In 1994 I spent three weeks travelling the length and breadth of America,
researching the background of Hillary Clinton for a journalistic assignment.
The journey took me from the sophisticated East Coast honeyed walls of Yale
and Wellesley, where she was at college, right down south to Fayetteville,
Arkansas, where she and Bill, early in their married life, had worked as
university lecturers.
That she made that journey at all is to me quite astonishing. Downtown
Fayetteville then (and I doubt it’s much changed now) consisted of two
streets. I checked into a hotel at around 8pm, ordered room service and went
to sleep. By the next morning the whole town knew that a journalist from
London had arrived. The phone rang. It was the local newspaper editor.
“Heard you were here,” he drawled. “If you’ve come to talk about the
Clintons, I know them a little. Wondered if you’d like to have dinner with
me tonight?”
Dinner was at 5pm. Its purpose, I think, was to warn me off from being too
nosy but all I can remember now is a sense of overwhelming disbelief that
the woman whose distinguished academic career I’d just been charting in two
of the world’s most prestigious colleges could have willingly come to a
place such as this.
It’s 15 years since Bill Clinton became President of the United States (before
his spotlight-loving transatlantic friend Prime Minister Blair, even) which
for many of us seems like a lifetime ago. So it is easy to forget just how
many Americans and Britons distrusted the new President and, in particular,
his wife, Hillary. And when I say distrust I really mean, dislike.
The list of what they didn’t like about Hillary was long. They didn’t like the
way she used her surname, Rodham. In fact, they blamed Clinton’s first
electoral loss, when he ran for reelection as Governor in Arkansas, on his
wife’s failure to adopt her husband’s surname. Then they didn’t like the way
she compromised, calling herself Hillary Rodham Clinton. And then there was
her hair – not groomed enough; her clothes – not feminine enough; and her
manner – too clever and way, way too bossy. All in all, this was a woman who
was deeply threatening. Who the hell did she think she was?
Most stories about the President and the White House featured a Hillary horror
story on the side. The woman was a monster; the power behind the throne,
with political ideas way above her station. The relief when her proposed
health reforms fell by the wayside was palpable. Meanwhile, the stories
about her appalling behaviour were legion: she abhorred smoking, banning
even Clinton’s chain-smoking mother from lighting up in the White House; she
stopped Bill eating pizza or burgers and called in a heart specialist who
favoured a low-fat, vegetarian regimen to tell the White House chef how to
cook healthier meals.
In short, the woman was a ball-breaker. When Clinton’s womanising came to
light, the subtext was clear: the man was only human and deprived of pizza,
legitimate cigars and who knew what else by his wife, well, what’s a guy to
do?
Well, times change. Or do they? For now we have Hillary Clinton, all hints of
Rodham abandoned, battling it out for the Democratic presidential nomination
against Barack Obama, a 60-year-old white woman against a 46-year-old black
man . . . and it is the fact that the woman is winning that is considered to
be against the odds.
When I made my trip to Fayetteville I was just married. Since then I have had
two children, the eldest of whom is now old enough to begin considering what
career she herself might want to pursue. And what strikes me is that women
are really not much farther on.
Yes, we can use our maiden names without being considered uppity and no, it is
not acceptable to fire a woman because she is pregnant. But other than that
it seems to me that men still largely rule the world, that there is still
very much a glass ceiling, and that women who make it to the top – Margaret
Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice – often fit some male fantasy along the lines of
strict-but-sexy. Indeed, one of Hillary’s problems is that now she has cast
off her ball-breaker image (and let’s be clear about this, she didn’t cry –
she merely hovered on the brink, in response to a sympathetic question from
another woman along the lines of, how do you do it?) they’re not sure she’s
sexy at all. And who wants to be bossed around by a non-sexy woman? You may
not have a choice at work – but an election’s a different matter.
Meanwhile, a handful of women continue to fight the fight – blindly, and, it has to be said, unsuccessfully. Harriet Harman is the latest, with a
proposal that men should spend as long looking after their children as
women. I’m afraid I laughed out loud when I read this: it all sounds
terribly noble but the blunt fact is that most fathers don’t want to spend
an equal amount of time looking after their children – and most mothers
don’t want them to.
