Robin Morgan sees Clinton’s candidacy as a:
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein’s disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?” with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged-and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage-as citizens, voters, Americans?
Pet peeve: notice we use her first name all the time? There is only one Clinton running for president, so why the Hillary? What’s up with that? Does it seem too rough or rude to call her last name? I noted the same behavior when Cindy Sheehan was at her zenith. She was never Sheehan, she was always Cindy. Kid gloves for the “girls”; manly monikers for men. Drove me nuts.
<
p>It’s hard to criticize the folks who criticize Clinton. Candidly, I’m at peace in this election. I’m going to vote for Obama; I hope he’s the nominee. But if he’s not? I’m perfectly fine with Clinton and will work to get her elected. The vitriol, however, is stunning. I think a lot of it is gussied up misogyny. Clinton seems to be a hot wire to the lurking misogynist in many people. When probed, their dislike of her is vague and punitively judgmental. Sometimes they just shrug and offer up something about her marriage, her ambition, even her voice. Indeed, the “anybody but Hillary” types often have real difficulty in articulating just why it is they would accept anybody but Hillary Clinton. Think about that for a minute. Much of it adds up to this simple statement: she didn’t (and doesn’t) behave in a way that suits my sensibilities about women. She is held to a standard no man is held to. And that’s no surprise.
<
p>Nevertheless, though, a credible female candidate for president has arrived, and she is formidable. And we are all enriched by having experienced it. Whoever comes after her will have benefited greatly by her courage and drive.
I call her Hillary for two big reasons: there is only one Clinton running for president, but there are two Clintons who are major figures in the American political landscape. “I disagree with Clinton on education” isn’t that clear. More to the point, that is the brand she has adopted, extending to her network (“Friends of Hillary”) and all her signage.
For one thing, I really don’t think there’s very much danger of confusion when saying “Clinton” in the context of this presidential campaign, but even if there were, is saying “Senator Clinton” or “Hillary Clinton” or “Mrs. Clinton” that hard?
<
p>My stronger disagreement, though, is with the “but she does it!” argument. I read the Clinton campaign’s use of “Hillary” as being about a few things. One, probably, is simply a recognition that an awful lot of people are going to call her “Hillary” no matter what she does. Another is that any campaign wants to foster a (spurious, of course) sense of camaraderie/friendship/intimacy with the candidate among its supporters. Emails from the Obama campaign talk about what “Barack” wants to do, emails from the Edwards campaign talked about “John’s” views, and I’m sure the same is true on the Republican side as well; you call your friends by their first names, and the campaign wants you to think of the candidate as your friend. (As well, frequently the emails are written by people close to the candidates, who presumably do address them by their first names in conversation; whereas it would be quite rude for me to come up and say “Hello, Hillary” or “Hello, Barack” instead of “Hello, Senator Clinton” or “Hello, Senator Obama.”) “Friends of Hillary” is both a particular instance of this, and a play on “Friends of Bill,” from President Clinton’s networking efforts a decade and a half ago (which was, of course, itself part of the same phenomenon).
<
p>Finally, I think it’s also not impossible that by emphasizing Senator Clinton’s first name, the campaign is indeed participating in precisely the same cultural sexism, whether unwittingly, or simply because they’ve made the calculation that they can’t effectively fight that aspect of it right now, and so they might as well just go along.
If her own campaign can’t get this right, that hardly makes me see Clinton as a victim here. Personally, I don’t feel there is anything sexist, unwitting or otherwise, about their use of her first name in the campaign. In fact, I think it is quite the opposite in that they are emphasizing her independence from her husband. I think it also makes her seem more like a regular person the average voter can identify with.
There’s a difference between saying “Clinton’s campaign is sexist” and saying “Part of how Clinton’s campaign presents itself accepts uncritically and participates in a subtle and widespread manifestation of sexism in the broader culture.” By no means do I intend to suggest, and I don’t think my comment can reasonably be read to say, that all, most, or even very much of the Clinton campaign’s message and presentation accepts or reinforces sexist stereotypes.
but if the campaign is being sexist in its use of Hillary in its most prominent and widely seen campaign materials — unwitting or otherwise, than I think that still puts a big dent in the Hillary as victim meme.
