Here we have the myth of Hillary as the unattractive, unpopular girl. Hillary is a nerd on a quest for power and, above all, acceptance. To be successful, she pretends to be like the popular kids, but she’s just not one of them. Unlike the popular kids pundits, Hillary is an inauthentic poser who cares about herself, not the people she serves. Her attempts only serve to are subject to ridicule (by MoDo & Co.). Her New Hampshire tears couldn’t be authentic because she’s been defined as inauthentic and narcissistic:
What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.
Typical of her? In the Hillary myth, it is certainly typical. After all, Hillary is not a real person; she’s a type. If there were any doubts about Hillary’s narcissism, Andrew Sullivan leaves no doubt.
The Clinton machine is now poised to pull every partisan lever and deploy every cheap tactic: the gender card, the elderly card, the 527s, the teachers’ unions, AFSCME, the Human Rights Campaign, the super-delegates, and the core Democratic base. This is always about the Clintons. If the Democrats have to lose to McCain in November so Hillary Cliton [sic] can become the first female nominee for any major party, that’s a price the country will just have to pay.
Parse that. The Clinton machine? 527’s? Union support? Cheaptactics? How is mobilizing voters a cheap trick? Pulling partisan levers in a Democratic primary? Sounds like good old politics to me. What’s left for a candidate to do? Be anointed by the punditocracy, which has already decided that Hillary doesn’t deserve to run for office.
America, it’s fair to say, has a problem with women in power. Assertiveness is, at least subconsciously, unseemly in women. In Odd Girl Out, for example, Rachel Simmons writes,
“Bitch,””lesbian,” “frigid,” and “manly” are just a few of the names an assertive girl hears. Each epithet points out the violation of her prescribed role as a caregiver: the bitch likes and is liked by no one; the lesbian loves not a man or children but another woman; the frigid woman is cold, unable to respond sexually; and the manly woman is too hard to love or be loved.
It’s not hard to see these stereotypes in the Hillary mythos. If the above quotes don’t prove my point, recall Andrew Sullivan’s New Republic that years ago produced the article entitled, “Hillary the man-woman and bitch goddess.” How much more mythological can you get?
As I examine my reasons for supporting Hillary for President, I have to admit that the Hillary Mythos has me leaning toward her candidacy. I don’t unfairness. I don’t like being told what to do. I really don’t like being told what to think. It makes me crazy when I think about the mean girls of the punditocracy deciding who is good enough to run for president.
Mark
lasthorseman says
frames an election around Jr. High School shit, ain’t it.
<
p>Personally I think there is a line of dead corpses in the Clinton closet a mile long.
noternie says
Regular people think the same way the media does. The media is made up of actual people, after all. A very diverse group of people, too.
<
p>If you think it’s just the media–that the rest of the world is made up of people that use only well considered facts to form their opinions–you’re deluding yourself.
<
p>I’d like to get some input from developmental experts or psychs to hear what the major differences are between the “Jr. High” mentality and an “adult” mentality. Because it seems to me that when it comes to evaluating information and developing attitudes toward poeple and ideas, there isn’t a whole lot of difference for a whole lot of people.
<
p>But if if makes you feel better to think it’s the media that creates and continues that way of thinking, feel free to scapegoat them.
kbusch says
Your post here reminds me of how cognitive biases work. (For example, we more heavily weight information if it took a lot of research to get it.) In this case, the media’s treatment of Hillary Rodham Clinton must appall any decent person. I know it strongly tempts me to vote for her. I just don’t want to see them get away with it.
<
p>Ultimately, though, that’s a terrible reason to choose someone for President.
trickle-up says
Here I am reminded of your own interpretation of Bryan Caplan’s work.
<
p>In this case, to rework it further: As individual voters, we may have a very small chance of actually being able to influence policy. However, there would be a discrete and palpable pleasure from teaching the Mean Girls of the Media a lesson.
<
p>I agree with your final conclusion, though.
freshayer says
… long time reported currently with NBC news, being drawn into the post NH debate on the Hillary affect. Andrea, a contemporary of Hillary’s who was asked to join into the rather arrogant morning Joe’s crowd of snippy remarks showed what I believe to be a crack in her own armor (with a little flare of anger, irritation) as she discussed what older women (like her and Hillary) had to go through and the double standard they endured to rise to the top. I guess Maureen Dowd was born full bloomed into a leading pundit (or conveniently forgets her own struggle to get where she is).
joeltpatterson says
pundits claim Hillary only succeeded because of who she married.
