  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Hillary’s Sex AppealPosted on Oct 18, 2007WASHINGTON—A friend of mine in New York—a high-powered professional woman—told me the other day that she thought the country had moved beyond the point where women should want to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she would be the first woman president. “Just vote for the best person,” she said, with what sounds like impeccable logic. But Clinton, according to all the polls, is winning overwhelming support from women voters. And the reason, I think, is that there’s a flaw in my friend’s logic: Except in some sort of arcane higher-dimensional geometry comprehensible only to mathematicians, you can’t get beyond a point that you’ve never actually reached. The fact is that we’ve never had a female president. And for many women across the country—especially those of the boomer generation who have seen the role of women in American society change so dramatically—Clinton’s election would be a historic milestone and a source of great pride. That’s certainly not the only reason Clinton leads the national polls for the Democratic nomination. She started with universal name-recognition and has proceeded to run a smart, largely mistake-free campaign. She is surrounded by the aura of her husband’s eight-year administration, and while that may be a mixed blessing if she gets to the general election, it’s a huge asset among the Democratic faithful. But her lead, among women, over Barack Obama and her other rivals is so huge—and so much greater than her lead among men—that it has to have something to do with gender. Which is perfectly understandable. Obama, of course, would be the first African-American president, which would be equally historic. And the predictable notes of caution that must be inserted into any column about Clinton’s campaign—that the polls in Iowa show a close three-way race, that anything can happen in New Hampshire, that Obama can rebound in South Carolina, that Howard Dean was leading the polls four years ago, that nothing matters until someone, somewhere, actually casts a vote—are more than cover-your-behind caveats, they’re real. There’s plenty of time for the whole nature of the Democratic race to change. But some of the numbers are stunning. A new national CNN poll, released Wednesday, showed that among registered Democrats, 68 percent of African-American women said Clinton was their likely choice for the nomination while only 25 percent backed Obama. By contrast, Obama led Clinton—46 percent to 42 percent—among African-American men. The CNN sample of black voters was small, meaning those numbers are not precise. But even taking into account the margin of error, the poll reports an unmistakable tendency that clearly works in Clinton’s favor: To the extent that African-American voters are taking identity into account as they ponder the presidential race, women are considering not only race but also gender. Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, has called it “the ‘sistah’ vote.” That advantage among blacks is mirrored among Democratic women overall—and with a series of “Women Changing America” campaign events during the past week, including a huge fundraiser Wednesday in Washington, Clinton has been making an overt appeal to consolidate this support. Her campaign Web site is full of encomiums from women—professional women, working-class women, stay-at-home mothers—who express their pride in the first front-running female presidential candidate. Clinton asks voters to help her shatter “the highest glass ceiling.” At recent campaign appearances, Clinton has told of meeting an elderly woman—born when women didn’t even have the vote—who came up and said she just wanted to shake the hand of the first woman president. As the old proverb goes, “women hold up half the sky”—actually, a bit more than half. If Clinton can sustain her advantage among women—especially among the working-class and middle-class women who could be said to constitute the spine of the Democratic Party—it’s hard to see how Obama, John Edwards or any of the other challengers can gain much ground on her. Not that they aren’t trying. Clinton’s rivals are full of promises and proposals that are meant to appeal to women voters—initiatives on issues such as family leave and health insurance, for example. All the Democratic contenders have records of support for gender equality. All of them, especially Obama and Edwards, are more than capable of projecting themselves as strong-yet-sensitive, modern, caring guys. But they can’t hide the fact that they’re guys. And she’s not. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Campaign Lessons for 2008 Next item: Could Gore Be a Contender? Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Eric, November 2, 2007 at 2:43 pm # To Douglas Chalmers. 1. He’s stands a chance of winning. Had I not believe this I would vote for Edwards. However I must say that vote is not purely guided by race. I also believe Edwards would be an equally good choice however since he seems to lack the votes needed to win rather than throw my vote away ill give it to Obama. But if the tables were turned I would do the same for Edwards. I respect them both equally As for Hillary, I believe she can also run the country but just not in the direction I think it should be going. She seems to represent more of the same old politics so much to the point that many Republicans have adopted her as their choice for change. When you really think about it her campaign is flawless since she’s going after Clinton loyalist, women, republicans (by speaking & voting like them) & black democrats who don’t think Obama is black enough. These voters are the bulk of America so she’s truly going to be a hard one to beat. Hope that cleared that up
By Conservative Yankee, November 2, 2007 at 4:23 am # 111031 by Eric on 11/01 at 6:20 pm “It occurs to me that one noticeable fact about women leaders is that the allegedly patriarchal south Asian nations (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India & The Philippines) have had them long before the US”. Let us not forget Argentina, Egypt, China, Russia, and Rome! BUT not Mexico The US or Canada. Maybe there is something in the North American water?
