What do women see in Hillary?
June 23, 2007 by Dusty
From The Nation:
“I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!” exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, “Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you.” Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described “Hillary resisters”–those who believe that “she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn’t really take a position unless it’s completely safe,” as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, “who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can’t stand her position on the war, who don’t trust her as far as you can spit.”
This rather dramatic change of heart encapsulates one of the great ironies of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. Many of the very same feminists who were her most ardent supporters as First Lady are now fiercely opposed to her historic bid to become the first female President of the United States. The woman once described by Susan Faludi as a symbol of “the joy of female independence” now evokes ambivalence, disdain and, sometimes, outright vitriol. The right wing’s favorite “femi-nazi” now has to contend with Jane Fonda comparing her to “a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina.”
So what’s up with the Hillary-bashing? “Women don’t trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her,” wrote Susan Douglas in a May In These Times article titled “Why Women Hate Hillary.” A month later, in her Newsweek column, Anna Quindlen declared, “The truth is that Senator Clinton has a woman problem.”
Not exactly true, as it turns out. Hillary Clinton was the number-one choice of 42 percent of likely Democratic primary women voters in a recent Zogby survey, compared with 19 percent for Barack Obama and 15 percent for John Edwards. And her favorable rating among independent women is a whopping twenty-one points higher than among independent men.
Let’s be clear: Hillary has a “feminist problem,” and more so with those who lean left.
At first glance, the fault line dividing feminists in their view of Hillary Clinton is merely a matter of ideology. On one side are the mainstream moderate women’s organizations such as NOW and EMILY’s List, facing off against more radical progressive feminists, especially those opposed to the Iraq War. Some of her supporters claim that much of the anger is inspired by her now-infamous 2002 Congressional vote. “It’s about this one vote, which was not to invade Iraq but to authorize the President to wage war. I can’t understand how this can be held up against a lifetime of important political work,” says NOW president Kim Gandy.
Antiwar sentiments run high indeed, but when it comes to feminism and feminists, the “Hillary divide” also mirrors a deeper debate over the relationship between gender and political power. The ambivalence over Hillary’s candidacy has just as much to do with increasing skepticism about the value of making it to the top.
“Having a woman in the White House won’t necessarily do a damn thing for progressive feminism,” writes Bitch magazine founder Lisa Jervis in LiP magazine. “Though the dearth of women in electoral politics is so dire as to make supporting a woman–any woman–an attractive proposition, even if it’s just so she can serve as a role model for others who’ll do the job better eventually, it’s ultimately a trap. Women who do nothing to enact feminist policies will be elected and backlash will flourish. I can hear the refrain now: ‘They’ve finally gotten a woman in the White House, so why are feminists still whining about equal pay?’”
Jervis’s views were echoed by her peers on the blog Feministing, where Jen Moseley wrote, “As women sign up to work with anyone but Senator Clinton, of course, they’re being asked why. That’s the bad news. The good news is they’re all giving the same answer. Being a woman does not get you the automatic support of women. There’s no vagina litmus test, people.”
For rest of the article, click here.
Tags: Politics, Hillary Clinton, Presidential Election
Sphere: Related ContentRelated posts:
- What will El Paso think? Hillary says US Takes Blame for Mexico Drug War “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade…Our...
- When Christians and Muslims work together for peace. Another important factor is that they are all women. Liberian...
- The Truth!? I Can’t Handle The Truth! Recently I was in Austin, TX hanging with an old...
- State Dept recognizes same sex partners. From the NYT: The State Department will offer equal benefits...
This is a great take on a tough situation. I too, was an early Hilly supporter. Probably more in defense than anything else; in response to the myriad misogynists (of either gender) I heard cursing her as a “Dyke”. I objected on principle to the naming of a strong, smart, political woman with ambition, with a negative gender preference label. (not negative to me: I love being a dyke!! LOL, but then, I’ve reclaimed “cunt”, too!)
But Hilly won me over back them, and I read a bit about her, appreciated the grace with which she handled Bill’s dalliances (she was a regular Jackie, O!!) and admired her continued political presence and ambition.
