AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > November > 10
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Is Hillary Clinton’s gender
a disadvantage in the presidential race?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
Hillary Clinton may not be at a gender disadvantage, yet anyone who thinks being female actually shields her from a rough race is sure forgetting recent history.
So men are reluctant to hit Clinton hard, afraid of looking like cads? Then I’m a little confused here. Which Hillary Clinton have we been going easy on over the years? The one turning us into a socialist village, the one who had a lesbian affair in the White House, or the one who killed Vince Foster?
Calling Clinton’s gender an advantage feels so arbitrary that we may as well ascribe advantages to all things Hillary. Approximately 50 percent of all Americans can’t imagine ever voting for her? Advantage: Clinton! Widespread concern about having her husband’s influence back in the White House? Advantage: Clinton!
No, it’s hard to see the great advantage she has in being Hillary Clinton, let alone a woman.
So why position her gender as a leg up? While I don’t agree with Bill that Hillary’s “swiftboating” has begun, I can’t imagine that Team Rove doesn’t have a 3-point plan already making the rounds. Step one: Paint her as the “Teflon candidate.” Step two: trump up ads from the “Concerned Women of America Against Socialist Lesbian Killers.” Step three: traditional values voters eventually buy into this smear campaign, comforted by pundits’ assurances that, “It’s only fair.”
Hillary Clinton does herself no favors by playing it both ways; being a woman should neither protect her from rough competition nor win her extra votes. Yet don’t imagine for a New York minute that Clinton won a landslide senate victory because Rick Lazio was mean to her in a debate. She was up five points in the polls before ever stepping up to that podium.
Viable presidential candidates have always been a tough, thick-skinned bunch. We needn’t extend any special courtesies to the lone female in this race, the African-American, the Mormon, the 9/11 hero. Hit ‘em hard, but hit ‘em fair. Maybe then we can vote for what really matters: a man, or woman, who can truly lead this nation.
Advantage: Everyone.
Commentary
By Shaunti Feldhahn
Reading how the other democratic candidates “piled on” Senator Clinton at the recent debate, and the inevitable speculation about whether her gender is a disadvantage, made me want to laugh. Up until now, the press had played super nice, and the other Democratic candidates had been stymied by how to attack a woman without looking like cads. Even ABC’s Cokie Roberts later admitted that Clinton “Had way too favorable press at this point in the season,” and, “She’s been playing the gender card all along.”
Even beyond Hillary Clinton’s status as a policy leader, she has a clear and calculated advantage as a woman. She can stand out in a sea of men as having a unique perspective. And nearly six in ten Democratic primary voters are women - a population already viewing her gender as neutral or a plus. According to a November 1 survey by the women’s political group Emily’s List, fully 95 percent of female democrats said Clinton’s gender would either make her a “better” president (27 percent) or would make no difference (68 percent).
And she has another advantage that isn’t politically correct, but is nevertheless very real. Male candidates simply may not feel comfortable attacking a woman as nastily as they would another man. And if they do attack her, it not only makes her a sympathetic figure, it gives her some great PR the next day.
The day after the October 30 debate, Senator Clinton received a coveted endorsement from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). On a conference call with Clinton supporters, AFSCME president Gerald McEntee enthused, “Six guys against Hillary, and I’d call that a fair fight. This is a strong woman.”
Can you imagine any male candidate having that leverage?
As a woman, Clinton has the best of both worlds. And she knows it. After all it, worked really well in her 2000 Senate race with Rick Lazio. Lazio made the mistake of approaching her podium in a crowding manner during a debate, and his negatives shot up. We all know how that ended.
There’s nothing wrong with Senator Clinton shrewdly using whatever advantage she has. But let’s not pretend the advantage isn’t there.