Before beginning, let me say that I'm not a firm supporter yet for any of the primary candidates. Leaning towards Obama, but unsure. I also am very much for a woman President, but like many, have some misgivings about Clinton. But I'm giving her a chance.
Anyway, I found this article today on Slate about the ways that Katie Couric might be a test for how the country might react to a Clinton presidency:
No one has ever accused Hillary Clinton of being too perky or showing too much leg. Even so, the presidential candidate could learn a lot from Katie Couric. The bright-eyed former morning-show host made her debut as the anchor of the third-place CBS Evening News on Sept. 5, when she took over for Bob Schieffer, and Dan Rather before him, and Walter Cronkite before them. Her tenure has been a bumpy one and in that, a useful test of the public's willingness to accept a woman as a figure of national and international prominence.
Follow me over the fold for some thoughts on this.
First off, I'm very confused about how we can compare the tenure of Katie Couric as a network news anchor to a Presidential candidate like Hilary Clinton. Before discussing the compatibility of the jobs, there's a vast difference between Couric and Clinton. Yes, they're both women in jobs that are traditionally held by men. And while I do admit that there may be all too many people out there who might judge Couric solely because she's a woman, I think her specific persona and not her general identity category is why her taking over at CBS has been so rocky. I've never been able to stomach her, but that's personal taste. I find her demeanor too saccharine, and I think she's too light weight for the news. That has nothing to do with her being a woman, although she may have cultivated this personality because of the perceived role of female news women. I think her problems at CBS stem because she has not graduated out of the morning show mindset. And again, that has little to do with gender. I can't stomach the morning news in general. As a rule, I don't care about "lifestyle" news.
So the assertion that she is a good test for how Clinton might do is a tenuous one at best. Aside from her "Let the Conversation begin" slogan that Jon Stewart lampooned, Hillary Clinton is not the morning show candidate.
One further gender related nugget:
One thing Clinton has decisively on Couric is the blessing of a boring and predictable wardrobe. Couric has been a sartorial flip-flopper in her first half-year on air, creating an easy focal point for chauvinists and her detractors. On the social circuit, she dresses like Carrie Bradshaw; in the daytime, she prefers turtlenecks and suits with strange collars. There's no telling what she'll wear on the news each night, except plenty of eyeliner. So far, Clinton, who found sartorial stability after some unfortunate choices early in her husband's White House tenure, has managed to keep people more or less focused on what's coming out of her mouth (nonapologies for her Iraq vote, subtle jabs at Obama, one off-pitch version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" during a campaign stop in Iowa, and the like). She has done this in part by steering clear of ambitious stylists, wisely opting for roomy pantsuits with jewel-toned T-shirts underneath. Katie, take note.
I'm ready for a woman President, but is this writer?
As far as the compatibility of the jobs, the writer goes on to say:
Television news anchor and president of the United States aren't such different jobs, after all, and not just because until now they've been the exclusive province of old white men. These are the people who tell us what's happening in the world, what it means, and what we're going to do about it. They must be calm, personable, and handsome under lights. Diplomacy, intelligence, and genuine leadership abilities a plus.
No Rebecca Dana (the author of the article), these are not comparable jobs. In fact, isn't comparing them part of whats wrong with US politics? Bush seems to spend all too much of his time as the therapist-in-chief, managing the emotions of the troops or the nation. Gone are the days when we had network anchors like Murrow. I wouldn't even say that Sy Hersh's job is comparable to POTUS, though I greatly admire Hersh's dedication to the principles of journalism. Journalists do not make decisions about national security, at least not directly. Nor are they faced with attempting to fix our numerous domestic woes that this President has allowed to fester.
When we elect a new President, we are not looking to elect a spokesperson-in-chief. So this article not only makes a terrible comparison between Katie Couric and Clinton based just on gender, but also a specious connection between journalism and the Presidency.
No wonder we've come to expect so much from our leaders when we worry more about their performative aspects than we do their ability to truly make decisions. The writer of this article is confusing the PR aspect of any modern presidency to journalism. PR is not journalism. Despite having a former Fox news person as Press Secretary, that is not a journalistic position either. More from the article:
It's not simply that both jobs are traditionally male. It's that both demand a certain stage presence—an intangible sense of authority, divorced from direct, measurable accomplishment. Ideally, an anchor serves as a kind of chief executive of his or her broadcast, prioritizing news stories on-air and leading a corps of reporters and producers behind the scenes. He or she is also the public face of a network, acting as an ambassador to advertisers, viewers, and affiliates. These people—like voters—have an instinct about who should be telling them the news of the day: what that person should look like and how his or her (which is to say, his) voice should sound. Couric's rocky start can illuminate two questions for Clinton: how we'll handle a woman with such authority and how a woman who wants such authority should handle herself.
Shouldn't we expect more from our President than being an Ambassador or public face? Of course, that is a very significant part of their job, but not the largest or most important aspect. Comparing these two jobs shows how modern journalism has become lost in the wilderness. Journalists are supposed to investigate--they are supposed to be a check on power. They are not a public face or ambassador for anything. They should not be mouth pieces.
I'd like to hear people's thoughts on the viability of a woman President, what good potential indicators are, and any further deconstruction or analysis of this article for how it perceives the office of the President.