defending Hillary Clinton. In the Senator's defense, she has never said that it's unfair or bullying for men to take aggressive stances against her. I suspect she has too much self-respect for that.* But if her defenders continue to play the gender card like Taylor Marsh does in this piece, they could set the feminist cause back by decades.

Sen. Clinton has already picked her campaign's theme song, and it's not "I Enjoy Being a Girl."

I've been an active supporter of the feminist movement for many years. I'm the proud son of one powerful and effective woman, the husband of another, and the proud father of a third. I was raised to support women's rights. Coincidentally, I read Marsh's piece while visiting my mother -- the person who taught me the meaning of feminism, and someone who has promoted the cause for many years. (She does other political work, too -- in fact, she and her colleagues just persuaded their village of Nyack to pass an impeachment resolution.)

I reviewed the Marsh piece with my mother, to get a reality check from someone with decades on the front lines. "That kind of thinking reduces our movement to something shoddy," she said. "I'm embarrassed to see women's struggle for political leadership reduced to something so petty."

Marsh's post is entitled "Russert Leads The Boys in All Out Clinton Assault" on her website, and "Russert Leads Boys In Hillary Hit Job" on the Huffington Post (which led my mother to observe that "we've fought being called 'girls' for forty years. I don't like her condescending tone.")

The title's implication is obvious: Not only Russert but each of the other candidates (except perhaps the ingratiating VP-manque Richardson) attacked Clinton partially or entirely because of her gender. That's a pretty stiff accusation (no pun intended) to lodge against committed progressives like Dodd, Edwards, and Kucinich -- so let's see how thoroughly it's substantiated.

Marsh wrote that "(Clinton) is willing to go to bat for our guy in New York, Elliot Spitzer, who has been trying to deal with the immigration challenge he's facing as governor. The same cannot be said for the rest of the group on stage standing next to Clinton."

An examination of the debate transcript, and of Sen. Clinton's previous statements on this topic, suggests that this statement is factually incorrect. As the Daily News correctly observed when Sen. Clinton first addressed the topic, she "cheered but did not back" Spitzer's plan. She struck an equally ambiguous pose in the debate, so it's seems misleading to suggest that she courageously backed Spitzer. In fact, only Obama backed Spitzer unequivocally, saying flatly that he has "the right idea."

Honest people can disagree about Clinton's motivation and intent on this issue. They can believe, as I do, that she was trying to parse the issue. They can argue, as Josh Marshall does, that this is simply the reflection of a "policy wonk" personality. But it's a big stretch to argue that "she stood up and fought back for Spitzer."

At best, Clinton was uncharacteristically ineffective in communicating about this issue -- so much so that Mark Penn had to spin heavily about it right after the debate. But things are simpler for Taylor Marsh, and probably for others in the "boys vs. girls" crowd. It's about sexism and nothing more.

Is this driver's license debate really so complicated? Here, let me try to craft an answer that reflects Clinton's position as I now understand it (not from her confusing debate performance, but from research this morning):

"I think Gov. Spitzer has correctly identified the problem, which was caused by our failure to create a workable national immigration policy, but I'm not comfortable with his solution."

That wasn't hard -- and I don't claim I'm qualified to lead the Free World. I think Sen. Clinton is capable of an answer that's just as good, or better. I think her performance on this topic was either evasive or a bad stumble.

Does that make me a sexist bully?

Marsh goes on to say that Richardson's defense of Clinton was "gallant," a word that harkens back to Sir Walter Raleigh and the chivalric notion of the hapless female. Gosh...you'd think Clinton dropped a lace handkerchief on her way to becoming Commander in Chief.

Sen. Clinton's handling of the presidential archives question also appeared evasive to me. There were several perfectly simple answers available. Here's one: "Those letters include personal conversations, and I prefer they be kept private." Or, "I would like to see them released and will work on getting that done." The fact that President Clinton asked that they be kept private in 1994, not yesterday, is not a defense of Hillary's response. Readers are invited to examine the debate transcript and draw their own conclusions about whether she was being forthright.

At least one of Marsh's points is perfectly valid. Far too many questions were directed toward Clinton, especially from Tim Russert. But Marsh's logic seems to work this way: 1) Russert hammered Clinton; 2) Russert's panels are almost always all-male; 3) That proves Russert hates women; 4) That's why he attacked Clinton; 5) The other candidates also attacked Clinton, so they hate women too (or will exploit that hatred to get elected).

I don't know how Tim Russert feels about women. He may be a terrible sexist. But given his political bias over the last 10 years, it's more likely that he went after Clinton because she's a Democrat -- and the front-runner -- than he did because she's a woman. Did her gender add another tone to Russert's attacks? Could be. Does Clinton have special challenges (like the offensive "shrillness" trope and the vulgar "cleavage" stories) because she's a woman? Yes.

