Hating Hillary, Loving Gore?
Via McClatchy:
WASHINGTON — More than half of Americans say they wouldn’t consider
voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton for president if she becomes the
Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to
McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News. The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y.
Former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the
can’t-stand-’em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn’t consider
voting for him. Clinton has long been considered a politically
polarizing figure who’d be a tough sell to some voters, especially many
men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders. Thursday’s survey
provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry
Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.
Meanwhile, via Politico:
Boston – A New Hampshire presidential poll by WHDH-TV and Suffolk
University shows that local Democrats prefer Al Gore to any of the
current contenders. Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over the rest of the current
Democratic field. The poll, released this afternoon, shows 37 percent
of likely Democratic voters backing Clinton or leaning towards her.
Barack Obama was at 19 percent, with both John Edwards and Bill
Richardson at 9 percent. Al Gore, however, could enter the race as the leader. When his name
is added, Clinton loses more than a quarter of her support, while Gore
is backed by 32 percent.
I don’t care how you cut it, explain it, analyse it, dissect it, hatred of Hilary is basically anti-woman. With women who hate her, it is an ambivalence that is hard to explain. Nevertheless, it is not positive for those women.
Geraldine Ferraro was demonized especially by the archbishop, patriarch of New York. If the democrats want to win they will pass on Gore. He made a winning race into a losing one if any one ever did.
The “polarizing” bit is something we should not accept too easily. W is polarizing as are many other male politicians.
Bill,
That’s an amazing comment even coming from you … hatred of Hillary Rodham Clinton has almost nothing to do with her gender and almost everything to do with her eight years as First Lady and the legacy of her husband. It has to do with Rose Law firm questions, cattle stock deal questions, the Hillarycare debacle, etc. There was a recent article that indicated Hillary’s greatest detractors among women come not from the ranks of conservative women who think she should stay home and bake cookies but instead from the ranks of the most activist feminists who dislike her political opportunism and other aspects of her career, policies, etc. Opinion polls show that Americans are quite willing to vote for a woman for president, and even think that a woman would bring certain better qualities to the Oval office than would a man … they just don’t like this particualr woman based on long experience.
Analysis of the Hilary phenomenon is not easy by a long shot. I agree that very smart and good women dislike her intensely, if not hate. My best friend’s and his wife are in that category. Feminists also. Not all. It can be truly said that many women adore her and admire her courage. Especially, women in the third world.
Katie Couric is a good example to look at. You might say we are not ready for a woman president or a woman national anchor. That is different.
No matter how professional, brilliant, objective we think we are, we are still a product of the mores of the society in which we live and have been brought up.
Much more to be written. To be continued.
Again, Katie Couric is an example of a woman who isn’t liked (i.e., by getting good ratings) for her specific qualities (or lack thereof)–not just because she is a woman. Couric is a live Barbie doll who comes from the happy news morning show format and even lent her voice to an animated movie, “Shark Tale,” as “Katie Current” … she is not a serious journalist … another woman journalist with more serious credentials–perhaps an older woman–would likely be more respected, more trusted, and thus more watched …
Hello from Down Under.
just a quick comment: I know a lot of women –like me –who found Hilary troblesome when she first came into the white house–the whole co-presidency thing. But I now view her (and I may be a mnority of women) much more positively, because of the way she conducted herself as senator from New York. She paid her own dues. she did her job. So she’s fully entitled to run for president. in her own right. She’s not hanging onto coat tails.
(That leaves apart, of course, agreement or disagreement on particular issues, I’m talking about the special “Hilary ” factor.)
Bill, I don’t think hatred of Hillary is anti-woman. I’m a woman, I’ve supported a lot of women candidates. And I don’t hate Hillary, but I’m very wary of her. And I can’t say that wariness is issue-based either.
I’ve always seen the Clintons as Mr. and Mrs. Macbeth, he’s the humble Thane of Arkansas, getting inklings of being greater still (casting call for James Carville, Weird Sister).
Hillary, nursing her own ambitions to be recognized for her smarts, encourages him, helps him mastermind his plan. Only one of them can be president in name, but they’ll share the burdens and the prestige.
Bill is elected, and Hillary gets the plummy job of developing a universal health care plan. But it all turns into a Rube Goldberg apparatus that is universally derided (and sets back the cause of health care 15 years).
While trying to get her bearings after what she must have been felt as a failure and humiliation, the news breaks that Bill has been philandering with a hottie with a blue dress and shapely ankles.
But, real life not being something you can wrap up in a couple of hours, Hillary doesn’t just wash her hands and die.
No, Hillary must live through the humiliations and show that she can prevail. So while Bill eats Heart Smart in Harlem, she’s decides to go for the crown herself.
The new Weird Sisters, Hillary’s campaign managers, were on NPR a week or two ago talking quite candidly about how they’re scripting scenes so she can show compassion, humor, and whatever else the polls show she’s lacking in (thinner ankles?).
I’m not sure what to make of my Shakespearean take on Hillary. I haven’t put this much effort into thinking about WHY a candidate wants to be president so badly since Richard Nixon.
And I find THAT fact somewhat troubling.
Jean, glad you (and Cathy) got into this thread. I say we have to prescind from the particulars about Hilary whether she is good or bad, authentic or not. The main thrust must be that when a man does the same thing he is not pummeled as much. Not even close.
