Jessica

Vozel

Read Jessica's bio and previous columns here

January 14, 2008

Hillary Clinton’s Teargate 2008 Shows Sexism Still Alive (Racism Too)

They were the glistening eyes seen ‘round the world. Before Sen. Hillary Clinton claimed a primary victory in New Hampshire – stunning pundits and pretty much anyone else who had been following the polls, which had Barack Obama ahead by double digits – she cried. And by cried, I mean she got a bit misty, rested her chin in her hands, and with a softened voice talked about the possibilities she envisions for America.

Some pundits labeled this display an “emotional breakdown” for a flailing Sen. Clinton, marking the end of her campaign. Then she won New Hampshire. Speculation attributes her win to an outpouring of women voters who appreciated the glimpse of Sen. Clinton’s emotional side.

For The New York Times, Jodi Kantor writes, “If the race wasn’t about gender already, it certainly is now.” Recently, the gender element has become increasingly relevant to this election – even before the tears. There was evidence before, when Clinton’s cleavage became newsworthy and when a John McCain supporter (a female) shouted “How do we beat the bitch?” at a rally. But lately, the sexism has been especially pervasive. At a recent rally, some men shouted “Iron my shirts!” and Chris Matthews likened her male supporters to "castratos in the eunuch chorus,” because, presumably, real men don’t support female presidential candidates. 

Perhaps this is why women voters in New Hampshire came through for Clinton – not because she cried (which is what females do, right?) but because her crying has been referenced by pundits as “the melting of the ice queen.” After such sexist diatribes, perhaps women wanted to prove that a woman is capable of leading our country, and to do so they used the power suffragettes fought for 72 years to attain.

But say it wasn’t the sexism, and that voters really were affected by Clinton’s moment of realism. I do not advocate voting based on anger over sexism or misty eyes alone, but there’s also nothing wrong with appreciating a candidate who shows his or her humanity every once and a while. In a race where the nuts-and-bolts policies between Democratic candidates are not incredibly divergent, it is these seemingly secondary issues, like the character of the candidates, that make all the difference. And it’s not just women who vote on these principles, as evidenced by the now-infamous “beer-buddy” scale of aptitude that favored George W. Bush in 2000. 

Candidates are certainly aware of this, as evidenced by the popularity of the phrase “clean campaign,” which candidates use to prove that they don’t have to resort to attack ads to win over voters. At a certain point, it becomes difficult to gage the sincerity of the candidates’ displays of character, but we keep studying it because this person, for better or worse, will represent our country. 

Worse than voting for someone for their character is not voting for them because of their race or gender. I’ve heard chatter among those not concerned with political correctness that America is “not ready” for a female president, as if her character is drastically different simply because she is female.

However disheartening the sexist remarks lobbed at Sen. Clinton are, it is refreshing to hear people at least discussing its role. The 2008 elections have brought racism and sexism to the front of the national consciousness in a time when some – usually white men – argue that both are non-existent in America and that equality has been achieved. We now have concrete evidence that, although a woman and an African American are viable contenders for the American presidency, racism and sexism are not dead and are still worth fighting against. As a result, there is an open dialogue about the effects of gender and race on the election, which serves as a microcosm for larger issues of discrimination, racism and sexism in America – and this discussion is important.

With Teargate 2008 reaching its merciful close, we await the next seemingly insignificant event and the endless speculation sure to follow it.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # JV039. Request permission to publish here.