Hillary's Achilles' HeelIs Sen. Clinton warm enough to win?
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 9:33 AM ETThis is the second in a series of articles about each presidential candidate's Achilles' heel. A companion video to this story appears on Slate V.
Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.
Somewhere a Republican hatchet-man is moping. He was going to make Hillary Clinton the star of a Sopranos video parody, but her campaign beat him to it. And instead of portraying her as a ruthless mob boss, the campaign managed to make her come across as campy and whimsical. The video spoofs the mafia drama's final scene in every particular, including its abrupt surprise ending. The unspoken message of the two clips is also the same: They're just like us. David Chase made the Sopranos look like a regular family even with a patriarch skilled in dismemberment. The Clinton video is trying to show that the former first lady has a regular side, even though her enemies have spent the last couple of decades portraying the Clintons as something just short of killers (and in some cases just that).
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponYou might think that as a woman and a Democrat, Hillary Clinton's biggest challenge would be proving that she's tough enough to handle the presidency. So why is she play-acting and inviting the itchy parallels between the Sopranos' marriage and her own? Because Clinton's problem is not her qualifications. Democrats consistently tell pollsters that the senator has far more experience and leadership skill than her primary opponents. A Fox poll from early June showed that all voters—and the crucial subgroup of independents—thought she would be a stronger leader than John McCain. "It's kind of cool that she's doing so well on all the guy attributes," says one of the female leaders in her campaign. Where Clinton doesn't do well is on the "softer" set of attributes—trust, likability, and the feeling that she's "just like us"—that help voters form a personal connection with a candidate. The Sopranos video is just one of the many ways Clinton's campaign is trying to solve the central dilemma of her campaign: Is she too polarizing to get elected? Let's consider the evidence on both sides.
According to the latest Gallup poll, 50 percent of the country has an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton. Neither John Kerry nor Al Gore achieved such a high negative rating in the Gallup poll during their failed presidential bids. In other polls, her unfavorable ratings are as much as 12 points higher than those of any other candidate running in either party. Favorability is an imperfect measure of voters' fondness, because it also captures the way voters think about policy positions, but in surveys that ask specifically about likability, she does horribly. This dim view is confirmed in less-scientific focus groups—and in my notebooks, which are filled with interviews with Democrats, some of whom support her, who express doubts about her electability without any prompting.
The Clinton candidacy poses a fascinating question for the ongoing debate among political scientists over whether emotion or reason drives voters. Many Democrats still debate whether in 2004 they should have picked Howard Dean, the flawed candidate who thrilled people, rather than John Kerry, who was stable, sensible, and safe. As Bill Clinton has said, Democrats prefer to fall in love with their candidates and Republicans fall in line. But now his wife is the fall-in-line candidate—the front-runner with the résumé, discipline, and organization. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate of the heart.
No doubt, in a perfect world, voters would determine their vote after careful research of candidate position papers and voting records, but there is overpowering evidence that voters choose candidates for emotional reasons. Even voters who like Hillary personally nevertheless worry she would be a turnout machine for otherwise dispirited Republicans in the general election. If the GOP attack machine could savage John Kerry's war record in 2004, just think what they could do with her. Male voters might have a gut-level aversion to a female candidate that can't be changed no matter what she does. Clinton can be easily portrayed as cold, calculating, and ruthless, and that's not a problem that can be easily fixed. A candidate can give endless policy speeches to address worries about her command of the issues. It's practically impossible for an unliked candidate to show a softer side without it looking fake.
The question of Clinton's likability surely has a lot to do with her gender. She's penalized for not meeting some abstract notion of womanhood, and for showing discipline, ambition, and toughness that would be celebrated in a man. (Even a sister can take advantage of this. Michelle Obama tweaked Hillary's oft-stated claim that she's "in it to win," saying: "This race is not about winning, because winning isn't enough nowadays. Winning without dignity, winning it without honor, winning without authenticity and truth is not winning at all, and we're not in it for that.")
At the other end of the spectrum, some women who consider themselves feminists dislike Clinton for not being enough of one. Even for men, campaign coverage has always had an element of gender stereotyping. John Edwards cares too much about his looks. Twenty years ago, Newsweek put George Bush on its cover with the line that openly questioned his manhood: "Fighting the Wimp Factor."
