She Can’t Win For Losing

There have been times in this election when I have truly felt sorry for Hillary Clinton. While the truth is that she has not been well served by this campaign or her advisors, this only highlights a bigger issue that has plagued her. Regardless of how this election turns out for her she can never win. The reason she can never win is because she can never be herself or she can never have her own voice. It is this lack of a true consistent voice that continues to plague her and her campaign. Regardless of what you may think of her competitors they have been afforded the luxury of being who they are, Hillary on the other hand has not.

She began this campaign with a man’s voice, that she could be just as tough as the boys on security, defense, and the terrorists. But was this what the voters wanted from her? The problem with being a man that looks like a woman is that most voters if given the chance will choose a man. Why have half the package when you can have the whole thing? Conventional wisdom had it that she had to present this tough as nails image to win over white males. Did the voters want a woman that spoke to the issues with the voice of a man? Would the voters support a woman that spoke to the issues as a woman? The problem is that we will never know, because Hillary was never given the opportunity to try. I find it interesting that in the few opportunities that Hillary allowed that female voice to come through she did surprisingly well in those elections. Was it a statistical glitch or was this what the electorate wanted from her?

What do we want from our female candidates? Do we want them to speak to issues as women, bringing those characteristics that separate women from men. It seems that in America we have gotten confused, we have come to the conclusion that equality means sameness. In order for women to be equal to men they must be the same as men, they must be as tough, as masculine, and as treacherous. Rather than accept that we can be different and yet still be equal, we have the mistaken belief that in order to be equal we must be the same. It is this thought process that causes us to absorb other cultures and want everyone to be the same. Those who refuse to accept the Western civilization model and values are deemed inferior and uncivilized. Rather than celebrate and promote our differences we want to integrate and merge them into this one ideal.

While many other societies and cultures value differences in race and gender, we tend to fear them. Given the climate in this country today what would the odds be of an American-born Muslim being elected to any office? Those that are not like us we fear, so we want to make everyone like us even if we have to kill them in the process. Hillary is a victim of this mentality on another level. Instead of being able to bring her femininity to her campaign she is forced to campaign like “one of the guys”. Because rather than her being a choice for change to a more feminine position, she has to mimic the men. So she is a woman that is not allowed to be a woman. Barack Obama has a similar problem in that he is the black man that cannot be black.

For Hillary being a woman should have been an asset in this election and in this country. You would think the electorate would have gotten tired of four hundred years of white men leading this country and would want to try some new leadership. It was fear that the country was unwilling to elect a true woman’s voice that caused her to become this hybrid that appears as a woman but speaks as a man. Unfortunately for Hillary this has caused her to lose support among women who had been hoping that she would speak with a feminine voice. Instead of hearing reconciliation and nurturing they have heard talk of 3 am phone calls to deliver bombs on sleepy villages and a willingness to go nuclear if the boys do it. While this talk may appeal to the hardcore feminist who needs to prove that she is as tough as any man, the majority of women do not share this desire. Many women enjoy and appreciate their tenderness and yes their softness. These are the women that Hillary was not able to speak to or for. These are the women who never got a voice in this election.

Hillary wanted the best of both worlds, she wanted to be able to use being a woman when it was convenient and yet be like a man when it was needed. She never was able to find her own voice, the voice of a woman being a woman. In the end this lack of a true voice will cost Hillary either the primaries or the general election. I am not sure if Hillary would have done better being a woman, but I am sorry she didn’t try. I do know that that campaign would have advanced the cause of women a lot farther than this one has. As it stands now we are still presenting women candidates that must speak like men to be taken seriously. I just hope the next woman who runs won’t be afraid to use her female voice and be who she is. The real question I guess is, will we let her?

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic - John F. Kennedy

The Disputed Truth

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not convinced.

 An odd comment, considering that Hillary just had her most significant wins in the primaries... so her so-called lack of a consistent voice seems to be plaguing her less recently, even as her (man-like?) attacks are allegedly on the rise!  How do you explain this?

But then later you say that ""  So apparently he is not afforded the luxury of being who he is.  I am confused.

 

I would assume you are talking about New Hampshire here.  What other instances of Hillary showing her feminine side are you talking about?  It sure seems like Hillary has been plenty tough recently, and she won Ohio and Texas.

 "Treacherous"?  Men are inherently treacherous?  Going to the trusty skymutt directory, "treacherous" means "dangerously unstable and unpredictable".  Do you really believe this to be a male trait?  Are men more "dangerously unstable and unpredictable" than women?

I think I should be offended ;-) 

I just don't see it.  Hillary has not "become" man-like for this campaign.  She seems to be pretty much the same person to me that we got to know back in 1992.  The main difference I notice between her than and her now is her increased hawkishness, which I trace back to 9/11 and her being a Senator from New York and is not anything new for this campaign.  And of course she has become more polished and confident over time, which is natural.  

 If "be like a man" means "be tough", then what exactly is wrong with this?  I do want a president that can be tough when it is needed, even if it is a woman.

 

…………

All I'm saying

All I'm saying is contrast what we look for in a female candidate in contrast to other societies. India, Pakistan, and Germany for examples.

