Rhymes with "Rich"

In the most recent Pew Research Poll, eleven out of 629 people, when asked for one word that describes Hillary Clinton said "rhymes with rich." Sixteen found her untrustworthy and six each said, "dislike her," "power hungry," "selfish/self-centered." When it comes to denigrating Clinton, one word is rarely enough.

Neither Obama nor McCain attracted anywhere near as negative a reaction, or even more than one word responses. The argument, of course, is that this is all about the "Clinton" in Hillary Clinton, and not about the "Hillary." Any other woman would fare just fine, her critics contend. Any other woman would stride onto a post-feminist leveled playing field because it's just not about sex. Except it is.

Of the two men and one woman the Pew respondents were describing, only one was called "ambitious," although they're all running for the same office, and it's not McCain's first time. Guess who got the "ambitious," tag? What are McCain and Obama? Apathetic? Lazy? Unmotivated? No, they're men. They're ambition is expected, taken for granted, applauded and unremarkable.

Of the two men and one woman, only one was called "power hungry." Yep, Clinton again. She's called power hungry, but both Obama and McCain are called "leaders." No "leader" word given for Clinton, because, well women aren't thought of as leaders. When we try for the leader brass ring we're called "power hungry."

What will Clinton do with all that power she's starving for? She'll be "manipulative" and "overbearing." Now, is that because she's a Clinton, or because too many male voters are confusing her with their ex-wife, mother or former girlfriend? Not that men are obsessed with the idea that women are too controlling. No, that couldn't have anything to do with the gaping gender gap that has two-thirds of male voters in the primaries following Obama like he's the leader of the pack.

I know, I know. Many women are supporting Obama and have negative things to say about Clinton. But the fact that women have internalized the stereotypes that keep more of us from reaching for leadership in every sector is one of the best arguments for Clinton's candidacy. She's done what sexism has kept too many women from doing: taking the risk to rise beyond the barriers that tell us we're less qualified and able.

What were the most negative words used about Obama in the poll? "Inexperienced," "arrogant," "unqualified," "unfavorable." For McCain? "Old" (which isn't necessarily perjorative) and "untrustworthy."

And here's the full list of negative words and word combos used to describe the one woman in the race for President: untrustworthy, ambitious, crooked, dislike her, power hungry, selfish/self-centered, unfavorable, liar, manipulative, scary, arrogant, cold, dishonest, fake, overbearing, untruthful.

That's a lot of baggage to hang around Hillary's neck just for being a Clinton. But it's a lot more convenient and comfortable an analysis than wrestling with the idea that strong, powerful women face discrimination when they try to lead. It's so much easier to dismiss Clinton as a bitch.

Comments

[frustratedinohio]

The top word to describe Obama was "inexperienced". Enough said.

[ToddD]

Robin:

While I as a man fully agree that it is unacceptable that Sen. Clinton is described in terms such as ambitious (in the negative way) or power hungry, lest such totally repulsive terms as bitch.

But I do have another term to add to the discussion: unelectable.

Your piece and that of many others women here over the past few weeks seems to portend that we advancing womans rights here when what we are doing is having an election. The most important consideration is can someone win. Otherwise nothing else matters.

[LarBear]

People Rationalize their Beliefs (as you will see by their Replies..)
People claim to believe in the Bible... Actually they use the Bible to justify and Rationalize their Beliefs... Under unbiased inspection, the Bible makes little sense...
People claim to believe in and pray to GOD... They actually Pray to their Beliefs in and about God...
Beliefs create Perception... Perception creates Reality... One person's "ugly" can be another's "beauty"...
Mind is Hardwired for "Stable Sameness"... Meaning we tend to hold to our Beliefs, so our Reality does not change from minute to minute, or even day to day... We accept as "truth," that which we believe in...
Example: Believing as a Catholic, one accepts the Pope as a stand in for God, my friends tell me... Under the prior Pope, children were molested by a Catholic Hierarchy for 27 years (Priests, Bishops, etc)... Pay offs were Authorized... Few were Prosecuted... The Institution was protected, over the children... Yet many Catholics still consider the Pope as a Saint... Challenging one's own Core Beliefs, especially as in their Religion, is extremely difficult for most People to do...
People rationalize their Beliefs about Obama as a Truth... As though their Beliefs about Hillary, or about Obama, is Fact... Factual Beliefs close minds...
Whitewater is Believed and Labeled as a Clinton Scandal... Yet the Republican's authorized spending $70 million dollars for a Republican investigation that in 2 years found NO charges... Shouldn't that make it the Republican Whitewater Scandal???
Does not Labeling Hillary as a Bi**h, etc, say more about the Labeler's belief, than Hillary? Stop and think... Is that how Chelsea Believes/Perceives her Mother to be???

[Malarcus]

Ms. Gerber, a simple Google search was all I needed to come up with a listing of female world leaders who have served since 1945-

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/00women.htm

Why is this worthy of note? When acknowledging that misogyny exists in all cultures, we must also acknowledge that, historically and contemporarily, misogyny appears to have little to do with selecting a leader. And yes, this is so when speaking of our own culture as well (see Sabelius, Richards, Napolitano, etc. etc. etc.). Not to mention, of course, Clinton herself. Where does this leave us? It leaves us with the Freudian exception that says, "Sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber." Indeed. And sometimes a "bitch" is just a "bitch."

