Wil Wheaton has a post on his blog entitled “Hillary Clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party,” and there’s really nothing more you need than the title to understand what the post is about.
I’ve seen altogether too much of this from Obama supporters; not just sexism, but also bitter derision and gloating. ((And yes, I’ve seen plenty of bitter derision from Clinton’s supporters for us “Obamabots,” as they charmingly call us, but that’s not the subject of this post.))
My message to Obama supporters such as Wheaton: Stop it. If you’re so sure Obama has won, then it’s time to start acting like smart winners. We can’t win in November without the nearly 50% of Democrats who prefer Clinton to Obama, and every unnecessary word you write that dismisses, alienates or otherwise pisses off Clinton’s supporters is a word that helps John McCain win in November.
I’m not saying to keep silent regarding substantive disagreements, but if all you’ve got is sexist jokes and sneering mockery, then do Barack Obama a favor and shut the hell up.
Wheaton ends his post with this:
And allow me to just head something off right now that’s already come up on Twitter: I’m not sexist. This isn’t sexist. That’s a stupid straw man, and if you try to make that claim, I will point and laugh at you.
This so annoyed me I was going to leave a comment — but then I read the comments, and this response from Backpacking Dad had already said it perfectly:
Is it not sexist because it’s mysogynistic instead?
Is it not sexist because it’s funny?
Is it not sexist because it’s a metaphor that speaks to you?
So. Those were all questions. Here is a statement:
“Dude. You don’t get to decide what’s sexist.”
Here’s a reason to think that it MIGHT be sexist. You can g’an and point and laugh, but I’ll take this seriously for a second just to see where it goes:
The metaphor evokes a trope in sexual politics, that of the irrational girl who cannot accept that a relationship is over. Labeling, categorizing, pigeon-holing someone in this way “he’s a geek, she’s a slut, he’s a pig, she’s cow” is at once appealing to a fragment of truth, and also making the target controllable.
If they are controllable, they are marginalizable. And they can be dismissed. The problem with controlling and dismissing Hillary using a trope from sexual politics is that it moves her from the realm of discourse and debate into the realm of sex (as in “getting it on”). And labeling her as batshit crazy in an ex-girlfriend sense means that she is not only sexualized, but her sexuality can be controlled.
And that’s the heart and soul of sexism.
But I can understand if you didn’t really want to engage anyone on this. It is a funny piece, and sometimes maybe we want to hang on to the things we like even though someone else might think they’re inappropriate.
UPDATE:
According to U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, she may be starting to more closely resemble another famous movie character: The psycho lady played by Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.”
When asked about whether Clinton should drop out of the race on Fox 13’s “Good Morning Memphis” program today, Cohen said: “Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub.”
Rep. Cohen, would you please GET THE FUCK OFF MY SIDE!!!
(Curtsy: Talk Left.)
Tempers are running high, especially after Hillary’s latest comments and Bill Clinton running around trying to gin up white resentment against Obama, but you’re right, there should be no place for these kinds of attacks. I hereby denounce and reject both Rep. Steve Cohen and Wheaton.
Steve Cohen is a grandstanding, pseudo-progressive, smarmy idiot. His legislative activities have ranged from trying to force Tennessee to legalize a lottery (one of only 3 states that have none) to spending his energy ramming through an Honorary “Warren Zevon Day” with a House and Senate full of chain-smoking elderly legislators who really couldn’t give a rat’s ass.
I agree with Backpacking Dad for the most part. Except when he said that “labeling her as batshit crazy in an ex-girlfriend sense means that she is not only sexualized…” and then goes on to say that Clinton IS crazy in the political sense.
“Crazy” is fine rhetoric. Just not if it’s used in a sexist way. Hmmm.
Great comments. Very very tired of the sexism.
There is a very simple, old-fashioned way to judge whether something like this is sexist, to wit: DO THEY SAY IT ABOUT MEN? No.
Exactly which male figure in contemporary politics is described by pundits as “the psycho ex-boyfriend of the democratic party”? It doesn’t even make any sense as “boyfriend”–it sounds utterly ridiculous to use such a personal word to describe a politician.
Labeling her just a “girlfriend” is a way of putting her in her place, period.
Good point, Kay.
And here I thought Wheaton had grown out of his asshole stage. Ah well.
While I am committed to supporting the Democratic nominee – whoever they may be, likely or no – the attitudes of people on my side who I don’t agree with have pretty much broken my heart. I have considered checking out of the process entirely.
My experience with this happened some time ago, when the Oregon contest between Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick started to hot up. At the time, one of Steve’s campaign’s strategies was to carry the message that, in voting for a resolution in the Oregon House supporting the troops, Merkley was supporting President Bush.
In noting this on my own blog (zehnkatzen.blogspot.com) I asked if it was wise to, as I saw it, carry republican water for them. I’ve been transfixed to the train wreck that is national politics for a while, and I’ve well noted that republicans set up the environment that all but required right-minded (but realistic) Democrats to carry the flag for bad ideas if they, maybe wanted to get re-elected next time.
