Posted by Helen on: 01.09.2008 /
I’ve never been as interested in the primaries as I am this year.
I watched the results coming in yesterday evening (on the Internet, of course). At first I was disappointed Barack Obama was behind Hillary Clinton but I’ve decided I’m pleased she did so well. And he did well too - he came a close second.
I’m glad Hillary did well because I’m feeling more and more that there is a lot of hidden sexism in the objections to her. I’m not saying there are no legitimate reasons to prefer Barack Obama. But, I think some of the objections to Hillary have more to do with negative feelings about ‘aggressive women leaders’ than anything else.
I think being a woman leader is difficult, because a lot of leadership behavior is still thought of as inherently ‘male’ by a lot of people. Which means it’s fine for a man to behave that way but if a woman does, there’s ’something wrong with it’.
I understand that racism may be a problem for Barack Obama - I don’t know as much about that first-hand as prejudice against women so I won’t comment further. I consider any progress against sexism or racism in this country to be a good thing and so I’m pleased to see Hillary and Barack both doing well.
Comment by: Peter Walker
1 01/9/08 2:02 PM | Comment Link |I agree with you Helen. I’m an Obama kind of guy, but I think the protests against Hillary are bogus. She’s an impressive human being and an admirable leader.
It’s just that I’m touchy feely, and like Obama’s soaring optimism (don’t really care if it’s a little naive).
But I did get butterflies when I heard Ms. Clinton’s voice break with emotion, even if it was momentary. We need to see her humanity.
Comment by: Helen
2 01/9/08 2:07 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment, Peter.
I like it too.
Good point. I wonder if that moment helped her yesterday. Who knows. Anyway I’m happy for her that the polls just before yesterday’s primary were wrong.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
3 01/9/08 2:59 PM | Comment Link |I’m undecided, other than I don’t want any of the current Republican candidates, LOL. I would love to be able to support a woman because she’s the best candidate and I do find Obama very naive.
I’ve always been a political junkie, but even more so this year. I am really sick of the media though, and not just their opinions on who is going to win, who has won, who can’t win, etc.
I find the media currently very anti-Clinton and very pro-Obama. Hillary can’t win - if she’s tough, she’s a b-word, if she shows a soft side, she’s weak and/or manipulative.
Comment by: Peter Walker
4 01/9/08 3:39 PM | Comment Link |Great point Doreen. That’s a piece I’ve often thought about. I have a lot of friends - even female FEMINIST friends - who say, “I’m pro-woman, but Hillary is just such a bitch.” (ok, I’ll type it)
I can be dense when it comes to gender issues (I try not to be) but I can see from a corporate/business vantage that women who SURVIVE in today’s male-dominated landscapes are those who take on more stereotypically masculine behavior traits.
OF COURSE Hillary acts “tough,” speaks “directly,” and carries herself with what some may call “rigidity.”
She’s learned to survive.
Feminist writer Naomi Wolfe talks about power structures and how modern feminists often take on the attributes of male-dominated hierarchical power in an attempt to prove equality. It’s not ideal though, because something is lost when those “accomodations” are made.
So I respect Hillary DEEPLY for surviving, thriving and leading in the midst of a system not designed to welcome or support gender diversity.
But I will also acknowledge that in some ways, she has probably made herself into the image of what she wanted to change.
Comment by: bianca
5 01/9/08 8:02 PM | Comment Link |this is actually something lizz and i were talking about the other night… like it would be so amazing to have a female break through and be president… it would never be as hard again (i would hope) for a woman to do so… but in so many ways, she seems to have sold out… was it because she had to to build bridges? i don’t know… either way, i certainly don’t envy her position at all…
Comment by: benjamin ady
6 01/9/08 8:55 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
Yeah–I think you kind of nailed it for me. I don’t *want* to be sexist. But I was talking to my social psych prof today, and she was saying that perhaps one of the reasons a lot of people have a strong negative reaction to Hillary is the justaposition of the their implicit attitudes about gender roles with Hillary wanting to be president. I very strongly suspect that this at least partly explains my own reaction.
But from a social psych perspective, this doesn’t necessarily make me a bad person. Some perhaps largish percentage of that reaction is more appropriately blamed or credited to the cultural situation than to my own personal makeup.
Anyway, I too am totally convinced, against all the dire warnings of my darker cynical self, by Barack’s astoundingly moving optimism and hope. So part of the reason I don’t like Hillary is that I see her as a (decreasingly) legitimate threat to Obama’s candidacy.
Comment by: Eliza
7 01/9/08 9:44 PM | Comment Link |Just imagine, we might see a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket - wouldn’t that be something! History is being made.
I too find Obama naive. Clinton has more experience than most 2nd-term senators, given her prior close advising role to a 2-term president and her own work on projects such as health care.
I don’t envy the next president, whomever that is - what a mess he or she will inherit.
Comment by: Helen
8 01/10/08 6:38 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comments, everyone.
Bianca, I think it would be awesome to have a woman president too. As long as she is also the best candidate for the position.
Benjamin, thanks for sharing. I suspect a lot of people are reacting negatively to Hillary and not taking time to consider why. I heard a guy on the radio the other day say he has a hard time with her because she sounds like his ‘third grade teacher’.
