Clinton's struggle vexes feminists. To some, her skills losing out to style

[Swede]

As Hillary Clinton struggles to regain her momentum in the presidential race, frustrated feminists are looking at what they see as the ultimate glass ceiling: A female candidate with a hyper-substantive career is now threatened with losing the nomination to a man whose charismatic style and powerful rhetoric are trumping her decades of experience.

The style-vs.-substance clash is common to presidential contests, and has hurt wonky male candidates as well, women's leaders say. But they argue that Clinton has a peculiar burden in this year's contest because she never would have been able to reach the final stages of the nomination process unless she had spent her life emphasizing her professional record over stylistic abilities.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/19/clintons_struggle_vexes_feminists/

[LakeSamish706]

1. And I wish like hell that potential voters would stop looking at the Presidency ...

in that light. Forget the fact that Hillary is a woman or Obama is African American and look at what they will bring to the table. If these people are voting on either the gender or race ticket, this country is doomed.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. AA's are not looking at it in the way you are wishing women would but I am

[EvolveOrConvolve]

37. And I think that was the point the poster was making

Nowhere did he/she exempt African Americans from the idea that a candidate should be selected on qualifications rather than race, gender, etc.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. my reply was not to the OP

[EvolveOrConvolve]

41. Yep - I was speaking to your response to LakeSamish706

Show me where he/she exempted African Americans from the idea of supporting the candidate they feel is the best candidate regardless of race or gender.

[Submariner]

2. If Hillary was not the wife of ex-president Bill,

and if she was running on her own without Bill's legacy and their White House history together so fresh in the peoples minds, I think she would be doing much better than she is now.

It is the WH history from 1992-2000 that is killing her. People, like myself, are looking for a fresh change with no linkages to the Bush, Clinton, Reagan time warp, even if he's not quite as ready on Day 1 as Hillary would be.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Well-said.

[Captain Hilts]

7. If FDR hadn't been related to TR, he never would have gotten any of his first 3 jobs.

Didn't hurt to marry the woman TR said, "reminds me more of myself than any of my own children."

[Submariner]

13. The country is way overdue for a female president

but it needs a candidate that doesn't have the baggage that can be used to drag her down.

[Independent-Voter]

16. Indeed. I don't think folks have a problem voting for a woman, just not THIS particular woman

[SteveM]

44. Hell, I'd vote for Michelle.

[Recursion]

51. If you want a woman President, give me a woman worth voting for

Frankly

[Independent-Voter]

15. If she wasn't the wife of Bill C, she'd be Harriet Myers

The only reason she's gotten so much as a sniff at the presidency is because she's the wife of an ex-president. It sure as hell isn't on her own credentials. Rehashing the Bush/Clinton/Bush cycle is just another reason to not vote for her.

[Captain Hilts]

23. What makes you think she wouldn't have been a senator from Illinois? nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. OTOH, if Hillary was not the wife of ex-president Bill,

and if she was running on her own without Bill's legacy and their White House history together, she'd be a relatively light-weight candidate with barely more than a single senate term behind her, compared to Obama's having had 12 years in the Illinois state senate as well as a partial senate term.

In terms of real, practical experience, both in making policy and in running campaigns, they are pretty equally matched - she DOESN'T have an advantage in experience, while he DOES have an advantage in style.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. spoken like a man

[SteveM]

43. Word up.

[Arugula Latte]

55. However, it's not just that time frame that's killing her. Let's face it,

that IWR vote has really come back to bite her in the ass. No, not everyone is basing their decision solely on that, but it has had a HUGE impact.

[jasmine621]