I also, for what its worth, believe that cozying up to a bully isn’t a good idea either, but I’m not so blind as to recognize that not going along with the bullies in charge then pretty much meant you’d get a republican-fueled political campaign nuke strike when you tried to retain your job next time round. That’s just the reality of the times. Yeah, it’d be nice if they could all do things on principle, but that’s not the world we live in right now. A credulous public would fall hard to such a negative campaign.
I believe that reasonable people can differ. I didn’t necessarily expect people who supported Steve to agree with me, but the response I got (which wasn’t big but very pointed) from a prominent liberal Oregon blogger really cut to the core, because it wasn’t civil. It was angry. It was unnecessarily nasty. (If I may be allowed the liberty of another link in this post, it’s here: http://zehnkatzen.blogspot.com/2007/09/pdxpolitik-be-careful-whose-water-you.html). Because of the meanness of the comment I’ve not been back to the blogger’s blog since and won’t go back again. Why should I if I’m considered Part Of The Problem™?
Until that point, I had been a regular reader and had actually opened a diary there, and you’d of had to pry his link out of my cold, dead blogroll if you wanted me to take it out.
The other was much more civil, but essentially condescension. I need no explanation of what the resolution said any more than the poster needed.
So, thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest. I remain a committed liberal voter and a Democrat; the Democratic party can indeed take my support for granted and I don’t mind. But when I can’t have a civil discussion with people on my own side who I disagree with, why even bother?
And, for what it’s worth and to keep this comment within the mien, I don’t have faith in Hillary but it’s certainly not because she’s a woman or over any qualifications she might or might not have. It’s more the campaign half truths that bother me and are just pretty much capped off by the fact that she’s willing to countenance people like Richard Mellon Scaife that alarm.
RMS doesn’t deserve a tenth of the voice in politics that he has now, as far as I’m concerned. His name isn’t a synonym for evil … but it should be.
Pingback: links for 2008-05-11 « don’t ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?
Exactly which male figure in contemporary politics got where they are largely because they’ve slept with someone who was president?
It is a perfectly legitimate way of putting her in her place. Maureen Dowd is essentially correct that almost everything Hillary has achieved has been as a consequence of her being Bill’s girlfriend. You can’t ignore the brute fact that her connection with the democrats is largely due to sexual politics. It’s perfectly legitimate to use that to label her.
The male equivalent of the psycho ex-girlfriend is the angry / pathetic stalker. I haven’t heard a politician called that recently, but I wouldn’t be shocked if I did. But that would also be framing a pol in sexual-politics terms, and (although I found the original HC characterization amusing) I have to agree that doing that is sexist.
I’m surprised that people haven’t drawn the parallel between Hillary and Bill. When Bill was beaten, when he was impeached and disgraced and should have resigned, he hung grimly on and triumphed. He was criticized for that (by me among many others) but it worked, and I suspect Hillary is simply applying that lesson. In American politics, if you are bullheaded enough to just ignore the conventional wisdom, you can often prevail.
Stubbornest asshole wins.
“I’m surprised that people haven’t drawn the parallel between Hillary and Bill. When Bill was beaten, when he was impeached and disgraced and should have resigned, he hung grimly on and triumphed. He was criticized for that (by me among many others) but it worked, and I suspect Hillary is simply applying that lesson. In American politics, if you are bullheaded enough to just ignore the conventional wisdom, you can often prevail.
“Stubbornest asshole wins.”
Well, and in the last two elections we have had candidates who, IMO, conceded “for the good of the party/country” *way too early*. How many people here think that H. Clinton or B. Obama would stand in front of Congress and tell all the members of the Black Congressional Caucus that their constituents’ votes wouldn’t be counted? Or that we don’t have to investigate voter fraud in Ohio? Do you think either one of our current candidates would have stood back and let that “mob” of Republican party ops shut down the vote recounts in Miami?
Neither Clinton nor Obama got where they are by giving up when told to quit. Right now we need a bulldog. We have two. This is a good thing! The last primary is June 4 and that gives us months to focus on the election. In the mean time, I am mostly celebrating that we have two such good candidates.
It’s the (mostly internet that I can see so far) supporters on either side who have taken a scorched-earth policy toward whichever candidate they don’t support– they are the ones who are trying to split the party. Idiocy like this should not be tolerated from either side. Well done for calling it out.
As for james’ remarks: I have always been convinced that it was *Bill* Clinton who got where he was by marrying the person he did.
At some point in the coming months or next year, some will or some news group will report or a book will be written on just how sexist and too often misogynist the stories and reporting of Hillary really were.
She was described in some of the most negative and hateful language. Repeatedly became the punch line to sexist news anchors and jounnalists.
This nation has yet to fuly deal with its racism, but the difference is we reject racsim and shame its supporters.
