CE Week #6: “Hillary still walks a fine line”
Ellen Goodman
Boston Globe
October 9, 2007
BOSTON – Here in New England, we have an unofficial fifth season.
It’s known as Foliage Season, the color-coded time of year when those not otherwise preoccupied with the Red Sox indulge in the benign spectator sport of leaf peeping.
I am not surprised that presidential politics also has its unofficial season. This is the High Risk Season, a danger zone for front-runners when the media attention is not on the inevitability of falling leaves but the possibility of falling stars.
All summer the story line was Hillary Clinton’s steady-as-you-go campaign. After one debate or another, she was described as “commanding,” “knowledgeable,” “experienced.” Now even Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are pleading their case for the Republican nomination on the claim that they alone can beat Hillary.
This image of a candidate who’s passed the presidential readiness test wooed more voters to her side. She’s now leading the Democratic field by 33 points. But this hasn’t endeared her to political reporters. The one reliable media bias, we know, is not pro-liberal or pro-conservative, pro-Democrat or pro-Republican. It is pro-knockdown-drag-out campaign.
Lights, camera, action, please. Sweetheart, get me rewrite, or at least something to write about.
Thus we now enter the season when the journalistic pack, including those who rail against pack journalism, howls in anxiety at the prospect of a front-runner loping to the finish line. The colors are changing and the headlines are, too. They now read: “Can Clinton Be Stopped?” “Can Clinton’s ‘Inevitability’ Be Erased?” “How to Stop Hillary.” And “Clinton Leads Now, But Race Isn’t Over.”
Well, right, the race isn’t over. The voting hasn’t even begun. But maybe we can stop reading the maple leaves for a moment and take in a larger view of the landscape.
We are heirs and heiresses to a century of speculation on whether Americans would ever vote for a woman. I have a Wonder Woman poster from 1943 imagining the first woman president … 1,000 years in the future.
When Hillary Clinton first entered the race, the story line had a pink border. Those same headlines asked and asked and asked: “Is the Country Ready for a Woman President?” The buzz about the former first lady was about being the first woman.
It’s pretty stunning that in less than a year, the question has morphed from whether a woman is “electable” to whether she’s “stoppable.”
It’s even more remarkable that Hillary is now seen less as the woman candidate than the establishment candidate.
I began noticing the de-gendering – forgive the word – of Hillary Clinton last March. About then, the right wing’s favorite “radical feminist socialist” was becoming the left wing’s “politics as usual.” Now, as the High Risk Season opens, she’s framed less for making history than for perpetuating a dynasty. After a millennium as political outsiders, how is it possible that the serious female contender is cast – and even castigated – as the insider? As Hillary would say, “Hello?”
Remember that Clinton has not escaped the pink microscope. Who can forget the V-neck that launched a thousand treatises on the meaning of cleavage? Now cleavage coverage has been followed by cackle coverage, those endless deconstructions of her laugh.
The stakes and styles are still different for women. The late Elizabeth Janeway once predicted that the first woman president would be a Republican. She’d defuse her sex by conservatism. Hillary is no Republican, nor is she Margaret Thatcher. But women walk a fine line to erase a gender line.
So this is where Clinton is … walking that line. While Obama gets praise for making history, she gets points for experience. When Edwards outflanks her on the left, this “polarizing figure” settles deeper into the comforting center. It’s the best place for a woman in the general election.
But at the same time the media are clamoring for action – Can Hillary Be Stopped? – many Democratic primary voters are just plain clamoring. So there’s some danger in typecasting the first woman as the old guard. This is an emblem of our era. We’ve gone straight from pre-feminism to post-feminism without stopping along the way to experience the real thing.
A woman in politics was once automatically seen as a change agent, but too much of an outsider to entrust with the Oval Office. We’ve still never had a woman president. But the case against Hillary is that she’s too much of an insider?
