From the NY Times this morning:Advisers and female voters pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s emotional moment on Monday as decisive, with advisers promising that voters would see more personal touches in the days to come.
"Women finally saw a woman — perhaps a tough woman, but a woman with a gentle heart," said Elaine Marquis, a receptionist from Manchester, who had been torn between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton but was leaning her way when she bared her feelings.
I find this to be a ludicrous double standard. Would Mitt Romney get a boost in the polls by crying? Is sobbing under pressure what we’re looking for from our commander in chief? It's not, and yet Hillary had to break down in stereotypical womanly fashion in order to get people to swing to her side.
I’m disgusted that many voters in New Hampshire based their decision on one tear rather than on logic, and I’m ashamed for our country that we still require this kind of behavior from a woman.
7 comments:
I have to say, I think the whole it-was-the-tears business is a bunch of media bloviation. I think in the long-run it's good for her because she showed some humanity (to me she comes across as stiff in the same way Kerry did), but it seems silly to say that people just voted for her because she cried. It gives both Clinton and the voters of New Hampshire far less credit than they deserve.
Gloria Steinem in the New York Times the other day said she was disgusted that Obama, the black candidate, is seen as a uniting figure, whereas Clinton, the female candidate, is seen as a divisive figure. Steinem says it implies that in America it's easier to be black than to be a woman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html
Put me in the boat of those that think the tears helped. She's been trying too hard to convince everyone that she can lead just as well as a man by pretending not to be a woman. The tears were an example of her being genuine and sincere and people appreciate it. I still think Barack wins it in the end, though. And maybe it's the new yorker in me, but Mike Bloomberg's my man.
Steinem's column was pretty terrible, I think, and this article (http://www.slate.com/id/2181646) is a good place to start for refutation. I've always thought Steinem simplified situations to the point of meaninglessness, the same way Freud simplifies our dreams to sexual idiocy. Steinem's always a good place to start, but never a good place to end. In my mind, her popularity (to both genders) is enduring, ironically, because she is fairly attractive (and therefore non-threatening), and because she has a sense of humor; no one denies that If Men Can Menstruate is very funny.
Another rant on how awful Steinem's column was: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/08/gloria-steinem-s-awful-op-ed.aspx
What was funny was that I saw that column ("Women Are Never Front-Runners") a day after I had just asserted that Obama would always be an underdog. Hillary will always be a frontrunner because she is a Clinton. The question is if she can be an underdog, too, as a woman.
She is desperate. I saw one of the debates and she sounded very bad against Obama. He was calm and made more sense and all she did was seem aggressive and unpleasant. I do still wish for a chance to vote for a third party. I have no desire to vote for a Democrat or Republican.
By the way, New Hampshire shouldn't have so much pull in the first place. Hardly anyone lives there. Why are our presidents chosen by states with a population of a county?
For the record, I've no problem with Hillary crying. I don't blame her, what with the pressure she's under and the lack of sleep. But that's no good basis for a person to decide their vote.
I think Steinem is irrelevant, and for once agree with Maureen Dowd, who says Hillary "in the end ... had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?pagewanted=1&hp) That's just wrong. Call me a post-feminist, but why should a woman's reactions be judged any differently from a man's? Why should she have to fall into that trap and prove she's warm and friendly?
And Steven, you're absolutely right. This "first-come, most important" system of primaries just produces a lot of hot air. Nothing really counts until Feb. 5.
Let Hill cry. Bill will appreciate the reversal of roles, for a change. (tee hee)
Post a Comment