What Sen. Clinton's supporters continually fail to consider, let alone acknowledge, is that many people, some of whose opinions date back to 1992 when she made her first true appearance on the national stage, do not like Senator Clinton. They do not like her or the image she projects. Justifiably or not. You speak of convenience, Ms. Gerber. I suggest to you that the true convenient perspective is to view all who oppose Sen. Clinton's candidacy as "womyn haters" rather than to come to grips with the idea that the candidate you personally like may, in fact, not be well-received by many others. Or, that she may just be "a bitch."

[frustratedinohio]

Psychologists are now saying, and it makes sense, that hating Hillary is a form of self-loathing.

[TomZart]

Hillary


An angry woman opens her mouth
And shuts her mind to reason.
She who stays slow to anger
Is loved by more each season.

Anger snuffs the lamp of thought
And it's hard to stay serene.
Where anger rules hatred thrives
Then the world we love turns mean.

She who fans the coals of hate
Has no reason to complain.
If some hot sparks scorch her face
Her anguish is thus her pain.

Anger is a human madness
Which consumes the heart and mind.
She who rules her spirit with love
Shall be praised by all mankind.


Tom Zart

[mcfried]

Robin,
Really please tell me how else to describe someone who:
1)Doesn’t thank their supporters for their hard work when they loses a state and tells them they don’t matter because they didn’t deliver.
2)Perpetuates a myth about the other candidate’s background to scare up ignorant votes.
3)Tells the front runner that they need to prove themselves because she deserves the nomination but they need to earn it.
4)Constantly calls the supporters of the opposing candidate delusional and in effect stupid.
5)Plays on stereotypes and racial tension to get support.
6)Yells at the opposing candidate like they are a child.
7)Mocks the other candidate for inspiring the electorate
Really please tell me how you would describe such a candidate.

[bellecloche]

There is misogyny is this race and in the American electorate, Ms. Gerber, and if voters feel particularly proud to vote for a woman and believe that a woman president will quash misogyny in this country, they are entitled to follow up on that. But after her insistence on the nomination after 11 straight losses and making headlines by going back on her word about the Michigan and Florida votes, insisting the superdelegates stay as far from the popular vote results as possible, using fear tactics that her husband renounced in the last election, and threatening to sue over the Texas caucus system, I'm calling Clinton "power-hungry."

[ljsfolly]

For Hillary to describe her 35 years experience while using her husband cred is a bit stupid but she never ever planned on being contested. She thought with Super Tuesday she would be crowned QUEEN and nothing else would be said. For someon who she considers beneath her to be fighting her for the nomination must be a challenge in her own mind. After all she has spent all this time while in the Sneate to form herself by her votes into the perfect person to be president. All those votes for power that she enviosioned to be hers when she got back into the house. The man vote for the wars so she would not be seen weak in defense. And the money, well one has to fund everything right? I have enjoyed Barack knocking a lot of these things she knew were surely hers down and walking over them with ease. Inexperience makes me laugh for when did she get experience? Dodging the hard votes and doing the votes for her vision of what she had to be for everyone to vote for her while Barack did his time in the state legislature and then as Congressman/Senator with real bills being submitted and his weighing in when he felt the need. She kept her safe and ideal person away from conflict and just made like a republican. I think she really is a republican anymore.

[johnnygoodwud]

the biggest problem with hillary is simple, it's hillary. i'd love for a woman to be pres., hey how about a black female president,­,,,,,,,,i'­m all for it. . but, it insults me robin when you imply that because hillary is female, than she must be a bitch. no, she's a bitch because she acts like one. there's an old saying, 'it is what it is'. look at the polls robin, the more people actually get to know hillary, the lower her poll numbers become.

[fpie]

Or maybe it is niether being named Clinton or being a woman. Maybe she just has poor stage presence. Charisma is just an unquantifiable thing. When she opens her mouth too often the wrong word comes out. For example: why use a hyperbolic word like "vast" when "large" would have sounded less paranoid. It is understandable that people say such things under stress but that is the nature of the job.
It's not that she isn't being framed but that she does stick her face into that frame often enough to give it some life. If it hurts when you do that then don't do that. Easier said than done.

[mawrm]

Part baggage of being a Clinton, part baggage of being Hillary. I'd say majority of the problem lies with her being a Clinton. Look, people should not act as if Hilliary is the first woman wannabe-leader anyone has met. Many of us have bosses who are women we respect and admire. We have our own heroes who in many cases are women. So we have a basis to compare them against Hillary Clinton.

I agree with another poster - Hillary Clinton should not be used as a test case for or against women leaders as her case is particularly unique. The question of whether she rode her husband's name to power will always stain her legacy. A self-made female leader would be a better case to argue. I think there are women leaders throughout the country who will make fine national leaders, we see them as CEOs of major corporations, etc., and I'm certain we will see one soon as president of this great nation.

