Hillary Clinton Should Run on Her Own Merits

From: Tedra Osell

To: Courtney E. Martin; Wendy Shanker

I can't get on board with getting rid of “women's issues.” I know what the problem with that term is—much like “women's studies” or “minority studies” in academia, it effectively ghettoizes the subject matter—but if we get rid of it, then we're back to “universal” issues that exclude us altogether. It's like the argument that “feminism” is a divisive term, and we should all just be humanists. This is why I continue to think that Steinem's remark about “escaping the gender caste system” was so apropos: given that sexism still exists, there's no way for us to escape it, bracket it, transcend it, or put it aside.

That said. I just finished reading a really fascinating book: Erika Falk's Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns. Briefly, Falk's argument is that since 1872, every time a woman has run for office, the discussion of her candidacy—discussion like we're having here—has focused on her exceptionalism, her femininity, her appeal to women voters, etc. But. Studies show that when women run for office, they raise as much money as men do; they do as well or better than equally qualified men; and they win as often as men do relative to how often they run. According to Falk, the problem isn't the voters. The problem is us, the media—and women themselves, who do not enter races nearly as often as men do. Falk hypothesizes that this may be because media coverage of women is so gendered, and so biased, that it discourages women from running.

This is one reason why, in my initial comments, I tried to focus on Clinton's record. I'm excited that we're about to nominate either the first major-party black candidate or the first major-party woman, but I'm also increasingly frustrated by the way that discussion of the race has focused so heavily on symbolism, style, and rhetoric rather than on concrete differences between the candidates themselves.

Even when the candidates themselves have been given a chance to emphasize actual policy differences, as in the Texas debate, they seem to have generalized rather than been specific. Since reading Falk's book, I've especially noticed the way the Clinton campaign has itself been emphasizing gender. It seems to me that they've been doing more of this since Obama gained the lead (or maybe I've just become more aware of it); even the recent “red phone” ad, which overtly emphasizes Clinton's experience, covertly emphasizes her femininity by employing the “security mom” meme, focusing on putting the kids to bed and wanting to know that the world is safe while they sleep. Then there was her explicit invocation of Ann Richards, both in an ad and in the Texas debate, when she also mentioned that it was Barbara Jordan's birthday.

Obviously part of this is an attempt to rally what seems to have become Clinton's “base”: older, second-wave generation feminists. I think her emphasis on Obama's purported inexperience is part of this as well. Without the gender emphasis, it would be a pretty conventional “experience” vs. “inexperience” campaign. But with the gender emphasis, it's hard not to perceive it, at least in part, as an older woman correcting the younger generation—which is a major part of both the rhetoric and resentment of the “feminists ought to support Clinton” arguments. And whether because we tend to resent mothers, because America is a youth culture, or because it feeds directly into the Obama “change” message, it definitely seems to be a losing strategy. But the change message itself isn't unproblematic. Clinton's attempts to spin “change” as mere “speechmaking” didn't seem successful. Still, I do think that underlying the “inexperience” argument—which I think we'll see more of if Obama runs against McCain in the general election—is the implication that “change” is unspecific and vague, more rhetoric than substance. Of course, all presidential elections rely heavily on rhetoric, and McCain's reputation also relies on a certain popular vagueness about his being a “maverick.” (For example, there's a popular perception that he's not an anti-abortion extremist, despite his clear and appalling record on reproductive rights issues.)

Most voters don't dig deep into specific policy platforms, but the implication that Obama's a lightweight may have legs. Certainly Obama's been making a point in recent speeches to mention specific policy goals, which I interpret as a conscious attempt to demonstrate that he's inspirational and solid on the issues. I think, though, that the contention that voting for him because he's inspirational—or voting for Clinton because she is—is somehow different than voting on the “issues” is mistaken. Inspiring young people to active political participation is an issue. Representing an end to the old boy's club (whether as a woman or as a young black man) is an issue.

And after eight years of the Bush Administration, I think giving the people the sense that government is and should be responsive to their concerns is a vital issue. That, I think, is why the “change” message is so inspiring. It's not just “I'll change what Bush is doing” (which Clinton, too, is saying); it's “I'll change the appropriation of executive power, of presidential unaccountability, of crumbling civil liberties.” Clinton's “experience” argument relies in part on a claim of authority, and I think that voters are very nervous about that kind of presidential claim right now.