Some backers believe she's losing her quest for the White House because of sexism. But Hillary Clinton has made a highly sexist claim herself, repeatedly, to support her own campaign.
We've been hearing from some quarters that if Hillary Clinton is losing her chance for the Democratic presidential nomination, it's only because of misogyny and sexism—America's sexist society, sexist voters, sexist media, and, yes, even her sexist Democratic opponent.
When Barack Obama said in February that he believed Clinton "periodically, when she's feeling down, launches attacks," this was construed by some of her supporters as an implication that she is subject to premenstrual depression. (One would think that anyone, even a man, would realize that at her age, that's likely a moot point.) I wonder: if Obama had said "from time to time, when she gets discouraged, she attacks," would his words have been pounced upon so quickly as proof positive of raging misogyny? Can one not use the word "periodically" or refer to a woman "feeling down" without being accused of sexism? We may never know.
But that was merely one example, we were told, of the slings and arrows borne by Clinton. At his recent fundraiser for her, Elton John said, "I never cease to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some people in this country," squarely laying the blame for Hillary's current position in the race on sheer woman-hating. And then there were all the admittedly dumb things said by the media, from the expected right-wing nonsense of Fox News (as if any right-winger really wants Clinton to be president anyway) to the clueless blatherings of MSNBC's Chris Matthews (whose political positions seem to be dictated fresh daily by a toss of the dice). Last week, a small group of Clinton supporters even picketed NBC's New York studios, arguing that media sexism is the primary element ruining her chances.
Yet, who has repeatedly uttered, when championing her own fitness for the office of the President, the kind of statements that have to qualify by even the most narrow definition of feminism as sexist? None other than Hillary Clinton, who enjoys the opportunity to tell cheering, applauding audiences that, because she is a woman, she is better qualified than any other candidate to "clean house."
In and of itself, the campaign theme of "house cleaning" is not particularly sexist, especially when expressed in the broader sense Clinton used when she initially began stumping with it. She told crowds who came to see her that she planned to move into the White House and purge it of all the damage done to the office and the United States by the Bush administration. She even invited her supporters to join her in the task. Great. No problem there.
But, as time has moved on, the "house cleaning" theme has become less and less general, and more and more narrowly focused on what one might call Clinton's unique selling proposition: that, as a woman, her very femaleness uniquely qualifies her to "clean house"—both literally and figuratively.
Last June in Miami, she said: "After eight years of the Bush administration, we are going to be shocked by what we find. Somebody said to me the other day if there was ever a time for a woman president it's now, because we're going to have to do a lot of cleaning."
Then, in November in Iowa: "Oh my goodness, I feel like we are going to get into the White House again and we are going to walk around and say 'Where do we start to clean up this mess?'" She then recalled an audience member who shouted out once when she had told the story before, "That's what women are good at—cleaning up the mess," and invited the audience to "Bring your vacuum cleaners, bring your brushes, bring your brooms, bring your mops."
In January, she told a New Jersey crowd that she was going to need their help cleaning up the White House, and suggested they bring their brooms and vacuum cleaners as well.
In February, she said to a largely female audience in Dallas: "...the next president is gonna have to get in there and clean house. Now, I think we need somebody who's got some experience cleaning house to go into the White House. So, I might ask you to grab your brooms and your mops, your vacuum cleaners and come on up and help me out."
And most recently, at an outdoor block party in Philadelphia Thursday night, Clinton said: "It is time to clean house, and one thing women know how to do—we know how to clean house."
There's definitely a theme at work here, and Hillary Clinton is warming to it more and more, especially with the women in her audiences. In essence, she says, "Don't we women know more about cleaning than any man?" And no doubt, the response she gets from the hearts of many weary women, doing the brunt of their own family's housework (and possibly with husbands who have carefully learned incompetence at such work so they won't be asked to participate) is "You bet we do!" And to that she can answer: "Well, that's what it's going to take to clean up the huge mess we have in this country and in the White House: a woman!"
Hmm. It seems to me that if there's anything that qualifies as sexist in this campaign, it would be a woman claiming that she is more qualified to "clean up" the White House and the country because women are naturally more knowledgeable about, and better at, cleaning than men are. Sure, she's talking about figurative as opposed to actual down-on-your-hands-and-knees cleaning, but even in that sense, she's implying she has the advantage of starting out with a kind of spiritual cleanliness that no man can ever hope to possess.
Statements like these do get big cheers from women at political rallies—the kind of women who accept it as their lot in life to always do the cleaning, the mopping up after both the literal and other messes men make. They may actually believe it makes them superior to males rather than inferior, but still, they regard such work as an inherently feminine task. The man creates disorder; the woman restores order.
Some females are more than happy to mentally expand the concept of women as the best at scrubbing, sweeping and vacuuming to the concept of women as better qualified to put an end to political scandal, greed and dishonesty. Like Victorian-era suffragists arguing that women deserved the vote because of their position as "angels of the hearth" and saying "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world," they argue for Hillary Clinton as the superior candidate because she is a woman. Her femaleness somehow makes her purer than men, cleaner than men—or, at the very least, it means she knows her way around a mop and a broom.
I wonder: If Barack Obama decided to take the same tack, would it be as well accepted? Imagine if he said that he was better qualified to clean up the White House, and the country, because of the color of his skin. Imagine him going before largely African American crowds and saying, "If there was ever a time for a black president it's now, because we're going to have to do a lot of cleaning, and black people have been cleaning up the messes of white people for years"? Or, "I think we need somebody who's got some experience cleaning house to go into the White House. So, I might ask you to grab your brooms and your mops, your vacuum cleaners and come on up and help me out, because one thing we black people know how to do—we know how to clean house"?
There seems to be plenty of cheers and applause when Hillary Clinton holds herself out as National Housewife, or National Maid, ready to roll up her sleeves, tie on an apron and clean up this country. What would we hear, I wonder, if Barack Obama held himself out as National Janitor?
Call me crazy, but I don't think it would go over well.