64. How soone we forget that Bill Clinton along with his bright wife was the 'Change"

we were looking for in the 90's. And they did a pretty good job of making the government work for people through his reconstructed FEMA. desesigned Social Security Administration, and family-friendly work place. How soon we forget that he faced off the GOP and passed tax cuts for the middle class while raising them on the wealthy and it did not cause the economy to die as the RW predicted. His administration did it WITHOUT a single vote from the Republicans with Al Gore casting the single vote needed. How soon we forget that Bill made us proud as he traveled the world hot spots and helped bring opposition sides to the table in Ireland, Israel, and the move to stop the genocide of millions of Muslims in Serbia. Yeah, he blew it on Rwanda and has admitted it. While we give Kerry and Edwards and others accoladge for admitting they were wrong about Iraq, Bill get no credit for stepping up to the plate and admitting his mistake concerning Rwanda although he says that was his biggest regret of his two terms. How soon we forget that he at least tried to get a ME peace deal with Israel and Palestinians and was highly praised by the late King of Jordan for his fearless efforts. How soon we for get how the world admired his courage in the face of his sex scandal (which most Europeans and others thought should have remained a private matter between him and his wife.). How soon we forget the pain and suffering that Hillary must have undergone as RW and some Dem Hillary haters dissed a young Chelsea, ridiculed Hillary as being the cause of Bills marriage violations, talked about her own looks and "robo hips" and how a really meaningless statement about choosing to go to college and get a law degree instead of staying home and baking cookies and holding teas was turned into a major slander against stay-at-home moms by the media. How soon we forget that the Clintons were relatively poor coming into the WH and they were hated by the Dem insiders for having been able to win twice against all odds. How soon we forget that 9/11 ripped the heart out of NY and NYC and that the Bush administration had lied to us all and had well over 70% of the people ready to fight anyone that just looked evil to us. How soon we forget that Dems were called soft on terrorism and Islamic lovers and how that allowed GWB to walk into othe WH for a second term. How soon we forget that the Clintons, unashamedly championed causes of African Americans and were not afraid to embrace them publicaly and to befriend them privately. How soon we forget that Clinton was the first President to have a cabinet that looked like America by appointing blacks, women, and handicapped and gays to the highest levels of his administration. WTF is wrong with you people that you would allow the media to define, label, and smear them the way they do? WTF is wrong with America that men who have laid their lives on the line for this coutry--John Kerry, Max Cleland, and now John McCain --can become targets of smear campaigns by their opponents and opportunists and disqualify them from Presidency. If this had been the case in 1960, JFK would never have been elected to office. What is wrong with America?

[loveangelc]

3. Older feminists are not doing their candidate any good.

[redqueen]

9. What is it with you and ageism? You just won't stop, will you?

:eyes:

[Independent-Voter]

17. Lots of "'isms" thrown up around here. Sounds more like excuses to me

[redqueen]

26. Um, no... implying that feminists who don't support Obama

must not support him due to their age is ageism, pure and simple. I don't know where you're getting "excuse" from.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. she will when she is better read and better informed. which will probably be 20 years hence.

:hi:

[Beacool]

70. Nope, this girl must think that she's going to stay young for ever.

Let her live a lifetime and then see if she still emits the same inane opinions.....

[goldcanyonaz]

72. To be young and naive again... No thanks!

Turning 30 made me realize how naive I was when I was in my 20's. Idol worship is not something I'm easily turned on by. Looking forward to getting more wise as the years add up.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. what do you mean by that? also thats a severely bigoted comment.

older often means wiser, better read, better published especially when it comes to academia and academic thought.

[CorpGovActivist]

57. .

[TexasObserver]

5. Hillary is not a good candidate. If she were not Bill's wife, if she were a man ...

She would be fighting Mike Gravel for air time. But for sexism, she'd be an also ran, long gone already.

[defendandprotect]

29. Measure that comment up against the insane/ignorant W Bush as son of Poppy--???

Did anyone say then that he wouldn't have the opportunity unless he was the president's son?

Could have been said . . .

But I never heard it --- !!!

And what could be truer . . . ???

A man totally unfit for office of any kind ---

and representing a fascist ideology!!

[Independent-Voter]

30. Hell, I said it. Plenty of moderates did.

That Kerry couldn't beat a retarded chimp by 20% speaks volumes about the quality of ya'lls campaign efforts of late.

[defendandprotect]

40. OK -- keep in mind that he supposedly got "elected" and "re-elected" . . .

and he was a "retarded chimp" ---

so I don't see that Sen. Clinton has quite the problem that he did --- !!!

[Thothmes]

58. In the American political system

it seems that style trumps experience everytime. JMO

[Radical Activist]

49. I heard it constantly.

People said all the time that George W. Bush wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it weren't for his Dad and family. Even Jay Leno made cracks about it before he was selected.

[TexasObserver]

54. and they were right about Bush, Jr.

