That's sort of the impression you get from Linda Hirshman's article on Hillary Clinton's run for the White House.
Hillary Rodham Clinton sure got it right when she announced her candidacy for president while sitting on her living room couch. Her success may very well turn on the decisions of millions of women sitting on their living room couches.
Clinton advisers James Carville and Mark Penn have said they're counting on a women's vote (the "X factor") to catapult their client into the White House. They're obviously hoping that a female candidate will get much more support from women and are banking on the "gender gap," the idea, trumpeted by the media and women's organizations, that women believe in liberal policies and will therefore, as rational political actors, support the Democratic Party.
But I have news for Messrs. Carville and Penn: All the gender gap talk notwithstanding, there's no guarantee that Clinton would receive enough votes from women to be elected. I've studied women and women's politics for 20 years, and if there's one thing I know, it's that, except for possibly once in 1996, female voters have not by themselves put anyone in the White House.
I despise anyone who tries to pigeonhole me just because I'm a woman. It's absolutely insulting to hear people say that women will vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Yet, it's equally insulting to hear that women won't vote for Hillary because we see her as competition.
Competition?! Competition for what? Most dysfunctional marriage ever displayed in the White House? Dumbest supposedly smart woman for insulting stay-at-home mothers? Most cynical use of her sex during her debate with Rick Lazio.
LAZIO: Yeah, I'd be happy to. But I want you to be the - I want to get it done right now. I don't want any more wriggle room. I don't want any more evasion. The truth is, Tim, is that Mrs. Clinton has been airing millions of dollars in soft-money ads. It's the height of hypocrisy to talk about soft money when she's been raising soft money by the bucketloads out in Hollywood and spending all that money on negative advertising. Height of hypocrisy. Let's just get this deal done right now.
RUSSERT: Can I give Mrs. Clinton?
LAZIO: Right here, here it is. Let's sign it. It's - it's the New York Freedom of Soft Money Pact. I signed it. We can - we can both sit down together. We can all get all the media in here. We will make sure it's an ironclad deal. And - and I'm - I'm happy to - to abide by anything that we all agree on. But let's get it done now. Let's not get any more wriggle room.
RUSSERT: Mrs. Clinton, do you want to respond?
CLINTON: Well, yes, I certainly do. You know, I - I - I - I admire that. That was a wonderful performance and I -
LAZIO: Well, why don't you just sign it?
CLINTON: And you - and you did it very well.
LAZIO: I'm not asking you to admire it. I'm asking you to sign it.
CLINTON: Well, I would be happy to when you give me the signed letters -
LAZIO: Well, right here. Right here.
CLINTON: When you give me -
LAZIO: Right here, sign it right now.
CLINTON: Well - well, we'll shake - we'll shake on this -
LAZIO: No, no, I want your signature. Because I think that everybody wants to see you signing something that you said you were for. I'm for it. I haven't done it. You've been violating it. Why don't you stand up and do something - do something important for America? While America is looking at New York, why don't you show some leadership because it goes to trust and character.
CLINTON: And - and this new radio ad from the Republican Party using soft money is not part of your campaign.
LAZIO: Oh, well, what are we talking about here? No, let's just put things in perspective.
RUSSERT: We - we are - we are out of time. We have to go out -
LAZIO: Six - six - six, seven, eight million dollars that you've been spending.
RUSSERT: We have to allow - we have to allow time for closing statements.
Yes, indeed, Tim. Make sure there's time for closing statements when Lazio had Hillary on the ropes because she wasn't about to sign anything until she determined what the definition of "is" is (I'm sure Lazio was part of the vast right-wing conspiracy).
I lost any remaining respect for Hillary that day, watching her try to look wide-eyed and shocked--shocked! that Lazio would try to make her put her signature on something she said she was in favor of. Why she practically got the vapors.
According to Hirshman, this is actually the sort of thing that should make us want to vote for Hillary.
[S]he has had the soap opera story of the century with that charismatic, faithless husband. This has made her suffer, something one of the Wednesday women specifically singled out as a reason to support a candidate. Will she be willing to open that old wound to convince potential female supporters that her policies, such as universal child health care, arise out of her concern for women like them, rather than being just the usual liberal agenda?
So, now we're supposed to vote for Hillary because she's a woman who's done been wronged and women are too stupid to decide who they want to vote for based on anything rational? Are they this insulting to racial minorities, or is this the tone we get in the estrogen-heavy halls of Congress these days?
|