Political Voices of Women Community
Women blogging about politics.
The (New) Hillary Clinton Problem
The (New) Hillary Problem,(NYT circa 1992)
In 1992, Anna Quindlen of The New York Times published an article on the new First Lady, Hillary Clinton. Interesting as it is to read it this morning (16 yrs. later) it is heart-wrenching at the same time if you view it from a woman's perspective of political progress. What were we talking about then? "We feel so strangely because she is one of us." This was a woman's comment to all the crticism Hillary was getting from the media...( wow, what was to come!). Quindlen also talked about the conversation,then as now, how we regard smart women, professional women, and of all things...the working mom. Just as a note, when reading this article, Sarah Palin was elected that year to the Wasilla City Council. Also, it was being considered having Hillary in the presidential cabinet (more dejavu!!) Even with the time passage, and change a few names, it could have been published this morning.
Public & Private;The (New) Hillary Problem
by Anna Quindlen Nov.8,1992
There's job talk in Little Rock, about who will be Secretary of the Treasury, chief of staff, Attorney General. And there's job talk across the country, too, among many women. Here's the question: Now that we have a First Woman as educated, intelligent, superachieving and policy-savvy as her husband, what do we do with her?
"Promise me she won't talk about cookies anymore," moaned a woman in Philadelphia.
"She did what she had to do to get him elected," said another in New York. "Now let's give her a real job."
And a circle of professional women in San Jose, Calif., erupted at a question about what Hillary Clinton should not do in the White House:
"I don't want her to keep her mouth shut."
"Forget the photo ops."
"I don't want her to make hospital visits -- I want her to make policy so that all sick kids will get good care."
"The thing is," said one finally, "we feel so strongly about it because she's one of us."
One of us. So much of the discussion about Hillary Clinton has not been about her at all. It has been about how we feel about smart women, professional women, new women. It's been about nurturing moms and working moms and what we do for love, including keeping our mouths shut. We want her to make the world safe, not only for education reform and preschool programs, but for opinionated women who want to be taken seriously. To do that, she has to do something.
A week before her husband was elected, riding to an airport in the back of a sedan, she said she was keenly aware of how many women saw her as a stand-in. " That feeling has been sweeping over me," she said. "I feel the responsibility so much."
When you read Hillary Clinton's clippings, the word "hard-edged" appears more than any other except "headbands." It's an interesting word, not only because it's code but because you rarely hear it applied to men. It's like "feisty," a word used only for women and short guys.
The woman I talked with was smart, intense and approachable, which is how many people describe her in Arkansas. She needlepoints, but like most women with a kid and a job, she's been working on the same project for years. She said she was collecting Eleanor Roosevelt lore, a heartening indication of how she sees her future.
"We talked, as I recall, about policy in Africa," she said of one of her first dates with Bill Clinton, a recollection so weird it must be true. He gave her advice about cases; she gave him advice about appointments. She traveled the state to study the Arkansas school system and made sweeping recommendations to reform it. Her husband proposed legislation to implement the reforms. Both of them were hissed afterward by teachers. A modern marriage to the max.
This is no Nancy Reagan, obsessed with the man. This is a woman who lives and breathes social welfare policy, who has a resume that would have put her on transition team lists had Bill Bradley just been elected President, who was a key player in her husband's campaign.
Some women think she should have a Cabinet-level position, pointing out that Jack Kennedy made his brother Attorney General. Others say she should try to create a more meaningful First Woman's role, cut to fit the tenor of the times.
I think the most important thing is that she fashion a meaningful job in her areas of expertise, that she ignore criticism of that job, and that we stop the criticism and focus on the benefits -- for our schools, for our kids, for all the issues she works on. If they want to give the job a name, that's fine -- just don't give it a fashion emphasis.
Breaking ground is never easy, and Hillary Clinton surely knows about the people who said they wanted to "get the pants off Eleanor and onto Franklin." (Gee, how times have not changed.) There will be people who complain that they didn't elect her. Get over it; you didn't elect James Baker either. There will be people who wanted an older Princess Di and are quick to cast her instead as a younger, left-wing Margaret Thatcher. Get over it.
If we put her in a little pink box of old expectations, truncate her contribution because of stereotypes, cut her down to size because we feel threatened, we lose. When he was running, President-elect Clinton liked to say we don't have a person to waste. Certainly not this one.