By Eric, November 1, 2007 at 6:20 pm # “It occurs to me that one noticeable fact about women leaders is that the allegedly patriarchal south Asian nations (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India & The Philippines) have had them long before the US”. We Americans have Unique opportunity here to take a small step forward or a leap ahead. I honestly prey on my hands and knees for my children’s sakes that in my lifetime we take that leap. Not only because he’s half black but because he’s definitely capable (Unlike Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton). No more reverends please! Particularly if they are North Carolina A&T;State University’s Athletics graduates & Chicago Theological Seminary / Brooklyn College drop outs! My ideal dream would be Obama as president & Edwards as VP. Let Obama take care of this war & have Edwards go after Bush & Dick
By rage, October 22, 2007 at 12:45 pm # “Get your mind out of the gutter and stop blaming women for your limp dick, JB.... The way you have lived your life is your fault!!! “ by Douglas Chalmers on 10/21 at 11:30 pm LOL! That’s cold. Funny, but real cold! LMAO!
By John Borowski, October 22, 2007 at 11:31 am # Any moron that will vote for a woman such as Hillary Clinton based on the size of her breasts is a moron in my opinion. An intelligent person will assess whether she can heal the wounds of the country perpetrated by Bush and Cheney that left this country in intensive care. Judging by the evils and insanities perpetrated by Bush and Cheney, anybody including the mythical devil is a better choice than a disgraced Republican (Aka Conservative right-winger). Unfortunately, the rigged elections would prevent even the mythical devil from winning an election let alone Hillary Clinton. This is analogous to a moron that will buy a $20,000 to $60.000 vehicle based on how well it spins or how well it goes in the mud, flood, and fantasy woods, or ninety mph in the school zone. “As Seen On TV”
By Suze, October 22, 2007 at 6:50 am # I’m a woman, and while I would like to see a woman president in my lifetime, I would never vote for Hillary. The idea that I would vote for any woman simply because she is a woman is crazy.
By Conservative Yankee, October 22, 2007 at 4:41 am # 108708 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/21 at 11:24 pm “The trouble is that people on Truthdig don’t understand the bottom line in politics and how it is arrived at. Its no good being a saint if the suckers won’t vote for you. They prefer “smoke and mirrors” to truth.” This is a reason to support the business shill, because she uses no smoke and mirrors? “As it is, only 50% of eligible citizens vote if you’re lucky. They are all mostly already biased in their views. The average person doesn’t really understand what “government” is and shouldn’t be let near a ballot box, electronic or othrwise.” Ahh, we finely get to the core. We have a royalist among us. No wonder you want The business shill, she is “queen,” by right of succession. BUT watch that knife, it cuts both ways, after Hillary it must be Laura, Neil, Jeb, or Mel. BTW when Laura runs will you use the same “sexist” arguments, or is it all right for us mill-workers, the great unwashed who shouldn’t vote anyway, to vote for someone else?
By CJ, October 22, 2007 at 2:27 am # I was going to go on at length, as I usually do, but ctbrandon said it in fewer words. Yep, it IS a sad day when “journalism” has come to this, even if Robinson was only reporting what he’d discovered in his capacity as journalist. In which case, so much the worse for so-called “citizens,” never mind journalists.
By Margaret Currey, October 21, 2007 at 11:23 pm # As a woman I would like to see a woman become president, but even though Hiliary is smart, I would wait to see if she makes the primiaries, John Edwards is a person who is beliavable in my opion he is an honest person, so is Obama and he would make a good president. In my opinion any Democrat would be better than what has run this country in the last seven years.
By John Borowski, October 21, 2007 at 10:07 am # Sex appeal means the ability of a person to turn on another person sexually. The sex appeal you are talking about it is for a zoom - zoom car, a prurient picture, or a fantasy trucky - wucky that goes in the fantasy woods. This type of “sex appeal” is reserved only for the enjoyment and excitement of morons.
By Conservative Yankee, October 21, 2007 at 7:22 am # 108596 by concerned_citizen on 10/21 at 6:27 am “If anyone in the world had the information and experience to see the truth about Iraq, it was Hillary Clinton. But she favored her electability over her integrity and traded votes for death. HILLARY KNEW.” Hill-the-business-shill’s supporters like to say “she’s smart, well-connected, and experienced.” Then they say she “didn’t know” the ramifications of voting for the war. Well which witch is which? Did her smart,connected, experienced brain fail her? Or did she make a calculated decision which leaves the US taxpayer with almost 4,000 dead soldiers, and almost a trillion dollars in war bills, but fertile ground for her candidacy? Shame on the folks who can’t see through this! The US population does not get the best person for the office of President, but they surely get the one the majority deserves!