Sexism is laughed at and made into jokes for media and TV talk shows. Too show outrage against sexist comments or statements is met with shock and dismay. “oh you just have no sense of humor” When you refer to a former 1st Lady and siting Senaor as, shrill, mean spirited, cold, humor less, bitchy, when the way she speaks is continully derided or mocked.
When it is stated that her senate victory was based on her husbands indiscretion and she needs to be taken into a room and beaten up. (yes Keith that IS what you meant)
Add that together and there is no place for humor. 1 woman is sexually assualted every 7 minutes. Over 70% of woman by the age of 18 will have been sexually or physically assualted. the hatered of women was a shameful part of this primary season, and that is nothing to laughed at ever.
Wil Wheaton you are an ASS!
The problem with that is that Clinton is essentially saying the votes of the majority of Black voters shouldn’t really count now. Especially if she’s trying to woo superdelegates to get the nomination that way, counter to the not-so-super delegates and the popular vote. Not that Black voters are the only ones supporting Obama or they all do by any means, but aside from her racist strategy is her dismissive attitude towards Black votes, certainly those that don’t go her way.
But maybe if it were her votes that were being obstructed, she might be different. I’m not voting for either because one or both might be “bull dogs” but they are too-conservative-for-comfort bulldogs at that. Obama’s campaign has used sexism. Clinton’s campaign has used racism. McCain will likely capitalize on this while running not much differently from the incumbent (meaning relying on both racism and sexism) who has one of the lowest approval ratings in recent history and I think he’ll get in. I’m not that optimistic and I’m burned out on elections with six months to go.
Locally, the progressives are backing one supervisor candidate in a race where both are focusing on immigrant bashing, even though most of the call is for discussion on positions on county issues. But still they go at it because they think or they know it works. Especially for the individuals running who don’t want you to look at the issues where they’re weak at.
So I’m just cynical around I guess.
So I’m just cynical around I guess.
After a decade of seeing zero candidates that I supported get elected to office, I’ve decided that stick-to-my-guns idealism feels good but it doesn’t get me effective representation…but effective representation sometimes achieves the goals that I idealistically wanted.
I hope you’ll vote anyways, for a protest candidate if no-one else. Not voting wouldn’t send the message that you’re cynical, it would just send the message that you’re lazy or content.
Bjartmarr:
Exactly right. The perfect is the enemy of the good. That’s exactly what they mean by that. It’s said that in this crazy world we have to usually choose between either (a) all or nothing of what the right thing is, or (b) some or most of what is right, with a chance to make it better later. But that’s the way to bet.
Perhaps, but I’m not sure I care how I look. There are no protest candidates locally and either vote is unacceptable because they’re engaging in sidetracking away from issues they don’t want to address to do some good old fashioned undocumented immigrant bashing even though the cities and counties have very little role in what is essentially viewed even by the courts as a federal issue. People are complaining about it, Democrats and Republicans, but I guess it hasn’t reached them yet.
I’ll blog about it as a campaign strategy and avoidance tactic. Both candidates, the police representative who gave the blanket endorsement (at least I think it was his identification given in the static-filled voice message) by the law enforcement community (which also raises issues), their supporers do read my site and they might not be happy indeed with it, but maybe it will make some of the “progressives” rethink their position and how endorsing one of them ties in with other issues they support.
Then I’ll have to come up with a good write-in candidate.
Nationally, I’m burnt out. I’m liking third-party even more so than usual at this point. It will be interesting to see the political campaign dynamics between McCain and the Democratic nominee. Will we see more of what they have in common or what they have in contrast on issues?
“effective representation” is where you can get it, I guess. During one election in the mid-1990s, my congressional district had the highest percentage of votes received by a Libertarian Party candidate in the entire country. Why? Several reasons but it probably helped that no Democratic Party candidate was running. You see, we don’t really have them in the HOR races in my district b/c they don’t receive any funds or support from the Democratic Party at all. So usually, no one runs let alone a candidate who’s connected enough to fund raise either enough to capture the support of the DP or to survive not receiving it.
In some areas of the country, the Democratic Party has essentially written “effective representation” off.
Exactly which male figure in contemporary politics got where they are largely because they’ve slept with someone who was president?
(I admit, I would kind of love to see the day that we could bemoan a man becoming powerful because of sleeping with any of the men who have been president.)
There’s a long tradition even in the “democratic” US of people, mostly men, becoming powerful because they belong to powerful families. See: Adams. Bush. Roosevelt. Plus, the majority of heads of business and industry.
When looked at through the course of world history, this pattern is even more striking. So much so, in fact, that–without researching it–I’d be willing to put money down that it’s actually the norm. See: all monarchies ever.
Your analysis is not valid as a critique of HRC. It is a rationalization that is both sexist and misogynist.
This should be a wake-up call about what’s really going on behind the scenes in this election. People who don’t really care about the planet or those who live on it have the loudest voice in this country, and it’s appalling. That includes the corporate media, which has not treated Sen. Clinton much better than the blogger you cite here.
