Hillary and the Double Standard

I'm with Mickey Kaus:

I was surprised by all the talk in the debate spin room about Hillary's angry little speech after Edwards took Obama's side in the great "change" debate. The talkers assumed it was a potential Rick Lazio election-losing moment, an audience turnoff--a judgment echoed here and here ("dogmatic ... angry ... vicious"). ... I was surprised because when it happened, I thought to myself, "pretty good response." I've seen it again--here--and I still don't get what's wrong with it. Unconvincing, maybe. Heated, yes. But not overheated or uncontrolled or unhinged. This isn't the sort of thing I usually say--but isn't Hillary's outburst exactly the sort of forceful putdown male candidates not only get away with, but are expected to come up with? ...

I think if John McCain had said the same sort of thing - especially in an exchange with Mitt Romney - the post-debate spin would be entirely in his favor. But judge for yourself:

Comments

Who cares either way? All that matters is Obama is up double digits now in NH. That happened before the debate started.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 9:25 AM

This isn't the sort of thing I usually say

Incidentally, that little qualification tells you everything that's wrong with Mickey Kaus.

Posted by Freddie | January 6, 2008 9:33 AM

As an Obama supporter, I agree. I thought the whole debate was pretty even and unoffensive, and was pretty surprised by the voter discussions afterwards. What was interesting is that the people who seemed to find her most angry were women.

That said, the gender issue is obviously double-edged for her. On one hand it makes it hard for her to make direct attacks, on the other she gets to make explicit pitches for her candidacy based entirely on her gender in a way that Obama cannot do about his race. I think it also makes it harder for the other candidates to get mean as they risk seeming ungentlemanly.

Posted by matthewcc | January 6, 2008 9:45 AM

The problem was that HRC's criticisms were demagogic and offered in bad faith. A Senator criticizes a bill and subsequently votes for a compromise version! A Presidential candidate's health care plan isn't as far-going as what he would prefer in an ideal world!

In other words, any politician who ever takes political reality into account on anything is a "flip flopper." We've seen that movie before, and Democrats have a reason to resent it.

But the real reason the political press reacted the way it did was that Edwards decided not to go after Obama and go after Clinton instead. I'm not sure why, but that's the only story coming out of the debate.

Posted by Pithlord | January 6, 2008 10:16 AM

I'm a supporter of Obama. That said, her response would have me sold on her candidacy, if I didn't know their respective records.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 6, 2008 10:17 AM

I don't get the spin on this one. I don't support Hillary Clinton for President, but the response in question would certainly not have made me like her less.

Women candidates should be able to show a little passion and pique without being negatively labeled for it.

Posted by Steve Demuth | January 6, 2008 10:44 AM

First, Hillary does sound angry - but her anger comes across as shrill, rather than authentic. The exaggerated handgestures do not help - at points she looks like a puppet jerking up and down. Also, thirty-five years of change? Really? Doing what? Eight moderately inglorious years in a not very effective Clinton White House? Eight years as Senator from New York, compromising with Republicans? I make that sixteen years of relatively little change. To borrow a quote: "Show me the money, Hillary!" Hillary can claim thirty-five years, although I don't see it, and she can claim to achieve change, but I can't imagine what makes her an agent for change for the better, or the longterm.

Posted by nickzi | January 6, 2008 10:56 AM

There's no double standard. I've never seen a male candidate for president get indignant in a debate without getting hit for losing his cool. A candidate's supporters always like it when their choice gets angry at the competition because it's an expression of their own feelings of anger at the other candidates. But people on the fence traditionally haven't shown a great affinity for the tactic. If they did, debates would be filled with such moments.

In this case, her losing her temper doesn't fit with the "softer side of Hillary" image she's been trying to project for the past month.

