Debating Kim Gandy of N.O.W. about Senator Hillary Clinton and sexism

I recently received a link that I found interesting. Since there is a bit of time before the March 4th Primaries I thought I’d delve into this a bit. But let me first state that I have nothing against a woman as President. Like any man that may wish to hold the highest office in the nation, my only concern is that it is the best person that receives the Presidency. I must also disclose that I have previously stated that I am locked between Senators McCain and Obama as my choices, which is based on their political profiles only.

This post will be addressing a column by N.O.W. President Kim Gandy. The full post can be found on the N.O.W. site.

To start with I have no doubt that there are women that face sexism in their fields of work. I don’t doubt this because I know that there is still massive and pervasive racial bias in the media, business, and politics with examples of this being displayed nationally everyday. So to say women still face similar difficulties is neither a surprise nor a reach.

But I will say that I think Kim Gandy protests too much on a couple of points, and seeks the election of Senator Clinton more to make a point than her actual qualifications. This is not a fault that is uncommon, as there are many African Americans that vote for Senator Obama for no reason other than the color of his skin. Neither is a reason for the candidates to receive the nomination nor Presidency.

Kim Gandy starts her column stating that Senator Clinton is the object of venom from media, in television and print, and receiving an unfair amount of negative coverage. In part I would say that is correct, as several pundits have made their comments personal and not relevant to Senator Clinton’s qualifications or they unfairly involve the Clinton family. But at the same time some of the coverage is fair and according to national polls taken from 2007 to now reflects the 47% of the nation that dislikes Senator Clinton. In politics, if polls say you are unliked the media will make their tone less favorable, no matter what your sex or color.

As for her 4 common themes used against Senator Clinton:

“First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system…His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?”

While I will agree that Senator Clinton has been criticized about her apparel and mannerisms there is more to this. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen posts and articles that have critiqued the colors and clothing that all the candidates wear. I feel that it is perhaps the least effective or useful reason to judge anyone for any position. I admit that several pundits have focused more on Senator Clinton for these reasons. But in a society where multiple organizations run and directly focused on women consistently choose to evaluate and critique the apparel of famous women in all walks of life then that is to be expected. Were there less interest in the clothes worn during red carpet events, as an example, I would agree whole-heartedly. But when there are dozens of television programs and magazines that exists solely to critique women on this basis, to complain when the highest profile woman in America at the moment is placed under that same flimsy microscope is silly. I don’t think it has anything to do with Senator Clintons abilities, but it is a reality that many women (apparently) find important or at least of interest.

As for the emotional outbursts, this is unfair. Several of the Presidential candidates have been singled out for their emotional reactions. Notably there are the numerous comments on Senator McCain. Whether it is commentary on his attempts at joviality (Bomb Iran) or his well known temper, his outbursts are well covered, as are most of the candidates.

And there are none that I think do not believe that Senator Clinton knows how to use the political system. Consistently Senator Clinton has been shown to use the media and polls to gain attention and political clout without actually doing anything. In looking at Senator Clinton’s record as a Senator, votes on both sides of issues and correlating directly to changes in polling positions exists. Do you recall the “Hot Coffee” scandal? Senator Clinton was prominent in her denouncement of a truly overblown subject, yet she did nothing about it and walked away from the issue immediately after it stopped gaining press attention. It is this kind of use of the media to improve her image that is considered manipulative, and she is not the only Senator to do so. But to call her on that is not a gender based reasoning, it’s just honest.

“In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election -- strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil.”

Well that’s not exactly true either. All politicians are calculating to some degree. Whether is campaigning in areas more favorable to their voter base, or picking to campaign in this state over another is politics today. Rudy did it when he picked Florida as his main focus; Mitt Romney did it in Wyoming, and so on. All the candidates calculate what is in their best interest and strategize, organize, compare and contrast to that end. What might be considered fake or evil are actions like promoting a half-conceived idea, like the $5,000 bond for every child in America towards their college education, and dropping it after it has gained her press coverage and positive voter sentiment. Promoting ideas that are infeasible and not having the ability to answer reasonable questions on such a plan is pandering to gain votes, and any candidate that does such needs to be called on it.

“Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today because of her husband, Bill.”