WhiteWater didn’t faze me then; I figured pretty much all politicians were crooks, and Martha proved that a woman could do it too…
But then I began to think… what’s the point of having a woman in the white house, or any position of power, if they have to (choose to? No. Have to.) resort to the same poisonous games and power plays and back rubbing that any man does. Alot of feminists will nail me for this, but why can’t a woman who acts in compassion and with her nurturing and healing qualities be also a strong, smart, ambitious woman?
Maybe “any” woman isn’t the answer. But, as yet one more disgruntled, unhappy, disgusted american, looking at the next 10 years of proposed war under the religious right, and the continued rape of our constitution, our rights, and the countless innocent deaths, frankly, I’m reconsidering my position on Hilly.
Maybe she had to “go along to get along” in 2002. Do I hate that? Yes, passionately. But what if (I know, that’s a big one), what if Hilly gets into the Oval Office and chooses to be a bit of a “decider”, herself? I think it’s quite likely that we’ll see some of the old Hilly back. The Hilly that cared about our health and families. The Hilly that supported women and gays.
If there were a valid, reasonable candidate out there who inspired any real hope in me; nay, who didn’t inspire disgust; I might not be back in Hilly’s camp. But since sweet lil Gravel hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell, I am. Back in Hilly’s camp, that is.
In closing, pop over to On The Lakefront for my friend, LC’s op ed on Hill. LC is an articulate and elegant writer, who doesn’t curse and rage quite like I do (although I’m doing my best to be a “bad” influence), but she definitely carried a concealed weapon!!
Great explanation Thorne. It makes sense as you lay it out. I liked Gravel too,but like Kucinich, he won’t attract much attention.
being from new york- i guess i can be considered an expert
i won’t vote for hillary because she said that she wouldn’t run. she ran again for senate and was put into office by new yorkers based on the assumption that she would be our full time senator along with chuckles shumer. she reneged. now, it looks like all she wanted was to come to new york to get her feet wet to run for president. i will take mike gravel or dennis kucinich over hill. i like gravel quite a bit and kucinich is a man of honor. neither has a snow ball’s chance in florida- but i will pick one and vote.
Why yes you are an expert Betmo, on the Hillary front. I will be mighty pissed if she is the Democratic Party nominee. I don’t like her..she is a chickenhawk AND a conservative who sucks up to big biz like its a friggin way of life.
I can’t believe this is happening to us again! We cannot get stuck with some idiot conservative that will take us to the right more and war drums along the way.
frankly I don’t want her or like her and if she bumps out Obama and Edwards I am screwed….I also fear that she is drawing alot of Disgruntled Repukes….I saw a “Hillaryland” Tee shirt at the store tonight and all I could think is that it is a themepark I don’t want to go to….at all….even if there is Free Cotton candy…
Sumo..Bill Clinton never did a lot for me and Hillary even less.
E4E..we are screwed if she gets in..maybe not as bad as if a Repube was in office..but damn close.
too close….in my book anyways…but is worth thinking about- I don’t know many from NY that want her even….
E4E,Even our own Betmo who lives in NY state, won’t vote for her. That should tell us all something.
Thorne~great thoughts! early on the feminist movement began to bother me in the same way~i am a strong woman because i am a woman~no power suits needed,and as for ‘cunt’ many in the home birth movement claimed it, because pussy is a cat and vagina is way to stuffy for a room full of women helping another give birth~cunt is cosy,friendly and warm.
As to Hil~she is unfortunatly all about power,the last thing we need now.I keep thinking she will implode,or someone at the Dem. Head quarters will realize what poison she is~un-ellectable..dangerous..
Learning my way around this site. Thorne, great comment. Hillary Clinton is all about power in a very masculine sense. But there is something about Politics in general that tends to harden people. YEARS ago, I did political organizing for then Congressman Abner J. Mikva in the 10th Congressional District of Illinois. The language, everything, was masculine.
My biggest problem with Hillary is that she is too far to the Center, too much aligned with Business. Her waffling on Iraq also is a problem for me. However, if it came down to a choice between her and Mitt Romney (or any of those Republicans running), I would pick her.
And I would hope that the Bush members of the Supreme Court all contracted Ebola.
I don’t like her, she refuses to back off her love for war and her 4 year defense of the war, before she announced her candidacy.