Does anyone honestly think that NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. are all pumping Obama because they support his positions? As starry-eyed as people are about the prospect of an African American candidate of “change” going to D.C. and cleaning everything up, the truth is (if anyone bothered to look for it) that this newcomer in reality has no history of doing any such thing during his eight years within the Chicago political machine. As a “civil rights” lawyer, he represented slumlords Allison Davis and Tony Rezko, and as a senator he continued to help them get about 30 new housing redevelopment projects. In exchange, they helped him get elected. Does that sound like “new politics” to anyone?
Then there are Rezko’s two close friends, one of them the former Minister of Electricity in Iraq who stole $650 million and is now hiding out in Illinois. It boggles the mind how misled people have been about this candidate. The fact is that he was fielded in this race specifically to knock Hillary Clinton out, and his dealings in the past will come back to haunt him AFTER the nomination.
Get the facts before you vote, folks. The planet can’t hold out much longer with our stupidity, and at least Clinton has a solid verifiable record of doing some good things for people. For more about the manipulation of these primaries, see several articles I’ve posted at thecityedition.com or click on my screen name.
YRM, guilt-by-association arguments don’t impress me; they were bullshit when the Republicans were using them against the Clintons in the Whitewater case, and they’re bullshit now when Clinton’s supporters use them against Obama.
Do you have evidence showing that Obama broke the law? Or knowingly helped Rezko break the law? Are you saying that once elected, Obama will be accepting bribes from Rezko in exchange for making the policy decisions Rezko prefers (or that Obama did so at any time in the past)? Or that Obama has made political promises to Rezko about policy matters once Obama is president? Because all of those would be relevant and important considerations, if true.
My guess is that you’re not saying any of those things; you’re just saying that there are a chain of circumstances connecting Obama to people we don’t like, with the implication that Obama is bad. You’re exactly like the Republicans who constructed Whitewater conspiracy theories.
As for Obama’s former clients, if that disqualifies Obama from being supported, shouldn’t Clinton likewise be disqualified for some of her past choices? (Such as being on the board at WalMart?)
As for the networks “pumping” for Obama, it’s actually been the opposite for weeks; Obama has consistantly been slammed by network reporting, with one made-up scandal after another. This is how the networks will always treat the Democratic front-runner, no matter who that happens to be.
Both Clinton and Obama are centrist Democrats who won’t be terribly progressive in office, even though both of them have some good things on their resumes. Anyone expecting Clinton or Obama to save the world is badly mistaken. But they’d both be better than McCain.
And trying to malign either candidate with double-standards and guilt-by-association arguments doesn’t help anyone. Except, perhaps, John McCain.
What Lori said.
Random, recent example: Not one time, during the Indiana primary, did anyone say “Senator Evan Bayh, elected primarily because he is the son of another Indiana senator”–which is the truth.
And plenty more where he came from.
None, because no openly gay man has reached higher office in America or will in the near future.
On the other hand, there are many undeserving men in politics who got where they are by knowing the right people or being born into the right family. It’s pretty much the norm, not the exception. That you think the situation is somehow worse when sex is involved – between a married couple, no less – suggests to me that you’re a goddam prude.
A little bit of bullheadedness and arrogance is a good thing in something as life-and-death competitive as politics. I recall the way Gov. Gregoire pulled away with a victory, which was a beaut. Al Gore could have been President if he were so, but the man’s just not cut out for politics. (Emphasis on could – I’ve read accounts both for and against the idea that Gore would have prevailed in a full recount.) I don’t think Kerry could have overturned Ohio in any case.
The same people who laugh at sexism aren’t being benign when they take racism more *seriously*. Nothing’s taken more seriously than the kiss of death. I’ve seen competitive female candidates come and go proudly declaring themselves a champion of “women’s causes”, but I’ve yet to see a competitive Black candidate declare him/herself a champion of “Black causes”. Because it’s taken so seriously, see.
Which is not to play oppression olympics or say that racism is always worse than sexism. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it’s the other way around. Sexism and racism aren’t the same thing, and they operate differently.
james does a wonderful job of putting the lie to the notion that misogyny has nothing to do with anybody’s opposition to Clinton.
Oh, and one more thing: Clinton is not just “allied to” or “part of” this powerful family. She is helping create it, for better or worse—which is itself a kind of labor that the “girlfriend” comment is seeking to render at best invisible. She was not Bill Clinton’s “girlfriend”; she was and is his wife. What that means:
1) In general: patriarchy is still alive and well. For most men, marriage actually increases their individual earnings from 10-40%. (For childless women, it’s about 4%).
