I don't mean to suggest, when I say that sexism is a bigger handicap for a presidential candidate than racism, that Hillary Clinton is losing simply because she's a woman. Many people I know think that the Clinton campaign has had only one main problem, but unfortunately that problem is named William Jefferson Clinton. And Ms. Clinton is not a charmer like her husband; her strength is ideas, not charisma. This would, I think, be true if she were a man with all the same genes except the second x chromosome. Indeed, she'd probably never have been a politician in the first place.
But I do think that sexism is a deeper and subtler handicap than racism is when it comes to leadership roles. She might not have won if she was a man. But as a woman, it was harder still.
Supporting the unsupportable Iraq Invasion is also a problem for Ms. Clinton.
I think this is plausible, but I don't think there's any way for this discussion not to degenerate into a dismal competition to be named America's Top Victim, and I don't think there's really enough data available in the matchup between these two individuals to inform a meaningful answer to the question.
Obama is a politician who, through a combination of accidents of birth and extraordinary political talent, manages to diffuse and blur most of the disadvantages of being black while reaping the benefits. So it's not really fair to compare blackness to femaleness with Obama and Clinton as your exemplars. Hillary Clinton doesn't transcend negative stereotypes of femininity in the way Obama transcends negative stereotypes of blackness. It's a bit hard to imagine what the female analog of Obama would be, but it was hard to imagine what Obama would be before he came along.
But it is true that women are probably more drastically underrepresented in Congress, compared to their share of the population, than blacks. So that's some evidence you're right.
She might not have won if she was a man. But as a woman, it was harder still.
Just the opposite, I think -- if she'd been a man, she'd never have been anywhere near a presidential run (nor a senate seat for that matter). She found herself in that position only because of her husband. The path of sneaking into politics, starting on the top rung, late in life, by succeeding your spouse is an opportunity available only to women. Which makes it impossible for me to take her seriously as either a feminist icon or a victim of sexism.
The path of sneaking into politics, starting on the top rung, late in life, by succeeding your spouse is an opportunity available only to women.
Yet another problem same-sex marriage will help us remedy!
The path of sneaking into politics, starting on the top rung, late in life, by succeeding your spouse is an opportunity available only to women.
It's just a special case of the larger phenomenon of sneaking in by succeeding/trading on the family name of your father or brother or cousin or mother. Trying to treat it as a unique situation only highlights Megan's point.
Obama is a politician who, through a combination of accidents of birth and extraordinary political talent, manages to diffuse and blur most of the disadvantages of being black while reaping the benefits.
It's naive to chalk this merely up to Obama's talent. In a situation where cable "news" talk show hosts giggle, on air, over a Hillary nutcracker doll that cracks nuts between her legs, where no black doll equivalent would ever be spoken of, let alone given a full demonstration, Obama clearly benefits from a greater sensitivity about race.
Or, you know, electing more women to high leadership positions on their own merits. Then the husbands can "sneak in" to politics on *their* coattails.
Yet another problem same-sex marriage will help us remedy!
(Hit Post too soon. This was my last line:)
It's not as if were Hillary running against a less "transcendant" black candidate, the cable news shows would be trotting out Mammy-style coin banks in that candidate's image.
Slocum:
Bingo!! Would Vickie(sp?) Kennedy be anywhere near a possible seat in the Senate if it wasn't for her husband(and his family name)?
It's a bit hard to imagine what the female analog of Obama would be
Laura Roslin?
brooksfoe: LOL. And in the office, too.
...Hillary nutcracker doll that cracks nuts between her legs, where no black doll equivalent would ever be spoken of.
I'm gonna make a mint come November with my line of Obama dolls^H^H^H^H^H action figures speaking Cleavon Little's best lines:
"Where's all the white women at?"
"'Scuse me while I whip this out."
etc.
A mint, I tell ya!
