2008 Woodie Awards
Focus on Clinton's politics, not her power suits
Sarah Lavery
Issue date: 4/3/08 Section: Opinions
The 2008 presidential race has an unparalleled number of firsts. We've seen the first African-American candidate reach near front-runner status. We've seen a president and congress with all-time-low approval ratings make way for a palpable eagerness demanding a fresh start.
And we've seen the arrival of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the first woman to be a serious presidential possibility; the first First Lady to try to make her way back to the White House.
These firsts have created a struggle within the media to give adequate and fair coverage to the many presidential hopefuls.
With Bill Clinton's wife and a Democrat with the middle name "Hussein" in the running, though, how much excitement can really be garnered for a flock of white, middle-aged men?
As the Democrat front-runner, Clinton is in the public eye more than her opponents.
But after looking through the vast media coverage of her and comparing it to other hopefuls, it's obvious that it has more to do with her lack of a Y chromosome.
Clinton's coverage is far from fair and balanced. Instead, the media has had a field day dissecting her every move and not so gracefully dealing with her gender.
Female politicians have long struggled with a permeating damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't attitude running in American politics.
Women in power are oft criticized or perceived as "soft" or "weak" if considered too traditionally feminine, while they are also accused of being too "hard" or "strident" if they come off as assertive and powerful - traditionally masculine attributes.
Looking through the media coverage of Clinton over the past year, it seems that a lot of journalists just don't know what to do with a strong female candidate. Old-fashioned sexism prevails, as seen in the repeated scrutiny of her appearance and the concentration on her role in-and attitude toward-marriage and motherhood.
Here is just a sampling of the sexist coverage of Clinton over the past year: An opinion article in The Oklahoman referenced her "frequent wearing of dark pants suits to conceal her bottom-heavy figure."
And we've seen the arrival of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the first woman to be a serious presidential possibility; the first First Lady to try to make her way back to the White House.
These firsts have created a struggle within the media to give adequate and fair coverage to the many presidential hopefuls.
With Bill Clinton's wife and a Democrat with the middle name "Hussein" in the running, though, how much excitement can really be garnered for a flock of white, middle-aged men?
As the Democrat front-runner, Clinton is in the public eye more than her opponents.
But after looking through the vast media coverage of her and comparing it to other hopefuls, it's obvious that it has more to do with her lack of a Y chromosome.
Clinton's coverage is far from fair and balanced. Instead, the media has had a field day dissecting her every move and not so gracefully dealing with her gender.
Female politicians have long struggled with a permeating damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't attitude running in American politics.
Women in power are oft criticized or perceived as "soft" or "weak" if considered too traditionally feminine, while they are also accused of being too "hard" or "strident" if they come off as assertive and powerful - traditionally masculine attributes.
Looking through the media coverage of Clinton over the past year, it seems that a lot of journalists just don't know what to do with a strong female candidate. Old-fashioned sexism prevails, as seen in the repeated scrutiny of her appearance and the concentration on her role in-and attitude toward-marriage and motherhood.
Here is just a sampling of the sexist coverage of Clinton over the past year: An opinion article in The Oklahoman referenced her "frequent wearing of dark pants suits to conceal her bottom-heavy figure."
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 32
NObama/Hillary NO-8
posted 4/02/08 @ 11:01 PM CST
Ok, so enough about this.
I'm not voting for Hillary because she's a socialist, not because she's a woman. Just as proof, here's a list of women I would vote for:
- Condoleeza Rice
- Phyllis Schlafly
- Claire Boothe Luce (posthumustly)
- Laura Ingraham
- Dr. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 4/02/08 @ 11:53 PM CST
Maybe the media should focus on the web of lies Mrs. Clinton has weaved over the past several years. That would definitely balance out the coverage.
Mike
posted 4/03/08 @ 12:18 AM CST
Maybe we should focus on the web of lies Mrs. Clinton has woven over the past couple years. Maybe that would balance out the media coverage.
And did my previous post just get deleted?
Mike
posted 4/03/08 @ 7:53 AM CST
Of course Neo is going to vote for Hillary. She fits perfectly within his party lines.
"She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. (Continued…)
Focus? Why?
posted 4/03/08 @ 9:15 AM CST
Why would I focus on Hillary at all? I honestly can't take her seriously...
One-sided article
posted 4/03/08 @ 9:19 AM CST
I'm glad this article is in the OPINIONS section - because it is lame... Nice "blinders" you're wearing there... People make their own decisions for whatever reason they want. (Continued…)
Yeah
posted 4/03/08 @ 10:45 AM CST
The article is in the opinions section because, it is just that, an opinion. Duh.
Hmmm
posted 4/03/08 @ 11:09 AM CST
I think what the author is saying is that the media should focus on her politics, positive or negative. The column isn't even saying that Hillary is the right choice. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 4/03/08 @ 12:35 PM CST
My 4th and 5th amendments haven't been violated.
Have yours?
GM
posted 4/03/08 @ 12:37 PM CST
Hate to tell you this Sarah, but Hillary is NOT the front-runner in the Democratic race. She hasn't been the frontrunner since February. Obama has more delegates, more states and more votes. (Continued…)
Post a Comment