Hillary Clinton: politics as usual. Or maybe life as usual. First you struggle to get into the establishment and then you get dismissed as too establishment. There’s got to be a touch of irony in this seasonal affective disorder. If, that is, any woman still dares to cackle.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/09/ce-week-6-hillary-still-walks-a-fine-line/trackback/
This article really talks about the precautions of being a woman running for the Oval Office. You have to always be conscience of what you’re wearing and how much cleavage is crossing the line. Apparently, you even have to be careful how you laugh in the public eye. I commend Hillary for running for president. Although I’m not sure whom I’m going to vote for or who would be the best fit, I respect her for running. I never realized how grueling the presidential race was until this weeks reading. You need to conquer nearly every state you have a chance of winning, advertise yourself to suit millions of different voters, connect with the people on a personal level although there are millions. This all is before the nominees are even chosen. The perseverance and hard work it must take to run makes it truly admirable to be a candidate. I feel especially inspired by Hillary’s running because she is a woman and has hundreds of years of history placing women below men. I won’t vote for her strictly because she is a woman but I can’t deny how cool I think that would be to have our first woman president. In a country that was founded by white males and has become a world superpower, I think it would be monumental to have a woman president.
Danielle Price
I HOPE Hillary is stoppable.
Perhaps this is an odd statement, coming from a girl with many feminist views. But Hillary is NOT the best candidate for President. Sorry, but she’s not.
Has anyone else noticed that she’s been quite vague on her views thus far? Yes, I know she’s trying not to lose her lead, but am I the only one who thinks it a bit unfair that she got that lead by being vague? Shouldn’t a candidate pull into the lead because people agree with what that candidate believes in, not because they want to figure out what she stands for?
Yes, I know she’s been a Senator and a First Lady. But President? Sorry, but she doesn’t seem like a good leader to me. We need to elect candidates who will be good leaders of the free world.
I want to see history made just as much as the next person. I would love to have a female President in this country. But Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be that President. I’ll wait until a woman comes along who I think can lead this country, and then I’ll vote for HER.
It’s funny. We’ve been studying campaigning/elections over the passed two or so weeks. Bringing up Hillary a few times. From my “careful” (not really) observations, I have noticed that the process… is nuts… it really is. It’s less about the candidates and their issues.
It has almost nothing to do with that. If they vote for you or support you, chances are, they’ve known where you stand on those issues from the very beginning. The very secret, almost slimy, beginning. Anyone can say they wanna be the president went they grow up. The truth of it is that most people will never make it that far because of the physical taxation/money requirements. Yes. Very choice. Very lucrative.
It makes you wonder, with all that pressure, how we manage to get good presidents at all. Oh, that’s right. Sometimes we win and sometimes we loose. So is the election process really worth it?
End that rant, and for the record and in the sake of actual direct relevance to this topic, I thought the cleavage issue was so …stupid. I don’t know why people fuss over the women president thing. Big deal. Very, very scary idea. Seeing as how we’ve had women leaders before, and it hasn’t been a big issue. Some people must truly live in a cave if a possible woman president frightens them. Oh, but- they do have somewhat of a point. This is the first time a woman president has actually been in the LEAD. Oh well. That means nothing until election day.
If we do have a woman president… the only thing I’m concerned, is the media attention. I know it’s ridiculous now, but just think of how even more obnoxious it would become. They’d be picking at her wardrobe ALL DAY LONG. GOD. Not looking forward to that possibility, let me tell you.
Hillary definitely has her pros and cons. To try to determine who will get the Democratic party nomination is ridiculous and by all means impossible. It’s too early and all too often when the results from the poles come back the media is suprised. Remember Truman’s election? They declared Dewey the winner before the votes were even counted! It just shows that the media cannot predict the outcome of the elections. All they do is create a public hype. But back to Hillay. She does have experience. Good or bad? Well, she knows what she is doing, but have politics had a negative impact on her? Americans are considering both sides of this. I think her experience will give her the votes of the older generations. They see that she has done well. She is the empitomy of the word Liberal. She is a Liberal, woman, from New York State. Hillary is perfect. However, I do not believe she will win the support from younger voters. Obama is more appeasing to the young people. He does not have a reputation, but yet he is still very Liberal. Maybe he can bring something new to the table. People already know Hillary. She is old news, but Obama? No, he’s fresh. His enthusiasm could also carry him very far. Time will only tell who will recieve the nomination.
