Hillary’s Sexism Opportunity

National Journal
Major Garrett
See more stories about...
Major Garrett
June 10, 2014, 2:53 p.m.

For­get the book tour, Hil­lary.

Do something in­ter­est­ing.

Start by end­ing the con­strict­ing and un­pal­at­able ob­ses­sion that the pres­id­en­tial glass ceil­ing is yours and yours alone to break. It isn’t. The longer you pre­tend oth­er­wise, the longer your road to the White House will be­come. The glass ceil­ing halts the pro­gress of all wo­men — not just yours.

Your prox­im­ity to it, his­tor­ic­ally, mat­ters a great deal. Be­ing the closest wo­men to the ceil­ing who hasn’t broken through simply isn’t enough to jus­ti­fy or even ex­plain a second run for the White House. As you learned in 2008, be­ing “in it to win it” leaves gaps a plucky rival can ex­ploit.

This isn’t about cam­paign ad­vice. For thou­sands of genu­inely im­port­ant reas­ons, I don’t give cam­paign ad­vice. I’m not ad­voc­at­ing on be­half of mak­ing the cam­paign more in­ter­est­ing, either. It just seems to me, hav­ing covered Hil­lary Clin­ton’s cam­paign in 2008, the book tour she has just launched — and the book it­self — has the same re­pet­it­ive dull­ness and pen­chant for pablum that ham­strung her first bid for the White House.

In­stead of get­ting trapped in the eco­nom­ic glue of pre­tend­ing to hav­ing been “dead broke” after leav­ing the White House, why not, Hil­lary, go to every city on your tour and identi­fy the wo­man there who ought to con­sider run­ning for pres­id­ent? What could be the harm?

More im­port­ant, what could be the gain?

First, it would take you off your self-built ped­es­tal of in­ev­it­ab­il­ity. Noth­ing is in­ev­it­able. See ‘08.

Second, it would sug­gest you know you’re not all that and a bag of chips — no one is, by the way. Hu­mil­ity was a char­ac­ter­ist­ic Hil­lary only showed when she was way be­hind in ‘08. And crowds ate it up. The feisty, down-on-her-luck, and bat­tling Hil­lary had something ut­terly ab­sent from her cam­paign ap­pear­ances in Iowa, New Hamp­shire, Nevada, and South Car­o­lina — all the way through Su­per Tues­day. That Hil­lary’s hu­mil­ity came too late is ax­io­mat­ic. The point is, Hil­lary be­came reach­able, touch­able, and even lov­able (some­what) when she stopped buy­ing her own nox­ious in­ev­it­ab­il­ity myth.

Third, it would give Hil­lary something she’s rarely de­veloped in her pub­lic life — a repu­ta­tion for be­ing clev­er. There’s noth­ing more dis­arm­ing in polit­ics or life than a power­ful per­son shed­ding that power in fa­vor of the flat­tery of oth­ers. The best weapon a seem­ingly in­ev­it­able politi­cian can em­ploy is to shed the aura of in­ev­it­ab­il­ity. There is no oth­er politi­cian in Amer­ica for whom this is truer than Hil­lary. If Hil­lary says lots of wo­men — right now — are ready to be pres­id­ent she doesn’t make her­self weak­er by com­par­is­on, she makes her­self stronger by speak­ing on be­half of qual­i­fic­a­tions.

Fourth, it would give Hil­lary a chance to be bi­par­tis­an in a gal­van­iz­ing way — not in the in­sip­id way her book pre­tends. In­stead of try­ing to peddle a bunch of sloppy and in­co­her­ent dreams for “in­clus­ive polit­ics and a com­mon pur­pose to un­leash the cre­ativ­ity, po­ten­tial, and op­por­tun­ity that makes Amer­ica ex­cep­tion­al,” name some Re­pub­lic­an wo­men qual­i­fied to be pres­id­ent. Hil­lary need not agree with the po­s­i­tions of Govs. Susana Mar­tinez of New Mex­ico or Nikki Haley of South Car­o­lina or Mary Fal­l­in of Ok­lahoma, or of Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hamp­shire or Susan Collins of Maine. She could say they all are daft on the ideas she holds dear and would love to de­bate them to prove how wrong they are, but un­der­score that each has the ba­sic qual­i­fic­a­tions for the pres­id­ency. Flat­tery in polit­ics need not ring pos­it­ively true. Fre­quently it doesn’t, but even in its fals­ity it can re­shape im­pres­sions and scramble polit­ic­al ac­tions. No one right now has more ca­pa­city to do this than Hil­lary.

