We constantly hear that 2008 is the year of presidential firsts. Well, what about concentrating on the content of someone’s character instead of their demographics? Let us be clear, Senator Clinton understood that the road ahead would not only break new ground, but also reopen the debate as to whether a woman could be elected President. Why does it matter that she chooses to take the road less traveled? Is it necessary that Americans continue to elect the same wealthy, Caucasian, middle-aged males? I think not.
Clinton, often referred to as “Hillary” by her competitors and the press, is seen simply as a woman. Her sex is discussed more than her political agenda. For example, in New Hampshire she was accused of crying. Who saw her cry? Where is the proof? I saw photos of a person showing emotion, but I did not see anyone crying. What I have seen is a woman prove that she is more than capable of playing with the big boys. Yet the American people cannot get past her sex. In fact, Senator Clinton has encountered several gender-based attacks and the use of the "B" word. While in Las Vegas for the Democratic debate she acknowledged that what she is aiming for is "toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling." My question is why, in today’s age, is that ceiling so high? And why is she the only one aiming towards an improbable goal?
As a twenty-year-old Latina voting this year, I personally do not look at the candidate’s demographics, but his or her knowledge on what our country needs. Having stated my personal opinion, I realize this is not the consensus amongst a majority of Americans. Instead, the media and many constituents have chosen to teach our youth that sex does matter. By making such a big deal about a woman candidate, people are demonstrating that sex is an issue and cannot be overlooked in a debate, an election, or simply put, a job. After all, that is what the presidency is. It’s a job, a very important job, but a job none the less. The male candidates have been asked about their views on politics, issues concerning America, and their personal beliefs. Senator Clinton has been asked similar questions, but also questions regarding her fashion and romantic life. For example on the Tyra Banks Show, Senator Clinton was asked about her headbands, a hair accessory she wore while Bill Clinton ran for President. She was also asked about her first date, but I do not recall Senator Obama talking about his first date or why he seems to wear blue ties so often. The only “firsts” discussed with Obama were his first job and first priorities if elected President of the United States.
It is shameful that when looking at our presidential candidates a majority of Americans merely see gender. Whatever happened to choosing the best person for the job and not the best sex for the position? I hope that in some ways people realize that if we truly are to claim advancement in the struggle of the sexes, America as a whole will need to treat all the Presidential candidates equally and not simply give “Hillary” a shot but give Senator Clinton an opportunity.
Valerie Martinez '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Is calling the Senator "Hillary" sexist or is it a great title?
I've been curious about the term "Hillary" in the media. In one aspect it seems very familiar, like a friend. Or someone so well-known they need no last name i.e. Madonna, Bono etc.
Either way I would deem those to be beneficial to her campaign. Her website even has "Hillary" in bigger text than "Clinton". One name recognition is a huge plus in elections. First name recognition means they feel they know her personally.
But by often leaving out the term "Senator" are people being demeaning to her stature and her achievements? Perhaps, because she's a woman?
I actually think it's to her benefit that the media and the general public feel they have known her for so long under many titles "first lady" - "Senator" - that "Hillary" simply says it all.
Post a Comment