This is why royal lines get worse, and worse and worse. Because when people like Hillary, who don't have the ability to win on their own talents rely upon the work and name of family members to gain power, they're never as good as the original.

Bill had his problems, but he was like George Washington compared to Hillary. I'm sure Martha Washington learned a lot being Mrs. George, but I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have been as good as Tom Jefferson, who made it on HIS talents.

[TexasObserver]

53. that's a nonsensical Non sequitur

learn ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/

non se·qui·tur (nŏn sěk'wĭ-tər, -tŏŏr') Pronunciation Key
n.
An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

[CorpGovActivist]

63. .

[Captain Hilts]

6. I think her style is fine. But, then again, I just ADORE Michael Dukakis. nt

[CorpGovActivist]

61. .

[Captain Hilts]

8. What the hell, the taller candidate always wins. Just like Dukakis....we're heightists. nt

[defendandprotect]

42. Except that GOP fanatics are about to elected a short, old, pink guy . . !!!

what sunk Dukakis was his not responding to being made fun of ---

and the GOP have some pretty low tricks ---

that is, disregarding their murderous practices --- !!!

[madrchsod]

10. i think she was let down by the people around her

first was penn underestimating david axlerod and obama . doyle and staff who were not really loyal to her but to themselves and of course, her husband`s ego did a lot of damage.

given axlerod and his staff she would be far ahead by now. sadly hillary let her loyalty get in the way of what was best for her
.

[NorthernSpy]

12. who chose those people?

first was penn underestimating david axlerod and obama . doyle and staff who were not really loyal to her but to themselves and of course, her husband`s ego did a lot of damage.

given axlerod and his staff she would be far ahead by now. sadly hillary let her loyalty get in the way of what was best for her

That's just it, though. Competent executives don't make those kinds of mistakes -- and they certainly don't let such dysfunctional situations drag on for so long.


That's no mere charisma issue.

[madrchsod]

27. it`s about judgments is`t it..and she is failing

[Carolina]

35. exactly

she's been failing the judgment and leadership test since her IWR vote.

If she can't get competent people for her campaign, what does that say about her?!

Ready on day one... NOT!

[NorthernSpy]

11. except that campaigning is also a test of skills, and she's doing badly at that...

Just look at the Solis-Doyle saga if you want proof. That goes to judgement and executive competence, not lack of "charisma".

[Bread and Circus]

14. It's very simple: Clinton has run a bad campaign, plagued with problems, gaffes, and bad strategy.

[ShortnFiery]

19. HRC is NOT a Leader. She has intelligence but her micro-management and self-righteous secrecy

RUIN her chances of truly BUILDING a team out of those who would be in her Executive Branch.

Face it, Hillary's got NO Elvis, i.e., completely bereft of leadership traits which prove to inspire others.

[CorpGovActivist]

59. !

:thumbsup:

[XemaSab]

20. I think in some ways she's running an anti-feminist campaign

First of all, why should the fact that she was the president's wife count for anything? Is Pickles qualified? Nancy Reagan? Barbara Bush? No! Then why should Hillary be qualified?

Secondly, why is she "Hillary?" Why not "Senator Clinton?" And the whole "I'm your girl" slogan? There's something about her that feels like she's auditioning to be our best girlfriend, and not the leader of the free world.

Thirdly, her whole emotional range feels really fake and staged. Either she's this emotionless, hawkish hardass or she's all feeling our pain, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of genuine feeling there. Women I know are more compassionate, but pragmatic. Instead it feels like she's trying to be all tough in a way that male candidates don't have to be, but also emotionally flaky in a way that makes me, as a woman, sorta irritated.

Finally, she seems pretty happy to call "sexism" at the drop of a hat in a way that's... not endearing. I know that there is sexism directed against her, but she's acting like a victim, and dammit, I don't want a president who acts like a victim.

I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of right now.

[Independent-Voter]

24. Have you been channeling my Mom?!

Because that could have come straight out of her mouth.

[XemaSab]

32. Maybe....

:tinfoilhat:

[CorpGovActivist]

65. .