And so we have stasis. If the public are to trust women, there need to be more
of them in higher positions. For that to happen, their lives need to be made
more flexible. That can be achieved only with the help of men, who are still
pretty much in charge. But it probably won’t happen, because this stasis
suits most men very well: they will continue to be “stuck in the office” at
bathtime and bedtime. Women will continue to endeavour to be home.
I note that despite Barack Obama’s much vaunted appetite for change, his wife
has given up her $275,000-a-year job as vice-president of community and
external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospital to focus on his
presidential campaign.
If Hillary wins, it would be good to think that the first female US president
will represent a giant step forward for womankind. But I suspect that
instead, we will be told that a woman has won because of her husband.
Those doors just keep closing on us
Wimmin, part two. Yesterday morning I got up at 6.30am, put some washing on,
fed the cats, remade most of the beds because friends and their children
were coming to stay, chivvied the children along for school, made pancakes,
took the youngest to school, came home and fed the rabbits (having
remembered that the children had forgotten) and set off for work, arriving
at the Tube station just before 9am.
Hearing a train coming in, I raced up the stairs and thrust my arm in to stop
the door closing. Nothing happened. The door remained on my arm. Two men who
had run up the stairs behind me stared in disbelief and shouted to the
driver to open the doors. He would not. “Hang on in there,” they instructed.
By now there were a few more people on the platform. I hung on for a couple of
minutes but it was clear that he was not going to open the doors and in the
end I gave up. “Good try, my dear,” said the 60-ish man next to me. “But I
think you’ll find the moral here is that women are not supposed to run for
trains and succeed . . .”
Maddie the movie: what would you do?
I see the vilification that is never far from poor Kate and Gerry McCann has
resurfaced at the news that they have had talks about the possibility of a
film being made about their missing daughter.
Their aim, were it to go ahead, would simply be to raise more money to
continue the search. To their critics I put this question: if it were your
child missing, could you seriously say, well, never mind that we’ve run out
of money, we’ll just grieve quietly and stop the search, she’s probably dead
anyway?
To know the real HIllary Clinton you must know her past. Why is she so eager to "move on" rather than discuss her past?. She needs to acknowledge her connections with the American Communist Party, now known as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She needs to acknowledge how poorly she has served the dear people of New York (many of us would like to know how she won that Senate seat so easily . . .). No, her core values haven't changed - why should she change when all she needs is a sympathetic ear ready to right the so-called injustices done to her, a mere "woman", a victim of a male dominated society. As for me (a woman), I prefer a President who learns from history, not one who will make pitiful excuses or try to rewrite it. I support Fred Thompson for President.
Mattie Lawson, Outer Banks, US / North Carolina
At least Hillary Clinton has got the guts to stand up and be counted and be prepared to put up with all the negative drivel and ill informed opinion that is thrown at her. How many people who post comments would be prepared to have their characters analaysed and assissinated quite so freely? And tell me a politician who isn't in it for their own personal gain? No body enters the presidential race without a lot of soul searching as to whether they can take the terrible personal pressure - its meant to be a test of character I suppose. At least some people are brave, or foolish enough, to do it. Good luck to them all.
tess, Varese, Italy
I'm a woman and I can't stand Hillary Clinton. She woudn't be running for presidency if she were not married to Bill Clinton; she didn't get to where she is entirely on merits. She makes direct appeal to women voters. She used her hugely popular ex-president hubby extensively in her campaign. She cried when she's losing.
Kirsty, Hong Kong,
The reason I don't like Clinton is because she doesn't want to become President to make America better, she wants to be President because it's a personal goal of hers. This isn't a CV opportunity, this is the most important job in the world, and just because she really really wants it, it doesn't mean she should. I've no problems with a woman being President, if she's good enough. The only issue most people would have is having to listen to gloating from certain sections of the female society.
Gustav, Helsinki,
There have been many women who have achieved leadership of their nations, Cleopatra, Boudiccea, Elizabeth 1, Catherine the Great for example, and more recently, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkl.
