I was going to call this "The Importance of Being Hillary", but the Iowa caucus results seemed to call for something else. So I did a third "Memo re Hillary", this time to Hillary herself telling her to "Loosen up, Girl" if she wants to win the next round of primaries. But do read the rest of it here and let me know what you think. Better yet, put a comment at the end of my commentary on HuffPo.
Deborah Siegel, posted an interesting analysis of women and men voters in the Iowa Caucuses on her Girl with Pen blog. I want to share it with you here too because dollars to donuts you'll never see this information in the New York Times. It's dated January 4 and the author is sociologist Virginia Rutter; the post title is "Who Votes Their Gender".
Showing posts with label presidential politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential politics. Show all posts
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Thursday, December 20, 2007
You Looking at Me?
This is on Huffington Post too. Some days it seems like journalists don't have enough to do with their time so they create conflicts out of whole cloth as a form of entertainment. Fortunately for me, I make no claim to be objective. Let me know what you think. Better yet, go to HuffPo and put your comment there.
You know Hillary is no longer seen as the inevitable front runner in Iowa when Maureen Dowd (almost, at least till she gets to her punch line) writes something positive about her.
In response to the latest Drudge-Limbaugh-sexist bloggers' echo chamber campaign to denigrate Hillary for—gasp!--looking like a 60-year-old woman, when men of that certain age or even—gasp again--older are seen as distinguished and wise, Dowd observed: “Women are still scrutinized more critically on their looks, which seem to fluctuate more on camera, depending on lighting, bloating and wardrobe.”
It takes a sharp sense of humor as well as a tough hide to get beyond the frivolously discriminatory lens with women are judged. Chile’s president, Michele Bachelet, who ranks # 17 on Forbes’ list of “World’s Most Influential Women to Hillary’s #18, told a CNN reporter that when a male journalist asked her how she would wear the pants of the presidency she replied tartly, "or the skirt of the presidency."
Yet for women seeking leadership roles, the appearance issue is just one layer of the perceptual onion; each layer will have to be—and will be--peeled back over time to fully understand what the core resistance is about. By then, of course, it won’t matter because there will be enough women in leadership positions that seeing them in those roles feels normal.
When the luxuriantly pregnant Campbell Brown asked Clinton the first question at the Las Vegas Democratic presidential debate, it was clear that several layers have already disappeared.
To begin with, in Hillary’s elementary school days, a visibly pregnant woman wasn’t allowed to teach school, let alone imagine she could be a network television anchor, and an anchor interviewing a woman leading the presidential pack at that.
Second, this adorable exchange between Brown and Clinton highlighted a generational difference that need not be a divide, but is surely an onion layer to be acknowledged as we bid farewell to it along with Hillary’s knowing wink:
By that debate, Hillary had taken her attire down a notch since John Edwards disparaged her pink jacket. She stood, earrings glistening, in a crisp but subdued salt-and-pepper tweed jacket with her black pants--a suit she laughingly described as "asbestos" in preparation for the scorching attacks she expected from her competitors.
(Oops, there’s that cackle again—but wait, she needs the humor here—now do we understand why Hillary sometimes seems to be walking a tightrope in her comments? She lives on the tightrope of transition, smack in the middle of profound social change that she is both the product of and the woman leading others to the next level.)
“Hillary doesn’t have to worry about her face. She has to worry about her mask,” concluded the ever-clever Dowd. But when I interviewed Hillary a few years ago for my book, The War on Choice, she summed up the real challenge better herself:
Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz finally got some key journalists to acknowledge the obvious, that Hillary is treated differently, judged more harshly by the media across the board.
"
Attacks on Hillary’s gendered physical attributes, as even the Hillary-bashing Dowd has to agree, are often a convenient mask to obscure those odoriferous layers of misogyny that still exist and spill over where they shouldn’t be in determining the outcome of the Presidential race.
© Gloria Feldt 12/20/07
You know Hillary is no longer seen as the inevitable front runner in Iowa when Maureen Dowd (almost, at least till she gets to her punch line) writes something positive about her.
In response to the latest Drudge-Limbaugh-sexist bloggers' echo chamber campaign to denigrate Hillary for—gasp!--looking like a 60-year-old woman, when men of that certain age or even—gasp again--older are seen as distinguished and wise, Dowd observed: “Women are still scrutinized more critically on their looks, which seem to fluctuate more on camera, depending on lighting, bloating and wardrobe.”
It takes a sharp sense of humor as well as a tough hide to get beyond the frivolously discriminatory lens with women are judged. Chile’s president, Michele Bachelet, who ranks # 17 on Forbes’ list of “World’s Most Influential Women to Hillary’s #18, told a CNN reporter that when a male journalist asked her how she would wear the pants of the presidency she replied tartly, "or the skirt of the presidency."
Yet for women seeking leadership roles, the appearance issue is just one layer of the perceptual onion; each layer will have to be—and will be--peeled back over time to fully understand what the core resistance is about. By then, of course, it won’t matter because there will be enough women in leadership positions that seeing them in those roles feels normal.