Posted by Helter | January 6, 2008 11:06 AM

Hillary's problem, and it's a core problem, isn't that this isn't "College Bowl". When questioned, she goes to her head, never her heart. Women have a tremendous disadvantage in these contests: they get ahead by proving they're not "emotional", but they end up being perceived as, well, cold fish. And when a little emotion does break through...you get my point. It's just not a head game when you run for president. She's a wonk, not a leader.
McCain and Obama have a genuine passion for their ideas, not the ideas of pollsters (and are allowed to express themselves with passion) - they're allowed to be masculine. She's in a real bind. She leans one way, she's too much like a man, not feminine enough. She leans the other, she's an hysteric. Hillary doesn't have a chance, likely because women aren't yet able to express their deepest feelings in the public arena. And forgive my getting Jungian for a bit, but Obama has a very strong anima side, posing a real problem for the Clintons.

Posted by fougasseu | January 6, 2008 11:38 AM

Once again, the MSM is penalizing Clinton for doing exactly what they allowed (read encouraged) Edwards and Obama to do.

Further, Clinton could have screamed at the top of her lungs and tasered Obama and Edwards for the entire 90 minutes and still wouldn't be anywhere near as angry as what the Edwards' have been for their entire campaign.

Sexist double-standard? You bet!

Posted by JoeCHI | January 6, 2008 12:30 PM

Overall I like Obama and Edwards better than Hillary, and I definitely come down on their side in the "change vs experience" debate. In particular I thought Obama's assessment of Bill's failure to do more than balance the budget was damned convincing--he failed to bring the country together to do anymore. Change isn't just a matter of shuffling papers and counting heads in DC, it's also a matter of inspiring America to force DC to change.

So I disagreed with the content of what she said. But I'm totally with Ross and Mickey here--I don't see anything wrong at all with her tone. I can't see how anyone could possibly call her shrill or angry compared to Edwards. (And McCain has everyone topped for irrational bitterness.) She's got a point to make and she's making it forcefully. I disagree with the point, but she did a good job presenting it.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 6, 2008 12:31 PM

Once again, the MSM is penalizing Clinton for doing exactly what they allowed (read encouraged) Edwards and Obama to do.

Edwards, yes, absolutely, you're correct. Obama? I think Obama does a pretty good job of not being the angriest person in the room. And I'm not sure the media would tolerate anything else--angry black men, and all that.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 6, 2008 12:35 PM

I think if John McCain had said the same sort of thing - especially in an exchange with Mitt Romney - the post-debate spin would be entirely in his favor.

No doubt. And let's not forget Reagan's famous "microphone" moment back in 1980. The media coverage for Hillary has been brutal. Botom line, she's simply loathed by millions of people. And in other news, life's not fair...

Posted by Jasper | January 6, 2008 12:49 PM

Despite the fact that overt sexism has largely faded, study after study has shown that women are still not treated the same way men are, especially when it comes to being assertive or ambitious. Men angling for promotions are judged by observers as driven. Women behaving the exact same way are judged as bitchy and conniving. This happens whether the observers are men or women, incidentally: in fact women are often ever harsher of other women than men are.

It's just a psychological reality for the time being. Of course, that said, what that means is that Clinton is just going to have to be aware of and deal with the double standard. Complaining about it is just going to be judged... well... bitchy.

Posted by Bad | January 6, 2008 1:31 PM

What the hell? She came across as convincing and smart and she made a strong point with passion. If that will be read as "losing her temper," Sen. Clinton and every other woman who ever runs for President is doomed to failure.

Posted by Brittain33 | January 6, 2008 2:00 PM

Brittain33: Not every other woman who loses her temper when running for President is doomed to failure. HRC is unusually "head" driven. Transparently calculating, likely due to being a highly-skilled attorney, and having to be the rule-maker in her household.
I think any candidate, better balanced, more centered, more authentic, has a shot. Pelosi is another disaster. As is Boxer. As is Feinstein. As is Elizabeth Dole and Kay BH. As is Condi. As is Madeline Allbright. None could be President. But she's out there. It'll happen. Someone who trusts their heart and their head.
Probably someone that hasn't gone to law school. My guess is it'll be someone like Obama, mixed race, completely unexpected. I'd guess a first generation Hispanic woman. America is so not into these high IQ types, but then Dems like those big heads with big vocabularies.

