Hillary's "Feminist Problem"

The Nation: Feminists Rescind Their Support For Former First Lady

(The Nation)  "It's an important social progression. You can't write these women off just because we highly disagree with them," says former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton, who now heads the Center for the Advancement of Women. "It moves us toward a time when we can attack someone like her because of what she stands for and not because she is black or a woman, because we already know that the country won't go up in smoke because we had an African-American woman from Alabama as Secretary of State."

Clinton's supporters also argue that women candidates are unfairly subjected to higher standards, especially by women themselves. It's why antiwar feminist organizations like CodePink are less likely to give her a pass for her Iraq vote than they would, say, John Edwards. Explaining the reasoning behind their "bird-dog Hillary" campaign to The Nation, founder Medea Benjamin wore her double standard on her sleeve: "You expect more of a woman."

When it comes to presidential politics, this double standard also works in subtler ways. "There's not one man of either party who is at the top of the race right now who, if he were a woman, would be taken seriously," says White House Project's Marie Wilson. "We wouldn't tolerate the lack of experience or the marital history [of Rudy Giuliani]. If Obama were a woman, and I don't care how articulate or wonderful, we'd be telling her that she didn't have enough experience." Or, as Susan Estrich wrote in her 2005 book, The Case for Hillary Clinton: "Imagine if Hillary weren't a woman. She'd simply be the best-qualified candidate, with absolutely everything going for her.... If she were a he — Harry Rodham, let's say — the Democratic Party would be thrilled." Of course, come 2007, the party establishment is suitably enthused about Clinton. And for their part, progressive feminists would say that their problem with Hillary Clinton is not that she is a woman but that she has turned out to be no better than Harry Rodham.

Still, there's no question that Clinton bears an extra burden, not least because her victory would represent such a historic breakthrough. "The fantasy was that the first woman President would be someone who would turn the whole lousy system inside out and upside down. Instead the first significant woman contender is someone who seems to have the system down to a fine art," wrote Quindlen in her column.

Yet most feminists recognize that the chance of a true-blue lefty becoming the first female President is about as likely as that proverbial snowball's. Much as we like to bemoan our nation's backward ways in matters of female leadership, the kind of women who actually make it to the top in other parts of the world — leaving aside Chile's Michelle Bachelet — are cut from the same cloth as their male counterparts. Susan Douglas may accuse her of epitomizing "the Genghis Khan principle of American politics," but Hillary Clinton is not a patch on dear old Maggie Thatcher or Indira Gandhi, and she's definitely left of Germany's Angela Merkel.

At least part of the problem with Hillary is Hillary, as in her outsized and often caricatured public persona, which makes it hard to figure out just who she is. Is she a misunderstood moderate, accused of selling out positions she never held? Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, certainly thinks so: "She is a centrist. She is a political pragmatist in the most solid American tradition."

Or is she a much-maligned liberal, whose Senate voting record on critical issues places her even with Obama and solidly to the left of progressive favorite John Edwards? So say the ratings of Americans for Democratic Action. Then there are those who label her the ultimate political operator, ever eager to trade principle for poll numbers. Her many critics certainly have no shortage of evidence to muster toward their cause. Claims made on either side of the "Hillary divide" are varied, confusing, often contradictory and sometimes compelling — perhaps because the debate over Hillary is very often not about Hillary at all.

In a 1993 Time magazine cover story, Margaret Carlson described the then-First Lady as "the medium through which the remaining anxieties over feminism are being played out." In 2007, however, Hillary Clinton's presidential bid is becoming a lightning rod for a debate within feminism, and over its goals. What do we liberated women want: to join the clubhouse or burn it down?