Is it therefore off-base to play rough with Clinton in a political debate? Absolutely not. Russert aside, I would argue that her opponents were doing the right thing as far as feminism is concerned. They were treating her no differently than they would have treated a man in Clinton's position as the overwhelming favorite. Did they take cheap shots at her? We can argue that back and forth all day. But to Marsh's point, I saw nothing in her opponents' behavior that they wouldn't have done against a man.

The great feminists want us all to be fully-empowered adults -- men and women standing together as free and equal individuals. "Girl" and "boy" language has no place in their vocabulary.

Will Sen. Clinton continue to face sexism and prejudice in her campaign? Of course. But every male opponent is not a sexist. I respect a lot of Taylor Marsh's work, but her "boy brawl" language on this topic was trivializing and offensive. And she's not the only one. Bob Somerby, who I also often admire, plays the gender card today too. Somerby says that the "optics" of the debate suggested a "Salem witch-dunk," although his point was muddied by comparisons of Hillary Clinton's treatment with Al Gore's.

Sen. Clinton is tough, smart, and brave. I have many disagreements with her, but I respect her enormously. I hope her supporters don't keep trying to use this "don't hit a girl," boys-are-meanies defense. It doesn't just demean the men running against her. It demeans Sen. Clinton, too -- and the many strong women who have advanced the cause of feminism over the last 150 years.
___________

* UPDATE: I may have overestimated the Senator in this regard, if this report is accurate.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[Ian Welsh - Huffpost Blogger]

Good for you RJ. Wanted to write something along these lines myself, but you've done a better job than I would have.

Nothing happened on that stage to Clinton that wouldn't have happened to a man who was the front runner. It's what people do to front-runners -- try and tear them down.

[Brampton]

>>>>> "...all are major contributers to Clinton Inc. Here's a fresh question; just why do Democratic Party faithfulls think this Republicrat represents THEIR values. If not for her sex, just what IS her attraction? Big defense budgets, a subsidized insurance industry, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the importation of slave labor? Are these now the values of the Democratic Party? I think not."

Oh, come now. Look at Harry Reid. U.S. Senate Majority Leader, no less, and great bridge-builder and land speculator.

Or Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee for helping Sen. Schumer's Wall Street donors.

Or countless others. People do not go into US politics with a view to becoming poorer than when they started, even if that does happen to some unsuccessful operators.

The notion that there is a fundamental difference between the parties is a pipedream beloved by activists. There are minor differences. As the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre has remarked, all of American politics consists of disagreements among liberals of various kinds.

That is not to say that one should never vote for the least worst liberal, but one should surely not imagine that this political system is about to undergo changes that will significantly benefit the poor and excluded. That way lies disillusion. The poor won't even be mentioned in the presidential debates, once the two parties have selected their candidates. There are no votes to be had by mentioning the poor.

[Democrab]

I don't care if she's a presidential candidate or a football player, she's still a woman, and I'm having a hard enough time with women fighting in combat, never mind being attacked on a stage in a presidential debate.

Some of us are still old fashioned and don't like any attack on a woman by a man, whether in a physical or derogatory manner.

I'm one of them.

To me it's not a question of whether or not she can take care of herself, it's a matter of fairness. Take Tim Russert, for instance, please, ............take him right off the air.

[oogabooga]

It's really cute how all of the sensitive men out there are coming to Hillary's rescue in a well-intentioned demonstration of chivalry. But relax, guys. Hillary can take care of herself.

[DasBoot]

RJ, I could't help but notice that you use "gender" exchangeable with "sex." I know most people do. But it's wrong. It suggests that mental and other qualities we ascribe to men and women are as natural as physiognomy, which we should not. There are two sexes, but only one gender system that ascribes qualities to them that have nothing to do with what their bodies look like.

Hillary does not have a "gender." She has a sex, and our society prescribes certain gendered qualities to her and other women on the basis that they are part of the female sex.

But otherwise, thanks for the entirely reasonable post. I see how tempting it is for Hillary to play the gender card according to need. It proves that the power relations created by sexism today can go in many different ways. Sometimes she wants to be one of the boys, sometimes it is easier to be the girl.

Having said that, Russert should be banned from television for life. As you astutely observe, he loves the gotcha game with Democrats, but for some reason most Republicans are let off the hook on his show. I can't stand him.

[MoNut]

After the worst Presidency this country has been hijacked by and forced to endure since it's creation...

At a time when even a dead worm long dried and fried on concrete promises better leadership...

Threatened simply because she's a woman?

Please.

The Hillary Apologist Brigade couldn't come up with a more fortified excuse?

No wonder her Lieberman-Light tendencies and Blackwater and Bushie donors have remained unnoticed.

If having a woman POTUS for the first time is the only issue at hand and goal...

If actual votes , doublespeak, donors, and strategies don't matter...

Why not just go for broke and add Barbra Bush to the lineup of Democratic nominees? Same difference as this "just because she's a woman" notion the Hillary camp seems to think should take precedent when determining worthiness and qualification.

