Women in Power

11     Anita Hill, in a brilliant piece in the New York Times, commented on this fascinating phenomenon, noting that:

[Her] approval rating as First Lady was at its lowest when she tackled health reform, rose steadily when she confined her activity to the traditional role as White House hostess, and was at its highest when she stoically stood by her husband despite his marital infidelity [. . .] [she is] only popular when she [is] seen as a wife. (31)

If this is true, and if the media insists on focusing on her as a wife, how does that shape the current campaign? How is she being positioned in this race as a wife and, if she is indeed "only popular when she is seen as a wife," how is she using that to her advantage? Finally, in what other ways is she being cast in terms of gender, and how do her problems with gender affect her male opponents and their public images?

The 2008 Presidential Race

12     Chris Matthews's question at the end of that first debate was one of the more interesting instances of the positioning of Rodham Clinton as a wife. Recalling that political expedience has in the past trumped personal convictions, Rodham Clinton has positioned herself in relation to her husband when she has found it to be to her advantage. As her campaign matured and she and Bill Clinton began making more public appearances together it seemed as though discussion revolved around Clinton, rather than around the candidate. This is, of course, to be expected. He is an immensely popular former President and the public has long been fascinated by him and by the relationship between the two. However, one of the dangers that her campaign considered was the fact that he might overshadow the candidate. News stories about the two, with headlines such as "Bill Clinton Plunges into White House Campaign with his Wife" (Nicholas) and "Bill Clinton Steps into Spotlight in Wife's Campaign," ("Bill Clinton") seemed to suggest that this was indeed a possibility. The former, written by LA Times staff writer Peter Nicholas, stated that "rolling out the 42nd president reflects a calculation on the part of Hillary Clinton's campaign that he can rally Democratic voters without overshadowing his wife — not an easy thing to pull off" (A3) adding that "the more public her husband's role, the more the campaign may remind voters of a controversial theme from the 1992 presidential race — the Clintons as a 'two-for-the-price-of-one' package " (A3).

13     This "two-for-the-price-of-one" issue is particularly interesting because, after the 1992 election, when the seriousness of this campaign promise was revealed, the public resented Rodham Clinton for setting up offices in the West Wing and taking over health care reform. Her approval ratings plummeted and she was forced to reconsider her role as First Lady. While it made a great slogan on the trail — and one especially apt for a new generation of politicians who represented new ideas about marriage and family — this particular package deal is not what Americans wanted in the end. In this election, however, voters seem excited by the idea of a Clinton "team." The same article quotes a voter in Iowa who noted that "'Bill is one of the best presidents we've ever had. And it bothers me that a lot of people continue to use the sexual things as an excuse not to look at the good things he did. I don't see how anyone cannot get excited about a team like that'" (A3). Nicholas quotes another Iowa voter who commented that "'I've always loved the man . . . with him and her together, it's a solid situation'" (A3). The irony here should not be overlooked — the "team" is great, so long as the players know their roles. In the eyes of the public, Rodham Clinton overstepped her bounds when she attempted to take on proactive roles in her husband's administration. Now that the reverse might be true — Nicholas writes that Rodham Clinton has, on the campaign trail, "[made] plain that her husband [. . .] would remain an influential advisor" (A3) — voters seem delighted. As a wife, her role should have been very prescribed — she was not expected to offer any serious counsel to the President. Yet, now that she is running, the public expects her spouse to explicitly, and perhaps publicly, serve as an advisor. Though she may have the most powerful office in the land, she will still be expected to rely on her husband, who in turn will be expected to routinely weigh in on issues.

14     Though some may wonder if Rodham Clinton would even be a viable candidate had she not been married to an ex-president, supporters of her campaign optimistically continue to insist that voters are interested in the candidate as a politician and potential leader, not as the spouse of the former president. Patrick Healy wrote in the New York Times Online that "the goal [of the campaign] is to position Mrs. Clinton to run for president not as a partner or a proxy, but as her own person." He goes on to quote Donna Brazile, a Democrat strategist, who perhaps naively asserts that "voters aren't interested in the Clintons as a couple as much as they're interested in what Mrs. Clinton is doing or saying" (qtd. in Healy). Democratic donor and Rodham Clinton supporter Robert Zimmerman echoes this by saying that "'her national appeal and national strength is not based upon her relationship with Bill Clinton, but her extraordinary stature and success as a U.S. Senator'" (qtd. in Healy). While this may prove true for the majority of Americans who will eventually vote in this election, the fact remains that Rodham Clinton has long been viewed in light of her husband, and particularly in light of her relationship with him. In the end, neither she nor her opponents can seem to resist hitching her rising political star to his. Indeed, though her opponents may use her connection to Bill Clinton to cast her in a negative light, bringing her husband along on the campaign trail may be the most politically shrewd move she can make. If it is true that, as Anita Hill states, Rodham Clinton is "only popular when she [is] seen as a wife" (31) then her campaign's efforts to showcase her husband may eventually prove to further heighten her popularity and strengthen her appeal.

15     Her role of wife notwithstanding, there are other interesting ways in which gender is playing a role in the 2008 presidential election. Michelle Cottle, writing in The New Republic, noted that "for as long as there have been women candidates, there have been rules about how to run against them — what to say, what to avoid saying, which stereotypes to use to undermine their credibility" (9). While one of these stereotypes has often been that women somehow are not "tough enough" to lead at the highest levels, Rodham Clinton faces criticism of a different sort. She has often been accused of being too masculine — a persistent stereotype leveled against feminist women. The suggestion that Rodham Clinton is unfeminine is an attack on her gender with which she has had to contend ever since her days as Arkansas First Lady, if not before. This election is no different. Suggestions that Rodham Clinton is a man in women's clothes range from the obviously absurd to the more complex and problematic. To understand the absurdity of some attacks, one has to look no further than the YouTube video depicting Rusty Shackleford singing his song "Hillary Clinton is a Man," which includes these lines "I can see through your makeup and dress/All the way down to your hairy chest" and whose refrain is simply "Hillary Clinton is a man, man" (Shackleford). The video and song are, one assumes, ironic, as is the "Hillary Clinton Nutcracker" sold by Eagleview USA. The nutcracker is a model of the candidate with "Stainless Steel Thighs" between which the proud owner can crack nuts. The device is so popular that the company has also produced a men's t-shirt depicting the product with the slogan "I Feel the Squeeze". The women's t-shirt asks simply, "Why does Hillary Get to Have All the Fun?" ("Hillary Nutcracker").