I haven’t been trying to say “Clinton is a ‘victim.'” I’ve been trying to point out that there are sexist overtones to the tendency of referring to her primarily by her first name, while the other candidates are normally referred to by their last name (frequently plus an honorific).
Not getting it, though. (sigh)
<
p>Again, the subtleties seem to be lost. I wonder why? (actually, I don’t)
<
p>You did the heavy lifting and it’s much appreciated.
I’d like to drop the argument over “Hillary” vs. “Clinton” now, if we can — I’m troubled that this is getting all the attention, and distracting from the substance of the original post. I wouldn’t like to see the first-name thing used as a proxy to dismiss the other arguments about misogyny directed toward Clinton without engaging them.
You shouldn’t have spent so much energy on that one point.
<
p>I think there is no question that Hillary Clinton has been on the receiving end of a lot of sexist remarks from members of the MSM and the punditocracy in particular. Nevertheless, I don’t feel that her mistreatment has had much impact, if any, on my own decision, although it may well on others.
It seems to me that “Hillary” is a fairly unique name and “Clinton” is a fairly common name. I think we like to think of ourselves as being on a first name basis with our candidates.
some thought. I decided on Hillary because of the confusion that sabutai mentions, though on my blog, I sometimes refer to her as Clinton. When I don’t mention Bill, Clinton works as well as Obama.
<
p>I try to refer to elected officials, except for The Worst President Ever, as with their title and full name.
<
p>Mark
Well, for one thing her campaign seems to be using “Hillary” by itself a lot. In fact, I drove by a bunch of Hillary signs this morning. I don’t think any other campaign has signs using only the candidate’s first name.
<
p>
Rudy. On second thought, you probably can.
I think it is a fair attempt to distinguish among Clintons. Calling her “Clinton” risks confusion with Bill.
<
p>There was a similar phenomenon in 2000; the GOP nominee that year was commonly referred to as “W” because neither first nor last name could distinguish him from his father.
I’ve been fuming about this for a while. It’s a more subtle expression of misogyny (and a far more ubiquitous), but I think that’s all the more reason to point it out and call it what it is. I think that many, if not most of the people who do this don’t think they’re participating in a sexist view of the candidate, but if we point out to what extent it actually does reinforce such views, at least some of them may reconsider.
And who can forget Terry (Schiavo). And the young woman who disappeared in Aruba? Natalee. Who knows her last name? (It’s Holloway.) Let’s not forget Laci (Peterson).
<
p>Hillary Clinton coopted her own name as a brand in response to the villification of her through the use of her first name during her husband’s administration. The point is not that Hillary Clinton herself decided to use her first name in her campaign, but that people who refer to her still use her first inappropriately. Remember Rudy, who’s first name is on his signs and bumperstickers, too. But when you list off the Republicans, we don’t list Romney, McCain, Rudy, and Huckabee.
<
p>
All of her signs say “Hillary”, as do her fundraising pitch letters, etc. She’s chosen her first name as her brand. If she hadn’t done that, if all her campaign signs said Clinton ’08, and people used her first name, I’d agree with you. Note that Deval Patrick did the same thing during his campaign – had signs and buttons ‘We’re all for Deval’ ‘I got my 35 for Deval’ … people often called him Deval rather than Patrick, not because they were patronizing him in some way, but because the campaign deliberately sought to foster a sense of familiarity and connection through the use of his first name. I think it’s the same with HRC’s campaign now.
Or maybe it’s not “hating women” but HRC’s decision to prserve her political viabiltiy by voting to let Bush proceed as he wished in Iraq, or maybe it is her fanciful claim that the Levin amendment put US policy in the hands of the UN or maybe its her prevous failure to reform health care of maybe its dismay at the possibilt of 28 years of Bush-Clintion–No it can’t be that–So if I don’t HRC….
As for the first name thing…I always use Mitt or Willard when I refer to He Who Must Not Be Named.
perhaps we should forgo the rat-like first name all together and just refer to him as that other nameless performer
nm
with this post, especially that Hillary’s accomplishments are vastly underated. I voted for Obama today, but will gladly pull the lever for HRC over any GOP candidate in the general election.
