Throughout the Primary season, we've heard about how sexism has hobbled Hillary Clinton's Presidential bid. Some of those charges are spot-on; are are mere hyperbole and hyperventilation. But could it be that the largest bastion of sexism was within the Clinton campaign itself?
The Wall Street Journal kicks off the Hillary Clinton for President 2008 Post-Mortem Field Day with a long article analyzing the mistakes of her campaign. Jackie Calmes sings the familiar refrain that Clinton didn't let the voters see her true colors:
Before her January 2007 debut as a candidate, the senator's team wrangled over how to portray her. Ms. Solis Doyle, communications director Howard Wolfson, media strategist Mandy Grunwald, policy chief Neera Tanden and senior strategist Harold Ickes wanted to promote her as a candidate of change -- the first woman president -- her Washington years notwithstanding. They also wanted to counter the candidate's high negative ratings among the general population by revealing the witty, engaging woman they knew.
There's nothing new here. Kos himself has remarked what an intelligent, engaging, and warm person Sen. Clinton is in person. [Can't find the link to the post where Kos said this - if someone manages to dig it up, please let me know.] If she'd put those qualities on display more often, she may well have been our nominee.
So...what happened? Guess who:
Mr. Penn, by contrast, believed that voters would need to perceive Sen. Clinton as tough and seasoned enough to be the first female commander in chief. Emphasizing her gender too much, he argued, would undercut that. He also said Sen. Clinton would look weak if she apologized for her 2002 war vote, though it was especially unpopular in Iowa. [Emphasis added]
GREAT strategy. Don't emphasize that the first serious female contender for the US Presidency is, well, you know, female. Don't play up her silly human qualities, like warmth and wit and the ability to acknowledge your own mistakes. That's so girly. Just be one of the boys - chew nails, spit fire, and bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran with the best of 'em!
In other words, while Hillary Clinton was talking about defending women's rights and breaking patriarchal barriers, Mark Penn (and, by proxy, her own husband, whom Penn used to manipulate his client) was convincing her to act like one of the guys.
I don't want to get into a mile-long debate about which Hillary Clinton is the "true" Hillary Clinton. Her staunchest defenders will insist it's this warm, hyper-intelligent woman we only saw in furtive glimpses during this campaign. The likes of Andrew Sullivan will scream until the Second Coming that it's the take-no-prisoners crusader who had to be talked off of the political ledge yesterday by her Congressional backers. Both are probably true. We are all, in some sense, split personalities. We act one way when we're at our best and hitting our stride, but fly off the handle when someone pushes our buttons. We have our good sides, and our bad sides. Hillary Clinton is no better (and no worse) than any other human being in this regard. She simply took bad advice to heart, and emphasized the side that repelled the majority of Democratic voters.
So if you want to bitch about sexism in America - hey, I'm with you. Ask my wife about sexism in the film industry, for example, and she'll talk your ear off. But if we're going to talk about sexism in the Presidential Primary, let's not overlook how a scurrilous male campaign advisor may have convinced his glass-shattering client to internalize fear and loathing of her own gender.