[CorpGovActivist]

25. Fauxminism

Oh, yes. Many men who have fought tooth, nail, and claw for equal rights - inside the courts, outside the courts, signing petitions, advocating for parity in cancer funding, etc. - have been tagged as misogynists this election cycle, because some of us have dared to defect from *this PARTICULAR* candidate. On the issues. On the policies. Judging her by the content of her policy stances, not by any other irrelevant quality. Gender blind. Gender neutral.

Nevermind any and all money we've given to Emily's List. Or the miles we've walked with pink ribbons and pledges. Or any of the other things we've done to demonstrate our progressive bona fides on things like maternity leave/ADA protections, equal pay for equal work, job sharing, lactating rooms, etc.

No, somehow, fauxminism creeped in, and a certain illegitimate orthodoxy took hold.

Suddenly, Hillary became the ultimate litmus test. No prior experience qualified you, excused you, or gave you an exemption.

With her or against her. Against her? Fair game for the ugliest forms of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4359071&mesg_id=4359071">misandry known.

Men are supposed to be gender blind in choosing. But then, there were the exit polls on Super Tuesday, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4418627&mesg_id=4418627">showing more women than men citing gender as a factor in how they voted.

Funny that. And many of my women friends who are true feminists have noticed they're being marginalized by the fauxminists, too.

- Dave

[EvolveOrConvolve]

36. Amen brother - great post

We're in a no win situation with Senator Clinton. No matter our previous record of fighting tooth and nail for women's rights, no matter our gender neutral politics, no matter our fight (at least in my red state) against real sexists. We are labeled sexist if we choose a candidate based not on gender but on who we think would be the best candidate. On the flipside, we WOULD be sexist if we voted for a candidate specifically on their gender instead of who we consider to be the most qualified.

And you're right about the orthodoxy. I would go so far as to call it a rigid dogma where ideology wins out over rationality and common sense.

[CorpGovActivist]

45. "rigid dogma where ideology wins out over rationality and common sense"

Hammer meets head of nail.

- Dave

[SteveM]

47. Reminds me of the ERA vote in Florida in '77(?)...

Surveys supposed showed that most of the men who were likely to vote voted FOR the ERA; most women who were likely to vote voted AGAINST the ERA.

[CorpGovActivist]

50. The ERA was one of my earliest political memories...

... and seemed like a no-brainer for passage, to me.

- Dave

[CTLawGuy]

73. I am under 30 (hence wasn't around for the debate on it)

I don't understand the ERA. Doesn't the 14th amendment already protect against gender discrimination? What was the rationale of this amendment?

[Recursion]

28. What "decades" of experience?

I thought we were talking about Hillary Clinton? She has less experience in elected office than her opponent.

[GarbagemanLB]

31. Being married to the president = being the president, didn't you know!?!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. In that case, I'm writing in the white house sous chef.

Forty years white house experience.

[THUNDER HANDS]

46. hyper-substantive career? on what planet?

she has less legislative experience than Obama does.

[CorpGovActivist]

56. .

[Radical Activist]

48. What bizarre spin. Obama has more years in elected office.

Clinton wouldn't be where she is were she not married to Bill. That's the feminist dilemma. A woman will get elected President when its a candidate who doesn't have to ride in on her husbands coat tails. Clinton wouldn't be taken this seriously or gotten this far if she were just some corporate lawyer who served one term in the Senate.

The double standard and hypocrisy of the people quoted in the article amaze me. This idea that Hillary has more substance, accomplishments, or that she talks about issues more is a popular meme but one that isn't supported by any objective reality. I hear Hillary and her supporters talk a lot about her accomplishments but they rarely mention what those accomplishments are. The line lacks substance.

[Barack_America]

52. "hyper-substantive career"

I take issue with this. By her own accord, much of her "experience" is intertwined with Bill's success. Personally, I'd rather see a self-made woman as our first woman President.

[saltpoint]

60. Interesting take, but I disagree with the premise that Sen. Clinton's

political travails of late are owed to her womanhood.

I think they're owed to her arrogant, incompetent strategists.

She chose the wrong folks with the wrong attitude to run a political campaign. It's absolutely clear as a bell that no one in the Clinton camp had any plan for competing post-Feb. 5th, nevermind against a skilled and gifted politician like Barack Obama.

They didn't lose all that ground on gender.

