Tweet
Different rules for a woman candidate?
After Democratic debate, an argument about gender and ‘piling on’
By Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy
The New York Times
updated 2:28 a.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 5, 2007
DES MONIES, Nov. 4 - A critical question in this campaign — how to run against a female presidential candidate, or as one — has burst into the foreground in the aftermath of a Democratic debate last week at which Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was repeatedly challenged by her rivals and the event’s questioners.
Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are accusing rival candidates and the questioners of “piling on,” to use the words of the Clinton campaign, at the debate, which rattled the Clinton camp. They noted that John Edwards had been especially critical of Mrs. Clinton.
“John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they way they attacked her,” said Geraldine A. Ferraro, the 1984 vice presidential candidate who supports Mrs. Clinton. “It’s O.K. in this country to be sexist,” Ms. Ferraro said.
“It’s certainly not O.K. to be racist. I think if Barack Obama had been attacked for two hours — well, I don’t think Barack Obama would have been attacked for two hours.”
Mrs. Clinton’s opponents, and some prominent women, countered that Mrs. Clinton was resorting to using her sex as a shield against substantive criticism in a hard-fought race.
“It’s outrageous to suggest that it’s sexist for the other candidates to ask her tough questions or criticize her,” said Kate Michelman, a women’s leader and a supporter of Mr. Edwards. “To call it sexist is to play the gender card. Any claim of sexism is just a distraction from the fact that she did not do well in the debate, that she did not answer important questions on Iraq and Iran.”
In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals? The situation is that much more complicated given that second place in most polls goes to Mr. Obama, who is black. It means that both race and sex have been added to the mix of substance and imagery that makes up presidential politics.
But more than anything, the fallout from the debate underlined just how uncertain Mrs. Clinton and her opponents are in trying to figure out what kind of role gender will play in this campaign.
The tentativeness reflects the memory of Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign, when her Republican opponent marched across the stage during a debate and demanded she sign a pledge renouncing her use of soft money in the campaign, a maneuver that Mrs. Clinton’s aides quickly highlighted and said produced a flood of support among women.
Mrs. Clinton denies playing the gender card — at least in the sense of saying that as a woman she should be exempt from the traditional rough-and-tumble of campaigns — and her remarks on the subject have certainly been oblique.
From the start of this campaign, Mrs. Clinton has embraced the idea that she might be the first woman elected president, and has celebrated her candidacy in historic terms — young girls at her rallies are regularly seen wearing “I can be president” buttons provided by the campaign.
Whatever her personal feelings, it is a central part of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign strategy. In Iowa, she has set out to energize women young and old who have never participated in the caucuses.
Why Mrs. Clinton’s supporters have invoked her sex so specifically is a matter of dispute. Her critics, including some of her opponents, suggested it was a cynical maneuver designed to compensate for what even Mrs. Clinton’s supporters acknowledged was a poor performance.
But aides to Mrs. Clinton suggested that by highlighting this episode — a statement by the campaign called her a “strong woman” as it denounced the “politics of piling on” — they were taking a lesson from what happened in the 2000 Senate race, suggesting that once again women would rally around Mrs. Clinton for showing strength in the face of attack.
For all that, Mrs. Clinton has taken pains not to come across as complaining or suggesting that she felt victimized. She told reporters she thought the criticism of her occurred not because she was a woman, but because she was the front-runner, even as she used language that invoked feminist imagery.
“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Indianola, Iowa. “Well, I’m really comfortable in the kitchen, and I’m going to stay in there and absorb the heat.”
Still, her campaign responded, characteristically, on a less obvious and more forceful track that at least initially used an online “piling on” video to encourage a simple story line for the debate: Seven men versus one woman.
Lashing back, her critics have denounced what they say was a political maneuver to force Mrs. Clinton’s opponents to treat the woman in the race more gingerly.
In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina, dismissed suggestions that the male candidates were ganging up on Mrs. Clinton.
“The standard should be exactly the same,” Mr. Edwards said. “I think she’s entitled to be treated like every other candidate is treated, and that’s exactly what I’ll do.”
In his criticism of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, a senator from Illinois, said he had not referred to his race when he was challenged at the debate.
Ms. Ferraro said that she thought the debate and its fallout would rally support to Mrs. Clinton. (“I am not kidding,” Ms. Ferraro said. “I have been bombarded by e-mail.”)
“We can’t let them do this in a presidential race,” she said. “They say we’re playing the gender card. We are not. We are not. We have got to stand up. It’s discrimination against her as a candidate because she is a woman.”