[eltopo]

I am glad that we have reached a point in our history where it is--for the first time--conceivable that a woman might be elected president. It is long overdue. It is embarrassing to think that in 2008, women are still second-class citizens in many ways. They are paid less than men with the same levels of training and experience, and are under-represented in our government and public institutions. There is no doubt that misogyny is a real problem in our society, though it is rarely openly visible. It is manifest very subtly in the behaviors of many men, though its effects are anything but subtle.

I would love to vote for a woman for the office of president. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is not that woman. The negative reaction toward her in the public does have some basis in knuckle-dragging sexism--I admit that, and I doubt that many people disagree. However, she has earned much of her negative reputation through her divisive and dirty campaigning, her disturbingly right-leaning and politicall­y-motivate­d and hawkish Senatorial record, her willingness to portray herself as a victim rather than to take responsibility for her shortcomings, her history as a corporate lawyer and Wal-Mart board member, etc. It is disingenuous at best (and both petty and shallow at worst) to suggest that her failure to build a working coalition this primary season is due entirely to the misogynistic tendencies of certain parts of the electorate.

I suppose it was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would be the first woman to run who was seen as having a chance. It is at the same time most unfortunate. I fear that her campaign and candidacy in general--with all their shortcomings--might make it MORE difficult for women to be taken seriously as presidential candidates in the near future, rather than blazing some kind of trail as she and many had hoped. I hope I am wrong about that. I sincerely hope that we will see many, many opportunities to vote for other women in the future. In fact, I'd love to see women outnumbering men on the primary ballots in 4 or 8 years; there are more women in America than there are men, and our electoral process should reflect that fact. If a woman whom I felt was a good candidate were to run, I'd vote for her without hesitation--just as I would vote for a black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or Jewish candidate whose policies and ideas seemed most oriented toward guiding America along the most productive and healthy path.

In the end, Hillary is quite simply the lesser of the two candidates still running on the Democratic side of the "fence" this year; not because she is a woman, but because her judgment, voting record, and political strategies add up to a candidacy which quite simply does not resonate with voters as strongly as does Obama's. While it may be true that many male voters have rejected Senator Clinton simply because of her gender, many MORE voters have chosen to support Senator Obama for more legitimate and substantial reasons. And quite frankly, they--make that "we," as I do support Obama--are tired of being called sexists and chauvinists simply because we prefer a candidate whom we feel to be stronger both politically and with regard to policy. I think that Obama is the better candidate, and at least a small majority of Democratic voters agree with me. If Obama wins the nomination, I sincerely hope that most of Hillary's supporters will rally behind Obama and help us take the government of this country back from the disaster that the Republicans have created. If Clinton wins (which seems very, very unlikely), I hope Obama's supporters will do the same.

I know I will, though I must admit that I would be no more happy with her candidacy than I was with Kerry's four years ago, and that I fear her candidacy atop the Democratic ticket would likely fare no better than Kerry's did. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a flawed, uninspiring, and cynically polarizing candidate.

[patrice37]

Gee, thank you, Robin, for pointing out that I have "internalized the stereotypes" that have held me back. But as a feminist from way back, I can assure you that I don't need your guidance. Hillary Clinton is a bitch --- I've applied nastier words to men --- but the main problem is that she's a dreadful candidate. We gain nothing by supporting a woman who refuses to listen to other people or admit her own mistakes, has no apparent understanding of the talents needed in the political process and shows a dangerous paranoid streak. This is not my problem. It is hers.

[Adrienne4Dean]

People should read the poll.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/750/obama-lead-problems

For one thing, it debunks the oft-repeated (Reep) talking point that Hillary is so widely reviled. 63% of people say she's very or somewhat likeable. Yes, Obama is higher, but he's also less known and far less attacked (for now).

It's not all rosy for Obama
"A solid majority of voters (56%) says Obama has not provided enough information about his plans and policies; in contrast, most voters say Clinton and McCain have disclosed enough information about their plans. Moreover, a plurality of voters (43%) says that Obama would not be "tough enough" in dealing with foreign policy and national security issues. "

Number one word:
Hillary - "Experienced"
Obama - "Inexperienced"
McCain - "Old"

Lots of other details worth studying.

*****A

[RabidRightRebel]

Just think of all the names we have used to describe Bush. Are those because he is man or because he is an incompetent a**hole?

[InfoGiant]

If it were about experience, Hillary would be about 50th in line for the job. Getting elected is either about name recognition, an incredible message, inspiring the masses, or a combination of the three. Hillary has the name recognition and a good message. Her problem is that the name recognition is half negative and she isn't always that good at delivering the message.

People just don't trust her and it doesn't help when her husband is making shady deals overseas and then they refuse to release their tax returns. It doesn't help when her campaign says all is well because they'll catch up in delegates by Ohio and Texas and now say that if they win 1 of 4 then BARACK has a problem. There's so much hypocrisy and double speak from her campaign, she reinforces the negative stereotypes that got her the high negatives in the first place.

http://infogiant.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/just-as-hillarys-hypocrisy-dies-down-mccain-and-gop-happy-to-step-in/

http://infogiant.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/win-at-all-costs-why-hillary-is-bad-for-america-and-definitely-more-of-the-same/