Thursday, January 10, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
I agree with you, Meghan (what had Bill Bradley done before he got elected to the Senate?). I'd go further: that untidy trajectory of Hillary's and those multiple identities and even her authenticity issues—which have us XX bloggers all tied up in knots—may not suit feminists or purists, but are in fact an essential part of her credentials, like them or not. They're not just the symptoms of someone ensnared in political strategy, but part of her history: She's pioneered in juggling the competing priorities and expectations plenty of women still haven't sorted out either. I'm not sure why we should expect the first female candidate to have the ideal trailblazer CV and perfect timbre plenty of male candidates lack. If she did, we might well be worrying she was too lyrical and had lived in a fairy tale world.
-
sponsorship
On Hillary's electability: What had Ronald Reagan, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, done to make them "electable" before they became governors of California? Sure, maybe Hillary hadn't "accomplished" as much as some male candidates out there. But even that seems a vague criterion when it comes to American politics. For better or for worse, voters look to a whole host of things in electing senators, representatives, and presidents: Life experience, poise, intelligence, charisma, and so on. So I don't think Hillary should be overly dissed because she didn't do a lot early on in her life; in fact, you might say, as Dahlia even suggests, that the empty spots on her CV stems from what might actually be termed a rational division of labor in a modern marriage: She supported him till the time came for him to support her. Yeah, I'd probably prefer that the first female candidate for president had blazed her own trail. But I'm not going to insist that Hillary should have made a different set of choices.
This is partly why Chris Matthews' statement seemed so egregious to me: Of all the people who've been elected to the Senate, Hillary is clearly one of smarter and more intellectually rigorous -- and she knows a thing or two about how the White House works, even if she learned that vicariously. Maybe voters warmed to her after the Monica Lewinsky affair cast her in a vulnerable light. But it's not the only reason they elected her.
-
sponsorship
It occurs to me that in our discussion here, I am mirroring the reaction Hillary Clinton has gotten from women voters throughout her short but exciting political career: Expressing considerable skepticism, then rushing to her aid at the first sign of incoming. None of the other candidates takes this much energy, that's for sure. So why is that? (And do I want to know?)
-
sponsorship
Anne,
Being a rock star in law school, creating a local legal career for yourself, and getting involved in local politics was about the extent of Sandra Day O’Connor’s résumé, too. Yet it’s often said of her that even if she hadn’t been tapped for the high court, she’d have been a national political figure someday. (I agree.) I think Melinda is right on this one: Whether Hillary hitched her star to Bill’s wagon, he hitched his star to hers, or they just recognized and loved in each other a boundless driving personal ambition is too close for me to call. But if we start dissing power women just for having married power men (and then succeeded slightly later in life, which will often happen if you have kids, no?), we're writing off a lot of incredible talent.
-
sponsorship
A smart XX Factor reader wrote in to make a great point about where the increase in Clinton's support among women is coming from:
Obama's percentage of female voters was virtually unchanged -- it only dropped from 35% [Iowa] to 34% [New Hampshire]. Therefore, Clinton's increase of 17% had to come from elsewhere. Where? From Edwards and the also-ran candidates -- an intriguing fact that no one seems to be discussing in answering Emily's question about why the difference between Iowa's and NH's women voters. Edwards' percentage of the female vote plummeted from 23% to 15%, a decrease of almost a third. Women also virtually abandoned the minor candidates, as their share of the female vote fell from 12% to 4%.
OK, so having missed this until now, which I definitely did, what do we make of it? I'd been thinking that as Edwards' support diminishes, as I think it will, Obama would benefit. That's the conventional wisdom, right--Edwards' voters are also "change" voters, and so they'll go in greater numbers to Obama. But if the women who were leaning toward Edwards or were up for grabs move to Clinton instead, that changes the calculus. I guess it's good news for Obama that his percentage of women held steady in the first two contests. That implies that he's not actually losing women who have been his solid supporters. But if Hillary is going to pick up an increasing share of all the other women as Edwards fades, then the gender gap will continue to widen in her favor.