[This statistic comes from a fairly conservative source, i.e., Gallagher & Waite, Why Marriage Matters, 2000, (here’s an overview). I don’t agree with their interpretation of their data, which is naïve about the workings of poverty and rooted in a delusion that God-fearing marriage will save us from all social woes, but I don’t think this stat has been contested. They use it to contest feminist claims that women are harmed by marriage while men benefit enormously; they try to say that both benefit a lot, men just a little more. For the oligarchy, however, it’s clear: men definitely benefit hugely from marriage. ]
How easy would it be for an unmarried man, even an unmarried, white, straight man to be prez? That means that their wives are doing uncompensated labor that is, at best, invisible or, at worst, mocked and ridiculed, as in this case.
2) And, moreover, in this specific case, HRC’s income as a law partner actually provided the bulk of the family’s finances while Bill developed his political career. He wouldn’t have gotten there without HER EFFORTS.
3) And she had a powerful career of her own not just as a partner in a law firm but also working in Washington DC before she even married Bill. Her individual record is certainly as solid as many men who have run for president, in addition to her using her family connections.
I am not a fan of oligarchy, so I’m not exactly keen on all this labor by and for the ruling class. And I’m an Obama supporter from quite a ways back who at first felt like “I could vote for either” but I now am deeply appalled by Clinton’s utilizing of racist strategies that I believe can only hurt the party, long term. But like Amp I also REALLY hate the sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton by both left and right.
Lori, great comments.
This bears repeating:
Amp,
I am glad you articulated this- and I am glad that so many of your commenters have done as well. I have been appalled throughout this campaign at how much underlying sexism there has been against Clinton- and I think worse is how powerless she is to speak out about it because anything she does will “prove the point.”
Both campaigns have made missteps in dealing with each other; I don’t condone the divisive politics that have been happening- but the media and our public representatives should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating sexist statements- but who is going to call them to task- and when?
Both John McCain and Ronald Reagan married into wealth and political connection.
As an Obama supporter, I would like to amplify what lori said because I think that both sides — both Obama and Clinton supporters — have failed to fully grasp how Hillary Clinton is the same as and yet different from many other candidates.
On the one hand, dismissing her as having gotten to where she is because she is merely “somebody’s wife” fails to ackowledge that there are many male politicians, as well as female politicians, who have gotten where they are almost solely because of family associations. Just to name a few: Kennedys, Molinaris, Fossellas (to be au courant), Bushes, Gores, Caseys, Fords (in Tennessee, the Fords are a veritable political dynasty), Kilpatricks (Detroit), Cuomos, etc. Even Christine Todd Whitman was the daughter of a powerful NJ pol.
I have to admit that this is one of the traditions that I love least about our current political environment, but why is it only or primarily nefarious when the politician is somebody’s “wife”? That’s where the sexist subtext becomes clearer. With a few exceptions, it is also noteworthy that familial affiliation is rarely sufficient to maintain a political career (as Clinton is finding out). So cut it out with the wifey bit — it’s insulting and demeaning and unfair and yes, sexist.
However, the Clinton campaign has been just as deliberately obtuse about the value of those connections, saying over and over again that we should vote for Hillary Clinton because of her numerous accomplishments, even as they run in the other direction when she is confronted with what those accomplishments are: Iraq? Kyl-Lieberman? The health care reform fiasco?
Moreover, the Clintons (the both of them) have operated under the assumption that Hillary Clinton is “owed” all of the loyalties built up by William Clinton as part of his political career, exemplified most notably in their shameful treatment of Bill Richardson. Why is she owed that loyalty? Isn’t she running as her own person, even if, to some extent, she “built up” the Clinton franchise? If she is running on her own record, she needs to call in her own political cards (as she has done for the numorous super d’s on whose behalf she has raised money).
I think Clinton is qualified to be president, but I think that her campaign is speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue and this has driven Obama supporters (like me) a bit crazy. However, I deplore the kinds of statements made by Wheaton, et al., as well as the media, that have clearly been sexist and degrading. I would also note, in a final irony, however, that Clinton’s supporters have lately taken to using extremely macho imagery as a way of saying that she is the “masculine” one while her opponent is the effete feminine one. In other words, manly=good; feminine=bad.
There’s enough hypocrisy and idiocy to go around for everyone.
Reagan met Nancy when she came to him in his capacity as SAG president to ask his help in clearing her name from an anti-communist blacklist; her [step]father was prominent in Chicago but her family had no great influence. Certainly, Reagan was more influential than she was when they met and married; her family connections didn’t get him anywhere he didn’t already know how to go.
John McCain and John Kerry married money, which helped their political careers immensely; in the modern era, they are the political figures probably most in debt to a spouse’s pull. Neither Kerry or McCain would have likely gotten to the Senate without their wives’ support; McCain probably could have managed it with an ordinary, non-super-rich political wife, with the bona fide war hero record he has.
The real help a spouse gives a politician, though, is the Nancy Reagan / Hillary Clinton type of help – being a powerful and useful political tool for the political family. Reagan was more of a personal helper than Clinton, but both buttressed their husband’s careers immensely. I suspect a close reading of any modern politician’s bio, at least in the United States, is going to show the same pattern. You don’t get ahead without a great political spouse.
