Women in Power

21     Scherer's thoughtful question presents the problem of discussing gender in politics in a most concise form. Is it truly possible to discuss gender in politics? If so, why do so few people actually talk about gender in any kind of substantive way, foregoing ironic stereotypes in favor of exploring the state of gender in American politics and life? If it is not possible to discuss gender, why is that the case? How has this fear of talking about gender — or this conception that gender is not a "serious" issue — affected the ways in which gender informs politics? Further, if the liberal readers of Salon deem gender a frivolous issue, does that indeed allow the discussion of gender to be co-opted by both conservative pundits and satirists such as Rusty Shackleford and the creators of the "Hillary Nutcracker?"

The Problems with Gender — Political and Feminist

22     Michael Scherer highlights a problem that has no easy or satisfactory solution. Indeed, the role that gender should (or does) play in this election is hotly contested. Some, like Scherer, believe that gender is indeed an issue in this race and that the ways in which candidates choose to either subvert or capitalize upon feminine stereotypes marks a fascinating shift in public perceptions of women in power. Others, such as Karrin Vasby Anderson, argue that while "gender remains a significant but complicated variable" (106), the example set by Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign proved that eventually, "she went from being viewed primarily as a woman to being judged predominantly as a candidate" (109). This is an accurate statement of the 2000 Senate race, though whether it will prove true in the presidential election remains to be seen. Anita Dunn, quoted in The New Republic, insists that "Hillary Clinton almost transcends gender" (qtd. in Cottle 10). In the same article Frank Luntz, a GOP pollster, encourages voters to "put gender aside. Just treat her like you would any other candidate" (qtd. in Cottle 10). Wise, progressive words, perhaps, except for the fact that they come immediately on the heels of these statements, "'She doesn't have to prove that she's tough enough or smart enough [. . .] [but, at the same time] she does not have a sense of warmth [or] the family advantage" (10). Gender — whether overtly discussed or tacitly hinted at — is, indeed, an issue in this election.

23     Because Rodham Clinton is the first viable female candidate to run for the executive office, and because she has for so long been viewed in light of her nonconformity to gender stereotypes, the problem becomes the way in which superficial and dated gender constructs — Rodham Clinton as a wife or a "man" — tends to overshadow any substantive discussion of gender in politics. The focus on gender raises a number of problems that are both political and social. Though any discussion about a female candidate will eventually come to issues of gender, the ways in which the public approaches these issues — or doesn't, as in the case of Salon's readers — both highlight and obscure real political and feminist concerns.

24     In her article, "From Spouses to Candidates: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Dole, and the Gendered Office of U.S. President," Vasby Anderson asserts that the transition from the role of wife to that of candidate is a "logical progression [. . .] the move from spouse to candidate seems a logical next step for women immersed in the political sphere, who often were drawn there by their own education, interests, and ambitions as much as by any spousal relationship" (108). This is certainly a fair assessment of Rodham Clinton, and Vasby Anderson goes on to note that her "public bid for the Senate hinged on her status as a woman and wife of the president. Gender was the fulcrum on which Clinton's political identity and corresponding public opinions about her turned" (110). The author contends, however, that this changed as her campaign matured, and the media began focusing on her as a "carpetbagger" (110) rather than as a woman. Seven years later, though, voters still view Rodham Clinton as a woman and a wife, and that particular view obscures political issues that should be brought to light — chief among them being the question of whether or not her experience as First Lady in fact qualifies her to run the country.

25     Much of the debate between Rodham Clinton and Obama specifically has had to do with experience. The Senator from Illinois is routinely accused of being too new to the political scene to really grasp the complex workings of national politics and international relations. To neutralize questions of experience (a hot topic in this election, given the nature of American foreign relations) Rodham Clinton has repeatedly hearkened back to her husband's time in office and to her own extensive international travel while First Lady. But, in a Newsweek article on August 6, Richard Wolffe correctly observes that

[T]hese sanitized, ceremonial trips abroad are hardly preparation for the middle-of-the-night call from the Situation Room. After all, Laura Bush has also traveled extensively as First Lady, taking in 68 countries either with her husband or on her own. No one is saying she has the experience to be commander in chief. (30)