Sometimes I think I struggle to warm to the idea of a Clinton candidacy just because I'm already so sick of stories like this: "They really went from 'Let's talk about what I believe' to 'Let me try to do a gotcha against Hillary Clinton' said one Clinton advisor, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Ultimately, it was six guys against her and she came off as one strong woman."
To be fair, this isn't Clinton's fault, but if that's how the campaign is trying to package it, I'm annoyed. Quotes like that make it seem as though the other candidates are ganging up on Clinton because she's female rather than because she's the front-runner. And "guys?" Do we have to call senators and governors "guys?" I feel like my inner seventh-grader is supposed to think "Oh yeah, I remember when the guys ganged up on me in social studies because they were intimidated too. Girl power!"
On the one hand, I'm thrilled we're finally in a progressive enough place to have a serious female presidential candidate. Particularly because this is such a seminal moment in American politics, it would be inappropriate (and probably impossible)to ignore Clinton's gender. I imagine both her campaign and the opposition and the media is struggling to figure out the most appropriate way to negotiate this. I just wish the discussion was taking place in more progressive terms and felt a bit less like a cheap effort to secure a empathy vote from the female electorate.
In other news, I accidentally tuned into a TV show that could basically be summed up as "Transvestites Dressed for Vegas Preparing Giant Seafood." I think I was missing part of the premise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Okay, so we all know I'm not huge Senator Clinton fan. And at first, I found myself nodding along to Obama's characterization of Clinton at the debate (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057743.php). I mean, come on, Clinton should want to "be treated like everybody else." And yes, she is the front-runner and she should expect to get everyone ganging up on her.
But. When is the last time the Democratic front runner is up 30 points nationally, has almost 100% name recognition, has political views in line with the Democratic mainstream (ahem, why I don't like her much, but still), has great fundraising, and still even has six candidates on that debate stage trying to beat the candidate up? I'm not saying that they should all drop out, especially since if we have a presumed nominee we want people challenging her, espeically from the left. But is there any other explanation besides that they're still on that stage precisely because she's a woman? Would they be waiting around until after the primaries if a white man were the frontrunner by such a huge margin? Any man with those credentials would likely be determined unbeatable.
I used to go with the whole "unelectable" thing. And that's what Edwards in particular is trying to do right now, not to mention what all the Republicans say. But if she were actually unelectable-- and I mean truly unelectable, not just using that as a code word for "woman"-- she wouldn't be running 30 points up on all the other Dems, not to mention winning every match up with every potential Republican nominee. And if we read "unelectable" as "Oh no, she's a woman! American's not ready for a woman president! And of course I don't mean that I'M not ready for a woman president. I just mean that a whole lot of other people aren't. Not that they're sexist. I mean..." well, we're in trouble. Because I imagine the same goes for Obama. And that means the Dems have a problem-- if we're going around assuming the worst about others, and using that as an excuse not to support either Clinton or Obama, I really don't know what we're left with.
Hillary Clinton is clearly electable. But the Dem candidateshope, just a little, in the very back of their minds, that enough people will vote on the presumed sexism of others to make her unelectable. And that's why they're still on that stage with her until the first primaries prove otherwise. But how long can we really use the "unelectable" excuse in the hypothetical before we test it out?
I think that the other candidates always try to gang up on the front-runner in the primary (I shouldn't really say always because I only really remember the '04 primary season) and to do so when the opponent is 30 points ahead is strategically necessary. I think we saw the same type of ganging up against the front runner in the '04 primary season. (I think there was a debate in late summer or early fall '03 where the candidates attacked then-front runner Dean--also an "unelectable" candidate-- so much that people commented Carol Mosley Braun was angling for a cabinet position because she wasn't on the offensive.)The rallying around the front-runner usually begins once the primaries actually start.
I don't like negative campaigning. However, I think the goal of the debates is to demonstrate contrast-- and that's about calling Clinton out on her Iran vote, or at least bringing it to the forefront. I feel a little queasy commenting on electability from across the ocean, but I agree with your assessment that it seems she's pretty darn electable. To me, this is all the more reason to demonstrate her potential flaws and weaknesses as a president-- not just a candidate.
There are noble reasons for the candidates to do this-- making sure the voters are aware of the contrasts between candidates-- and less noble reasons-- the desire to win and the unwillingness to let their supporters down. I also think with the way the media covers the campaign, it's necessary for 3rd place candidates like Edwards to go more on the offensive to get any of the spotlight.
I guess I think the "ganging up" is politics per usual, but maybe I'm being blind.
Hmm. Yes. The Dean comparison is important, but there's a flaw in equating the two situations: we liked Dean. And, let's face it, when we like someone, he's probably just too liberal to be a viable nominee. Even more to the point, he probably WAS unelectable. Clinton, whether we like it or not, is squarely in the mainstream of the party and we'd never even be hearing "unelectable" if she were a man (although, as Erik pointed out to me, she wouldn't be in this position in the first place if she weren't a former first lady and thus a woman in the first place...).
I don't like Clinton. So I guess my point is that gender is going to be an issue in the campaign. Period. And while the male candidates are running around squaking that Clinton is playing the "gender card," they're not exactly being gender-neutral either (ie http://youtube.com/watch?v=X0juSJ-y9xg).
So candidates don't get called out on playing gender cards if they're playing a masculine game? Maybe what the press should really be doing is calling Clinton out on playing the "woman card"-- but that's not what they're doing, probably because 50% of the population would rally to Clinton's side. Let's face it: the label "gender" is, once again, just the politcally correct way to talk about women.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/lets-see-what-youve-got-babe-by-digby.html
I swear, I read this after I posted...
Okay, it won't elt me post the whole address... maybe this will work?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/
lets-see-what-
youve-got-babe-by-digby.html
My points, or order of least serious to most:
1) I found that Richardson ad entirely gender neutral. I have no clue what you are talking about.
2) Matthews sucks.
3)Digby is awesome.
4) I think my focal point is that...the more popular a Clinton candidacy becomes, the more we have to deal with her opponents, the media, and her campaign discussing gender in ways far less productive and sophisticated than Allie and Digby. This is probably inevitable, and I shouldn't put the burden on her campaign to rise above it (although I think that is an optional frontrunners have more than the other people in the race) but it's still going to be annoying.
Post a Comment