Forty years after the launch of the modern women's movement, there are still no easy answers to that question. And it is why, once you get past the rhetoric, the emotion Hillary Clinton most often evokes is painful ambivalence, even among her harshest feminist critics. "Women are especially hard on Hillary because she's such a Rorschach and we all want her to be exactly like us, whoever we are," said Ephron in a recent Salon article. But feminists will also just as readily acknowledge the high price of playing with the big boys, even when they don't like her one bit. "She tried to be something different [as a First Lady], and she was ultimately beaten into submission — by the media, the voters, the politicos," says Friedman. "I don't know what I would expect her to do. I couldn't expect myself to do better in the same place. I really don't."

For all her skepticism about the value of electing minorities to high office and her personal affinity for Edwards, Jervis says she balks at the idea of voting for a white male in the Democratic primary when she has the historic opportunity to choose otherwise. "I'm not sure what will happen when I actually step into the voting booth and have to pull that lever," she says. But she has no doubt that if Hillary Clinton does make it past the primaries, "I know I'll have an emotional reaction to a Hillary candidacy. It is going to be meaningful to me."

Whether or not Hillary wins the nomination, makes it to the big white house or falls by the wayside, her admirers and critics alike understand that she has done far more than any of her predecessors for women in national politics simply by running. She is the first woman to be the frontrunner for her party's presidential nomination — with the blessing of the old boys' club, i.e., the Democratic Leadership Council, no less.

But equally important, as Faye Wattleton points out, whatever her failings, Hillary Clinton is no Pat Schroeder, whose 1988 presidential bid ended early and ignominiously in a flood of tears. "This is not a candidate who is going to dissolve in the enormous heat of presidential politics," she says. Over the past fifteen years, every aspect of Hillary's life has been subjected to the kind of scrutiny — and many times abuse — that would make male politicians cry. As the latest crop of biographies demonstrate, the media's appetite for Hillary "exposés" shows no signs of waning. Carl Bernstein's A Woman in Charge and Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., spend 1,000-plus pages between them re-examining every personal, political, romantic and sartorial decision she's ever made, often with unflattering results. And there will be plenty more of the same over the next year. "Someone who can conduct herself with credibility under that kind of scrutiny and hold up to it is definitely opening the door for a future woman in the White House. She must be given credit for that," says Wattleton.

Hillary Clinton is the first female candidate — love her or hate her — who is impossible to dismiss simply because she is a woman, even by Republican strategists like Frank Luntz, who offered this caution: "Put gender aside. Just treat her like you would any other candidate." It's not exactly the end of patriarchy, but it's surely reason enough for all feminists — left, right or center — to cheer.

[katg21]

I don't know what you mean?
No one is dictating who we go to, where we go or when we go.
Posted by erasmus6 at 10:26 PM : Jun 18, 2007

That's one of our common misconceptions of Canada then. Do you think maybe you could have some of the US too? We aren't as bad as your media portrays us. My Uncle, who I mentioned earlier having duel citizenship, says that the CBC is very negative towards the US in its reporting. Why is that do you think?

[sf_bay1]

Yes, to many feminists it is more important to be a stereotyped liberal feminist to be a leader than to have women leaders who represent the total common interest of the American people. There are liberal and conservative men. I would expect that there will be considerative and liberal women--like Rice and Clinton. Or black men, such as Clarence Thomas or Al Sharpton. When many say they want to break this barrier or that barrier, they are not talking about governing for the "Common Good" of the People.

[sf_bay1]

Yes, to many feminists it is more important to be a stereotyped liberal feminist to be a leader than to have women leaders who represent the total common interest of the American people. There are liberal and conservative men. I would expect that there will be considerative and liberal women--like Rice and Clinton. Or black men, such as Clarence Thomas or Al Sharpton. When many say they want to break this barrier or that barrier, they are not talking about governing for the "Common Good" of the People.

[sf_bay1]

Yes, to many feminists it is more important to be a stereotyped liberal feminist to be a leader than to have women leaders who represent the total common interest of the American people. There are liberal and conservative men. I would expect that there will be considerative and liberal women--like Rice and Clinton. Or black men, such as Clarence Thomas or Al Sharpton. When many say they want to break this barrier or that barrier, they are not talking about governing for the "Common Good" of the People.