Not to mention, not one person on that stage at podium beside her has ever questioned or made reference to her womanhood.

In fact, the only person that's made mention of it has been the supposed "victim" herself.

For being so strong a candidate, she certainly goes through the crutches.

[GreatFutureForAll]

Many years ago, a man named Charles Dickens produced a novel called "Oliver Twist." And from this novel came a rather shifty, crafty character aptly named "The Artful Dodger."

Remember the clever, snub nosed little boy? He wore his hat so lightly that it always seemed to want to fall from his head. However, he was so skilled at giving his head a sudden twitch, which always brought the hat back into place.

This is Hillary. She answers a question one way, but then quickly changes her position to give two diametrically opposed answers at the same time (which leaves the voter unsure of what she stands for, but makes her party hat appear completely centrist).

What does she stand for? Does anyone really know? Can anyone articulate her positions on things effecting the country? Or, is every word polled and tested first before it leaves her mouth?

The debate this week indicated that she has become incredibly rehearsed in an effort not to take a single stand on anything. To do so would "endanger her lead in the polls."

It's too bad polls don't vote. She's more concerned about them than the American people. When is she going to say what she really means?
After she loses the primaries?

Definition of "The Artful Dodger" (Hillary) -"Someone who is good at avoiding responsibility or the consequences of his or her actions."

This is certainly true regarding Iraq and Iran.
I suppose this also means not answering questions and failing to give straight answers.

Blaming this on "sexism" does not diffuse the argument that Clinton is a political waffler; a longtime Washington hack that knows how not to answer a question. And this is her strategy from now until the end of the primaries: 'Don't say anything that might jeopardize your "overwhelming lead" in the polls. I'm ahead and I wish to stay there.'

For her sake, I sure hope "the polls" can walk into the voting booth and support her as much as she's supporting them.

[lentinelia]

About a month ago, Hillary Clinton said that she thought that the surge had been somewhat successful. She was met with a shitfall - an avalanche of invective.

Mr. Obama, who is trying to differentiate himself from Clinton in the worst way, has just said the following:

"The surge has had some impact that is to be hoped for. We put in an additional 30,000 troops that there has been some lessening of the horrific violence that we were seeing last year and earlier this year..."
NYT - October 31.

Let's see if Mr. Obama is subject to anything like the level of criticism that was heaped on Ms. Clinton.

Don't bet on it.

[DatelessNerd]

I have a dream, that we will one day live in a nation where candidates are not judged by the bulge in their pants, but by the content of their character.

[avergejoe]

Well said, (except for the 'tough, smart, brave' part).

[Doofus]

Immigration is arguably a Repo issue, more than
a Demo issue. Demos usually avoid it if they
can. New citizens, formerly immigrants, are
*perhaps* more likely to be or become Demos.
No sense offending them, and it may indeed
be the case that the issue is being blown
all out of proportion. BUT, leave it to Tim
Russert to stir the pot, put a sinker over
the plate for HRC. Whatever happens, it's going
to be a big issue, a wedge issue for Repos, in 2008.

Meanwhile, the front-runner is *ALWAYS* going to get tough questions.

For some relevant/recent insight about this, see
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/immigration-is-problem-for-democrats.html

[akhinaten]

I don"t understand why football teams don"t hire a woman to play for them, because it will be shame if the defending team tackled a "little woman" this is the kind of sexism that only liberal can express. She is not a "woman", she is a presidential candidate, and here job is not to give birth to the nation each morning. Let the football teams use the same logic and hire a female to score the touchdowns, who would be the sexist that would tackle a "little woman" the logic does not hold. HRC is not running as a woman. I have not heard her say " US-Americans"- This is not a beauty contest it is a contact sport, it is a contest for the highest office in the land, and you better wear your cup.

[grannyhelen]

The "Politics of Strength" folds like a house of cards. THIS is the best Clinton could come up with? Look at the poor little woman over there.

Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to seek the presidency of the United States. She was divorced. She was a proponent of free love. Her party nominated Frederick Douglass to be her Veep.

She had the guts to run when women couldn't even VOTE, and she was jailed on trumped up charges days before the general election.

And now Hillary Clinton is going to take that legacy of feminism and play the wounded woman card?

We deserve a lot more in a presidential candidate.

[MPeter]

Good essay. We have finally caught onto the game HRC and her minders have been playing. She plays hawkish, votes with Republicans and threatens wo wage wars, but when confronted to explain her conduct, she cries victimhood and sexism. It worked up until the last debate. now the real eel that she is, has been exposed. Deal with it.

[Independent voter]

How are we to believe that clinton can stand up to Putin, Akmedeeajad (whatever), Jong-il and others if a few questions from reporters and other candidates send her and her petty coat fan club into tears?

The job of the leader of the free world may not require testicles, but it certainly requires balls.