By Brigitte L. Nacos
During one of the now plentiful discussions about a possible
intra-party battle between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008, someone
argued that Clinton had a better chance to prevail because there are far more female than black
voters. But there is no evidence that women prefer female candidates when they
cast their votes. In December 1984, after the defeat of Walter Mondale/Geraldine
Ferraro ticket, Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times, “One thing the year
did prove is that the women's vote does not respond simply to the symbol of a
woman's candidacy.” She cited Ethel Klein, author of a book titled Gender Politics, who said, “There has
always been an ambiguous relationship of women voting for women candidates.
Unlike blacks and other minorities, women do not vote on self-interest. They
vote for a better society as a whole. Women see as selfish the argument of
'Vote for someone because she's a woman like you and you'll personally gain.'
'' Since then, far more women have won seats in the U.S. Congress and state
legislatures; there are more female governors as well. But female candidates are ill advised to count
on sisterhood at the ballot box. Nor do they get an automatic break, when it
comes to leading female columnists. Lately, male columnists, especially
conservatives like David Brooks, Charles
Krauthammer and today
George Will (“Run Now Obama”), are urging Obama to become a candidate (and to
give Hillary hell, I suppose), but nobody seems tougher than Maureen Dowd, when
it comes to scrutinize Senator Clinton. I came to that conclusion after reading Dowd's latest column and rereading a number of earlier ones about Hillary Clinton.
In yesterday’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd (subscription needed) starts out with the interesting question whether gender or race would be a greater handicap in the presidential race of 2008 and ends with the question whether Obama is tough enough and Hillary is genuine. Throughout the column, Senator Clinton gets the bad end of stick in the “Will Hillzilla Crush Obambi?” piece. “Despite her desire to seem far more experienced than her rival,” Dowd writes, “Hillary’s role in high-level politics has been mostly that of a spouse…” One of the most prevalent gender frames in the media ties female politicians to their families and especially their husbands. In Hillary Clinton’s case, six years as a member of the U.S. Senate do not rid her of the spouse label nor establish her as a politician in her own right--not in Ms. Dowd’s view. And if so, she is merely a “Senator Pothole.” Dowd writes furthermore that Hillary’s “campaign will be ruthless in stomping Obama;” that she is uncomfortable in her skin; that “her message is simply the Divine Right of Clintons.”
Unlike Dowd, I do not know whether Senator Clinton is comfortable in her
skin but assume that she has developed by now a thick skin and knows that other women
politicians have not fared better in Dowd’s column. For example, under the headline
“Running like a Girl” Ms. Dowd wrote in January 1998,
Geraldine Ferraro's bumpy entrance
into the Senate race makes me tired. Don't New York Democrats have anyone new and
exciting to offer? The thought of returning to the murky depths of the Zaccaro [her husband]
finances sends me to my fainting couch. The thought of the predictably liberal
host of "Crossfire" running as an outsider and reformer gives me the
vapors. The Feminist Icon began her campaign by acting like a girl. She told
Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that she would not debate her primary
opponents unless they signed a written pledge not to be mean. Hey, lady, this
is New York.
And what makes her
think that blathering night after night with political hacks on
"Crossfire" is a "valuable" experience that qualifies her
for a Senate seat? She and Pat Buchanan were using the show to run for office,
but they seemed ossified in their ideological corners. The problem with women
winning high offices in New York is not New York.It's the women running.
While female candidates and office holders should not win
favor with female voters or columnists because they share the same gender, they
should not be rejected at the polls or singled out for the harsh criticism by women because they are females. As for Maureen
Dowd, author of the bestseller “Are Men Necessary?,” perhaps her next book title will be, “Are Women Necessary?”
Comments