By pv, October 20, 2007 at 10:48 am # It occurs to me that one noticeable fact about women leaders is that the allegedly patriarchal south asian nations (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India) have had them long before the US. Ditto the Phillipines. Now the obvious reason for this is that in those countries being part of the ruling elite is more important than gender, all the women leaders were drawn from elite ruling families, and women became leaders when no suitable males were available from those families. Now note also that the first time a woman is a serious contender for the US presidency just happens to coincide with a period where US politics has become dominated by a small number of elite families (Bush’s and Clintons and Gores etc). Is this merely a coincidence, or is it ironically the case that the ‘progressive’ situation of a woman candidate merely reflects the very regressive growth in inequality and plutocracy in the US?
By Conservative Yankee, October 20, 2007 at 7:09 am # So here’s the scenario… We get Hill-the-business-shill for president. The clothing comes off, and we (in less than two years) find she is worse than what we have now. She (trying to prove she is as tough as a man) gets us invomlved in Iran. She pays her friends at Walmart for their campaign dollars by opening free trade even further. Then in 2012 we are asked, (al la Jimmy Carter) “Want four more years of this? If this happens what advantage to womken? So Hill-the-business-shill gives us Jeb? Thanks, but call me sexist if you wish....I’ll pass Kucinich 08!
By rage, October 20, 2007 at 6:23 am # “........much of the venom aimed at Senator Clinton is sexist in nature. Sex Appeal wasn’t meant to mean sexy dimwits. But then you knew that didn’t you and it was just another excuse to bash an older woman.” #108436 by Marjorie L. Swanson on 10/20 at 3:22 am Spoken like a truly defensive older woman who’s bought into the anti-aging crusade currently waged in those pathetically trite Oil of Olay commercials! Let’s tell the truth and shame the devil. Sex appeal and sexiness are not necessarily interchangeable synonyms. However, you do usually run across one when looking up the other in the dictionary or thesaurus. Whether or not what appeals sexually to members of this mammalian species that reproduces sexually is necessarily sexy does not dismiss the reality that sexiness remains a interestingly integral part of sex appeal. So, walk it off, and let the truth free you. No one is being sexist. Mitt “The Dog Terrorist Griswold” Romney is sexy, quite stupid and mindlessly cruel to animals, but very sexy. Hillary is getting over for simply being the only woman at a podium. She is not at all sexy, not even politically by tortured DC Swamp standards of sexiness. No one is bashing Shillary. Had she not gone on The View, of all places, shooting off her mouth about what an inconvenient burden her political sex appeal is to carry, this discussion wouldn’t even exist. Hillary DESERVES to come away from this one bitten to pieces by her rampaging detractors. She is not Sophia Loren. Thus, her selling sexy is straight up false advertisement. There is no data to substantiate that claim. No one has confessed to any sort of sexual obsession for Hillary Rodham Clinton. She just doesn’t bring that out of anyone in America. It’s not very politically correct or Christ-like in its compassionate kindness, but it’s no less the truth. The press wants to play up Hillary’s sexiness to match the questionably contrived poll data being crazily spun before the primary elections. The propagandists behind the Team Hillary curtain who pick her audiences and the questions she can be asked during these staged appearances they call debates need us to feel she’s the answer to every prayer we’ve ever prayed. But, she’s not. After all, there is nothing overly sexually appealing about a woman Senator with genital injuries clumsily gained from ineffectively straddling every political fence she was stubbornly unwilling to hurdle. Bottom line: Hillary is the 60 year old wife of a very popular former President, a displaced corporate lawyer with a lot of very troubling corporate ties, and a mendaciously mediocre Senator in a carpetbag from the state with the most permissive residency requirements. She’s a former Goldwater girl who lucked upon a Rhodes’ Scholar. That’s about as sexually appealing as it gets for her. She is not a sex symbol, nor should she aspire to be if she ever wants to be taken seriously in political life again.
By Fools on the Hill, October 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm # I don’t give any weight to her being first lady. If I did then Barbara Bush should be considered Presidential material. A one term Senator, isn’t much experience, especially when she voted for the worst foreign policy disaster in US History. A big negative, is all her time, inside the parallel universe of DC. Where all that matters is who has the money and power. We’ve heard this nonsense before, Bush being the first MBA President. I think Obama has significantly more experiences in life and his career, that would lead him to be a great President.
By DennisD, October 19, 2007 at 5:45 pm # ER - another inane, ridiculous article that tells everyone we should vote for her because she’s a woman? Just because Hillary already knows where all the bathrooms are in the White House doesn’t qualify her to be President. Even Bu$h eventually found most of them by his second term, albeit with help.