[erasmus6]

kaiyo4u

I totally agree with you, something should have been done at that time.

In fact I find it confusing why some things they focus on, are not an immediate threat but other things that are, they do nothing about.

[kaiyo4u]

Hey eramus6,

Now on the topic of dear old Bush. I did not disagree with him going into Iraq. I believe he went about it the wrong way and should not have used 9/11 as the excuse. The fact that Saddam was torturing and killing his own people was enough reason to go in there. I would imagine most of the Iraqi people were happy he did. Of course it has been going on too long but you can't just pull everybody out and just leave their country after you have destroyed most of it. But then you can only do so much to put things right and then it is time to go!
And as far as everything else Bush does......what can I say?
Posted by erasmus6 at 06:56 PM : Jun 18, 2007

I'm with you on that. What I don't understand, is why didn't Daddy Bush and the UN go in promptly after the kurds were gassed? The current situation would not be happening if the world had some gumption at that time. We liberated Kuwait and the UN and ourselves let that event become a bygone?

[erasmus6]

cfin5

"In my rural area, when the hay is cut, there are probably no less than 20-25 rifle reports a day at groundhogs and the like."

I don't think I could handle that! Everytime I heard the shot I would be thinking there goes another poor groundhog! I am a major animal lover. I know, I know, it has to be done for the livestock but it would still bother me.

[erasmus6]

Hilliarynot

I happen to believe that women are more intelligent than men. (don't tell my husband that)
They have more common sense.
I believe that Hillary knows the responsibility she would have being the first woman president.

Let's face it there is no political figure that you can completely trust. They all tell you what they are going to do, but do they do everything they tell you? NO. But I think that Hillary, having more on the line being the first woman president, will come through better than the rest. TRUST ME, I have great intuition!:):)

[cfin5]

erasmus6.....I live in the midwest also and I have to agree with katg21 on the gun issue. In my rural area, when the hay is cut, there are probably no less than 20-25 rifle reports a day at groundhogs and the like. We have to for the livestocks sake (holes in the ground). Nobody thinks anything of it. Even the amish boys are making decent 400 to 600yrd. shots. I know because I here the wack before the report. Everyone around here are very nice to each other and being good neighbors especially in times of need. We even have community picnics and have a great time at it. Life is pleasantly slower and mor peaceful here than in the big cities. A guy like me just could never be happy crammed into a concrete jungle with stressed out folks that live there. I pity them for what I know they're missing in life....My point is it is not the guns that are the problem, but the attitude. This is the America that I know and the country that the media does not show.

[pwrslm]

Who could support another Clinton. They lie, they cheat they steal, and they get away with it because they commit adultury.

Hillary is shrewd. A true witch to beware of.

[erasmus6]

katg21

"I prefer having choices rather than having the government dictate who, where and when I go."

I don't know what you mean?
No one is dictating who we go to, where we go or when we go.

[katg21]

Trust me... We would love Obama but it is because you support Obama that we democrats have to be suspicious about your support for him.
Posted by krisbee123 at 05:10 PM : Jun 18, 2007

I support Hillary, I really, really do;)

[katg21]

erasmus6,
Oh, I can see why you think things are so scary here. I've heard gunshots in the distance but only during hunting season; I live in the midwest. I even leave my doors open during the day and feel completely safe. There are areas, as I've said, that are not too safe but we avoid them. Our media is what's so horrible; I blame them a lot for our bad reputation with the world. It's all about ratings so the negative is reported more so than the positive. As far as our healthcare system, yeah there are problems but I myself have never been effected negatively. I prefer having choices rather than having the government dictate who, where and when I go. I wish it were that easy for everyone and am hopeful that our government will come up with a solution. We americans aren't as bad as you might think; it saddens me to hear your perceptions of us.