Some say that many are proposing the same things Hilary proposed in health care. The Insurance companies went ape in criticizing her. You know their motive. Pelosi is experiencing similar criticisms now that she is in a powerful position.
The National news Anchor is basically a reader. Couric is just as informed as the other anchors are. I give credit to CBS for being patient in helping people get used to a woman as anchor.
Jean, sounds like you are faulting her for not becoming fully Lady Macbeth. Is she to be punished because she is resourcesful.
The third example is Martha Stewart. Heaven forbid that she is besting men.
Barbara Bush gets fantastic ratings for doing absolutely nothing but being a steady wife and mother. (and Bush was well known to have a lover on the side) In other words the traditional woman.
I am neither approving nor disapproving the actions of these women. My point is that the same actions in men do not get anywhere near the criticism.
And what about Bill Clinton. His philososphy is the same as Hilary’s. Yet he racks up the highest consistent ratings in history while hers lag.
Bill, the short answer is that I think Hillary wants power to vindicate her past humiliations in public life in a way that is frighteningly Nixon-like.
I realize this is gut analysis, some of it based on my perceptions of how other women tick. I don’t expect everyone to buy it. But I do trust my gut when it says “proceed with caution around this person.”
I do resent Hillary for bollixing up the health care task she was assigned, and based on that performance, I don’t have much faith in her abilities to build coalitions or get things done.
Barbara Bush is beloved because she is quietly but heavily involved in charities, in incredibly unassuming, and when she was in Lansing she was so charming she had battle ax Democrats like me wanting her to come over and be my Grandma.
Doesn’t mean she’d make a great president, but I’d elect her head of the Altar Society hands down! Were I still an Episcopalian, of course.
While I agree with Bill Mazzella that “when a man does the same thing he’s not pummeled as much”, is that really all that matters about Hilary Clinton’s political faux pas and blatant pandering? Should I support her or refrain from criticism out of sisterly sympathy? Yes, she’s certainly has the right to run and is as well-qualified as the other Democratic presidential candidates (with the exception of the undeclared Al Gore.) But how can I forget her about-face on Iraq? Her sponsorship of a bill to make flag-burning a crime – which even Antonin Scalia agreed was a nauseating but constitutionally protected matter of free speech ?
I consider myself a feminist, am a baby-boomer, a Pax Christi member, and can count on one hand the number of Republicans I’ve voted for in my entire lifetime. I would love to cast my vote for a woman President. But I cannot vote for Hilary Clinton. If the polls are correct (and 52% of likely voters agree with me), yet the Democrats persist in nominating her anyway, the White House will certainly remain in Republican hands for four more years.
Joanne,
My perception is your comments show how misogynist our upbringing is. Still. While I agree with you on Iraq and flag burning, it is surely true that as much or worse can be said about Hilary’s Repuplican opposition. What does it mean when you say you “cannot” vote for Hilary. Surely there is a good chance that she is just as good or better than all the other bufoons running?
I will give a few more examples and then will keep quiet. Especially since I seem more vocal than all the women on this thread.
The criticism of Eleanor Roosevelt is proverbial. The Klu Klux Klan offered $25,000 to anyone who would kill her. Katherine Graham’s story is remarkable and pungent. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9710982_ITM
Norman Mailer once wrote that we have come to a state that if a person becomes a millionaire, even if he did it by digging oil through his grandmother’s grave, people would not blink about what he did to his grandmother but would still praise him for his success.
Hilary certainly never did anything like that. Your witness.
Jean,
I guess no one ever told you about the story of the big bad Wolf. *):||
I-8)~V-|!
Bill –
Just because misogyny exists we should give Hilary a pass? Just because racism exists we shoould never criticize a black person?
And some of the “bufoons” running ARE better than Hilary. One of them is named Barack Obama.
Bill, sorry, I don’t quite follow your emoticons there, or get the connection with the Big Bad Wolf. You mean that if we vote for someone other than Hillary, we’re building our houses of straw? That the another Democrat couldn’t withstand the Republican assault?
I don’t think Hillary is better or worse than the other Democratic candidates.
But the reasons WHY she’s running concern me, because I wonder if, like Nixon, she’s one of those people who want power at any price.
And I agree with Joanne that her stand on Iraq is pretty hard to parse. She seems to be saying she’s not sorry that she voted for the war, but says she did so on misinformation. I don’t quite see how that works. If I sent thousands of people to their deaths because somebody lied to me, I’d be pretty darn sorry, and I’d be on the liars like red on a hot stove.
I also have to say that if you’re telling Joanne that her unwillingness to vote for Hillary is because she’s unwittingly bound by the forces of misogynistic culture is about the most patronizing thing I’ve heard in a real long time.
Jean, I have been away and caught your comment late.
What I mean is that we are all part of our culture, not just Joanne. I may be wrong but as I see it the attitude toward Hilary is part of our upbringing.
We are not as reasoned as we would like to believe. Just look at how Magdalene was rolled in the mud for 2000 years.
Bill-
Thought this thread was dead until I read your last comment. Your heart is obviously in the right place (pro-woman) and I appreciate that.
But don’t you see the irony in your position?
A male claims that a female who states that she dislikes Hilary for apparently rational and objective reasons is, in fact, only the unwitting captive of her culture. Yet the male is able to break free of this cultural stanglehold and name the female’s belief for what it is- unconscious misogyny…