The fight over Change
Clinton cleavage
This Washington Post article: “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory” explores the meaning of Hillary’s clothes, past and present, and the subtle ways in which her style of dress may be changing.
One sentiment that I like:
“Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.”
Feminists Urge Women: ‘Vote Your Politics, Not Your Gender’
I recently received some interesting and timely correspondance from a questioning reader. She writes,
“I have spent some time this summer talking to my mom and her friends about politics. These older women, mostly of Hillary’s generation, say that they see her as the most unethical of the candidates, someone who would lie and cheat and stop at nothing to get her way. No matter how much they would like to see a female in the White House, they would never vote for Hillary. I think that most people would agree that political candidates in general are far less moral than we would like. Is Hillary really any worse than the others?”
These questions are timely because they remind me of a recent cover story in The Nation, which focuses exclusively on the way women, and more specifically feminists and/or her generational peers, view Hillary Clinton. The article addresses many of the questions that my reader asks.
So, is Hillary really more unethical or ruthless than the other candidates?
so which candidate wears the pants?…and is the skirt more appealing?
To start off today’s lesson: the difference between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’, as defined by academia:
Sex = the biological signification of femalehood or malehood
Gender = a social construct that exists outside of biology and the body; has more to do with subjective terms like ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ which can be applied to a person regardless of sex
so why is Salon saying that Hillary is the male-gendered candidate while Obama is the female one?
Hillary’s faith-a-faith-a-faith
When you think of religious voters, what party affiliation comes to mind?
It’s certainly not Democratic. Hillary Clinton, like other Dems, has realized that the Republicans have had a hold on the religious demographic for far too long, and is trying to change this. Obama has already been talking more openly about the role his Christian faith plays in his life for a while now, and it seems Hillary is now following suite.
The New York Times recently featured an article about Hillary’s faith. The article states that Hillary’s new religious overtures just might work to win over centrist voters, but will do very little with religious conservatives. Some of the tactics that Hillary is trying include talking about her faith (ie, how she carries a bible with her when she travels), hiring Burn Strider, an evangelical christian to do religious outreach, and speaking to religous opponents of abortion to show her respect for their stance, while still being a firm supporter of abortion rights.
So how is the public reacting? Read the rest of this entry »
So does she actually care about the environment… and know what she’s talking about?
Listening to an episode of Fresh Air on NPR with Jeff Goodell the other day, I heard that, in spite of a evidence to the contrary (like League of Conservation Voters’ naming him as their candidate of choice), Barack Obama’s stance on the environment is actually a bit contradictory. On the one hand, he advocates reduction of dependance on Middle Eastern oil. But in order to do this, he supports the US’s continued reliance on coal to generate electric power with coal-to-liquid programs which produce diesel fuel out of coal. What the US public does not consider is that coal-to-liquid conversion produces greenhouse gases and seriously increases the detrimental effects of global warming. So what looks like a good policy on the surface (‘decreasing our reliance on foreign oil’) is actually bad for the environment (increases global warming).
This made me think about the particularly thorny Environment Issue in general. It is one of a few places in which all candidates take a similar stance (no one is ‘anti-environment’, after all, and if you look at most candidates’ websites they have to at least give a symbolic shoutout to the issue). Most of the public, too, has realized the seriousness of the issue, and has some general feelings about conservation. However, in reality, the specific policies which candidates suggest may appear like a good idea, but could be seriously flawed when dissected by an expert such as Jeff Gooddell. The environment isn’t exactly an issue that the average voter can decipher with a gut feeling or moral compass, like they can abortion or gay marriage.
So how does Hillary measure up? Is she really proposing viable solutions, or is she merely making sure to fit in with the public’s newfound post-’Inconvenient Truth’ eco-friendly speculation? Read the rest of this entry »
Sabato: Hillary is the weakest candidate
For those of you who ready Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball (political analysis/election predictions), you will have noticed that he recently wrote an article entitled “The Hillary Dilemma.” He concludes that although Hillary’s credentials outweigh the other candidates’, making her seem like the strongest candidate in the field, she would actually be the weakest nominee for the Democratic party.
Like Clintonfan42, I think that many of Sabato’s points are weak in his analyis. First, he states that any Democratic nominee this election can count on inflated, if grudging, electoral support because the republican party has managed to dig itself deeper and deeper into an Iraq and scandal-lined hole over the past eight years. However, he then says that “The final several percent of swing voters needed to get Hillary Clinton over the top in the general election will vote for her only with the greatest reluctance, more as a way to stop a Republican than as an endorsement of her.” Is this really a problem for the Democratic party? Clearly, the best candidate would be, as Sabato says, a ‘unifier’ able to bridge the growing partisan divide, one that would sweep swing voters off their feet during the election, and encourage productive cooperation across the aisle once in office. I just think that’s wishful thinking. The Democrats can’t produce a candidate like that right now, and counting the inability to generate a wave of good feeling for the party as a particular weakness of Hillary’s is a misplacement of criticism. Read the rest of this entry »
Celine Dion? Really?
The official winner of Hillary Clinton’s campaign song contest is: “You and I” by Celine Dion. Personally, if she’s going there, I would have preferred “Power of the Dream” and even think the lyrics are more inspirational, but I’m willing to live with it.
Now, I think this whole thing is a bit silly. But I suppose as long as Celine is again making headlines, at least for today, we can indulge ourselves a bit.
Click here for Celine’s official fan site. Click with care, and be mindful not to enter the boutique website by mistake. Unless you want to, that’s your prerogative.
Next, some fun facts about Celine: in 2004, she became the Best-Selling Female Artist in the World; her first manager mortgaged his home in order to fund her first record because he believed in her that much, she studied english in 1989 to help her music career, and, lastly, “You and I” w as actually written by an advertising executive working for Air Canada while Dion was working for their promotional campaign. I must say, the song does make more sense in the context of flying than in politics… though these things can always be metaphorical.
To finish, I’ve got to ask: so do you think that by choosing this song Hillary’s campaign is trying to appeal more to female or male voters?
Hey, it’s OK to call Hillary by her first name
It’s come up a lot: why do we (and I must say that I include myself in this ‘we’) constantly refer to Hillary Clinton as ‘Hillary’ in the same breath that we refer to the other, male candidates by their last names?
If this were the case with any other female politician, I wouldn’t think too hard about labelling it as sexism in reporting. However, with Hillary, there is the sticky issue of Bill. The fact is, we can’t just call her ‘Clinton’. It would just be too confusing. And the reason that we abbreviate the names of well-known people in the first place (politicians, writers, intellectuals, and celebrities alike) is both to make speaking about them more convenient in colloquial terms, and to bring them down a little bit closer to our level. Referring to someone by part of his or her name is an expression of familiarity.