[katg21]

Trust me... We would love Obama but it is because you support Obama that we democrats have to be suspicious about your support for him.
Posted by krisbee123 at 05:10 PM : Jun 18, 2007

Honestly, you have me wrong. I don't support Obama, I just think that of all of the dems running he's the most consistant. No need to read into my opinion any further than that. I can look at his voting record and it speaks for itself. Now Hillary is another story; take a look at her voting record and you'll see what I'm talking about. Hillary panders, is that really what you want?

[krisbee123]

Interesting! I lived in Vancouver for three years and one thing I noticed is that my neighbors never locked or secured their homes. They thought I was weird when I did that

[erasmus6]

Now on the topic of dear old Bush. I did not disagree with him going into Iraq. I believe he went about it the wrong way and should not have used 9/11 as the excuse. The fact that Saddam was torturing and killing his own people was enough reason to go in there. I would imagine most of the Iraqi people were happy he did. Of course it has been going on too long but you can't just pull everybody out and just leave their country after you have destroyed most of it. But then you can only do so much to put things right and then it is time to go!
And as far as everything else Bush does......what can I say?

[erasmus6]

katg21

My parents have traveled to many places in the States.My daughter has been to New York and I have been to California, Oregon and Washington.
My relatives live in California.

When we went to California and also when my daughter went to New York, if we were leaving a restaurant or store when it was going to be getting dark, we were told to get to where we were going BEFORE dark. Also the cars all have double locks on them. We also have a certain amount of crime, but NOT THAT BAD!

I am not saying that all your cities and people are bad. It is how your government runs the country. People shouldn't have to worry about whether they can afford to go to the doctor or that they are going to be shot because everybody has guns.

One thing I have noticed is everybody is OBSESSED with guns and politics. Every article I read, people always have to bring politics into it. EVEN WHEN IT ISN'T ABOUT POLITICS. It's always about the Democrats, Liberals, Republicans etc....And it seems like a MAJOR amount of Racism.

[erasmus6]

katg21

Canadians haven't always had a bad view of the U.S. but of course now we have access to more information than we used to.

I read someones post awhile back and this person said they lived in the city. She said that there wasn't a night that went by that she didn't hear gun shots fired. Okay, I live just outside a major city and my two kids live in the city and they have NEVER heard and I have never heard of anyone hearing gunshots in the night or day. That would be a very rare thing. The reason for that is because most people do not have guns.
You need to see it from our point of view. Your country thinks it is freedom to have a gun to protect yourself. We feel it is freedom to be able to walk down the street and NOT have to carry a gun because no one else has one!

We don't understand about your health care and how people have to go without because they can't afford it. We don't have that problem. The only complaint is that there are waits for surgeries. But both my parents and myself have never had to wait very long. And if it was an extreme life or death problem you would go to the top of the list. We don't pay an enormous price for our health care and the people that can't afford it do not have to pay.
continued..

[pkunetka]

B**ch Magazine? LiP Magazine? "Moderate mainstream" Emily's List and NOW? Feminist women cannot afford to vote for a women????? Are these people Nuts!!!!!!!!!!

I am glad I am a white male so that I don't have to self-obsess only my race and gender and can focus on what I feel is right for ALL people.

Sexism is rightly derided in our society. Feminism should be too!

[krisbee123]

Marriage problems have nothing to do with why we republicans dislike Hillary. She and Bill are nothing but snake oil salesmen. Honestly, I have a heck of a lot more respect for Obama than Hillary. At least he stands true to his beliefs and doesn't waver. Why would you dems vote for Hillary over Obama, he is a true liberal.
Posted by katg21 at 04:33 PM : Jun 18, 2007

Based on your analyis, then you would have to agree with me that they are all snake oil salesmen.
Trust me... We would love Obama but it is because you support Obama that we democrats have to be suspicious about your support for him. Like I said, a republican co-worker once told me that he had sent a check to the Obama campaign just so he would defeat Hillary for the nomination. In his own words,"America is not ready for a black president yet so I am pretty sure Obama will lose against any republican"