-
sponsorship
A question from John Dickerson:
I am still waiting for data that proves that women flocked to Hillary in NH because of the debate pile-on or the near tears moment in Portsmouth. (Data suggests late deciders actually went to Obama.) But clearly women everywhere are talking about these moments, which leads me to ask: If women in part recoiled at the way Obama and Edwards treated Clinton at the debate in Manchester, why didn't they do so after the Philadelphia debate, when she was also piled-upon? Is it because Clinton didn't draw attention to it n Manchester the way she did after Philadelphia? Or was it because after the Iowa defeat, she was truly vulnerable in a way she wasn’t in Philly? (My bet for the enduring explanation of all this is that to the extent Clinton benefited from being vulnerable and human it was from the IA loss not the Portsmouth moment.)
I agree with the Iowa loss explanation.
-
sponsorship
OK, this is absolutely the last time I post on this subject. ... BUT the idea that Hillary is a very accomplished person because she was a star at Yale Law School, got involved in a few minor Washington issues, and had a decent career at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock before becoming a full-time presidential spouse just doesn't hold water. Lots of people are impressive in their 20s; lots of people are top lawyers in small cities; lots of people have loads of unrealized potential; and none of them would be considered a qualified Senate candidate, let alone a presidential candidate. Hillary may be good at a lot of things, she may be terrifically competent, even brilliant--and for all I know a great president. But that doesn't change the fact that her standing as a national political figure is derived solely from her marriage, and from nothing else. No man with that kind of personal biography would be considered electable.
AA
-
sponsorship
Wow, Anne, and now I'm defending Hillary? Weird. But she really did not hitch her wagon to this upwardly mobile guy, and the rest is history. It was Hillary, even more than Bill, who was the superstar at Yale Law. Life magazine had already written glowingly about her ballsy Wellesley commencement address—in which she rebutted the guest speaker—and she was already "on her way to becoming a political meteor'' before she ever said hello to Bill Clinton, according to Carl Bernstein's excellent Hillary bio, A Woman in Charge. In fact, when they fell in love, campus cynics suspected that he was the one working an angle: "Some fellow students thought Clinton's attraction to Hillary was calculated, that he was trading on her renown to advance his own stature on campus and beyond.'' And most of her friends thought she was throwing away her shot at national prominence when she married him.
-
sponsorship
Something elese I've been wondering about, relating back to Julia's post yesterday about Hillary's newfound authenticity and all of Meghan's insights about Clinton's voice. Strategic question: How does one operationalize authenticity? In a day-to-day campaign that will last months? I mean, here we have a candidate who has, as Melinda's pointed out, been so many things to so many people (and yet so few to so many as well!) that when she finally strips off the mask, as she did in New Hampshire, we all swooned. I agree with Meghan that her whole voice that changed in that Portsmouth diner. But I have a nagging sense that her voice changed again on that Saturday night debate. And yet again in her victory speech.
So, to repurpose Julia's question: How does a woman who has worn so many masks; who is so dependent on pollsters; and who is backed by a huge political machine going to sustain being the warm, likable person we glimpsed?
-
sponsorship
Meghan,
The only trouble with the "how-can-a-woman-make-it-in-politics-given-that-men-won't-sacrifice-their-careers" line of Hillary defense is that, actually, lots of women have managed to make it in politics, using various strategies. Among top world statesmen, we have Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and Condi Rice. One married someone older and richer, one married a scientist who stays out of politics, and the other didn't get married, for reasons still undiscovered. At the moment, there are sixteen women in the Senate and a handful of women governors. While some are (as is traditional in the US, a country that loves political dynasties) wives or widows of famous male politicians, some aren't. In other Western countries the same is true: there are at this very moment several prominent, senior women in the British, French and Polish governments, for example, just to name the ones I'm certain of off the top of my head. And I'll bet a lot of them have husbands who are also prominent, in one way or another, even if not in politics. There is no escaping the fact that Hillary chose the most traditional path to power. I certainly wouldn't want her as a model for any of the young women I know. "Get into Yale Law School - and then find an upwardly mobile spouse." What kind of advice is that?
best,
AA
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?