To a degree that is a true statement. There is no question that the fame and recognition of President Bill Clinton elevated the political hopes of Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton had no official, and questionable unofficial, political experience prior to Bill Clinton gaining prominent political positions. There is no question that either Clinton has no ties or connection to New York State. Thus her initial claim to fame in that election was that she was the former-First Lady and the headlines in New York City at that time was the fact that Bill Clinton was considering taking an office in Harlem. Often in this election cycle, Bill Clinton has dominated the media coverage, beyond any other spouse of a candidate – and most of the other candidates, because of his former office. This drew media coverage to the Clinton campaign, for good or ill and thus benefited the Senator. While an argument can be made today that Bill Clinton’s status is not the sole reason for Hillary’s current Presidential race, it is undeniably a factor and significant in her ability to be elected initially in New York State. To deny these facts is to deny modern politics and the power of political clout and endorsements in electing any official to office.

“Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters. Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to intimate (at least about the women who are voting for Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all voters are stupid and shallow.”

I am unaware of any pundit that has belittled voters. Nor have I heard that women voting for Senator Clinton are “irrational and biased”. That may be my own inability to follow every pundit and talking-head in the media. Any that might have made such a statement is wrong and I agree that such statements are unfair.

“Hillary Clinton and women in general, aren't the only ones subject to gender-based assessments. Barack Obama and John Edwards have also been degraded when the media detect in them "feminine" characteristics or behaviors (like paying attention to your appearance) that supposedly are unbecoming in men.”

It is true that John Edwards in particular was criticized by the media for his notorious $400 haircuts. But this criticism was not about priming himself in some feminine manner. It was the obvious disconnect from his stance about 2 Americas. It seems odd when someone states they care about the poor, and is then seen paying for haircuts that are equivalent to the weekly paycheck of some Americans. And any candidate that wishes to state they are “looking out for the common worker” is at a disadvantage if they lavishly spend money on common grooming. That seems hypocritical and deserving of comment.

“Regarding women and men and politics, we really ought to be past the tree house-years. It's not just those in the public eye who are hurt when the media promote sex stereotypes. Daughters everywhere are hearing the message that a woman can't be as competent and effective a leader as a man.”

Obviously America is not beyond many things. Racism and gender bias are just a few of those things. Since both exist and are promoted on the media daily, it’s no surprise when they appear in politics. African Americans should not be presumed to be poor, violent, drug-addicted felons yet most Black men are. If we cannot get past color, is it s surprise we cannot get past gender on some issues?

Again I will ask, who has said women can’t be effective leaders? There are many women in political office. Nancy Pelosi leads the House. There are many women that lead major corporations, or own them. Oprah Winfrey is perhaps the best known, but she is not singular. Could there be more? Definitely, just as there should be more African American, Hispanics/Latinos and people of color. But to depict the political landscape or the general one at that, as devoid of women in leadership positions across the world is to be blind and instilling gloom and downtrodden view that is inaccurate in my opinion.

The column goes on to then quote several pundits and talking heads that have made various statements. Some are bad, and others depend entirely on the way you wish to perceive them. (I do find it interesting that they are virtually all from organizations that are considered highly liberal and pro-Democrat) One in particular I think is accurate.

“Tucker Carlson, MSNBC's Tucker, Jan. 22, 2008
"It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination. . . . She hasn't driven her own car in almost 20 years and she's a victim of discrimination? I mean can't we both agree that's just BS?"

There is no question that Senator Clinton is rich. There is equally no question of her political prominence. And from what I have read about her, she has not had to endure the difficulties 90% of Americans combat daily in over 3 decades at least. I’m not sure how much pity I am supposed to feel for Senator Clinton when she has sat on the board of Wal-Mart, a partner of a law firm, indulged in commodities trading, and had the ability to, questionably, influence public policy. My mother and sisters on the other hand have strived against discrimination and they don’t ask for any special recognition for their achievements.

So while Kim Gandy has some points, the real issue boils down simply to is Senator Clinton deserving of being the first female President. Based on her abilities as expressed as her actions in political office (which is limited to her time as a Senator since she held no elected office or political position prior) I would say no.

I would say the same for why I would not support John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and others. It’s not a bias against women to say she is not the best option; it’s just honest in my opinion. That’s the same as saying Jesse Jackson was not the best option for a potential Black President. Nor does it preclude a future candidate that is more worthy attaining the office.