Keep it Clean

Tom Edsall writes about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

Clinton’s position at the head of the pack — a 20-point lead over her competitors — forces her campaign to shoot down a barrage of hostile challenges: Will voters trust a woman at a time of terrorist threat? Will the military accept a woman as commander in chief?

Look, I've been very critical of Senator Clinton in the past and almost certainly will be again in the future if she, as expected, mounts a presidential bid, but I'd like to think we could keep the discourse a little bit more elevated than that. There are much better questions to ask about Clinton's views on national security policy than whether she's too girly to handle it. Indeed, there's at least some indication that fear of this sort of misogynistic attack is part of what's motivated her to take such a hawkish line which winds up being doubly or triply unfortunate. The fact that this sort of thing even gets discussed, though, points not only to the deep anti-feminist strains that remain in our culture, but also to the weirdly metaphorical nature of national security debates. The underlying presumption seems to be something like you want a president capable of physically wrestling a terrorist to the ground and so a woman, or a man who's too effete, might not be able to get the job done.

Comments

Physically wrestling the opponent to the ground is good, but you'd also like a president willing to have that opponent poisoned with an exotic radioactive substance in a way that let everyone knew who's calling the shots.

Posted by dj moonbat | December 12, 2006 11:56 AM

I would think the performances of Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher would have dispelled the sexist rhetoric, but that would require some perspective, an attribute sadly lacking in Edsall and his ilk.

Then again, perhaps Edsall is of the "she oughta be home scrubbing floors and preparing dinner" kinda guy.

Posted by Mudge | December 12, 2006 11:56 AM

The underlying presumption seems to be something like you want a president capable of physically wrestling a terrorist to the ground

President Schwarzenegger anyone?

too easy, too easy...

Posted by right | December 12, 2006 12:00 PM

And for the love of Christ, I know you make a lot of typo's but you should learn to spell Obama's first name! You do it so consistently you must just not realize it. It's: B-A-R-A-C-K. With a "C".

Posted by right | December 12, 2006 12:01 PM

Mudge: but that would require Edsall to have heard of other countries and remember their leaders' names, an attribute not even considered necessary for potential US presidents themselves, let alone those writing about potential US presidents.

Posted by ajay | December 12, 2006 12:08 PM

Look, I've been very critical of Senator Clinton in the past and almost certainly will be again in the future if she, as expected, mounts a presidential bid, but I'd like to think we could keep the discourse a little bit more elevated than that.

Why would you think that? I expect the discourse to be much lower than that.

Posted by Duvall | December 12, 2006 12:08 PM

Tom Edsall is a creap's creap, a continual apologist for extreme conservatives, and I am only thankful the NYTimes will be rid of him in a fer days.

Posted by Jennifer | December 12, 2006 12:13 PM

"The fact that this sort of thing even gets discussed, though, points ... to the weirdly metaphorical nature of national security debates."

Well, it more precisely points to the weirdly metaphorical nature of all electoral politics.

Posted by Petey | December 12, 2006 12:16 PM

Should be a fun two years: the echo chamber is setting up now to quash any tough questioning of Obama. Then he will be destroyed by McCain in the 2nd and 3rd debates (never having faced any tough competition), and we will be stuck with a /competent/ Bush acolyte for 4-8 years.

Great. Can't wait.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 12, 2006 12:22 PM

My limited experience tell me: male cops are more willing to wrestle drunks while female cops just shoot them.

Posted by Mike in KC | December 12, 2006 12:26 PM

my limited experience tell me

experience as a cop or a drunk?

Posted by right | December 12, 2006 12:29 PM

"My limited experience tell me: male cops are more willing to wrestle drunks while female cops just shoot them."

I think you got the roles reversed - after having a beer with every voter, the president is the drunk, not the cop.

Posted by Njorl | December 12, 2006 12:30 PM

And for the love of Christ, I know you make a lot of typo's but you should learn to spell Obama's first name! You do it so consistently you must just not realize it. It's: B-A-R-A-C-K. With a "C".

Alternatively, Matthew can just go with "B. Hussein Obama". Surely he knows how to spell Hussein.

On topic, but with the same lack of seriousness: didn't we all get past this once we elected Gena Davis as President?

Posted by Al | December 12, 2006 12:47 PM

Some of us still think Harrison Ford was the best president of the last twenty years.

Posted by Hogan | December 12, 2006 12:52 PM

Ajay: Exactly.

Posted by Mudge | December 12, 2006 12:59 PM

Nope, Martin Sheen is the best president of the last twenty years. And I'm not talking about the Martin Sheen of "The West Wing", either -- I'm talking about the Martin Sheen of "The Dead Zone".

Posted by Julian | December 12, 2006 12:59 PM

> Some of us still think Harrison Ford was
> the best president of the last twenty years.

I came out of _Deep Impact_ ready to vote for Morgan Freeman on the spot...

Then again, I also like Ford's answer whenever he is asked a political question: "Don't you understand the difference between the President and an /actor/ playing the President?".