Posted by fouggaseu | January 6, 2008 2:40 PM

Brittain33: Not every other woman who loses her temper when running for President is doomed to failure. HRC is unusually "head" driven. Transparently calculating, likely due to being a highly-skilled attorney, and having to be the rule-maker in her household.
I think any candidate, better balanced, more centered, more authentic, has a shot. Pelosi is another disaster. As is Boxer. As is Feinstein. As is Elizabeth Dole and Kay BH. As is Condi. As is Madeline Allbright. None could be President. But she's out there. It'll happen. Someone who trusts their heart and their head.
Probably someone that hasn't gone to law school. My guess is it'll be someone like Obama, mixed race, completely unexpected. I'd guess a first generation Hispanic woman. America is so not into these high IQ types, but then Dems like those big heads with big vocabularies.

Posted by fouggaseu | January 6, 2008 2:41 PM

fougasseu, while I agree with you overall, as a woman I take exception with your idea that women don't yet know how to express deep emotion.

There are plenty of women in the private sector as well as in public service that forcefully get their points across without appearing unhinged.

HRC is an aggressive woman. When she does get angry as in this debate, she appears dismissive and indignant (taking personal affront) rather than forcefully asserting her position (taking policy difference). She appears more emotional and unhinged because she is...she is insulted personally.

The substance of her argument in the clip above was lacking. Her response would have had far greater affect had she simply enumerated her actual policy changes. The boys on the stage would have had no comeback for that and the pundits would have had no spin. Instead, she rails about her 35 years which remain shadowy to most of us.

This isn't a woman thing or reaction. It's a HRC reaction. I suspect it goes deeply to her sense that she is entitled to this nomination through all her years of hard work. She's off track in her lack of substantial examples of what those 35 years brought about.

She is what she is and she's running how she's running. But please, don't group all women or even the majority of women with her reaction.

Posted by G Davis | January 6, 2008 10:47 PM

As a male Obama supporter, I saw nothing wrong stylistically with what she said, though I remember that my mother, who was in the room watching while I was thought that she blew her top.

I do disagree with the substance of the point she's trying to make and that's that she is the only one who's actually done anything, which is completely false. One would have to be pretty ignorant of reality to claim that Obama has not done anything himself.

Personally, I would prefer that the press analyze the substance of her remarks not the style, but I don't expect that such will happen since style is the name of the game when it comes to our national media.

Posted by Meng Bomin | January 6, 2008 11:51 PM

G Davis, I agree with your response. I was typecasting HRC. And I can understand why she is both tired and frustrated. So how does she overcome what the media does to everyone? It takes a stranger and fosters the illusion of intimacy - America starts to believe we "know" these people.
To see HRC objectively at this point is impossible. Unfortunately for her, the mythology of inevitability is crumbling. What's the new narrative? As she moves into attack mode - "He's all poetry, you need to govern with prose" - who is this new HRC?

Posted by fougasseu | January 7, 2008 7:58 AM

I'm a conservative (though not a Republican) and I liked her response quite a lot. Like others, I was quite surprised by the distaste it engendered.

Posted by Bobcat | January 7, 2008 9:12 AM

I'm an unsure Asian female moderate democrat, and see the merits of both Hillary as the 1st female president, and Barack as the 1st minority President. Did anyone else see Hillary's emotional plea today in NH? Does anyone think that it was a political ploy and staged? I do believe Hillary shows warmth in person, as I've met her and was impressed by her, but I just can't imagine her breaking down the way she did, this coming from a woman that has gone through much worst, such as public humiliation from her husband, and a other scandals. I was sympathetic to what she's been through, and see her as an underdog, but now this leaves me baffled and disappointed. Am I reading this wrong?

Posted by gwong | January 7, 2008 11:18 PM