Part of my reason for wanting to vote for her has to do with her resilience. When the media shitstorm finally hits the Dem nominee, there isn’t much that they’ll throw at her (were she to win) that she hasn’t already seen.
<
p>BTW don’t ever discount the VRWC in this country. It’s in our political DNA, propagated by the hundreds (thousands?) of Lee Atwater disciples. Misogyny is a central tenet of that world view.
Is it demeaning to refer to Hillary Rodham Clinton as Hillary given that:
<
p>Her web site says: “Hillary for President” and urges you to join “Team Hillary”
<
p>Her website’s blog repeatedly refers to the candidate simply as Hillary as in “Hillary supports John and Elizabeth Edwards”
<
p>Her web site sells “official Hillary gear” at the “Hillary Store” http://www.hillarystore.com/
<
p>Her bumper stickers, signs and banners repeatedly refer to Hillary–Clinton is sometimes present in much smaller type
<
p>I.e. the yard sign urges you to vote for Hillary for President–http://www.hillarystore.com/signs.htm
<
p>Her supporters in moments of enthusiasm chant Hillary, Hillary
<
p>Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign in fact encourages voters to think of her as Hillary, so if you want to get angry at people for referring to the candidate as Hillary please begin with the source.
<
p>I personally support Senator Obama, and I try to refer to his opponent as Senator Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or HRC, but measured by the standards of the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign that would seem to indicate a lack of enthusiasm.
btw Robin Morgan is a feminist writer, poet, and activist, probably most known for Sisterhood Is Powerful (1970). I guess I am an old enough feminist to remember Sisterhood is Powerful, WITCH, Rat, and all of that.
<
p>I’ve been struck by both the viciously sexist vitriol that has been directed at Senator Clinton, and by her willingness to use her role as wife of the former President as a springboard for her own political ambitions. So I have mixed feelings about Hillary Clinton as a feminist symbol.
<
p>Perhaps the use of the word “Hillary” by both her detractors and by own campaign is emblematic of the double edged sword that has been both wielded against her and that she has used to her advantage. Perhaps this reflects the complexity of running for President on “35 years of experience” when a significant portion of the that experience or existence stems from her youthful choice to marry a politically ambitious (and sexist) man, and seemingly to subsume her life to his. (One wonders if she would have made the same choices about work, family, and political path had she not decided to marry Bill Clinton and move to Arkansas) But her’s is not an uncommon story for many women, part of the nature of sexism – it often lives, perhaps most corrosively, in the most personal choices we make.
<
p>The use of the word “Hillary” may be to make a person perceived as cold and remote, warmer and more likable; it may be a way of diminishing her as a powerful person, akin to “honey”; it may be a way for her and others to distinguish her from the “other” Clinton, Bill; it may be a way for her to claim the only part of her name that remained her’s after she ditched her father’s name “Rodham” in favor of her husband’s name “Clinton”; I don’t really know. I guess how we decide to look at that may be as instructive about us and how far we have progressed as it is about the seemingly kabuki political life of Hillary Clinton.
<
p>I guess part of the reason (besides policy reaons) I support Barack Obama, consistent with my views on feminism, the war in Iraq, and a vision for America boils down to “authenticity.” Hillary Clinton remains an enigma to me, as a woman, politician, as a leader. She has lived part of her life as a feminist, as a victim of sexism, and part of her life enjoying the privileges of patriarchy, as its beneficiary (however illusory it may ultimately be). She appears to have this oddly compartmentalized life – she could be a Goldwater Girl and actively support a Presidential candidate who used racist buzzwords to promote his candidacy, at the same time this same young Hillary Clinton was inspired by MLK and volunteered for a babysitting program for the children of migrant workers. She was one who supported the Bush neocon theory of pre-emptive war and now equally emphatically says she is anti-war. My inability to reconcile these often diametrically opposed parts moved me firmly to Obama. Perhaps Obama’s struggle with his own issues of identity were ultimately more successful than Clinton’s; perhaps this is why he appears to feel more comfortable in his own skin.
<
p>I hope we have a good progressive President, one day, who is a woman. Were she to be a feminist, one can hope. Whether she will be Hillary Clinton, remains to be seen.