Another way of considering the question is to ask, has Obama benefited from racism the way Hillary has benefited from sexism? Has being black ever produced for Obama the reaction Hillary got when that GOP doofus walked across the stage to hand her a piece of paper in a NY senatorial debate? What would have been the reaction is Obama had choked up over losing West Virginia the way Hillary got emotional over New Hampshire? What would people say if Obama had just lost his temper in a press conference and started yelling "Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!"
Mike
Though I observe Roslin hasn't yet won an election, having succeeded to the office twice now. ;-)
Oh...so if Hillary had been a man, she'd have been Al Gore. Is that right?
Utterly nonsensical. I defy anyone to spotlight one deficit rather than advantage Hillary Clinton has accrused because of her sex. Whereas Barack Obama is still being hobbled becasue of his color -- to give the most trivial example, he is expected to pay excessive "respect" the candidate he trounced. The reason, incidentally, because of her sex.
And Ms. Clinton is not a charmer like her husband; her strength is ideas, not charisma.
If I am not mistaken, Max Weber coined that term to describe persons with rare inspirational ability (e.g. Buddha or Christ), not politicians with a talent for 'framing' and applause lines.
Has being black ever produced for Obama the reaction Hillary got when that GOP doofus walked across the stage to hand her a piece of paper in a NY senatorial debate?
A writer for the New York Review of Books once described Mr. Lazio as a 'pup' (at the time he was 42 years old, had been married for over a decade, and a member of the bar for about 15 years evenly divided between work as a public prosecutor and work in Congress); another of his critics described him as a 'frat-boy' (he attended Vasser College, an elite school with no fraternities and, prior to about 1971, no men); now I see he is a 'doofus'. Enlighten me: what did this man do or not do that he merits this sort of superciliousness?
Would she even be a top contender if she wasn't a woman? What are her redeeming qualities that, if she were just another white man, would put her in the top 5 of presidential candidates? I guess you could say the same about any of the random white men who are near the top of the list every four years. But that's like saying that GWB was handicapped by his father's presidency. Sure, some people would never vote for him because they didn't like his father, but the only reason he was even close to being electable was because his name was Bush. He doesn't then get to turn it around and say "It's so hard being a Bush - so many people hated my father and will never vote for me."
A lot of smart comments, but I wanted to contest a couple of points:
Brooksfoe writes:
But it is true that women are probably more drastically underrepresented in Congress, compared to their share of the population, than blacks.
Not really. There's one black senator, and blacks are a little over 10% of the population, so they're underrepresented by a factor of ten in the Senate. If women are 50% of the population, their 16 senators means they're underrepresented by a factor of between three and four. Their proportion in the House--71 out of 435--is about the same. Blacks do better in the House, at 43 or just under 10%. What this shows is that blacks have substantially more trouble winning statewide office than women, though they benefit from more local elections in which black voters have a bigger impact. Not great numbers either way, I'd say.
KL writes:
In a situation where cable "news" talk show hosts giggle, on air, over a Hillary nutcracker doll that cracks nuts between her legs, where no black doll equivalent would ever be spoken of, let alone given a full demonstration, Obama clearly benefits from a greater sensitivity about race.
This statement conflates two issues. I agree with KL that there is a greater sensitivity in talking about race, but I don't think that necessarily means that Obama benefits; I haven't seen any clear evidence of it. I've certainly seen really crass misogynistic language and more subtler pernicious assumptions about gender with reference to Clinton. In Obama's case, race has shaped his treament differently. He's suffered much more than Clinton from "guilt by association," which is common for black politicians; they're much more likely to be seen as "tainted" by their connections because they begin from a place of being "unknown" and susceptible to smears, when a white politician would get the benefit of the doubt. The "Muslim" rumors are another symptom of this. I just don't think there's any comparison to be made between prejudices that express themselves very uniquely.
I also think it's abundantly clear in this conversation that we're trained to "hear" the prejudice that hits closest to home and to be less adept at picking up others, so it's perhaps wisest for anyone but black women to refrain from trying to make the comparison.