The article headlines about Hillary are starting to worry me. Cause I support Oboma and I’m started to get a little bit worried. I’m not worried just because the articles are talking about how how she is more favored on certain issue and other things. I much more worried because since she is a women alot of people have there doubts about how she would be as a president. So when she does one little thing right it turns out to be a bigger deal that if say Obama did it. That means she has recently bean getting tons and tons of positive media attention. That translates to tons of momentum comming into Iowa and New Hampshire. That usualy means that she will have a great chance in winning there with would give her even more momentum. Unless she is favored to do so great and she does average and the momentum stops. Thats what I hope for. I personly think that even though most people thing that she is at a disadvantage being a women; I actualy think that will benifit her. I dont think that at this point Hillary is the best choice for the presidency. I hope that Oboma wins the democratic nomine.
Reply to Megan
I agree that Hilary will win the older generations and Obama will win a fair percentage of the younger vote, but I think Hilary will pull off the democratic nomination. I don’t think I can justly say that she has universal policies that everybody loves and has a contagious glow about her, but she has experience. I’m personally all for a new lens on a situation and I don’t think youth is necessarily a negative; however, this isn’t a PTA position, this is the President of the United States of America. I don’t believe that America, as a whole, will bring in a new-bee to run their country. I’m not discrediting Obama or bashing on his political stances, but I don’t think that America is will to take that chance. I think they’ll go with the experience. I believe that is why Hilary is leading the polls. Because she is, believe it or not, the safe bet as far as democrats go. She’s been in the White House, she’s been a senator for year, and people recognize her name and associate her possible productivity with that of her husband’s. As far as her stances go, she’s been fairly vague and in doing so is successfully sustaining her lead. I can’t blame her for not expanding on her politics. The more you disclose, the more the press can hold against you. This theory is simply based on my own personal thought process. Experience triumphs youth.
I am a big support of Barrack Obama. I wouldn’t mind if Hilary was president, but Obama seems to have the right way with me. I mean he is a younger candidate and this election we will have a bigger majority of 18-26 year olds. Hilary definitely has more experience. She also ahs the name recognition forms Bill. I think that people will look at them the same. If Bill can get elected then Hilary the same opportunity, plus some of the same policies as Bill. She is very vague on some of her policies, but that is typical this early in the race. She doesn’t wan to say the wrong thing that will take votes away. She needs to see how the public reacts. Both of these democratic nominees are good at not taking a definite stance.
This is going to sound sexist, but I don’t think that our country is ready for a woman president. A black male will have to come first. For one many countries frown upon this. We would lose foreign ties. A woman is perceived as weak and i don’t think, right now is ready to do the job.
Response to Danielle
If Hillary is not the best fit for president, why is she leading the entire presidential race with such a commanding lead? She didn’t get ahead by being vague; she got ahead because of how she presented her campaign. This is not an unfair tactic and has been tried before now. As a presidential candidate, you are not obligated to share exactly what you are going to do, how you are going to do it, ad what your budget will look like to accomplish these things. It is a ridiculous argument to say that she is pulling into the lead because people want to know where she stands on certain issues. Voters do not get anything out of voting for someone in media polls. So why would they not vote for someone else, if she is indeed cheating? I don’t understand how she seems like a poor leader. With such a lead in the polls, how can she not be considered a leader? She is running for the President of the United States; the possible first woman president. Certainly this doesn’t make her a follower. And if she’s not a follower, and not a leader, what is she? There is no warrant for this claim. At least not one that I’m aware of.
Response to Megan
How is impossible to determine the Democratic candidate when SHE is leading the field by a whopping 33 percent? Don’t get me wrong, anything can happen until inauguration, but wouldn’t it be a legitimate prediction to say that Hillary is probably going to win the democratic election? She has a commanding lead, and has surpassed Obama in the cash funds. May I add that she is the distinct leader, with no clear competition on the field.
I would say that every single candidate has had their share of political experience. There is a vast array of ways one can be politically active. In one instance, one can be a United States Senator. One can be a lawyer. Another can be a governor. All of these examples have “political experience”. Why, then would it matter in a negative manner, if Hillary has had this political experience, seeing as how nearly every candidate ever has? Yes, I see the point that politicians lie, and I agree with it, but experience is only a good thing in politics. If she had no experience, would we even be considering her for the highest office in the country? I honestly don’t think that most younger voters such as myself, will look to Obama only because he has less experience. Mind you, he has been a Senator in Illinois for the last several years. Obama is my number one candidate, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he has had a little bit less experience than Hillary Clinton. Yes, I know that she was first lady, but outside of that, what did she do?