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.”

“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?

The Nation article points out that a double standard applies to females in politics. On the one hand, they are forced to be more ruthless and right-wing than their male counterparts in order to  survive in a traditionally male-dominated field (as usual, think: Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel). On the other hand, many women will admit that they simply expect more from a female candidate than from a male one. Specifically, they expect a female politician to be less corrupt than a male one, and punish her more for poor judgment in the past. As the article points out, if Hillary Clinton were instead a male (they use the fictional ‘Harry Rodham’), her (his) female supporters would probably be less harsh on his Iraq vote in 2002. Conversely, if Obama were a female, she would quickly be dismissed for having too little political experience, no matter how eloquent she was. Likewise, when women look at Hillary, they may want her to represent them so much that they (consciously or not) expect too much of her. She cannot possibly represent everything each women in the country wants her to.

Expectations of female politicians aside, if Hillary were indeed a ‘Harry’ instead, it is very likely that he would still be viewed as more cunning and less ethical than the rest of the field. As one ex-supporter explains, everything Hillary does seems strategic and untrustworthy, for she ”has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband.”  Furthermore, many feminists point out that simply because Hillary is a female does not mean she will advance feminist causes. When choosing, women must “vote their politics and not their gender”. Obama or Edwards, who are often seen as more liberal than Hillary, may be a better choice. Critics call the fact that Hillary is a woman a “red herring”, for it means nothing about the choices she will make in office. As they so bluntly put it, “there is no vagina litmus test.”

Overall, I agree that it is important to scrutinize our emotions towards Hillary for traces of gender bias. Whether we mean to be or not, we often judge candidates who are new and different in some way more harshly than traditional ones; additionally, I know that as a woman, I am guilty of being a sterner critic of women in powerful positions than men. Because they are still a minority, I can’t help but feel that they represent and reflect  me in some way.  However, I think that there is more than gender bias to the fact that Hillary simply can’t shake that people see her as cold and calculating. Very often, Obama’s stances seem more genuine, and I often wish that Hillary could be more left-y. However, it must be noted that Hillary is still winning with  female candidates in the polls.

The questions from my reader continue,

“Another thing people, both men and women, have said to me this summer is that they feel that Hillary is running not because she actually wants to change the way our country is run, but simply because she wants to be the first woman in the White House.  How is Hillary combating this image (if this is in fact a pervasive view of her)?  Do you think that this is a legitimate claim – have you seen or read anything to support or deny it?”

Hillary has a long and impressive public service record. Whether or not being the first female president has been a longstanding goal on her radar (as the two most recent books about her claim–see my earlier posts), her commitment to politics is truly genuine and inspired by more than a single-minded goal to put a woman in the white house. From her commitment and work as a First Lady (remember the revolutionary, albeit failed, attempts at universal health coverage?) to the present, she is in public office because she wants to be, and truly considers herself the best person to lead this country in 2008; none of that is a ploy. Of all the charges lobbied against Hillary, not actually wanting to change the way our country is run is neither a pervasive (to my knowledge, anyway), nor convincing view.  

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 campaign rhetoric is traditional, playing herself up as an assertive leader ready to take charge. Although she urges America to elect its first-ever female president, she also very carefully avoids representing anything close to ‘the weaker sex’. In order to be a viable candidate as a female, Hillary has had to forge her own unique woman-power which plays to voters who want a strong candidate and also those who want to see a woman in the white house. Just take a look at these cotnrasting quotes from speeches Hillary has made:

“We have the chance to make history together and elect the first woman president of the United States,” but then ”I am not running because I am a woman. I am running because I think I am the best qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running in January 2009.” Lastly, “America needs a president with the strength and experience to end this war. I will be that president.”

Obama’s campaign, on the other hand, “has been devoid of macho symbols”. He is seen as the softer, more conciliatory candidate. According to Salon, he is “self-consciously inspirational” as opposed to take-charge.