From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth – oh God of Truth deliver us!— Unknown (blog )

………… parent

What about Great Britain?

Thatcher, for example, was tough as nails. Or Israel, with Golda Meir.

Of course both of those are from the past, so perhaps GB+Israel have advanced now while we're stuck. Even if that's the case, we're not the only country today that has a bit of a double standard when it comes to female politicians. Not an excuse, we certainly have work to do as does some of the rest of the world.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Factors behind those significant wins

** She made a big deal about how the press wasn't being fair to her. SNL basically made it look like all the guys were ganging up on her -- this is similar to the atmosphere before NH, whether or not she intended to create it.
** She benefited in Ohio from the NAFTA-gate smear, which conveniently died the day after the primary.
** The 3AM add didn't actually play well with undecideds (or with Obama supporters).
** She didn't really win so much as avoid losing. I know that sounds like sour grapes but objectively she had huge leads two weeks before the elections that vanished, and then she got a bit of a rebound bounce after press coverage turned against Obama in the days before the vote (exit polls show late deciders broke for Hillary).

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

One of those significant wins

may not be a significant win. The press is treating Texas as if it were a huge win for Hillary but as anyone who is paying attention may notice (Kos actually had a FP post story about this), Texas is not done counting. Hillary is winning the 'primary' portion by 51% to 47% (which gave her 65 delegates and Obama 61), but the caucus section which adds another 67 delegates to the primary's 127 (in other words, 1/3 of the delegate total for Texas) is still being counted.

As of now, Obama is winning that section (scroll down past the primary section to see the caucus count) by 56% to 44% (with 41% of the precincts counted). The count is slow because of unprecedented numbers. If this trend continues, Obama could easily take the greater number of delegates in the state.

The news way overcompensated for their favorable view of Obama by actually calling a race for Hillary which is not (and most likely will not be) hers.

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/

………… parent

Some of the press coverage of Hillary has certainly

been misogynistic or sexist, indicating that the media at any rate still has issues with covering female candidates for President. That has to impact how she portrays herself to some degree.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

…………

If I can make a suggestion

and I really am offering this as an honest suggestion in the hopes it will help-

So far every diary you've had here since joining as a front pager has been bashing Hillary or pumping Obama. For me at least it is getting rather monotonous and I'm starting to pigeon hole you as a single issue writer.

Now it's fair to say maybe that's because the only topic you've been discussing so far is one where we see things very differently.

Still I think it would help if we got to see something else. As important as the nomination is there is a lot else going on in the world. It might be worthwhile talking about some of that for a little bit.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

…………

I'm sorry

I'm sorry that you see this diary as a Hillary bash, because that is not what it is. It is an American bash concerning how we expect women leaders to be portrayed, as little John Wayne's and our fixation with penis pissing contests even from those who don't have one.

This is actually a lament to those young girls who may consider running for office and thinking that they have to kick the boys ass to be noticed or to win. You might have noticed these things if you weren't so focused on yours.

From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth – oh God of Truth deliver us!— Unknown (blog )

………… parent

Well...

I'll say that it doesn't come across that way. At all. It comes across as a concern-troll diary bashing Hillary.

*shrug*

I gave you my advice, whether you take it is your choice.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Heh

Would you carbon-copy BirdDog on that?  Virtually every post centers around asserting what a success the "McCain Surge" has been :-p.  I'd like a little variety in my frontpage diet!  I'm all for people talking about what interests them, but when you only get their views on one subject and they don't comment in the Open Threads or in other diaries, you don't get a good feel for where they're coming from.

And I have to say that you have another good point here:  when a diarist posts on only one subject, and I happen to disagree with them on that subject, it starts to feel like I'm being mean and disagreeable when I find nothing to agree with every single time.  It seems like the friendly banter that is the signature of SwordsCrossed never develops.  On the other hand, I don't feel that way at all when I argue with Brendan or MissLiberties about Hillary, because I feel like I know them and have a rapport with them, and they have posted opinions on a variety of subjects, and I've agreed with some of them, so I think they know that I'm not just taking the opposite side all the time to be ornery ;-)  

Sorry for the lecture, Forgiven!  I hope you are not discouraged by the "frank discussion" here, which probably comes off as harsh.  I would advise getting us back by finding some of mine and Tlaloc's comments in recent open threads or other diaries and ripping them to shreds with scathing responses :-)  That's how we usually get to know each other around here-- by attempting to demonstrate how uninformed and "off base" the other guy/gal is ;-)  

 

………… parent

I definitely wish

that Birddog was around more, and would engage on more topics.

I think it hasn't been as noticeable in his case because it seems like he goes quite a while between posts.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

let Hillary be Hillary

thats a very long diary about .... well I'm not sure what your point is . Hillary is a person , I do not see her first as a " woman " , but as
a very smart politician , smarter than her husband in many ways, with less of the charisma .
I think she is herself at all times. Do you have the same mood and demeanour and opinions every single day ??? of course not , she is evolving and growing , she is being pretty centrist now but if she gets a majority ( in congress ) she will lean hard left ..... because she does not have that " need to be liked " her husband had .

GO HILLARY !!!

sligowoman

…………