But Clinton's gender is not the only thing contributing to her negatives. Though Bill Clinton has good approval ratings and is an asset among Democrats, Hillary suffers a hangover from his tenure. Republicans hate her for his sins, as we know, but so do a vocal number of Democratic activists. They believe she shares his excessive political calculation (subscription required). President Hillary would be more concerned with keeping her corporate backers happy than advancing women's rights, fixing health care, or improving life for the middle class. Her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq and refusal to admit that it was a mistake makes these voters boo her at rallies. Her annoying talent for parsing is one that voters find distasteful in politicians of any gender.
To improve Clinton's connection with voters, her aides are pursuing a two-track strategy that might seem at odds with itself: They downplay the problem while at the same time working very hard to solve it. Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn, insists voters don't pick their president like "candidates on American Idol. They pick them based on how they'll be as president." That said, did you see her on The View? Or maybe you saw Iowa voters talking about her warmth. How about New Hampshire? Or the Bill Clinton video? Maya Angelou? In this video she kinda dances. Even officially calling herself Hillary softens Sen. Clinton. (Men do this too: Remember Lamar!)
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Remarks from the Fray:
I wonder if the sheer amount of "baggage" doesn't help Hillary to some extent -- it makes it hard for there to be any gross revelations about conduct or morality as we've heard it all before. It takes away the element of surprise that can be so damaging, and the discourse has gone on so long that I suspect many voters tune it out to some extent.
Not that this isn't inherently a disadvantage -- having so many voters with an unfavorable view of her is no easy hurdle, but it does make the goal clear (no where to go but up).
There will always be a core group of the population determined to hate Hillary. But there has been such an open marketplace on her for so long, we have a better understanding of her than any other candidate -- and it is emerging as increasingly positive.
--Willialm
(To reply, click here.)
Why must the discussion be about whether or not Hillary is warm enough or whether any other candidate is (insert favorite platitude here) enough? […]Why is the standard different for Senator Clinton than her male counterparts? As if having a vagina or penis makes any difference in an individuals' decision to send troops into battle or to broker peace through diplomatic means. Author bell hooks, a personal favorite of mine, refers in her books and articles to "feminist movement," a brilliant use of verb conjugation if I've ever read one, but, increasingly, I have begun to wonder if those who refer to it as "The Feminist Movement," as if feminism came and went in the 1960's, as if it was a brief moment in time, and not a continued struggle toward full equality, are correct in their linguistic assessment. Is Hillary warm enough? I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
--WillJeff
(To reply, click here.)
Us hoi-polloi don't dislike HC because she's a woman. We dislike her because she's a tool. A tool of world-historical proportions: a tool who makes John Kerry look like John Sixpack.
She married Bill Clinton because she wanted to be president. She stayed married to Bill Clinton because she wants to be president. She was for invading Iraq because she wanted to be president. She now thinks Iraq was a mistake because she wants to be President.
She likes the Sopranos because she wants to be President. She'll let you pick her campaign song because she wants to be president (for some reason my suggestion, "Hit the Road Jack" got no play). She'll house-sit your dog to be President. Anything but give her own husband blowjobs. She's too good for that. You know, because she's so "prepared" and presidential.
To end this rant, the last thing anybody I know thinks when they think "change" is Hilary Clinton. I think more of an overrated do-nothing Clintonism. Sit on the wind and let it ride you in. That's the Clintons.
You do know that's why she is running this year (not 04, for example)? Because she wants to be president. She's "in it to win it." Were the winds not blowing the way Bush has fubared them she wouldn't be running. Thanks, Dubya, you screwed us again.
HC: a vessel into which whatever is considered "presidential" at the time is poured.
Hey, if the Surge keeps going so well, how long until she says, "Yes, I was for Iraq all along"?
--CutterMcCool
(To reply, click here.)
1. She reminds too many men of their third grade teacher.
2. Too many women think she looks down on them for not having gone to Wellesly and Yale and putting ambition ahead of conventional family life. She's never gotten over not baking cookies.
3. Too many other women won't forgive her for not having dumped her tailhound husband.
4. Because of her husband, her candidacy inevitably turns the national discussion to the events of 10 years ago.
5. The Democratic base is right to distrust her -- she is no more one of them than her husband was. Both believe sincerely in government of the people, by the meritocracy, for what the meritocracy thinks is good for the people. Neither believes government should take its values from hoi polloi of either the red or the blue persuasion.
--jack_cerf
(To reply, click here.)
(7/3)