Crnaky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 12, 2006 1:13 PM

Will voters trust a woman at a time of terrorist threat? Will the military accept a woman as commander in chief?

I'm not saying the voters won't trust a woman, nor am I saying the military won't accept a woman as commander in chief. I'm just asking the question, that's all.

Sorry, but this guy can only be described as a douche bag.

Posted by skewter76 | December 12, 2006 1:16 PM

Martin Sheen is the best president of the last twenty years. . .I'm talking about the Martin Sheen of "The Dead Zone"

Which puts him outside of the last twenty years. (The Dead Zone was released in 1983)

Posted by dj moonbat | December 12, 2006 1:17 PM

I agree that the question of whether the military would accept a woman as commander-in-chief is about as stupid as it gets. Presidents aren’t elected to meet the approval of the generals (is it okay not to add “on the ground”?). Edsall just uses them as a proxy for our most backward insticts, apparently.

Posted by Brian Doyle | December 12, 2006 1:26 PM

Read an article about Norway's Defense Minister where the reporter arrived expecting a quick helicoper ride to the base they were visting. The reporter was a bit "disconcerted" (= airsick) when the helo took off on a low-level attack mission and dropped the Minster along with her skis and commando group 20 km from the base...

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 12, 2006 1:31 PM

That said, IMHO there is a fairly large body of American men who _do_ think that the nation's "defense" is only safe in the hands of males who could in theory still pick up a Viking axe and rush into a melee. It seems to be ingrained pretty deep.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 12, 2006 1:36 PM

So if we can't have Martin Sheen as president any more, what about Charlie Sheen? He's pretty entertaining on 2 1/2 Men. And we Americans do love a good dynasty.

Posted by Karl Weber | December 12, 2006 2:32 PM

So if we can't have Martin Sheen as president any more, what about Charlie Sheen? He's pretty entertaining on 2 1/2 Men. And we Americans do love a good dynasty.

Saturday Night Live, January 13, 2001

Woman #2 In Audience: I enjoy your father's work on the TV show "West Wing". Do you think you'd like to play the part of the president someday?

Charlie Sheen: Thank you for the question, but I could never be the president.. I mean, think about it - I've abused cocaine, I've been arrested, I'm not a very smart guy.. I mean, it's a big joke to think people would want someone like me, just because his dad was president..

Hmm, not quite a Sherman Statement. Start the Sheen-Watch!

[...]

Anyways, to be serious for a moment, one aspect of getting lots of misogynistic media coverage that hasn't been mentioned yet is that it could provoke a big sympathy reaction for Hillary's campaign among women and liberal men. Look at the way Matthew - as he acknowledges, one of Hillary's biggest critics - reacted. The attacks on Anita Hill ushered in "The Year of the Woman," and the bile directed at Bill Clinton for eight years helped fortify his position among liberals.

The Tom Edsalls of the world might unwittingly be Hillary's best friends during the primary campaign.

Posted by Chris | December 12, 2006 4:06 PM

Edsell didn't say a word about Clintons abilities. He commented on how others will react to her, which is to some extent totally independent of her own abilities.

I think that Edsell is mistaken though. At the very very least, many members of the military will remember thier loyalty to her husband when he was president. But most of
all, I think military members will remember thier loyalty to American democracy.

But, there is an argument similiar to Edsell's that I think holds more water: That open gays shouldn't be allowed into the military because a lot of people in the military hate gays, thus it could decrease military effectiveness. The consequences of hobbling the military outweigh any possible social benefit, unlike for example, merely hobbling a corporation with. This also isn't dependent at all on gays own performance or behavior, which I am sure are exemplary.

Posted by pjgoober | December 12, 2006 4:22 PM

> At the very very least, many members of the military
> will remember thier loyalty to her husband when he was
> president. But most of all, I think military members
> will remember thier loyalty to American democracy.

I wouldn't have tried to push the gays in the military thing first off myself, but are you referring to the mutiny that the military brass carried out against their legitimately-elected Commander-in-Chief's policy direction? Because that is what they did.

> But, there is an argument similiar to Edsell's that
> I think holds more water: That open gays[Negros] shouldn't
> be allowed into the military because a lot of people in
> the military hate gays[Negros], thus it could decrease
> military effectiveness. The consequences of hobbling the
> military outweigh any possible social benefit, unlike for
> example, merely hobbling a corporation with. This also
> isn't dependent at all on gays[Negroes'] own performance or
> behavior, which I am sure are exemplary.

Fortunately for our society, Harry Truman told the proponents of that argument to get stuffed.

Not Really

Posted by Not Really | December 12, 2006 4:33 PM

Hillary's "20-point lead" is meaningless since it is based primarily on name recognition. When we get to the primaries, especially the early ones held in the South, we'll see just how evanescent it really is.

Hillary Clinton is an empty suit (or dress). She has no real principles and still seems to think it's the mid-90s with her triangulation. She has little to offer to the Democratic base, yet will never convince many moderates or conservatives (many of whom think she's the lesbian bitch Antichrist) to vote for her. Basically, Hillary is a mushy centrist with a damaging public image as a fire-breathing leftist. Why on earth would we want that?

