[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 51°F  
High: 55°F ~ Low: 40°F
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2014

Clinton and the gender issue

Posted Thursday, January 10, 2008, at 10:52 AM

Did Hillary Rodham Clinton really choke up -- or was it a politically motivated act from someone used to being "on stage"?

Some pundits have attributed Clinton's surprise win in the New Hampshire primary partially to an incident in which she appeared to briefly become emotional while talking about what the race meant to her and the hard campaigning she was enduring.

It's interesting that she headed home to New York for a day after New Hampshire, saying she needed to be "grounded." Maybe she was, honestly, just exhausted.

Reports indicate Clinton's aides are telling her to project as a little more tender-hearted.

It must be tough to be a woman in a heated race for president. Every action and emotion is analyzed and interpreted in any number of different ways, depending partially on the outlook of the analyzer. Any signs of stress are played up by those who wonder if a woman is emotionally capable of running the country.

It's notable that women already lead and have led quite a few foreign countries. We'll be seeing America's mindset on the issue over the next few weeks.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

"It must be tough to be a woman in a heated race for president."

-Hogwash. If she can't handle the race she can't handle the position at the end.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 11:03 AM

I'm still not convinced that Hillary's an actual woman. Ok, I was kidding, but I know entirely too many women that have said they would love to see a woman President...just not THAT woman.

-- Posted by Thom on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 2:27 PM

Hmm, well those women should try to run themselves... And she didn't cry because she couldn't handle something, she choked up because she is human and has emotion. Wow, in a country like ours, it's no wonder we continually vote in Republicans who show no emotion on the outside, because we most certainly want a tough person for the job right. Well we have a so-called tough person that some people call their president, and by all means he can't lead.

The fact that she is running and women can't stand it amazes me. It's almost as if they're standing their saying, we love our freedom of speech, and the fact that we can actually vote, but heaven forbid we go one step further and do something with that power.

It's funny many people, none of who have posted on these blogs, can't stand the religion of Islam, yet ironically enough can't get past the double standard, that in the land of the "free" women shouldn't be a president... I have heard from many women that "this country isn't ready for a woman president", my counter argument is simply, they said the same thing to women in the early 1900s when they didn't think they had a right to vote, they also say the same things when they mention women shouldn't be paid as much as men. It just behooves me to no end to hear another woman, especially a mother, think that a women of power shouldn't show emotions.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 6:46 PM

No, what they're saying is that they can't stand HER, not that there's a woman running. I wouldn't mind a woman President at all, just as long as she isn't a cold, calculating, manipulative woman that's been working towards being President since she was a kid.

-- Posted by Thom on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 10:49 PM

I often wonder just how much Bill affects the way people think of her. If she was not his wife would she be received any better?

-- Posted by EastSideMom on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 11:25 PM

No, what they're saying is that they can't stand HER, not that there's a woman running. I wouldn't mind a woman President at all, just as long as she isn't a cold, calculating, manipulative woman that's been working towards being President since she was a kid.

-- Posted by Thom on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 10:49 PM

I can't stand men who are cold, calculating, and manipulative, who have been working towards becoming president since they were children either. But oddly enough we vote them in every four years. It's funny how women can't stand other women who are all those things you described, yet they can defend the coward we have in office now...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 7:06 AM

Actually, I was responding to the blog about her not being able to handle the race for the job she desires. If she can't handle the race then she surely can't handle the position. You are not allowed to be the President of the United States and pull the "I'm a woman, I can't help it" card. It's unfair.

In reponse to EastSideMom, I think she would probably be received differently if she were not his wife. Fact is, you are judged by the company you keep.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 7:54 AM

AND, just because she's a woman and we are allowed to vote and all that nonsense does NOT mean we should be so supportive of her. It makes no difference what gender she is....I don't like her.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 7:55 AM

If it were not for the exposure she received while being the First Lady, she not only would never of been a Senator, she wouldn't even be in this race. Don't blame Bill for the negative image she has. I don't like Bill Clinton anymore than the next guy. The damage he did to his own credibility and the credibility of the office of President have nothing to do with the fact that she is a moron.

-- Posted by tgreader on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 9:48 AM

If her husband were perceived as especially wise and noble,she'd look better.