[CreekDog]

62. Yeah, it's unfair to judge a politician based on style, what good is that in politics

:sarcasm:

who knew that doing so means one is sexist? mea culpa.

and i really appreciate being called sexist for making my choice and having people who don't know me explain (rather patronizingly) that I did it based on style. :eyes:

[CorpGovActivist]

66. Are they mildly vexed or sorely vexed?

[Bridget Burke]

67. Thanks for the comment from a Canadian feminist!

Well, your profile says you're male. But I know that men can consider themselves feminists. Actually, you linked a story from a Boston paper. But I know your concern for American Democrats motivates your Google-fu.

As a Texas woman, I'm voting for Hilary in our primary. I'll certainly support Young Obama if he wins the nomination.

But--thanks for your advice from afar!

[Obamaniac]

68. This is more Clinton's as victims bullshit

Can't we just say that Obama ran a better campaign?

Hillary can never accept any type of responsibility. Instead she has to cry about all these conspiracies against her, etc.

It's really sad and pathetic.

Also, what's this "hyper-resume" she has?

I can't think of anything she has done that would make her more Presidential than Obama. Methinks that Hillary's problem is that she believes her own hype.

[RandomKoolzip]

69. My objection to Clinton's candidacy has nothing to do with her gender.

I've been wishing for a female president ever since I saw Geraldine Ferraro campaigning on TV when I was little kid. She seemed so proud and confident, smart, and capable that I was pissed off she had to play second banana to that uinspiring golem Walter Mondale.

The time for a woman president is LONG overdue. That there is systemic sexism in American politics, American business, and American culture is not opinion, nor is it news. It exists, it's real, and it's poisonous. As a guy who has immersed himself in feminist thought most of his adult life, I understand how pervasive misogyny and covert sexism really are, and I do my level best to point out to other men when they're guilty of it.

HOWEVER: I support Barack Obama in this election over Hillary Clinton because of []policy issues. If Obama had voted the same in the Senate and had comprimised his principles as much as I've seen Clinton do over the course of her career, I wouldn't be supporting him. Conversely, if Clinton had, to name just one, voted against the IWR - one example among many - but was occupying Barack Obama's body, I wouldn't be voting for him. I know I'm not alone in this. Also, poll after poll has shown that a Clinton candidacy in the GE would bring out republican voters in droves merely to vote AGAINST a Clinton. I believe Obama has a better shot against MCain than Clinton does.

I'm not suggesting Obama's perfect - far from it. The guy's got issues, honestly. And Clinton WOULD be a formidable and capable leader. If she gets the nom- against what now look like strong odds - I'll vote for her.

I'm voting based on the criteria of principles, electability and actions - NOT on gender. IF your sole criteria is gender, then you are voting for the wrong reasons.

To suggest that Clinton is currently losing the primaries just because she's a woman is specious - for many, Obama is simply the better candidate. I'm sure somehwere there are men (AND women) who are voting against her because she's female, but these people, I can assure you, are not a majority of voters.

There WILL be female presidents. I have no doubt about that. I hope that in 2012 a female candidate will come along and wipe the floor with whoever stands in her way - in a better world, Ann Richards would have lived long enough to have a shot, IMO. This is simply not Clinton's (the individual) election year.

[Beacool]

71. To me this election will go down as the year we chose style over substance.

I have no doubt in my mind that Hillary is more knowledgeable on the issues and better prepared than Obama to be president. His mantra of hope and change don't impress me at all, while I am impressed by Hillary's detail knowledge of policy.

The whole past year Hillary has been attacked by the media on sexist terms that have nothing to do with her stance on the issues. MSNBC may have been the top offender, but not the only one by far. The blogs on either side of the political spectrum are clogged with misogynist comments about Hillary.

Let's face it, it's easier for a man, even a man of mixed race, to win the presidency over a woman.

As for the Obama supporters who say that they want a woman candidate just not Hillary, I ask where would Obama be right now if he had been a white senator with only 2 years in the senate when he decided to run? He would probably have been told by the party leaders to sit his butt right back down and wait until he garnered some national experience.

It appears that sexism is OK in this nation of ours, but nobody dares touch the race issue for fear of being labeled a racist. I do question though, what does it mean when 80% to 90% of people of one race vote for a particular candidate? Is it solely due to his policy proposals? Yeah, right......