The way in which he said it implied ‘therefore it’s up to her to NOT sound like that’. But maybe, just maybe, it’s up to him to think about whether there’s some sort of insecurity in him which makes aggressive women irrationally freak him out.
Clearly it will be impossible for Hillary to strike a tone and attitude that pleases everyone. Perhaps there are things she should work on in that regard. That’s for her to figure out.
Benjamin I understand you reacting negatively because she took away votes from your favorite candidate. I felt like that too at first, since Barack was my favorite going into Tuesday. But actually I think competition like this is healthy - it will force him to pull out all the stops looking for what edge he has over her. I think it’s good for both of them to have stiff competition. (As long as the person *I* want to win, wins - whoever that finally turns out to be ;-))
Hey I wonder if people refer to Hillary more by first name and Barack more by last name and if so that’s a gender thing? It’s complicated because we already had a Clinton president - use of her last name obviously evokes a whole host of associations - is that helpful in her campaign or a hindrance? Not that she probably could even comment on that, him being her husband…or maybe she would, on the other hand :). I think it’s neat to see a former president encouraging his wife in her campaign to be president, anyway. That’s definitely a first in this country!
Comment by: Benjamin ady
9 01/10/08 8:27 AM | Comment Link |I think you nailed it on the name thing. So we *normally* refer to presidents by their last name. But when I tried with Hillary, it automatically mean Bill.
Actually I’ve read a little about her campaign’s quandary on how to use Bill in the campaign. They have to walk some kind of line between using his star power to attract votes without his star outshining the candidate.
I loved it the other day when Bill was really angry and, in venting about his perception that Obama has gotten a bit of a free ride from the press, said something lke “This is like a big fairy tale”. It made me smile because he meant it negatively, but I took it positively. I’m of the group that rather *likes* a good fairy tale, be it ancient or modern.
Comment by: karen
10 01/10/08 11:10 AM | Comment Link |I have several problems with Hillary, none of which have to do with her gender.
1) I worry that she’s not electable in the national election. She’s always had very high negative perceptions in all the polls done on her. The conservatives love to hate her, as does much of the press, and I know they will pile on her like crazy if she’s the nominee. My main hope is to get a Democrat elected after 8 years of disastrous Republican policy, and if Hillary’s vulnerable with independents and gets no crossover Republican votes, we may be facing another four years of right-wing rule, right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court, etc. That would be a disaster. I think Obama has a lot wider appeal and has got even some of my moderate Republican friends interested in voting for him. That’s a good sign.
2) Hillary has inexorably moved right in her politics because she is - above all - an ambitious political person. It’s fine that she’s ambitious, one has to be in her position obviously, but I find that she’s compromised too much on too many crucial issues to get my support in the primary, though I’ll certainly support her in the presidential election.
3)She voted to authorize Bush to go to war without reading the national intelligence reports that showed clearly much of the “evidence” for WMDs had been trumped up. I don’t know whether it was sloppy on her part, or whether she was determined to come off as a hawk after 9/11 for her long term political ambitions, but either way that failure to inform her vote really bothers me.
Comment by: David H
11 01/10/08 11:13 PM | Comment Link |In reference to what Karen said, I too wonder about Hilary’s electability. It isn’t that she is a woman, the issue for me is that she is very much like John Kerry. Her background and political career are tailor made for conservatives. She, at this stage, is a proto-typical insider who isn’t convincing as an advocate of change.
She also clearly wants to win very badly. I always worry about that with politicians.
Finally, her political nature makes even moments of genuineness suspect. Was that catch in her voice the real her or just another bit of political theater. It isn’t just her. These questions arise for me about everyone in politics these days. Are any ever real? How would one tell in this age of media manipulation?
I heard an NPR commentator the other day say that the New Hampshire primary was so spectacularly mis-read by so many pundits because they see the electoral process as theater while voters see it in consumer terms (is this person promising me something of value). The problem for me is that it is theater most of the time and the consumerist mentality is big part of what made it that way.
I would love to see a real person get elected. Any real person — man or woman; black, white or other. I’m just not sure there is any way any of us can tell who is real any more.
Comment by: karen
12 01/11/08 1:00 PM | Comment Link |Agreed, David H. Another thing I thought of in the same vein: We had eight years of Reagan/Bush; four years of Bush; eight years of Clinton; eight years of Bush Jr. That’s an entire generation that’s gone by with either a Clinton or a Bush in power. Should we add another four or eight years in the same vein?
It’s a new century, a new millennium. I would really like to see a true breath of fresh air in our leadership, honestly.
Comment by: benjamin ady
13 01/15/08 2:27 PM | Comment Link |Ditto David on the “Wants to win so badly”. Why do we get that impression with Hillary so much more than with any other candidate. The impression I get from Obama and Edwards is one of “To be perfectly honest, I’d rather *not* be running. it’s *super* hard work. I’m doing it because I believe in something bigger than myself” Whereas with Hillary it feels like “To be perfectly honest, I’m *happy* to be running–I *want* to run, because i *want* to win, because, by god, I want to be president”
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
14 01/15/08 3:36 PM | Comment Link |Eliza wrote
I love the fact history is being made already.
No way Clinton takes a VP role. And she supposedly wants Richardson as her VP. I would’ve preferred Richardson as president.