Ima­gine, for just one second, if Hil­lary had said at Tues­day’s book sign­ing in New York something highly com­pli­ment­ary of Sen. Kirsten Gil­librand of New York? So com­pli­ment­ary that it egged on a ques­tion about wheth­er Gil­librand was qual­i­fied for the White House. Can you ima­gine the thun­der­claps if Hil­lary had cas­u­ally said, “Yes. And she’s not the only one.” Who else? “Come to my next book sign­ing.”

Fol­low along my ad­mit­tedly sub­vers­ive train of thought as we trundle north to Bo­ston. How about Hil­lary say­ing Sen. Eliza­beth War­ren ab­so­lutely, pos­it­ively has the qual­i­fic­a­tions to be pres­id­ent and would make a great can­did­ate? Sud­denly, the ques­tion isn’t wheth­er Hil­lary is threatened by the pro­spect of an in­sur­gent, draft-War­ren move­ment; it’s now about how Hil­lary is the ad­voc­ate for a Demo­crat­ic Party brim­ming with qual­i­fied wo­men can­did­ates for pres­id­ent. With one ut­ter­ance, Hil­lary would take the wind out of the idea of a War­ren in­sur­gency, one of its most al­lur­ing qual­it­ies at the mo­ment, and win her­self a laurel for equan­im­ity and fem­in­ist truth-telling. It might even score grudging points from fence-sit­ting pro­gress­ives. This is what is known as a clev­er stunt. Hil­lary has hardly ever pulled one off. It would be a start­ling bit of fresh air.

Then there could be Sen. Amy Klobuchar in Min­neapol­is. And Sens. Claire Mc­Caskill in St. Louis, Debbie Stabenow in De­troit, and Di­anne Fein­stein and Bar­bara Box­er in Cali­for­nia. The list goes on. Or at least it could.

There is a trick to polit­ics that the best prac­ti­tion­ers use in­stinct­ively — cre­ate the im­pres­sion you’re humble and reach­able when you are not. Hil­lary is ap­par­ently in­cap­able of this in­sight and demon­strably in­cap­able of de­ploy­ing this tac­tic. Rather, she ex­ults in the sep­ar­ate­ness of polit­ics — the joys of pipe, drape, rope, and dis­tance. Her team is im­pec­cably cap­able at trans­lat­ing the crude lan­guage of mus­cu­lar­ity to crowds, the press, and even those who seek to rally to her side. This comes from a sense of al­ways bat­tling in polit­ics, first on be­half of Bill and then on be­half of her­self as the wo­man who … just “¦ might “¦ make “¦ it. That had to be a heavy bur­den, and it showed all through ‘08. Un­til then, Hil­lary was way be­hind and had no plaus­ible reas­on to con­tin­ue. The sheer im­prob­ab­il­ity, bor­der­ing on math­em­at­ic­al ri­dicu­lous­ness, of her post-Su­per Tues­day cam­paign earned for Hil­lary something she’d nev­er had be­fore—sym­pathy.

Hil­lary can­not draw on that now. And noth­ing in this blood­less book rol­lout has the slight­est chance of cre­at­ing any. What Hil­lary can do is rhet­or­ic­ally widen the pres­id­en­tial view­find­er, cast­ing an ap­prov­ing light on oth­er wo­men in polit­ics, re­gard­ing her­self as only one of many qual­i­fied, en­er­get­ic, and in­ter­ested wo­men who could lead the na­tion. Hil­lary would give the ap­pear­ance of shed­ding the pres­id­en­tial am­bi­tions her book tour now burn­ish to a near-blind­ing gloss. She would nev­er give up those am­bi­tions; she would merely shed the off-put­ting ap­pear­ance of them.

And then Hil­lary, for once, could de­light in be­ing judged on her ap­pear­ances.

The au­thor is Na­tion­al Journ­al cor­res­pond­ent-at-large and chief White House cor­res­pond­ent for CBS News. He is also a dis­tin­guished fel­low at the George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity School of Me­dia and Pub­lic Af­fairs.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×