<
p>
is similiar to what many of us have experienced or are experiencing. I tend to think of Hillary’s generation of women as the transition team…they are the women for whom Title IX came too late. They were liberated enough to dream audaciously, but tied by the cultural binds of wife, mother, daughter to take a backseat at what would have been their peak earning/career stepping years. They may have marched as feminists when they were young, but the realities of childraising/taking care of aging parents resets the dream clock. It’s that “push me-pull you” between culture and dreams that create a lot of women like Hillary, who may break out of those binds in later years, once the kids are grown and other duties completed. Congress has more than a few women like that. Think Niki Tsongas. Nancy Pelosi. It’s that second phase of their lives that’s amazing to watch, and I think it’s not quite reasonable to compare their lives, bit for bit, with their male counterparts. It’s not like they had wives to support them in their dreams.
Firstly, let me say that I don’t think the comparisons between how two individuals resolve their own issues of gender or race identity are incompatible. Secondly, while it might be possible to see Hillary Clinton as an archetype of the struggle of American women of a generation (my generation), I don’t think that’s fully accurate – Clinton’s life experience (as with Nikki Tsongas or Nancy Pelosi – though I think Pelosi is different because she is the daughter of a politician, not the wife of one – a matter of birth, not choice) is not universal to all women, or even to our generation of women.
<
p>Justice4All, you correctly brought up the issue of privilege and oppression vis a vis Clinton vs Obama – “It’s not like they (she) had wives to support their (her) dreams.” You note that Barack Obama enjoys a privilege of oppression (sexism) that Hillary Clinton does not (though I wonder if Hillary Clinton would agree with you that her husband does not support her dreams), but you failed to note that as a white person, Hillary Clinton enjoys a privilege of oppression (racism) that Barack Obama does not. Were Obama a white man of middle class up-bringing like Clinton, I might agree with your analysis, but it’s not so. They both struggle with the fact of their own oppression in the US. And I am not one who agrees that there is a hierachy of oppression, it’s all different, it’s all destructive, and all of it should end.
<
p>Yes, of course sexism is behind some of the vicious opposition to Hillary Clinton (I think we would agree on that) but I remain disturbed by her personal choice in this, her overt willingness to use her privilege as the wife of a powerful, dominating, (and sexist) white man to her advantage. It’s not clear to me that those advisors that she has surrounded herself with (former Bill Clinton advisors who still support the neocon theory of pre-emptive war as a Presidetial perogative)and her hawkish votes on Iraq and on the military are really relective of what she believes – because I can’t get a read on her – For the War, won’t admit any error in judgement on it, then Against the War (while maintaining adherence to the theory of pre-emptive attack). She is inconsistent in some pretty substantive matters and, it makes me leery of her political and policy judgment. Perhaps I just don’t know enough about her, and the failure is mine.
<
p>In my opinion, however, it appears that Barack Obama has resolved his struggle around his identity as a bi-racial black person in a white world (In his self-reflective book “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”) in a manner that Hillary Clinton has not, as a woman in a sexist world. Do I think she is emblematic of all women of our generation on this? No, I think this speaks of her. Just as Barack’s self-reflection speaks of him (not of all black or bi-racial people in America).
<
p>As a woman of color, I have enjoyed (?!) a particular vantage point on the often confusing and often painful experiences of race and gender, and of racism and sexism in America. When I said that I thought Barack Obama appears to be more comfortable in his own skin, this was not simply an allusion to a metaphorical self, but to his internal work to actually find comfort and a sense of peace as an oppressed person fighting injustice in America while not internalizing the hatred.
<
p>I don’t think, for me, this choice is about allegiances to the difficult struggles of gender or race (because I am one person born to both, just as I can’t split myself in two, these issues are indelibly entwined). I am a little confused by how the MSM can portray this as a struggle between “blacks and women” when, as Sojourner Truth said, “Aint I A Woman?” – another way to marginalize African American women who vote for Obama. I know the MSM loves this “women vs blacks” formulation because they are populated by rich white men who enjoy seeing oppressed groups fighting against each other. For me, as a woman, as a feminist, as a person of color, this choice remains about the merits of one person versus another, Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama, it’s about policy and judgment issues, it’s about how each manifests her/his own internal struggles with oppression and privilege in a manner that I feel offers insight on how each might lead our country through the very formidable struggles ahead.