The Crying Game

The New York Times' Maureen Dowd today asks if Hillary Clinton will cry her way to the top.

There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

Dowd cuts Clinton no slack, suggesting that she played the ''female victim'' and that resorting to a ''peculiar tactic.''

Talk about self-hating feminism.

I'd eviscerate Dowd, whose musings have become strangely precious in recent months, but why go over the ground that Melissa McEwan at Shakespeare's Sister ploughs so perfectly.

I could rant for a nonillion years on the patent lunacy of the assertion that Hillary Clinton has deliberately played the female victim, but instead I'll just note that it was not Hillary who called herself a She Devil and broadcast pictures of herself bearing horns, and it was not Hillary who published pictures of herself cast as a feminazi monster, and it was not Hillary who circulated an unflattering image of herself as purported evidence she isn't up to the rigors of the presidency, and it was not Hillary who designed a nutcracker in her own image, and it was not Hillary who diminished her own experience as attending tea parties, and it was not Hillary who, after a moment of candidly expressed emotion, turned it into a national story using dog-whistles once removed from "hysterical," and, well, you get my point.

Nonetheless, MoDo's thesis, as you'll surely recall, is that Hillary made herself a victim of the press, playing the damsel in distress, despite, I guess, what MoDo would argue is the totally fair, unbiased, and not remotely misogynistic treatment of Hillary.

Speaking of which, Feministing has launched a 24/7 Hillary Sexism Watch.

Washington Post blogger Joel Achenbach has an interesting idea for controlling uppity women:

Clinton fought back, but she needs a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy.

Thanks Joel, for doing the work of marking yourself as a misogynist so I now know never to read anything else you write. Shameful.

And here's another entry:

Christopher Hitchens, who believes that the presence of a vagina prevents one from having a sense of humor, stayed classy in his column for Slate this week:

Off to the side, snarling with barely concealed rage, are the Clinton machine-minders, who, having failed to ignite the same kind of identity excitement with an aging and resentful female, are perhaps wishing that they had made more of her errant husband having already been "our first black president."

I guess if anyone knows something about being aging and resentful, it's Hitchens--but that doesn't mean he's not still a sexist asshole.

Oh it's about time the sexism card got played in this, er, race.

Comments

[sooey]

Hitchens is such a bitch. But the misogyny just makes Hillary look good. Keep it comin', I'd tell the Right - if I was campaigning for her.

[Jon Swift]

After Maureen Dowd's recent crying jag in the New York Times offices many are wondering if she could cry her way to another Pulitzer Prize.
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/01/crying-of-maureen-dowd.html

[johnnykap]

Sooey, just because someone hates one woman (Shrillary) does not make that person a misogynist. By your letter, it would appear that you are endorsing Obama. Unfortunately, America simply isn't ready for a black president (just like Iraqis are not ready for democracy, in the eyes of liberals).

[David]

While I certainly agree that a female candidate faces some different and more difficult obsatcles than her males opponents, I think some folks are much too quick to dismiss the vitriol toward Clinton as misogyny.

More than any other candidate for either party, Clinton's campaign has been about issues. The others are running primarily image or personality driven campaigns. Obama is still very much an unknown... a charming, good-looking guy campaigning on the always ambiguous platform of "change". Obama and Huckabee are playing the "aw shucks" populists. McCain is trying to pass himself off as the "little guy", an outsider, despite decades in Congress. To her credit I've found Clinton has stuck to issues that matter. The problem for her is her track record on those issues that matter is dismal.

While there may be mindless gender attacks from time to time, the majority of the heat Clinton has taken has revolved around her inconsistent stance on Iraq, or her propensity for taking money from industry lobbyists, etc...

Also, I think the reason she's endured more character attacks than the others simply comes from the fact that she's been in the national spotlight for 16 years. People feel they know her. When she has these carefully staged moments of candour, people roll their eyes because they've been hearing stories of the cold, calculating Clinton for so long. Those same moments may be just as disingenuous coming from Obama or Edwards, but people won't react with the same cynicism because they don't know the "other" side of those candidates yet. Perhaps it's not a gender issue, it's just a familiarity issue.