In 1992, Anna Quindlen of The New York Times published an article on the new First Lady, Hillary Clinton. Interesting as it is to read it this morning (16 yrs. later) it is heart-wrenching at the same time if you view it from a woman's perspective of political progress. What were we talking about then? "We feel so strangely because she is one of us." This was a woman's comment to all the crticism Hillary was getting from the media...( wow, what was to come!). Quindlen also talked about the conversation,then as now, how we regard smart women, professional women, and of all things...the working mom. Just as a note, when reading this article, Sarah Palin was elected that year to the Wasilla City Council. Also, it was being considered having Hillary in the presidential cabinet (more dejavu!!) Even with the time passage, and change a few names, it could have been published this morning.
Public & Private;The (New) Hillary Problem
by Anna Quindlen Nov.8,1992
There's job talk in Little Rock, about who will be Secretary of the Treasury, chief of staff, Attorney General. And there's job talk across the country, too, among many women. Here's the question: Now that we have a First Woman as educated, intelligent, superachieving and policy-savvy as her husband, what do we do with her?
"Promise me she won't talk about cookies anymore," moaned a woman in Philadelphia.
"She did what she had to do to get him elected," said another in New York. "Now let's give her a real job."
And a circle of professional women in San Jose, Calif., erupted at a question about what Hillary Clinton should not do in the White House:
"I don't want her to keep her mouth shut."
"Forget the photo ops."
"I don't want her to make hospital visits -- I want her to make policy so that all sick kids will get good care."
"The thing is," said one finally, "we feel so strongly about it because she's one of us."
One of us. So much of the discussion about Hillary Clinton has not been about her at all. It has been about how we feel about smart women, professional women, new women. It's been about nurturing moms and working moms and what we do for love, including keeping our mouths shut. We want her to make the world safe, not only for education reform and preschool programs, but for opinionated women who want to be taken seriously. To do that, she has to do something.
A week before her husband was elected, riding to an airport in the back of a sedan, she said she was keenly aware of how many women saw her as a stand-in. " That feeling has been sweeping over me," she said. "I feel the responsibility so much."
When you read Hillary Clinton's clippings, the word "hard-edged" appears more than any other except "headbands." It's an interesting word, not only because it's code but because you rarely hear it applied to men. It's like "feisty," a word used only for women and short guys.
The woman I talked with was smart, intense and approachable, which is how many people describe her in Arkansas. She needlepoints, but like most women with a kid and a job, she's been working on the same project for years. She said she was collecting Eleanor Roosevelt lore, a heartening indication of how she sees her future.
"We talked, as I recall, about policy in Africa," she said of one of her first dates with Bill Clinton, a recollection so weird it must be true. He gave her advice about cases; she gave him advice about appointments. She traveled the state to study the Arkansas school system and made sweeping recommendations to reform it. Her husband proposed legislation to implement the reforms. Both of them were hissed afterward by teachers. A modern marriage to the max.
This is no Nancy Reagan, obsessed with the man. This is a woman who lives and breathes social welfare policy, who has a resume that would have put her on transition team lists had Bill Bradley just been elected President, who was a key player in her husband's campaign.
Some women think she should have a Cabinet-level position, pointing out that Jack Kennedy made his brother Attorney General. Others say she should try to create a more meaningful First Woman's role, cut to fit the tenor of the times.
I think the most important thing is that she fashion a meaningful job in her areas of expertise, that she ignore criticism of that job, and that we stop the criticism and focus on the benefits -- for our schools, for our kids, for all the issues she works on. If they want to give the job a name, that's fine -- just don't give it a fashion emphasis.
Breaking ground is never easy, and Hillary Clinton surely knows about the people who said they wanted to "get the pants off Eleanor and onto Franklin." (Gee, how times have not changed.) There will be people who complain that they didn't elect her. Get over it; you didn't elect James Baker either. There will be people who wanted an older Princess Di and are quick to cast her instead as a younger, left-wing Margaret Thatcher. Get over it.
If we put her in a little pink box of old expectations, truncate her contribution because of stereotypes, cut her down to size because we feel threatened, we lose. When he was running, President-elect Clinton liked to say we don't have a person to waste. Certainly not this one.
Add a Comment
3 Comments
-
Comment by Pamela Lyn on November 17, 2008 at 2:31pm - Great post Trisha. One day, hopefully, we will elect both men and women based solely on their credentials.
-
Comment by Penny Ronning on November 17, 2008 at 1:58pm - Thank you for posting the article, Trisha.
-
Comment by N Hester on November 16, 2008 at 11:31pm - Very well written, Trisha. You have certainly brought out some valid points. It's hard not to think of Sarah Palin and how she was "cut down to size". And when one person feels threatened by another person they use intimidation (cutting them down to size) as a method to create an illusion of being the superior of the two. I know I will look at Hillary Clinton, and others like her, a lot differently after reading your post. Thanks for sharing.
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Catherine Morgan on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of Political Voices of Women Community to add comments!
Join this social network