By thomas billis, October 19, 2007 at 5:41 pm # The good thing is there is no intelligence gap in America between men and women.Men voted for one moron because they wanted to have a beer with him.Women vote for another person because she has tits.It is utterly amazing what we use as a perameter to dedeuce which person has the qualifications to be President.No one in their right mind to this point with all the” skirting” of the issues has done knows where Hillary stands.I take exception to anyone who says that Hillary has taken a novel position on anything.The war well maybe 2013.Health care HMOs figure prominently in the mix.Will she fight to restore habeus Corpus.Is she for or against war with Iran.Anyone who says they think they know her positions has not taken their eyes off her tits.
By Verla Mae, October 19, 2007 at 1:30 pm # “Not that they aren’t trying. Clinton’s rivals are full of promises and proposals that are meant to appeal to women voters—initiatives on issues such as family leave and health insurance, for example. All the Democratic contenders have records of support for gender equality. All of them, especially Obama and Edwards, are more than capable of projecting themselves as strong-yet-sensitive, modern, caring guys. “ -from above We’re talking about Presidential candidates, not candidates for the final episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Since when has being capable of projecting a “strong-yet-sensitive” anything been a Presidential attirbute? I’m sick of these nuts from the evil empire dragging us down on the dark side. We’ve already got a cute little monkey who likes to play dress-up and pretend to be king. He read My Pet Goat while America was under attack. So, enough with the projected fake images. And, another thing: Hillary can’t run on the sexy ticket until her wardrobe undergoes a Mr. Gunn makeover. That poor woman hasn’t worn a single outfit I’ve heard another woman I know claim she wants or owns. Somebody just needs to tell her about that. It’s like she’s dressing for the sympathy vote.
By sharon ash, October 19, 2007 at 12:11 pm # I support Hillary because she is the most qualified person(in fact highly qualified), in the field of candidates, of either party. The fact she is female is a bonus, from my perspective, as I am more than ready to give a female the opportunity to serve as president. The closed minded on the right will never accept her and the screamers on the left are out-of-touch with what can and cannot be elected in this country. However, I believe she has a strong base of support in the bell curve group (also known as moderates)to win the election. But who knows, it is still a ways down the road and plenty can happen between now and then.
By rage, October 19, 2007 at 11:36 am # Please! Don’t make me vomit! There is nothing even remotely sexy about Shillary Clintoon, okay? Sarcozsy of France has a sexy wife, well ex-wife. Kucinich has a sexy wife. Even Ugly Freddy has a sexy wife. The Spice girls are sexy. Kimora Lee is sexy. Kate Blanchet is sexy. Hillary Rodham Clinton is NOT sexy. Shillary is a tan-free, funny-looking, anti-fashionable, aging Goldwater baby booming housewife in an off-the-sales-rack polyester pants suit and a rayon blouse, who is about as sexy as an anal cyst. Let’s be clear; Shillary is one reason why Big Dog is flagrantly adulterous. Hillary is being rather deliberately whored by the very calculating national corporate military industrial propaganda complex as the first woman candidate for President to get this far to keep us from seeing the more qualified competition. The reality, though, is Shirley Chisolm beat her to the draw back in the 1970s. Shirley was black and a woman candidate for President of the United States. Shirley never resorted to boob flashes because her political resume lacked the sex-umph to get her recognized by the voters. Shirley fought to the death on ISSUES of the day, not her ethnicity, her gender, or her (un)popularity. The sad reality is that if the RNC knew of a Democratic candidate more beatable than Shillary, she, too, would be polling in the single digits with everyone else the BFEE and Murdock want us to ignore.
By MaryinNC, October 19, 2007 at 11:06 am # Mr, Robinson, to your friend in NY and others - give Sen. Clinton a break. Both she and her husband are centrists, not liberals.
By WR Curley, October 19, 2007 at 7:24 am # It’s nuts, this breathless, personality based, Oprah style political punditry. Tell me about her health care policy - in detail, if it’s not too much to ask. Tell me about tax policy and wealth distribution. Tell me about environmental protection, and worker protection and wage protection. Tell me how she’ll tap dance with the K Street boys. Tell me how the government - with its tens of thousands of interlocking, overlapping services, entitlements, and responsibilties - will better function if Ms Clinton attains this, her highest aspiration. Get some hard answers on her team’s strategies to mitigate the mess that Dickey and Georgie and Rummy and the boys got us into Over There. Do some of the hard work journalists are trained to do, or hand over your card to someone who will. Race track touts is what you Times/Post time-servers have become. I’ll check your rags now and then to monitor the direction and the intensity of the spin. But if it’s depth I need, and fact, I have better places to go. This serious business, kids. Your audience share is going the way of your professional ethics...down the tubes. You write well. Your piece is pleasant, painless, and banal. I appreciate your efforts. But, lordy, sex appeal? I’m looking for some decent leadership. I don’t need a whore. WR Curley Add Your Comment |
|
Huckabee’s Major Misfire
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article