That said, I do think that Brooksfoe makes a great point about the way the candidates themselves have dealt with these issues:
Hillary Clinton doesn't transcend negative stereotypes of femininity in the way Obama transcends negative stereotypes of blackness. It's a bit hard to imagine what the female analog of Obama would be, but it was hard to imagine what Obama would be before he came along.
It's maybe an unfair comparison to begin with, because you can "transcend" a culture much more easily than you can "transcend" gender, and women who aren't sufficiently feminine tend to get slammed for it. But you only have to look at Maggie Thatcher to prove that it's doable. I think part of why gender has been an albatross for Clinton is that she began the race implicitly treating her gender as a weakness and determined to show that she wasn't defined by it; ironically, that kept her gender at the forefront of her political identity as a potential negative. It's hard to say how different this race would have been if she had managed from the start to do what she's doing now, which is to give her gender a viable positive place in her message. That's what Obama clearly did with his race all along, and it helped to defuse the issue for him.
"Utterly nonsensical. I defy anyone to spotlight one deficit rather than advantage Hillary Clinton has accrused because of her sex."
Her cackle. Distinctly feminine, definitely a disadvantage to a male laugh.
He's suffered much more than Clinton from "guilt by association," which is common for black politicians; they're much more likely to be seen as "tainted" by their connections because they begin from a place of being "unknown" and susceptible to smears, when a white politician would get the benefit of the doubt.
Are you referring to Wright? I fear that you are, despite what contortions of the phrase it would require to label that mere "guilt by association", but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I think it's a bit weird to claim that Obama is winning because he suffered less from racism than Clinton did from sexism. When Obama beats McCain in the fall, it won't be because black men have it easier in this country than old white guys.
Hillary's main qualification is having seamlessly transitioned from living off her dad (paid for all education, including law school) to living off her husband's coattails.
These are options that are unfortunately unavailable to your humble Asian correspondent.
To speak of disadvantages that Hillary Clinton had in life is either absurd or insulting.
Are you referring to Wright?
No, actually, I wasn't. I was thinking more about Ayers, Farrakhan, that poet who used to be a communist, his absent father, his stepfather, Tiger Woods, and Islam.
But I don't think there's any way to read the Wright story outside of the lens of race either. The coverage of Wright was shocking in its ignorance of any of the cultural traditions that inflected his preaching; that doesn't alter the content of his words, but it has a lot to do with the worst possible construction being automatically imposed upon them without hesitation or any instinct to find out about context. And while the "association" with Wright was real, I'm not so sure about the "guilt." Hillary Clinton has a much closer association with her husband and yet has by and large been believed when she says she disagrees with him on substantive ideological issues. But the power of the Wright story was that it "answered" a question that already existed about Obama: "Is he really like us?"
None of this is to discount the relevance of the Wright story; my only point is that the coverage of it was inevitably inflected by racial histories, fears, and assumptions in much the same way that the coverage of Clinton has been gendered. (The Bosnia story, for instance, "answered" the question "Isn't an ambitious woman also bound to be conniving and untrustworthy?") We shouldn't confuse that with the coverage itself being primarily motivated by racism or sexism.
One interesting thing that I've noticed about this campaign is the large number of references to race in exit polling (e.g. after Ohio, Pennsylvania, and especially W.V. and Kentucky), but very few references to gender.
Has anyone seen any exit poll questions that address gender in any way other than "What's your gender"?
Along these lines, I think it's a very interesting question to wonder how many votes Obama has lost because of his race, vs. how many Clinton has lost because of her gender. This question is quite separate from the questions addressed in most of the comments, which is "How have they been treated by the media?" Of course, my question isn't really very answerable, especially because there hasn't been any exit polling on it. Nonetheless, it's an interesting thing to witness blue collar white men in Appalachia, men who West coast elitists like me would assume were prone to significant sexism, will happily vote for a white woman over a black man, even when his policies are more likely to help them than hers will.