It makes sense. To be a woman in this presidential campaign Hillary has to act tough (think: Margaret Thatcher), probably much tougher than she would in a gender-free society (though it’s impossible to even begin to divine what this campaign would look like in that sort of imaginary vacuum). Barack, on the other hand, has more leeway to be gentle and diplomatic before anyone questions his strength. It is also a smart move for him to try and present an alternative to Hillary’s bold demeanor, for many of her critics are saying that although she’s a woman it does little to negate the fact that she’s a Washington insider who offers little in the way of change. Obama, on the other hand, can afford to be the alternative candidate, the breath of youthful fresh air, and the non-Hillary for those who don’t like her have-it-both-ways campaign.

The Salon article concludes with “May the best woman win”, while a similar Progressive article ends by saying ”Remember, during the Reagan years, when you heard people argue that a woman couldn’t be President because she would not be able to bring herself to ‘push the button’ and start a nuclear war? No one suggests that Hillary wouldn’t push the button. You could say that’s evidence of how far women have come . . . I guess.”

I must say, the catchy endings are endless, entertaining,  and surprisingly thought-provoking. And since I’m in the mood for open endings and untimely digressions, I leave you with some silly and serious quotes:

My theory is that men are no more liberated than women.  ~Indira Gandhi
Macho doesn’t prove mucho.  ~Zsa Zsa Gabor
The true republic: men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Franklin  P. Adams                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   A little more matriarchy is what the world needs, and I know it. Period. Paragraph. ~Dorothy Thompson                                                                                                                                            If it can’t be fixed by duct tape or WD-40, it’s a female problem.  ~Jason Love

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? Some critics are dismissing Hillary’s new religious overtures as pure campaign strategy with little substance or faith to back it up. Others point to the fact that for her, religion means liberal-leaning Methodism, which supports activism but is very private and quiet about prayer, and some pundits challenged her “religious moralisms wrapped in New Age language”. However,  it makes sense that Hillary would choose a religious path that was more focused on social activism than strict piety. As a child, she attended Sunday school, and later in life continued to give guest speeches at her local church’s Sunday classes. Hillary’s faith naturally rests on her activism in the public sphere, and it would be far more suspect if she was all of a sudden proclaiming to be intensely spiritual and devout. Lastly, Hillary mentions that her faith was instrumental in the days of Bill Clinton’s scandal and infidelity; it brought helped her find hope and, more importantly, forgiveness.

Hillar: I buy it. Your faith seems real to me.

I suppose that doesn’t rule out the fact that Hillary is playing her faith up for the public, or emphasizing it at this time in her campaign for strategic reasons. Though this seems shallow, you can only blame a politician for adjusting their image to what the public wants so much– at some point, you have to realize that they’ve got to play the game to win the presidency. Of course, it would be hard for a more religious person  than myself to be so nonchalante about using religion as campaign strategy… I guess Hillary will have to try pretty hard to win them over.

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?

Back in November, it seems as though Hillary started making some overtures , saying that she is against drilling for oil in Alaska, thinks that tax-credits should be doubled for buying energy-efficient vehicles such as hybrids, and claims she wants to “”to get America on track for a smarter, more secure, and cleaner energy future.” However, as the Grist article points out, such claims could be a bit more specific and are far from a real plan. Hillary hasn’t made the environment one of her top issues in the past, so developing tangible policies would be a new challenge for her.

Now, much later in the game, Hillary and all of the other candidates are proposing much more serious measures. As this ABC article suggests, the environment has become a central issue for the first time in a presidential campaign, and is no longer a topic taken seriously only by the softies and green-partyites.  Most notably, Hillary stated that she wants to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and put the money into a Strategic Energy Fund that will be used to research and fund alternative energy sources. Basically, the extra profits from oil companies would be put toward weaning the US off of non-renewable energy sources.