Copyright © 2007 The New York Times
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21630948/
After Democratic debate, an argument about gender and ‘piling on’
By Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy
The New York Times
updated 2:28 a.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 5, 2007
DES MONIES, Nov. 4 - A critical question in this campaign — how to run against a female presidential candidate, or as one — has burst into the foreground in the aftermath of a Democratic debate last week at which Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was repeatedly challenged by her rivals and the event’s questioners.
Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are accusing rival candidates and the questioners of “piling on,” to use the words of the Clinton campaign, at the debate, which rattled the Clinton camp. They noted that John Edwards had been especially critical of Mrs. Clinton.
“John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they way they attacked her,” said Geraldine A. Ferraro, the 1984 vice presidential candidate who supports Mrs. Clinton. “It’s O.K. in this country to be sexist,” Ms. Ferraro said.
“It’s certainly not O.K. to be racist. I think if Barack Obama had been attacked for two hours — well, I don’t think Barack Obama would have been attacked for two hours.”
Mrs. Clinton’s opponents, and some prominent women, countered that Mrs. Clinton was resorting to using her sex as a shield against substantive criticism in a hard-fought race.
“It’s outrageous to suggest that it’s sexist for the other candidates to ask her tough questions or criticize her,” said Kate Michelman, a women’s leader and a supporter of Mr. Edwards. “To call it sexist is to play the gender card. Any claim of sexism is just a distraction from the fact that she did not do well in the debate, that she did not answer important questions on Iraq and Iran.”
In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals? The situation is that much more complicated given that second place in most polls goes to Mr. Obama, who is black. It means that both race and sex have been added to the mix of substance and imagery that makes up presidential politics.
But more than anything, the fallout from the debate underlined just how uncertain Mrs. Clinton and her opponents are in trying to figure out what kind of role gender will play in this campaign.
The tentativeness reflects the memory of Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign, when her Republican opponent marched across the stage during a debate and demanded she sign a pledge renouncing her use of soft money in the campaign, a maneuver that Mrs. Clinton’s aides quickly highlighted and said produced a flood of support among women.
Mrs. Clinton denies playing the gender card — at least in the sense of saying that as a woman she should be exempt from the traditional rough-and-tumble of campaigns — and her remarks on the subject have certainly been oblique.
From the start of this campaign, Mrs. Clinton has embraced the idea that she might be the first woman elected president, and has celebrated her candidacy in historic terms — young girls at her rallies are regularly seen wearing “I can be president” buttons provided by the campaign.
Whatever her personal feelings, it is a central part of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign strategy. In Iowa, she has set out to energize women young and old who have never participated in the caucuses.
Why Mrs. Clinton’s supporters have invoked her sex so specifically is a matter of dispute. Her critics, including some of her opponents, suggested it was a cynical maneuver designed to compensate for what even Mrs. Clinton’s supporters acknowledged was a poor performance.
But aides to Mrs. Clinton suggested that by highlighting this episode — a statement by the campaign called her a “strong woman” as it denounced the “politics of piling on” — they were taking a lesson from what happened in the 2000 Senate race, suggesting that once again women would rally around Mrs. Clinton for showing strength in the face of attack.
For all that, Mrs. Clinton has taken pains not to come across as complaining or suggesting that she felt victimized. She told reporters she thought the criticism of her occurred not because she was a woman, but because she was the front-runner, even as she used language that invoked feminist imagery.
“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Indianola, Iowa. “Well, I’m really comfortable in the kitchen, and I’m going to stay in there and absorb the heat.”
Still, her campaign responded, characteristically, on a less obvious and more forceful track that at least initially used an online “piling on” video to encourage a simple story line for the debate: Seven men versus one woman.
Lashing back, her critics have denounced what they say was a political maneuver to force Mrs. Clinton’s opponents to treat the woman in the race more gingerly.
In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina, dismissed suggestions that the male candidates were ganging up on Mrs. Clinton.
“The standard should be exactly the same,” Mr. Edwards said. “I think she’s entitled to be treated like every other candidate is treated, and that’s exactly what I’ll do.”
In his criticism of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, a senator from Illinois, said he had not referred to his race when he was challenged at the debate.
Ms. Ferraro said that she thought the debate and its fallout would rally support to Mrs. Clinton. (“I am not kidding,” Ms. Ferraro said. “I have been bombarded by e-mail.”)
“We can’t let them do this in a presidential race,” she said. “They say we’re playing the gender card. We are not. We are not. We have got to stand up. It’s discrimination against her as a candidate because she is a woman.”
Copyright © 2007 The New York Times
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21630948/
Comment