<
p>Because Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan. And if Hillary’s lifelong work in the law and policy is not proof of merit, neither is Andrea Mitchell’s long career in reporting.
charley-on-the-mta says
Mitchell was reporting long before she married Greenspan, which is not to defend her catty, atrocious reporting on Hillary in any way.
jamaicaplainiac says
I get what you’re saying here, but I’m not sold on her. Neil at Texas Liberal explains better than I could:
<
p>http://texasliberal.wordpress….
yellow-dog says
on history as far as Bill Clinton is concerned. He had the race card in his deck, and wasn’t afraid to play it (ex. Sister Soulja). My guess is that Clinton was not only carrying over the Southern Strategy that he must have played in Arkansas into the decade when the Reagan Revolution was still at its peak. But that was then.
<
p>And this is now. Would Bill Clinton make the same statements and do the same things today? The Democratic Party is a lot more to the left than it was. In many respect, so is much of the country.
<
p>Besides, are Hillary and Bill interchangeable? Hillary mythology says “yes.” I’m not so sure. What frustrates me is I just don’t know. When it comes to Hillary, it’s almost impossible to tell what’s real and what’s MSM fantasy?
<
p>It’s true that feeling sorry for the way Hillary has been treated isn’t enough to support her candidacy. I’ve held off on endorsing her because I question how well she’ll represent progressive interests. Given the times, my guess is that she’ll be better than her husband was.
<
p>What appeals to me about Hillary is, yes, her experience. The media has captured a theme, but destroyed the nuances. I may put too much faith political skills, but I believe she has them. She’s worked and lived with the best politician of her generation. She’s been savaged by the media for several years, and survived. She’s tough. All of these qualities appeal to me more than how I feel about her as a person. (I don’t mean that as a dig on Obama).
<
p>Mark
<
p>
texas-liberal says
As I was born in Worcester.
<
p>It is hard to know how interchangeable the Clintons are.
<
p>I feel though that if the party moves to the left, the Clintons will move to the left. If it moves to the right, they will move to the right.
<
p>How could Senator Clinton allow herself to take potshots at our best impulses as liberals and progressives? What do we have left if we give up the idea that life can really be better then what we’ve had it for not just the last 8 years, but since about pretty much about since 1968 or so.
joeltpatterson says
As Greg Sargent points out, it’s worth considering the FULL quote from Senator Clinton.
<
p>To cut off the last part of the quote alters the tone of the comment if not the substance, too. She’s not dismissing the public pressure of the Civil Rights Movement of which Dr. King was a leader (and, as an aside, I’m a little bothered that when we speak so glowingly of MLK, we forget that there was a movement of millions of Americans speaking truth to power in those days, demanding their elected officials discard racist traditions that conflicted with basic human decency–the power of the grassroots, right?) by pointing out that a President with great legislative skills was key to passing civil rights laws. JFK may had have great rhetoric, but LBJ delivered on the necessary laws to protect civil rights.
trickle-up says
both are essential.
texas-liberal says
That the Clinton strategy has been to diminish the role of hope and idealism among Democrats.
<
p>The substance of the point remains.
mrstas says
Diminish? Or point out that you need lots of hard work [hope alone is not enough] to actually accomplish things? Hrmmm.
<
p>You say potato, I say potato.
freshayer says
Besides JFK’s soaring rhetoric and a tragedy that shook the nation it was LBJ’s considerable political skills (and not the kind that pass the light of ethical scrutiny mind you) from decades in congress that got it (The Civil Rights Act) through Congress (that being a congress full of southern democrats who were mostly racist’s because how could you be a member of the party of Lincoln)
mplo says
<
p>Didn’t many, if not most of those Southern racist Democrats go Republican many, many years ago?!?
freshayer says
As the newly enfranchised black voters for the most part registered Democrat
mplo says
Very true.
raj says
..your post is silly. What it boils dowt to is that you favor HClintiton because you feel sorry for her, for her frustration, whatever. You do not favor her because of her judgement.
<
p>I don’t favor HClinton precisely because she has shown a complete lack of judgement ever since 1993-94. It strikes me that it would be more prudent that one should consider judgement when one hires a president, not whether one feels sorry for her. But it’s your vote: cast it as you wish.