The Clintons show that plainly, as well as indicating that it goes both ways. It’s quite clear that Hillary Clinton would be a bigshot lawyer in a small-time practice without Bill – she doesn’t have the political instincts to get elected dogcatcher on her own hook; equally clear that he would be some schmoozing middle manager somewhere without Hillary – he doesn’t have the discipline and focus to achieve anything major on his own. I think they each owe the other big-time for their political success. A nice story, really, if they were different, less sociopathically dishonest, people. ;)
How easy would it be for an unmarried man, even an unmarried, white, straight man to be prez?
Damn hard.
That means that their wives are doing uncompensated labor that is, at best, invisible or, at worst, mocked and ridiculed, as in this case.
No, it doesn’t. Not necessarily, at any rate. You are making an assumption; the reason that an unmarried man would have a hard time getting elected President would be that he would be bereft of work that a married candidate’s wife would be out there doing all kinds of work for him.
But that’s not necessarily true. I propose to you that the major contribution a wife makes to a husband-candidate is that of image. An unmarried candidate appears less trustworthy; if he can’t maintain or won’t commit to a personal relationship, what’s he really like? I suggest that the “work” a candidate’s wife performs for him doesn’t really matter all that much. In fact, in Sen. Obama’s case whether or not his wife is a credit or a liability has yet to be demonstrated. And I wouldn’t say it’s an open-and-shut case that Bill has beem am asset to Hillary’s campaign. Hell, apparently Hillary shut Bill down at one point.
Jenny, the rest of your comments may be spot on, but I for one don’t consider a Warren Zevon day a waste of energy ;-)
Radfem:
The problem with that is that Clinton is essentially saying the votes of the majority of Black voters shouldn’t really count now.
I’m not clear on what you mean by this.
Especially if she’s trying to woo superdelegates to get the nomination that way, counter to the not-so-super delegates and the popular vote.
But that’s exactly what superdelegates are for, to counter the elected delegates if they think the elected delegates are wrong. She didn’t make up the rules; why shouldn’t she play by them?
You see, we don’t really have [effective Democratic party candidates] in the HOR races in my district b/c they don’t receive any funds or support from the Democratic Party at all. So usually, no one runs let alone a candidate who’s connected enough to fund raise either enough to capture the support of the DP or to survive not receiving it. In some areas of the country, the Democratic Party has essentially written “effective representation” off.
In the State of Illinois the two parties essentially work together in what is called “the Combine” to divvy up the state. In the City of Chicago there are few effectively supported Republican candidates. Ditto for Democrats downstate. Only the suburbs see any real races, and that not so often. The Combine would rather see someone they know they can cut deals with of either party in office. The most egregious example was during the 2004 election when despite the fact that the national GOP was desperate to try to keep control of the Senate, the Illinois Republican party refused to support an incumbent Senator (Fitzgerald) because he had had the audacity to appoint a U.S. Attorney who was from out of state and actually threw a bunch of their corrupt buddies in jail. Just to say – you’re right as far as you go, but don’t think that this is something limited to the Democrats.
And regarding your election dilemma – I’ve written my own name in more than once.
Bjartmarr:
After a decade of seeing zero candidates that I supported get elected to office,
I’ve been thinking of having a T-shirt made up that says “My candidate always loses in the primary.”
DaisyDeadhead in support of Lori:
Random, recent example: Not one time, during the Indiana primary, did anyone say “Senator Evan Bayh, elected primarily because he is the son of another Indiana senator”–which is the truth.
Yeah, but so what if they did? In my Congressional district the current incumbent got his job when his dad ran unopposed in the primary, won in a walk (and also thus ensuring that his Republican “opposition” would be a cipher), and then quit. Under the rules of the game here, the Democratic Party committee met and picked – out of all the people they could have picked – his son, who happened to be a professor of Poly Sci at the University of Tennesee at the time. And the current incumbent Cook (a.k.a. “Crook”) County President (an important office, lots of money and patronage and it’s a very big and populous county) got his job when his father had a stroke, didn’t give out any medical information, won his primary, and then managed to pass along his office to his son.
The point being that everyone knew these guys had gotten their jobs purely because their fathers were passing it along, it was in all the papers, much high dudgeon and criticism AND THEY STILL WON!
WTF?!
So even if the papers did say that, I’m not sure that it would matter.
BTW; the Congressman seems to be doing a reasonable job, but the President of Cook County is a damn disaster.
Regarding Amp and YRM on guilt-by-association; I don’t think that Sen. Obama is guilty of any violations of the law because of his associations with Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rev. Wright, or anyone else. But what it does do is to call into question his ability to make good judgements in the people that he assembles around him for mentoring, assistance and judgement. And assembling people with judgement and character happens to be (as we have repeatedly seen) an essential characteristic for an executive, much more important than it is for a legislator.