When the luxuriantly pregnant Campbell Brown asked Clinton the first question at the Las Vegas Democratic presidential debate, it was clear that several layers have already disappeared.
To begin with, in Hillary’s elementary school days, a visibly pregnant woman wasn’t allowed to teach school, let alone imagine she could be a network television anchor, and an anchor interviewing a woman leading the presidential pack at that.
Second, this adorable exchange between Brown and Clinton highlighted a generational difference that need not be a divide, but is surely an onion layer to be acknowledged as we bid farewell to it along with Hillary’s knowing wink:
BROWN: But, Senator, if I can just ask you, what did you mean at Wellesley when you referred to the "boy's club"?
CLINTON: Campbell...
(LAUGHTER)
BROWN: Just curious.
CLINTON: Well, it is clear, I think, from women's experiences that from time to time, there may be some impediments.
(LAUGHTER)
And it has been my goal over the course of my lifetime to be part of this great movement of progress that includes all of us, but has particularly been significant to me as a woman.
And to be able to aim toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling is history-making.
Now, I'm not running because I'm a woman. I'm running because I think I'm the best qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running, but it's humbling...
(APPLAUSE)
By that debate, Hillary had taken her attire down a notch since John Edwards disparaged her pink jacket. She stood, earrings glistening, in a crisp but subdued salt-and-pepper tweed jacket with her black pants--a suit she laughingly described as "asbestos" in preparation for the scorching attacks she expected from her competitors.
(Oops, there’s that cackle again—but wait, she needs the humor here—now do we understand why Hillary sometimes seems to be walking a tightrope in her comments? She lives on the tightrope of transition, smack in the middle of profound social change that she is both the product of and the woman leading others to the next level.)
“Hillary doesn’t have to worry about her face. She has to worry about her mask,” concluded the ever-clever Dowd. But when I interviewed Hillary a few years ago for my book, The War on Choice, she summed up the real challenge better herself:
It’s human nature that when the established order has been changed, there will be a reaction, and the magnitude of the reaction shouldn’t surprise us. The advancement of women in the last fifty years has been breathtaking…There are victories along the way, but none of these victories is secure because of the pressures that undermine women’s rights and advancement…So now women who value their autonomy have to step up and take action.
Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz finally got some key journalists to acknowledge the obvious, that Hillary is treated differently, judged more harshly by the media across the board.
"
She's just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time's editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws -- wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."
Attacks on Hillary’s gendered physical attributes, as even the Hillary-bashing Dowd has to agree, are often a convenient mask to obscure those odoriferous layers of misogyny that still exist and spill over where they shouldn’t be in determining the outcome of the Presidential race.
© Gloria Feldt 12/20/07
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Clinton, Couric, and Chris Matthews’ Sexist Spin
When it comes to Chris Matthews’s interpretation of Hillary Clinton’s words—any of her words—she’s damned if she yeas and damned if she nays.
After gloating that a new poll found Hillary losing in a matchup with any one of five Republican presidential candidates, Matthews later in the same program spun her November 26 interview with Katie Couric, in which--like any candidate with half a brain and a quarter of a spine--Clinton showed confidence in her ability to win the Democratic nomination.
Later, Couric asked whether she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee. "No, I haven't," Clinton said.
Matthews played clips of the interview on his November 27 show and ranted: “Hillary thinks she’s got it sewed up.” As though there were anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld http://www.sonypictures.com/tv/shows/seinfeld/
would say.
Does Chris expect a anyone running for public office to enter a race assuming he or she is going to lose? If Hillary were Henry, would Matthews judge him negatively for asserting confidence? Just the opposite I suspect. In a man, such confidence would be applauded. Or more likely, the question would never even be asked.
Clinton told Couric she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. “We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate.” That’s showing the humility and loyalty constituents expect from a candidate. Matthews failed to mention this. And dollars to doughnuts, if she had answered, “Yes I can imagine a scenario where I don’t win.” he would have pounced on her for not being strong enough for the gloves-off political game.
Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation about Chris’s many “man crushes”. Watching Hardball over time, you see him become enamored of candidate after candidate, from John McCain (who, trust me, is not a nice man) to Barak Obama, depending on their level of ascendancy in the media mashup of the day.
But from Day One, Matthews has found so many ways to trash Hillary Clinton that many of his own journalistic colleagues have accused him of picking on her.
You can leave Chris your comment about this on or send your thoughts to MSNBC.
11/28/07 © Gloria Feldt www.gloriafeldt.com
After gloating that a new poll found Hillary losing in a matchup with any one of five Republican presidential candidates, Matthews later in the same program spun her November 26 interview with Katie Couric, in which--like any candidate with half a brain and a quarter of a spine--Clinton showed confidence in her ability to win the Democratic nomination.
Couric: If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?"
Clinton: “Well, it will be me.”
Later, Couric asked whether she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee. "No, I haven't," Clinton said.
Matthews played clips of the interview on his November 27 show and ranted: “Hillary thinks she’s got it sewed up.” As though there were anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld http://www.sonypictures.com/tv/shows/seinfeld/
would say.