Jimmy Carter looked all the weaker because his family was easily ridiculed.

(The assumption that Amy's choice of earrings would get more press coverage than World War III didn't help.)

Chief Executives are expected to pick sane and likeable people and ride herd on the ones they can't select.

If people think Hilary Rodham made a poor choice in husbands and failed to "train" him into wise behavior,how will they trust her judgement and control in other contexts?

("If she couldn't plan better than that for a lifetime,how's she going to araange things right for a mere eight years?")

She's going to have to overcome the notion that she and Bill Clinton were paired up like Ken and Barbie to get elected to the Dream House.

She has to prove herself as a current statesman and not a former trophy wife.

When she's not dealing with those who expect too little of a female,she'll be battling those who expect too much.

She'll have to be a competent,ethical leader and give no one the means to dispute it.

Maybe,someday,a "minority" can get by with just being a decent,qualified human being or they might manage with just the skills demanded by Robert Heinlein:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts,build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

Specialization is for insects."

For now,a candidate for office should not only be capable and respectable but look that way,too.

That's a large task for anyone.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 2:35 PM

I will not vote for Hilary because she is too far left for me (and even I think that she sits somewhere slightly left of the middle).

I do think that she is highly intelligent, articulate and a very strong woman. If I could change her mind on a few issues, then I think she would make a good President.

It does not matter which emotion she shows, it will always lead to criticism because she is a woman and the general perception of women is that they are emotional people.

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 3:07 PM

She's dangerous - socialized medicine, repeal of the 2nd Amendment, income redistribution, higher taxes to fund even more government programs, and so on...

For all its problems, we have the best healthcare in the WORLD! If we end up with socialized medicine, we will in effect, have GOVERNMENT PAID DOCTORS AND NURSES treating us and a GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY to go with it!

I remember back when she tried this before, she and Bill said something about "weeding them out" meaning the elderly and chronically ill. In other words, as little care for these groups as possible, because they would cost the government too much money!!

I just don't know why they can't focus on healthcare for people WHO DON'T HAVE IT or CAN'T GET IT - AND LEAVE THOSE OF US THAT ALREADY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE ALONE!

But NOOOOO! It's all about GOVERNMENT CONTROL and one of the best ways to do that is with Socialized Medicine!

Hey, if you think your income taxes are high NOW, just wait and see what they'll be if Hillary or Obama take control!!!

-- Posted by puppydinks on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 3:54 PM

She has to prove herself as a current statesman and not a former trophy wife.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 2:35 PM

Hilary Clinton a trophy wife???

You are too funny!

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 7:48 PM

Hillary a trophy wife or a "Statesman"?? Well I guess the last part of Statesman is appropriate!!!

-- Posted by puppydinks on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 12:30 PM

And what best describes you the latter part of puppydinks?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 3:43 PM

Dual Income No KidS is one explanation, except I do have kids.

Another explanation is that it's the nickname my mother calls me...

Other than that what's your point?

-- Posted by puppydinks on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 6:51 PM

I was wondering the same thing...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 7:39 PM

I remember being almost for the Clinton health care program when I thought it might turn out like Mayo and a few other good hospitals (here and elsewhere) were doing.

It could have offered superlative care by compassionate professionals in a state-of-the-art setting for under $2000 a week (based on ability to pay).

But,that dream quickly vanished.

NO one that I know of is offering affordable care,top-notch quality,decent working conditions for staff,no prohibitive insurance costs for doctors and a healthy bottom line for insurance companies,pharmaceutical firms,nursing homes and hospitals.

Too often,everyone from patient to provider is hanging on by a thread.

Any person or party that can effect real change on an an ever broadening scale can get the executive positions on a silver platter.

But,failed plans and no plans just make the electorate feel helpless and cynical.

We not only need to revive our 'can-do' spirit,we need to be able to point to several worthwhile accomplishments.

Right or wrong,we start to assume that all promises are empty and our choices are the least among evils.

The frustration and apathy just makes matters worse.

We run the risk of latching on to anyone who might make some real change.

It'd be nice if we could bring ourselves to trust someone who could actually lead us in a better direction and implement some genuine improvement.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Wed, Jan 16, 2008, at 2:11 PM

AGREED quantumcat!!!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Jan 16, 2008, at 2:44 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.