A little loyalty to one’s friends, relatives and staff is necessary in an executive as well. In fact, in anybody. McCain rides a bus in his campaign; Obama uses his to throw people under if he thinks it will get him votes. His own grandmother, for God’s sake. It’s a chiche!
And to everybody; not that I’m particularly enamored of the woman, but I’m in full agreement that she’s been subjected to blatant sexism in this campaign. I don’t know whether it’s been the deciding factor, but it hasn’t helped. While it’s hard to quantify, it seems that sexism has been a lot more acceptable than racism.
But that’s not necessarily true. I propose to you that the major contribution a wife makes to a husband-candidate is that of image.
Providing. This. Image. Is. Work.
August J. Pollack’s latest cartoon addresses all of the stupid metaphors aimed at Clinton by the media. It’s pretty funny.
That is all.
And while providing said image, wife of candidate is not doing other things, which is then used against her later on for not having forged an independent path. I watched to PBS bio of FDR last night and was reminded that while FDR was recuperating from polio, his wife was busy politicking, often in his name, in New York State and her efforts were instrumental in paving the way for him to become governor of that state. It’s a separate question from whether she would have been qualified to be governor herself (she said that her talent was much more “organizational” than his), but he certainly could not have done it without her.
On the other hand, not having had certain other experiences might truly be disqualifying, and this is something that women need to think about given their long term aspirations. That’s why many of us discourage women from completely exiting a career track when they have children. It does have consequences. But politics is a field unto itself and all kinds of experience can be relevant for politicians.
Having said that, I think it was just a tactical mistake for Clinton to cast her campaign in terms of what I would call substantive experience in this manner because it raised an issue that otherwise might have been completely dormant. Neither Edwards nor Obama, the other front runners, have materially more independnt experience than she does. By raising it herself, it’s like she was begging these questions to be asked.
Providing. This. Image. Is. Work.
Depends on the candidate and on the wife and on the office being run for. Some candidate’s wives hit the campaign trail every day, some don’t. Michelle Obama is out there hustling, but her manner of presentation and the things she says are likely hindering, not helping (haven’t heard much from her lately, have we?). Some speak to policy issues, some don’t – note how much of a shock it was when Mrs. Bush spoke out on Darfur recently. McCain’s wife has been pretty much silent, as far as I can tell. The image need not be an active one. If the image is that of loyal helpmeet caring for the family while the candidate takes on the world then that effort itself is work, but it’s not additional work to use that to augment the candidate’s image.
And while providing said image, wife of candidate is not doing other things, which is then used against her later on for not having forged an independent path.
By who? And in what context? Being a housewife concentrating on the family instead of on an independent career is probably more of a plus than a minus for a Republican candidate, whereas it would be the reverse for a Democratic one, I suspect (although that may be too sweeping a generalization). It would only be a problem down the line if the candidate’s wife then decided to become a candidate herself.
The thing is, if political wives, and the work they do, were not important to politicians’ careers, then Grover Cleveland would not have needed his sister Rose to come be First Lady for two years until he married. And she would not have done it even though she purportedly hated it and would have preferred to be a scholar. Neither would James Buchanan have had his niece, Harriet Lane Johnston, do the same. Their lives are not talked about nearly as much as their Presidential relatives, though Harriet also joined Buchanan in London when he was stationed there, charmed the queen, and was given the title of… wait for it… “ambassador’s wife.” No doubt that was just for the hell of it, and not because she was there running the household and coordinating the social engagements.
Now sometimes political wives are indeed dismissed by the title “hostess.” But think for five minutes about the work involved in coordinating political social affairs for a national president. And then think about Harriet: how to run a dinner party in 1859 and have to find a way to make it work when there are legislators from slave and free states in attendance (not saying that if she had given better parties there would have been no Civil War; just saying that dealing with this stuff is *work*, political freakin’ *work*, and it’s kind of vexing to have to point this out so often). So think about it for a second: if networking is a big deal; if deals are done and decisions are made in the corridors of power; if it’s not what you know, it’s who you know… then anyone who says that political wives are “just” anything is ignoring all of that social capital that is leveraged by “hostesses.” Social capital which they exercise independently, for the benefit of their husbands’ careers.
Then think about all the other work that First Ladies (and other political wives!) do. Cultural diplomacy, both for the nation WRT other nations, and for the pol WRT their own constituencies. Harriet won great favor with the American public, and used that goodwill as an activist in many realms. Cleveland’s sister was less visible because she didn’t like the work, but when Cleveland married his wife, Frances, was an incredible and astute coordinator of the President’s social contact. She was also hugely popular, helped him win reelection, and when Grover got cancer in his second term she helped to cover for him.
I am just scratching the surface here. And I think that Clinton has done herself a disservice by downplaying the importance of the social and cultural diplomacy that she conducted by focusing on other, more questionable, stuff. So in some ways this is my heart-cry to all those who are saying “well, she was just a first lady.” I mean, if nothing else, the insight into how the presidency is effective on a world stage, who are the people you are dealing with, and how can you deal with them… these are not negligible things, and Hillary does have 8 years of experience with it all.
