The anti-Hillary vitriol from certain corners is to be expected. The religious right, after all, draws much of its power from its antifeminist agenda. I've long contended that the right's hatred of Bill Clinton stemmed not from his sexual misdeeds but from the fact that he married That Rodham Woman -- and didn't seem to have a problem with her spouting off, sounding smart, lawyering around. Nor did he seem to be henpecked; in fact, he seemed to be quite comfortable in his role as one half of a power couple, all the while ably taking his place as leader of the free world. It's hard to imagine a scenario more threatening to a right-wing narrative that predicted the downfall of civilization if women, especially married women with children, acquired a taste for worldly power.
Far more interesting is the reviling of Rodham by members of both the well-groomed Establishment and the scruffy Left. In his essay for Mother Jones earlier this year, Jack Hitt pointed out that certain iconic notions of Hillary Clinton cut across ideological divides, whether it's Hillary characterized as a cold, calculating power-monger ("The Lady MacBeth Hillary"), or as the conscientious, studious and persevering do-gooder ("The Lisa Simpson Hillary").
In a similar vein, I've categorized the types of Hillary-haters. Not surprisingly, then, so do my first two categories of Hillary-haters cut across those same divides, notably those categories most focused on gender roles:
THE LADY-BOSS-HATERS. They hail from both sides of the aisle, and in-between. They're mostly men, but not entirely. They're mostly straight (but only because straight people still are still occupy the majority in of the orientational pie). They feel oppressed and diminished by taking orders from women. If they really rated, they'd be taking orders from a man. They often have issues with their mothers.THE SELF-LOATHING WOMEN OF AMBITION. She has worked her butt off to get where she is, and she didn't stand by some man to get there. She's been accused of scratching and clawing a bit (an accusation reserved especially for women) but more important is the fact that she has worked her butt off to get where she is, and she didn't have to stand by some man to get there. Maybe, just maybe, she has endured some bad behavior by a lover or partner or spouse, but it wasn't like it did anything for her career. Maybe she even behaved a little badly from time to time in the love arena herself, but nobody knows that part. She may have issues with her father -- and with her mother, but only for having stayed with her father.
THE ELECTABILITY CROWD. Mostly liberal and mild-mannered, these are the people who will thoughtfully scratch their chins and say, "I'm not sure the country's ready for a woman president." These are often the same people who say of Barack Obama, "I'm not sure the country's ready." (The don't say the "for a black president" part, because the electability crowd knows that you know what they mean.) So it's not that they, themselves have a problem voting for a woman for president; it's that the voters, most of whom are not as enlightened as they, just "aren't there" yet. Chris Dodd is working this room -- hard. They're mostly white men -- passive-aggressive white men.
HIPPIES BETRAYED. They are bummed about the Clintons. Hillary went to Wellesley and was famously against the war in Vietnam. What the hell happened? Now she wants to bomb Iran or wants to look tough enough to bomb Iran. It's not like she really believes this shit. What a freakin' sell-out. The Hippies Betrayed have issues with authority, which gives them something in common with The Lady-Boss-Haters. But they're Man-Boss-Haters, too. The Establishment sucks -- even more so if it's about to be led by someone whom you think used to look like you.
THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY. Its members see the Clintons as the embodiment of antipathy to everything they hold dear, especially white, male privilege. Hillary went to Wellesley and opposed the Vietnam War. What on earth happened? Now she's acting like she wants to bomb Iran, but you they know she's lying. She's a Clinton. They lie about everything. She wants to socialize medicine. She's a communist -- but one with lots of money and corporate connections, which makes her überpowerful. (Just ask John Edwards.) She has a philandering husband who she stayed with only to get ahead. Well, of course, she should stay with him, 'cause he's her husband and the vow says "until death us do us part," but that's not why she stayed with him. She stayed with him because she wants to take over the world, whip the men into submission, and turn your daughters into lesbians. Hurricane Katrina happened because of her. Fathers of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy members dared to discipline them, which they liked a whole lot.
As Hillary Clinton's lead in the national polls continues to hold, it becomes inevitable that the Hillary-haters find it ever more difficult to contain themselves. Examples have started cropping up from TV pundits, newspaper columnists, and her opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Reflecting those in the Lady-Boss-Hater camp, MSNBC television host Chris Matthews was positively giddy after last week's Democratic debate, heralding a disaster for Clinton in the general election because of a less- than-stellar answer she gave to a question toward the end of the debate about whether illegal aliens should be issued driver's licenses. "I am stunned because it took to the last minute; it was the last round knockout, perhaps," Matthews said. "Hillary Clinton would not answer the question straight."
In truth, Clinton's answer was a typical politician's dodge when asked a difficult question: She didn't necessarily support every element of the proposal put forward by New York Governor Elliott Spitzer for illegal-immigrant driver's licenses, but she understood why he wanted to do it. After suggesting that Clinton tried to have it both ways, Matthews then asserted, "She has taken a position tonight that she will have to correct in 24 hours." Well, which was it? Did she say two different things, or did she take a position? (By the way, the position she apparently took while ostensibly talking out of both sides of her mouth, was one she stuck by the next day, when she issued an endorsement of Spitzer's plan. So far, it doesn't seem to have hurt her much.)
Appealing to The Electability Crowd, Senator Chris Dodd, talking to Wolf Blitzer this Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition," said, "There's a great concern about electability. You don't get to govern if you don't elected. And there's deep concern about the ability of some of the leading candidates to be elected in November." (As if Dodd's one to be talking about electability.)
Among the cruelest cuts are those inflicted by the New York Times' Maureen Dowd, who doesn't strike me as particularly self-loathing, but seems to appeal to the Self-Loathing Woman of Ambition faction. In the days that followed the Halloween-eve October 30 debate, Clinton's campaign dared to suggest, via YouTube, a tinge of sexism in the "piling on" of the other Democratic presidential contenders, all men, with their repeated accusations and confrontations of the front-running senator from New York. Hillary Clinton, in the tradition of all savvy politicians, stayed "above the fray" while her campaign did the insinuating. Wrote Dowd, "She was always kind enough to let Bill hide behind her skirts when he got in trouble with women. Now she deserves to hide behind her own pantsuits when men cause her trouble."
Part of the Woman of Ambition narrative that is emerging is that of Hillary as enabler to Bill in his harassment and debasement of women. Dowd here is basically echoing an argument made by Caitlin Flanagan in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, wherein Flanagan also castigates Hillary for having given Socks the Cat away to the trusted, and now retired, White House secretary Betty Currie.
In his analysis of the iconic avatars of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jack Hitt made an important point about the distinction between the changes wrought by women's liberation, as opposed to civil rights. The success of the civil rights movement, he said, brought about changes in public arenas -- education, the workplace, politics, the arts. But feminism has changed our most private and personal realms, as well, often in ways that are less than tidy. Hillary Clinton is not merely a symbol of the changes in public opportunities now available to women; she symbolizes the untidiness of living out those changes, both public and private. She has a messy marriage; she's both idealistic and ambitious; she's expected to adhere to antiquated notions of feminine virtue while proving herself as tough as the next guy. Her evolution is ours, and her presence on the stage demands that we look at difficulties as well as the glory of those changes as they manifest in our own lives.
In a White House reception room more than seven years ago, Hillary Clinton talked to me as she prepared to make her run for the Senate. I asked her what it was like to be reduced to a symbol. "[W]e're living in a time of transition," she told me, "so you therefore have all kinds of wants, desires, concerns and fears placed upon you that you may or may not have any knowledge of, and certainly don't have any intention of creating." Transitions are rarely accomplished without a bit of discomfort -- and untidiness.