- 1
- 2
A Gender Fender Bender
This was a twofer: it showed that Hillary is tough and can take the heat, and it helped erase the image of a woman who in 1992 got herself into trouble by saying that she had not sat "at home baking cookies," as if there was something wrong with that. (Hillary spent months afterward perfecting her cookie recipe and bringing the results to NEWSWEEK and other news organizations to try to make amends.)
But even as she and her campaign tried to spin a clear debate loss as a mugging (including a clever "Piling On" video), they sensed that they might have gone overboard playing the victim. By the end of the week Hillary insisted that her rivals targeted her "not because I'm a woman but because I'm winning." This was indisputably true. Front runners all become lightning rods; it is as much a part of the process as shaking hands and kissing babies. Unfortunately for Clinton, not everyone got the memo.
Former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter, told the New York Times, "John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours the way they attacked her. It's OK in this country to be sexist."
Ferraro's line felt awfully 1970s. No one of any consequence endorsed the idea that the other candidates were sexist. Furthermore, she got the facts wrong. Obama was indeed sharply attacked in earlier debates, with Hillary herself calling him "irresponsible and naive" for wanting to talk directly to dictators. The Illinois senator rightly pointed out that at the time neither he nor anyone else claimed that he was being picked on because he's black.
Rivals and male commentators weren't the only ones decrying the use of "the victim card" and suggesting that Hillary wants it both ways. "When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Senator Clinton embraces her political elevation into the 'boys club'," Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and an Edwards supporter, wrote on the liberal blog openleft.com. "But when she's challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules."
Michelman's wrong on one point: Hillary Clinton doesn't raise white flags. She and her people contest everything, every step of the way. But from now on they will have one less powerful weapon. Unless another candidate pulls a Rick Lazio (or an Al Gore against George W. Bush in a 2000 debate) and tries to physically intimidate Hillary, all of her rivals are free to fire at will on the front runner, as long as she remains the front runner. Hillary's supporters can reply on the merits, or claim that Obama is betraying the politics of hope (though this line, repeated about 100 times, is awfully shop-worn already). But they will no longer be able turn it into a gender thing. They lost that argument, along with the debate itself.
© 2007
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Ciardha @ 03/11/2008 10:03:45 PM
Comment: "Ferraro's line felt awfully 1970s. No one of any consequence endorsed the idea that the other candidates were sexist. " Oh really. Alter, your misogyny is showing. You and all the media and the other candidates (especially Obama) have shown just how sexist our culture still is. Women 40 and older know this and are really revolted by the lot of you. And we aren't keen on Obama either because of his many sexist comments. That doesn't fly with 40 something women (Obama's generation by the way. We know the frat boy game he's playing and it doesn't play with us. Plays great with you GUYS and the female cheerleaders of men you have in the so called newsmedia.)
Posted By: adam in iowa city @ 01/14/2008 4:12:56 PM
Comment: I'd direct you to the bankruptcy bill of the 1990s that Hillary voted for, which would have thrown children under the bus in favor of big credit card companies. Hardly the women's and family issues dedication I want in a president.
Posted By: soren lerby @ 11/12/2007 3:47:03 PM
Comment:
So now it???s official that in the Democratic field for the Presidential race, we have six contenders, who discuss policy issues, trade questions and criticism at each other and could be and held responsible for one???s words and actions, and one who would only announce her policy and intentions but is above any criticism or question.
It portends what Hillary Presidency will look like, if it ever going to happen; she will only announce what she wants to do, or what her policy would be, and any criticism against her decisions or policies would be judged sexual discrimination and silenced by her cronies and liberal mainstream media. Maybe we should think again about whether America should elect someone only for the sake of achieving a diversity milestone and feel good about ourselves or if we want to elect someone who could be held accountable, who do not hide behind gender victim card. U.S. Presidency is much, much more important than simply being a trophy for diversity movement. After all, isn???t it the cornerstone of democracy that citizens freely elect some one who is accountable to their constituents?
In a way Hillary is smart in letting her cronies do all the work of playing gender victim card, while she herself keep away from that kind of cheap trick. She could appear strong, statesmanlike, rising above the cheap gender card, all the while ensuring that her opponents and the media will think twice before leveling any criticism against her in the future. And it???s also a rare time that Ferraro could get a media spotlight, after her historic landslide defeat as a token woman candidate for Vice President of the U.S. She surely knows how to play the gender victim card very well because she was the foremost expert on this, in fact it is her only expertise in politics to this date, and her only qualification for VP candidacy was that she was a woman.