Posted by Josh | December 12, 2006 5:23 PM

President Schwarzenegger anyone?

Sorry, not eligible.

Posted by Thlayli | December 12, 2006 5:24 PM

"The underlying presumption seems to be something like you want a president capable of physically wrestling a terrorist to the ground and so a woman, or a man who's too effete, might not be able to get the job done."

Yup. That's how people think.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 12, 2006 6:36 PM

"Fortunately for our society, Harry Truman told the proponents of that argument to get stuffed."

Do you think the situation between Blacks in the military decades ago and Gays in the military now is exactly the same? Blacks and gays have gained acceptance at different rates in different areas of society, and there have been differing levels of societal a movement to treat both groups as equals indistingiushable from everyone else.

Is it acceptable now for blacks to be boyscout leaders but not gays only because one far-seeing man chose to integrate the military, or even because the elites generally made a more passionate, sustained case to society about the situation of blacks? More likely, the two things are totally different situations, with totally different levels of grassroots support, (aka Democracy), and that popular factor is actually what causes different policies to be enacted. Will likely carry on to the military, which is a rough mirror of the american democracy. It is easy for elites to chip away at racism.

Yes, the military was disloyal to Clinton on gays. But they were not ridiculed and critized by america, because America as a whole disagreed with Clinton. That is why they could do what they did. The same could not be said about Trumans actions, who had a much bigger popular mandate for what he did.

Posted by pjgoober | December 12, 2006 6:57 PM

Matthew, Edsall wasn't saying that. He was making an observation about the shape of the political playing field, and the fact that Clinton, as the first likely female Prez candidate, does have to respond to the lingering sexist attitude that women won't be militarily tough enough. He's obviously not sharing that view himself; he's just observing that any female candidate has to spend a certain amount of her time rebutting such suspicions, and position herself accordingly.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 12, 2006 10:11 PM

Why would any female candidate have to spend any time rebutting such suspicions? Because people like Edsall are going to keep insisting that it is so, as if it were too plain to be disputed, and thereby make sure that such a ridiculous notion maintains currency.

In case examples like the aforementioned Meir, Thatcher, Gandhi, Strom-Erichsen (and I would add Bhutto, Merkel, and the most glaringly obvious example of Condi Rice) are too obscure, just look at Nancy Pelosi. She didn't have to answer any suspicions that she is not tough enough for one of the highest elective offices in the land, she just did her job and fought her way into the irrefutable fact of her position.

Edsall doesn't seem to understand that proving her manliness is the last thing on a person like H. Clinton's mind. She already understands that she is eminently capable of being President, (and far more objectively qualified than the incumbent than when he took office, though that's not saying much), and thus won't feel restrained by any of the imaginary limitations Edsall is so keen to apply to her.

Posted by Dave RS | December 12, 2006 11:33 PM

Clinton is not girly but, she is not someone I would vote for.
I do not want this ongoing loop of bush and clinton. I don't like her lack of message, her lack of position, Her too controlling personality or her seemingly lack of caring about or communicating with the people.
I am hartily sick of polarization and she would drive this cycle for another 8 years of angry hate talk.
As a country, after the bush era, we need to move in another direction and look to repair the severe damage done. At home and abroad things are in a very bad state.
I have no reason to be against a woman president as I am a woman and feel there are many women who are better suited. Hillary lacks the ability for people to want to follow her and is not a speaker. She is better suited to the Senate and to move from that would be a mistake for her and the country.
We need to move on and leave that chapter closed. No more Bush and no more Clinton.

Posted by vwcat | December 13, 2006 1:33 AM

I don't think a prez needs to be seen as being able to physically wrestle a terrorist to the ground, but to be elected, a prez DOES need to be seen as willing to slaughter large numbers of foreigners (and accept large numbers of US casualties as well) in pursuit of US interests. It's hard to believe that people don't see Clinton as capable of that. I agree with the poster above that if she has a negative based on her identity, it's that she's perceived as a lesbian.

Posted by applecor | December 13, 2006 3:33 PM

Well. Isn't this just the silliest posting yet. Lordy lordy. Ohhh for the good old days of Harry Truman. Now there was a bantam rooster I'll say. After Roosevelt and that wheelchair and crutches...so refreshing...then Ike. Yes I Like Ike! A manly man except for that ticker...and of course JFK beat that sweaty old tricky dick like a rented mule....certainly more fuel for this fire...but Lyndon didn't seem too keen on raslin' except for the females that JFK musta missed...and then we got Dick...and did we every get dick....and Jerry...my mom went to school with him. never wore a helmut that guy! Jimmy got terrified by some giant rabbit so he's out, and Ronnie Raygun, well after the gipper we knew we had another manly man..but then the patrician, the hillbilly and Alfred E. Neuman....

Well hell yes, Hillary needs to put on some brawn...get them ceps tuned up...shooot...then she'd grab that McCain guy by his ear and throw him to the ground and just stomp him into mush...

Posted by hdhouse | April 18, 2007 10:08 PM