I keep finding articles in The Guardian that inspire me to ask questions – at the very end of this article on a recent YouTube broadcast and interactive (interesting in itself) candidates debate, you will see two rather incredible questions directed first at Obama and then at Clinton. I am horrified that a female candidate for a Presidential nomination be questioned on the degree of her feminity – what do you think? What do think the person who posed the question is getting at? Do we ask this of women leaders in NZ? Can women in positions of public leadership escape such questions? How?
Anita.
Clinton and Obama clash after YouTube debate
· Candidates grilled by public’s video clips
· Accusations of naivety over foreign policy
Ewen MacAskill in Charleston and Ed Pilkington
Wednesday July 25, 2007
The Guardian
Hillary Clinton speaks with Barack Obama after the CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential candidates debate. Photograph: Stan Honda/AFP/Getty images
Bickering broke out yesterday between the camps of the two main contestants for the 2008 Democratic nomination with Hillary Clinton’s team seeking to portray Barack Obama as naive in his approach to foreign policy in the wake of an experimental debate organised by CNN and YouTube.Mr Obama, responding to a question from a YouTube user in Monday night’s debate, said he would meet without preconditions the leaders of countries with which the US has strained relations – Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Mrs Clinton, asked the same question, said she would not as she did not want to be used “for propaganda purposes”.Yesterday she said she thought Mr Obama’s response was “irresponsible and frankly naive”. Mr Obama’s camp highlighted a quote from Mrs Clinton in April in which she said: “I think it’s a terrible mistake for our president to say he won’t talk to bad people.”
The spat demonstrated how intense the rivalry between the two has become six months before the first primary contests begin. It also shows the impact of the new irreverent style of debate that was pioneered on Monday. The organisers of next year’s key US presidential debates are planning to dispense with much of the old formula and incorporate the freewheeling style of the YouTube website and other new media favourites.
Presidential hopefuls, television companies and political websites yesterday judged the debate, organised by CNN as well as YouTube, as a success. The eight candidates for the Democratic nomination faced two hours of questions from a cross-section of Americans who submitted 30-second video clips.
The debate, in Charleston, South Carolina, included questions about Iraq from a mother whose son was to be deployed there and a father who had lost a son in the country. There were also questions about health from brothers spoon-feeding dinner to a father suffering from Alzheimer’s, about Darfur from an American in a refugee camp, and about gun laws from a man cradling a rifle which he described as his “baby”. Some questions were gimmicky and aimed at winning laughs.
One of the organisers said it would now be impossible to return to the old format. Although the candidates at times seemed uncomfortable with the uncertainty, listening with fixed grins, their campaign managers yesterday said it had been refreshing. Joe Trippi, who is part of John Edwards’ campaign, said: “I thought it was great. It was more freewheeling.”
David Axelrod, the campaign strategist for Mr Obama, said: “I think he relished this. He thinks the American people have been cut out of Washington politics.”
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, co-author of a history of presidential debates, called the move a milestone. The humour in some of the videos inspired interest in topics that might otherwise bore viewers, as did the images of “real” people talking about troubles in their lives, she said.
YouTube bloggers generally welcomed the format but objected to CNN choosing the questions: 39 were selected from almost 3,000 clips sent in.
Typical of the format’s directness was Jordan Williams, a Kansas student, who asked Mr Obama whether he was “authentically black enough”. Mr Obama said he had suffered the same difficulties as other African-Americans in hailing a taxi in New York: “You know, when I’m catching a cab in Manhattan in the past, I think I’ve given my credentials.” He also asked Mrs Clinton if she was “satisfactorily feminine enough”. She replied: “Well, I couldn’t run as anything other than a woman.”
That is staggering. To win the nomination, Clinton has to show she has what it takes to be leader of the free world. But her attempts to look at home in the masculine domain of world politics has made her seem less feminine and therefore unnatural! A classic case of you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t…
Just as, in New Zealand, when Richard Prebble suggested that Helen Clark was unfit to lead because she wasn’t a mother. Up until this point parenthood had never been a requirement of the job! Seems this is what you get when you try to step out of your prescribed gender roles: a forcible attempt to reassign them!
– Tania
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t
Whatever you think of Hilary politically it is clear that her gender is issue and the public keeps returning to it even if no one is clear what to do about the fact that she is a woman. The debate seems to veer from not feminine enough to too feminine. A lot of coverage is preoccupied with her clothing. I think by discussing Hillary’s clothing we can attack her as a woman but shroud the swipes in ‘fashion’.
“It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking — environment of Congress… It was even more surprising to note that it was coming from Clinton, someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both.”
-Washington Post July 20, 2007
This article in the Styles section of the Washington Post started a raft of debate, but during the CNN/ You Tube debate mentioned above Hillary’s fashion sense was still up for discussion
“At his turn, John Edwards faced Hillary Clinton and said he admired what she and her husband had done for America. Then he offered a joking appraisal of the senator’s coral pink quilted jacket: “I’m not sure about that coat.”
Barack Obama, ever the conciliator, joined in. “I actually like Hillary’s jacket,” he said. “I don’t know what’s wrong with it.” Clinton laughed it off. “John, it’s a good thing we’re ending soon,” she said.
…
But the interchange illustrated the still uncomfortable status of women at the highest reaches of American politics. In the 2008 race, the country appears more open than ever to the notion of a female president – but uncertain about how, and how much, to talk about it.”
-Newsday July 27, 2007 http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opfritop5308299jul27,0,3543.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
The latest polling seems to indicate that the public is ambivalent about her as a Woman candidate
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?ex=1186632000&en=e5c252008b2a2144&ei=5070
I was disappointed this weekend to read Mary Gordan’s comments that women don’t want to vote for Hillary because there is an “unconscious sexual jealousy of her among women”. Jealousy? Perhaps it is a different Bill she is thinking of?
Kristen, Are you in NYC and not working for the Women’s Health Collective in Auckland now? Would you like to be able to post stuff to our blog? If so send me your username, password and your email to j.true@auckland.ac.nz. Cheers, Jacqui
What do you think of Hillary using her “girl power” when she used the slogan in the Democratic candidate debates and public forums “I’m your girl”? Is this feminist, subversive? How will this play in the American heartland?
– Jacqui