Is this a viable policy? It sounds very good in theory, but may not go over smoothly. There are already voices suggesting that ExxonMobil’s extremely bountiful profits do not belong to the government, and appropriating them would cause all types of woes by upsetting the market. Fear of government regulation in this matter is expected, but I think it’s absolutely necessary. We’ve proven well enough that the environment is just one thing that the free market won’t take care if left to its own devices, at least not in the near future and not without some beginning incentives that may seem drastic. However, I understand the main fear associated with a tax on oil companies: if oil companies are losing money, their consumers will inevitably suffer. What they have to pay in taxes we eventually have to pay at the gas pump. Hillary’s proposal might mean a rise in gas prices. On the other hand, oil companies would have the choice of not paying the tax and instead investing in alternative energy on their own. If companies chose this route, research for alternative fuel would happen in the private sector, probably making it highly effective and eventually beneficial to all involved.

Overall and given my lack of expertise on the scientific specifics of environmental policy, I have to say that the jury is still out on Hillary’s alternative energy fund and her other promises. I’ll keep you posted if I hear more. But I have to say, I think her interest in the issue is genuine. I mean, she’s certainly no Al Gore… but I suppose that may just help her with the whole ‘winning’ thing.

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.

Later, Sabato speculates about future scandals in the Clinton family. He correctly points out that the public is already super-saturated with this type of news. However, what he terms as “mass amnesia” of Hillary’s past scandals may instead be the public’s conscious decision to move on from it. Also, I think serious consideration should be given to the idea that the Clintons are simply more resilient to scandal than other politicians, and that this may speak to their intense staying power. Lastly, is it fair to consider the possibility of future scandal when deciding whether a candidate should be given the democratic nomination right now? It is true that Hillary is more of a controversy-magnet than other candidates, but this might also make her tread more carefully than others. I find taking her possible future indiscretions when deciding her strength as a nominee in the present a bit questionable.

 However, I think that Sabato brings up some excellent general considerations about the present US electoral system at the end of the article. He asks,

“How is it that the country is on the verge of filling its highest office for the sixth consecutive term from one of two families? That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace. What has happened to the American Republic? How does it differ from a banana republic–where a couple of dominant families often run everything for generations?”

The fact that the American electorate seems to love recycling candidates from well-established political families has to speak to the zeitgeist and preference for electing candidates for reasons of personal attachment or security in name recognition. It could also point to the entrenchement of our political system. Like Sabato, I don’t have the answers, but think these questions are very valuable.

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?

 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.

In this Salon article, Hillary says that she is okay with people calling her by her first name:

Let me ask something that comes up every time I write about you. I sometimes refer to you on, say, the fifth reference as “Hillary” instead of “Clinton.” I always get three or four letters saying that I am demeaning women by referring to you by your first name. But your campaign materials refer to you as “Hillary” and the word “Clinton” might also apply to another well-known public person. Do you have any feelings about this? Am I offending you every time I type “Hillary, Obama and Edwards“? Or do you have an open mind as long as I spell Hillary correctly?

I probably have more of an open mind. But I understand the point people are taking because if you also refer to Rudy and Mitt and John then that would be even-handed. I get the same indignation from a lot of women who read you and others and say, “They never call the other candidates by their first name.”

And I think that in print — as opposed to building a campaign that really does use my first name because it is so identified with who I am — that’s the concern that people have.

After some consideration, I agree with Hillary. The reason people call Hillary by her first name is convenient, not sexist.

But this brings me to another consideration (and what honestly could be a completely unrelated tangent)– could Hillary be benefitting from an extra familiarity? Why do some celebrities (Madonna) choose to be known only by one name? Is it because they know something we don’t– for example, that being known only by your first name holds some extra power in the public mind, some ability to be closer to one’s fans? I think the power of one name could go two ways:  either it could be a way to create the illusion of such fame that has no need of an identifying last name, or else a way to feign a first-name intimacy with the public. I am pretty certain that Hillary’s campaign managers aren’t really thinking along these lines, but embracing, rather than fighting, the first-name moniker she has been given seems like a smart move.