BTW, professordarkheart, nice comments -- thoughtful and nuanced. In fact, most comments on this post have been likewise thoughtful. How refreshing and unusual!
Oh, and one more thing. One good example of "The path of sneaking into politics, starting on the top rung, late in life, by succeeding your spouse is an opportunity available only to women": John Edwards.
Right out of being a wealthy trial lawyer into the Senate. Not even one term in the Senate and running for President.
If (and I don't think this is true, but nevertheless if) Hillary truly has a harder time winning because she's a woman than Obama has winning because he's black, then might it have something to do with the fact that Obama has deliberately run an inclusive campaign while Hillary has not? Not a speech goes by from Hillary that doesn't mention gender, there are constant references from her and her supporters that she should win because it would be a victory for women in general. Unsurprisingly, this rhetoric turns off men.
The black equivalent of Obama would be Jesse Jackson, a politician whose primary focus is on issues that affect black voters. This may be a good or a bad thing, but it seems obvious that its a tactic which turns off non-black voters. Likewise, Hillary's campaign has not been successful with nearly all men nor with women born after the Baby Boomer generation, when outright sexual discrimination has become much less prominent.
It's not rocket science.
And Ms. Clinton is not a charmer like her husband; her strength is ideas, not charisma.
What ideas? Seriously, what does she bring to the policy table other than the same ol' same ol'.
Hillary would be nowhere near an elective office if not for her uniquely gifted, albeit tragically flawed, husband.
He campaign is powered by a combination of (1) its time for a woman in the Democratic Party, (2) the Clinton name and machine, and (3) her absolutely unbending determination/ambition/arrogance/sense of entitlement (take your pick). Ideas have very little to do with it.
Hillary's main qualification is having seamlessly transitioned from living off her dad (paid for all education, including law school) to living off her husband's coattails.
In fairness to Mrs. Clinton, she was the principal breadwinner in the household for about a dozen years.
"Bingo!! Would Vickie(sp?) Kennedy be anywhere near a possible seat in the Senate if it wasn't for her husband(and his family name)?"
Would Teddy Kennedy have got anywhere near the Senate if it hadn't been for his brother? Possible an open question but I think there's much less doubt that the various clueless offspring certainly would not have without their name.
Has anyone seen any exit poll questions that address gender in any way other than "What's your gender"?
All the CNN exits I've seen have both sets of questions (what's your race/gender? // Did race/gender matter in your selection?)
Hillary Clinton's strength is ideas??? WTF?
Along these lines, I think it's a very interesting question to wonder how many votes Obama has lost because of his race, vs. how many Clinton has lost because of her gender.
I've seen polling on those questions; here's the data from West Virginia:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226014/
The short version is that about 20% of voters said each issue was important, and both groups went overwhelmingly for Clinton. For the sake of argument, if you were to assume no overlap between the two groups, you could conclude that about 35% of the voters in West Virginia chose Clinton in large part because of her gender or Obama's race. In some states race is a plus for Obama and in others a minus, while gender for Clinton has been a net positive in all the exit polls I've seen.
Exit polls should be taken with a generous helping of salt, of course. What you say to explain a vote you've just cast isn't necessarily the same as what led you to that vote in the first place.
I think it's sexist to say Clinton's one main problem is her husband instead of laying the blame at her feet: choice of advisers, money management, war vote, general campaign ineptitude, tone deaf remarks, etc.
"One interesting thing that I've noticed about this campaign is the large number of references to race in exit polling (e.g. after Ohio, Pennsylvania, and especially W.V. and Kentucky), but very few references to gender."
TR: Part of the issue on race is demographic. Racial statistics will vary more than gender statistics.
It is true Hillary lost bigtime in states that are majority male like Alaska, Colorado, and Wyoming. She also won in some states that have a higher than average female population like New York and Rhode Island. Still sex-ratio does not vary that greatly from state to state in our era. (Even Alaska is not precisely a "pioneer state" in the way it would've been as late as the 1970s) Going by the "American Community Survey" all states vary between 92.2 to 103.2 males per 100 females. So if 20% of men vote against her because she's a woman and 20% of women vote for her because she's a woman, well then the two mostly strike each other out.