Does Chris expect a anyone running for public office to enter a race assuming he or she is going to lose? If Hillary were Henry, would Matthews judge him negatively for asserting confidence? Just the opposite I suspect. In a man, such confidence would be applauded. Or more likely, the question would never even be asked.
Clinton told Couric she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. “We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate.” That’s showing the humility and loyalty constituents expect from a candidate. Matthews failed to mention this. And dollars to doughnuts, if she had answered, “Yes I can imagine a scenario where I don’t win.” he would have pounced on her for not being strong enough for the gloves-off political game.
Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation about Chris’s many “man crushes”. Watching Hardball over time, you see him become enamored of candidate after candidate, from John McCain (who, trust me, is not a nice man) to Barak Obama, depending on their level of ascendancy in the media mashup of the day.
But from Day One, Matthews has found so many ways to trash Hillary Clinton that many of his own journalistic colleagues have accused him of picking on her.
You can leave Chris your comment about this on or send your thoughts to MSNBC.
11/28/07 © Gloria Feldt www.gloriafeldt.com
Friday, November 09, 2007
Rudy and the Hooker Principle
Here's the link to the Huffington Post version. Take a moment to post a comment there if you get a chance. I really can't believe the media has given Rudy such a free ride as he triangulates and prostitutes himself all over the place.
---
With some politicians, there’s not a question what they are; it’s just a matter of negotiating the price. In accepting Pat Robertson’s endorsement this week, Rudy Giuliani would have been advised by one the wisest and wittiest of my college professors, the late Bob Rothstein, to apply what he called “the hooker principle”: first, get paid.
Even John McCain, who was at the exact same moment assuming the position in order to snag the endorsement of the more dangerous but less flamboyant Sen. Sam Brownback and establish his own creds with the hard rightwing, extreme anti-choice, anti-gay Republican base, was rendered speechless at the news about the unholy alliance between Robertson and Giuliani. For bald face political two-step, Giuliani has out danced them all.
One surely hopes that Pat paid Rudy well up front in whatever value he thinks he can deliver, because Robertson’s past disreputable actions certainly bring clear losses on the other side of this endorsement, as reported by The American Prospect Senior Editor, Garance Franke-Ruta,
Both men would have been well served to heed Proverbs 13:20: “He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm”.
Certainly Pat Robertson has shown himself to be a fool many times over. Besides blaming the evils of a secular nation—epitomized always by Rudy’s New York—for the 9/11 attacks, he famously said that the feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women, but rather about a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians”.
But Rudy’s acceptance of Pat Robertson’s endorsement is equally foolish. Not only has it made utterly transparent that Giuliani isn’t just a cross dresser but also a man capable of practicing the oldest profession as well as any Jezebel; it makes the press (yes, the same press that spent all last week creaming Hillary for acknowledging there was more than one way to look at a question) look foolish for trumpeting this hypocritical endorsement with too-little criticism of Giuliani’s blatant doublespeak on the social issues.
© Gloria Feldt 2007
---
With some politicians, there’s not a question what they are; it’s just a matter of negotiating the price. In accepting Pat Robertson’s endorsement this week, Rudy Giuliani would have been advised by one the wisest and wittiest of my college professors, the late Bob Rothstein, to apply what he called “the hooker principle”: first, get paid.
Even John McCain, who was at the exact same moment assuming the position in order to snag the endorsement of the more dangerous but less flamboyant Sen. Sam Brownback and establish his own creds with the hard rightwing, extreme anti-choice, anti-gay Republican base, was rendered speechless at the news about the unholy alliance between Robertson and Giuliani. For bald face political two-step, Giuliani has out danced them all.
One surely hopes that Pat paid Rudy well up front in whatever value he thinks he can deliver, because Robertson’s past disreputable actions certainly bring clear losses on the other side of this endorsement, as reported by The American Prospect Senior Editor, Garance Franke-Ruta,
Marc Ambinder reported this morning that Iowa Christian Alliance president Steve Scheffler is not going to follow Christian Coalition co-founder Pat Robertson’s lead and support Rudy Giuliani. That’s not too much of a surprise, as the Iowa branch of once-vigorous Christian Coalition was so disgusted by the scandals of the national group that it broke with the Coalition and changed its name to the Christian Alliance in March 2006, saying “the Board… would rather function as an independent organization than as an organization shrouded with perceptions contrary to its Christian commitments.”
Both men would have been well served to heed Proverbs 13:20: “He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm”.
Certainly Pat Robertson has shown himself to be a fool many times over. Besides blaming the evils of a secular nation—epitomized always by Rudy’s New York—for the 9/11 attacks, he famously said that the feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women, but rather about a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians”.
But Rudy’s acceptance of Pat Robertson’s endorsement is equally foolish. Not only has it made utterly transparent that Giuliani isn’t just a cross dresser but also a man capable of practicing the oldest profession as well as any Jezebel; it makes the press (yes, the same press that spent all last week creaming Hillary for acknowledging there was more than one way to look at a question) look foolish for trumpeting this hypocritical endorsement with too-little criticism of Giuliani’s blatant doublespeak on the social issues.
© Gloria Feldt 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