Also, RonF, I think maybe you are missing a couple of points. First off, giving up your own career to help someone else’s *is* a big deal and a sacrifice to your own career, whether you’re an engineer, a teacher, a pilot, a designer, a miner, a carpenter, a dancer… whatever. Why? Because that is time when *you are not doing/advancing your own career*. You are no longer “up to date” on procedures or equipment, you lose seniority, etc.
And the whole point of other people pointing out family connections is to say exactly that *it wouldn’t matter* if Evan Bayh’s family connections got trotted out more, any more than with the Kennedys or the Stevenses in Alaska or etc etc. The point is that often the only time someone seems to ding a politician with the “you are just where you are because of family connections,” and *have that be a successful attack*, is when that person is a woman and the “family connection” is the man she married. It’s a frustrating exception to the rule that calls into question all of the kinds of contributions I talk about at the top of this.
Sorry for the novel-length disquisition.
RonF, quoting lori: >>Providing. This. Image. Is. Work.
>>Depends on the candidate and on the wife and on the office being run for. Some candidate’s wives hit the campaign trail every day, some don’t.
Being someone’s wife is work (as is being someone’s husband). Relationship work is most often done by women. Whether the wife in question is actively campaigning or “merely” keeping the relationship and family going while her spouse campaigns, she is still doing the work that makes the spouse appear more stable.
The thing is, if political wives, and the work they do, were not important to politicians’ careers, then Grover Cleveland would not have needed his sister Rose to come be First Lady for two years until he married. And she would not have done it even though she purportedly hated it and would have preferred to be a scholar. Neither would James Buchanan have had his niece, Harriet Lane Johnston, do the same.
Those are examples of women being First Ladies, but we’re talking about before the election, not after it. What role did these women take in the campaigns leading up to these men’s elections?
Being someone’s wife is work (as is being someone’s husband). ….
Of course. But they would be doing that whether or not their husband was running for office or not. The question at hand was whether or not the wife was doing anything specifically related to the campaign and the level of uncompensated effort she was engaging in on that.
First off, giving up your own career to help someone else’s *is* a big deal and a sacrifice to your own career, whether you’re an engineer, a teacher, a pilot, a designer, a miner, a carpenter, a dancer… whatever. Why? Because that is time when *you are not doing/advancing your own career*. You are no longer “up to date” on procedures or equipment, you lose seniority, etc.
Absolutely. But not every woman has a career outside the home, or wants one. They then would not be sacrificing something they don’t have in the first place. And not every candidate’s wife puts a huge level of effort into their husband’s campaign. Cindy McCain does not visibly appear to be putting a huge amount of time/effort into her husband’s campaign. She either owns or runs a beer distributorship; I doubt what she does is keeping her from moving particularly farther up, or if she even wants to. Being Bill Clinton’s wife has probably enhanced Hillary’s political career – do you think she’d have been elected Senator if she had never married him? I don’t know enough about Michelle Obama to know what effect being Barak’s wife has had on her career, but I’m not so sure she’s a positive influence on his. We sure haven’t heard much from her since she proclaimed that her husband’s candidacy was the first thing that made her proud of America.
A psycho ex-girlfriend is just the female terminology of the of a stalker or abusive ex-boyfriend, so it’s not really a sexist insult… but it is a sexualized one. The insult could have just as easily been applied to a male candidate – McCain is prime for this, after the whole controversy over whether he may have called his wife a “cunt” at one point.
Still, the problem is that it paints Hillary as being in a romantic relationship with the party, instead of a part of it. Seeing the party as male, and Hillary as it’s girlfriend is the source of treating her differently, and separating her out of it. I think that’s where the sexism has crept in… and it’s more subtle there.
Nobody would call McCain as the psycho abusive husband of the Republicans, because that would imply femininity of the party – which, given that it’s full of flabby old men in suits, would be a little odd. Maybe of the nation? America is frequently anthropomorphized as lady liberty.
And yes, despite the oppression olympics, I would say that America is generally more sexist than racist. Why? Because we all have to deal with sexual differences in our daily lives. Most of us have never personally lived with a coke-dealer or a welfare bum or a pimp, so tacky racist jokes about Obama along those lines are obviously foreign and tasteless. However, most heterosexual women do live with a man at some point in their lives, and vice versa. After dealing with enough psycho-ex-girlfriends in your own personal daily life, tasteless jokes about Clinton being one can strike a chord.
For example, one could go through a nice long gag about the Republican party being America’s abusive boyfriend that she just can’t get away from. Would that be similarly sexist?
/actually, now I’m tempted to write that…
“Baby, I don’t LIKE hurting you – do you think I want to send out more troops? I love you and I’ll make it better. Come on, we’re going to get you a nice economic stimulus package and everything will be fine. Now never talk like that ever again.”