Spotlight on Leadership: Hillary Clinton

In the presidential election playing out in primaries across America, front-runner Hillary Clinton has the best chance of becoming president of any woman to date. Though The Glass Hammer typically confines its discussion to issues that deal directly with women in finance and law, Senator Clinton’s leadership style and the role of gender in presidential politics has been a hot button topic among all of the professional women we know.

Last night’s debate in South Carolina demonstrated that race and gender issues have dominated the Democratic debates in recent days. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sought to de-emphasize race and gender and focus on their qualifications. However, all of the Democratic candidates, including John Edwards, recognized the importance of appealing to African-American and female voters. One of the highlights of the debate occurred when Senator Clinton, in an effort to transcend divisive race and gender issues, quoted Frederick Douglas, who ran the slogan on the masthead of his newspaper The North Star that “right has no sex and truth has no color.” More than 150 years later, are voters finally ready to accept that?

In a much discussed article in the New York Times last week, Gloria Steinem, women’s movement leader and founder of Ms. Magazine, advocated persuasively on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. In her article, entitled “Why Women are Never Frontrunners,” she raises some troubling questions about the way in which gender and race are perceived as characteristics of a leader. When comparing Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, she writes, “what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.” She goes on to note the disparity between the media’s criticism of Senator Clinton for “playing the gender card,” where Senator Obama is seen as unifying by referring to the civil rights movement.

Ms. Steinem’s article draws attention to the crossroads of equality at which we find ourselves. Why is it that woman leaders are doubly criticized? In the most reductionist scenario, when women display stereotypically “feminine” characteristics, such as showing emotion and being compassionate, they are deemed not tough enough, but when they display stereotypically “masculine” characteristics, like aggression and anger, they are perceived as too emotional and unstable.

When men display these qualities, in the workplace or on the campaign trail, their tears are often seen as a heart warming sign of sensitivity and their anger a sign of passion and righteous indignation. Ms. Steinem argues in essence that while our society has managed to grow beyond this sort of blanket stereotyping as it pertains to men of color like Senator Obama, gender-based discrimination remains more pervasive and socially acceptable.

For example, consider the media reaction to Hillary Clinton’s emotional moment before the New Hampshire primary, where she teared up in response to a voter’s question about “how she does it” day after day on the campaign trail. Many in the media blasted her for showing her emotions, but the next day, Senator Clinton came from behind in the polls to win the New Hampshire primary, thanks in large part to the votes of women, who came out to support her in larger numbers than they did in Iowa.

Clinton’s well run campaign and the candidate’s broad based appeal among the Democratic base may be credited for her victory, but some voters on the fence may have decided to support her after feeling a sense of connection to the candidate after she revealed a softer and more approachable side in the days leading up the primary. Whatever she is doing now certainly seems to be appealing to voters both male and female, as she won the Nevada caucuses on January 19, 2008 with 51% of the vote.

Ms. Steinem’s view was lauded by liberal bloggers as shining a spotlight on Senator Clinton as a strong, experienced yet compassionate leader. However, some Clinton supporters were critical of the article, noting that it reinforced the false dichotomy between civil rights and women’s rights, and drew too much attention to the race and gender of two well-qualified candidates who are better evaluated on the merits of their record and the differences in their policy positions.

Like it or not, race and gender issues have come to the forefront of the Democratic race, as the candidates head into the South Carolina primary, where African-Americans make up an expected 50% of Democratic primary voters and all of the candidates spent Monday commemorating Martin Luther King Day. As noted in the New York Times article “Race and Gender Are Issues in a Tense Day for Democrats,” and CNN’s feature following the South Carolina debate on “Race and Gender,” these issues have played an increasingly prominent role in the campaign in recent weeks.

In fact, in response to the CNN article on race and gender, many black women readers reacted angrily to the idea that they faced “a unique, most unexpected dilemma” as to whether they should vote their race or their gender, arguing that their votes could not be reduced to such simplistic identity-based politics, and that they too would vote the issues and choose the best candidate overall.

In this historic presidential election, Americans are lucky to have so many outstanding candidates to choose from, including the first viable African-American and female candidates. As professional women who have long admired Hillary Clinton as a role model and as a leader, we are lucky to be in the position to elect a president with the intelligence, experience and tenacity to get the job done right – and she just happens to be a woman.