However "the percentage of blacks" and the "percentage of whites" per state varies much more. The populations of West Virginia and Kentucky are over 89% white. Mississippi is 35-40% black. Black voters tend to be nearly twice as likely to be Democratic as whites. Hence the statistic of racially-motivated voters is more likely to actually matter because the two variables don't evenly match and vary greater.
I once read a book by a woman who actually tested this idea: she disguised herself as man to see what life was like for “Ned”.
http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Journey-Manhood/dp/0670034665
This is only one test, but as it is the only test I have come across, I am inclined to treat her conclusions with some respect.
IIRC, she did find it easier to be regarded with some respect before people knew anything about her. But they were much, much less sympathetic to any hints of weakness. Anything that might be interpreted that way, and they walked right over Ned, whatever their own sex. If it was easier to be viewed with respect, it was vastly easier to get Ned viewed with contempt.
So when she was in character she devoted a lot of effort to appearing confident at all times, and was very careful about showing sympathy for anyone else, smiling at people etc. She especially avoided hints that she should be viewed with compassion, because if she did she would be treated with contempt.
It was all rather exhausting, although she might have got used to it had the experiment continued longer.
The point is that this is probably good practice if you aspire to a position of authority.
It is hard to be viewed as authoritative and sympathetic simultaneously.
"So if 20% of men vote against her because she's a woman and 20% of women vote for her because she's a woman, well then the two mostly strike each other out."
That would make sense if we were talking about the general election. But as we're talking about the Democratic nomination race, we have to take into account that in most states, at least 55% of the Democratic electorate is female.
Thus, if Professor Darkheart's points are taken to heart, then I think that *as far as voting is concerned*, Senator Clinton has benefited more from her gender than Sen. Obama has from his race.
Nevertheless, I believe any objective observer would have to make the argument that Clinton has gotten worse from the press (I'm a hardcore Obama supporter and I think it's obvious).
The question remains, however: how much of this is due to Sen. Clinton's gender, and how much is due to things other than her gender (her personality, her husband, the way she ran her campaign, etc.)
Hillary's strength is ideas?!!
Hillary was the principal bread winner for 12 years? Oh BS -- she was given a partnership in the law firm because of him. That's like saying that Michelle's job and huge raise had nothing to do with BO's elections.
Obama would not be the presumptive nominee if he were not black. Hillary would be a complete unknown in America if she were not Bill's wife. Neither one of these characters has ever done anything.
This is an argument about which of two affirmative action lightweights gained the most from affirmative action. Neither would have ever have been heard of if they were white men.
Just listened to your blogginheads dialogue on the subject, and I just wanted to say that I think you underestimate how much of Obama's performance has been hamstrung by his race. In particular, he works *very* hard at being cool, at the expense of being seen as detached and perhaps even weak, precisely because he has to stay a mile away from being the angry black man. He's been limited in how he can respond to her aggressive campaign, because he has to strenuously avoid bringing up fears about how black men behave towards white women. He's had a very fine line to walk, and I think Hillary has been pretty shrewd about taking advantage of that at multiple turns.
It could well be that she's ultimately been harmed by the limitations gender has placed on her own performance. But it's very hard to see how that's had any substantive impact on the race. There are plenty of reasons why she has lost without having to appeal to gender. And we are missing positive markers that gender has been a problem. Most notably, I don't recall her being inundated with the 'electability' questions that have bombarded Obama since he became the frontrunner.
And I post this, wondering if you actually read comments to outdated blog entries! Enjoyed your dialogue with Drezner muchly.
I should think he can be passionate, as long as he is not passionate about things that might be thought to affect him personally.
Being passionately in favour of things that specifically benefit the group you belong to does not look good for any candidate.
Personally, I would have advised Hilary to treat NOW as Obama treated the NAACP.