That the right wing parties of the USA and UK have had women and blacks in positions of power while both the parties of the Left are just beginning to work on it, and Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are both hailed by the Left as 'glass ceiling breakers' is as preposterous as the article.
The only thing that should matter is a person's ability to lead. Clinton's new found 'vulnerability' and her ability to use her sex as a buffer to deflect attacks by her opponents, run contrary to what I would expect from the new leader of the Western World.
At the end of their stay at the White House, Bill and Hillary broke tradtion by taking all the gifts bestowed on them by well wishers, instead of bestowing them on more deserving causes. That to me sums her up.
Stephen Rothbart, Prague, Czech Republic
What sexist drivel people sometimes spew. Has anyone considered that, without Hillary Clinton's support, Bill Clinton might not have been the 42nd president? While he was Arkansas gov on a US $35,000 annual salary, his wife was the family wage earner with her salary in excess of US $100,000. Theirs, like it or not, is a partnership like most marriages. Simply being the wife (son, daughter) of a personality in the U.S. is not sufficient -- as we say, you have to cut the mustard or you're shown the door. Anyone who argues she hasn't done so is clearly delusional.
I also find it very entertaining that many of the same people who were appalled by the Clinton's "two for the price of one" formulation and by Hillary's role as a policy advisor in her husband's administration (recall the teeth-gnashing over her unprecedented office in the West Wing?) are now trying to reduce her to having simply held teas.
William, Washington, DC
Why hold up a train, and risk the failure of that train, when the next one would be minutes behind it? Delaying a train would delay the journeys for the rest of the people on the train, and is pretty selfish. Delay one train, and the ones behind get delayed as well - and the delay mutiplies.
The train doors don't have to open just because your arm is in the way, as long as the train doesn't move off. Maybe if it hurt you, you'd think twice about putting your arm in the way of a closing door.
The 'door closing' alarms and annoucements are not a signal to hold the doors open!
The moral here is wait for the next train.
Sarah, London, UK
Bleeding typical - if Hillary loses (the candidacy or the presidency) the wimmin will blame it on the men, and not on her. The most important attribute of any leader is to inspire the people that they wish to lead - the minutiae of government can and should be delegated (something Gordon has yet to learn).
Andrew, Hitchin,
I don't know Mrs. Clinton, and never will, but I have folowed her career, because it struck me as very unusual.
Here was a very intelligent woman, married to a man as intelligent as she was [believe me, that's quite rare], who wanted to achieve more.
I know many women who can't understand her simply because of this. The reason she is threatening to so many women is actually because of her intelligence. A lot of women don't like extreme intelligence in other women, feeling it undermines their own femininity.
I have never understood this - I want a person I can have a beer with as my leader. Are you nuts?! Look at the people you do have beers with and try to imagine one of them as your prime minister or president! What they really mean is they want someone just like them. Well I prefer someone who isn't like me, in my humdrum job, and has the experience and drive to try and sort out the problems of the world.
I wish Mrs. Clinton all the best, and hope she achieves victory.
Eliza, Johannesburg, South Africa
We recently had a very smart female MBA join our company. She was a breath of fresh air. All the problems I've been struggling with for years, she identified (without me having to tell her), planned to correct, and I was looking forward to her getting the chance to put her solution into practice. Her energy and intelligence were fantastic. She lasted just a few months before being sacked by our new Chairman who described her to us as "aggressive" and a troublemaker. The great irony is that for years we know he is very aggressive and insecure. She highlighted his failings and instead of being a strong man and correcting his behaviour, he got rid of our brightest chance. I'm still here in this firm, but it's like a light has gone out she she went and I worry what more damage this man will do.
M , London, UK
Umm, Sandy, one of the main reasons Hilary left NY, was that she flunked the New York State Bar Exam. And as a woman with a Ph.D. myself, I wouldn't vote for or against anyone based on their genitalia.
Julie Mckinley, Austin, TX
See, the way i see it, if Hillary is a good President, that would be your "giant leap for womenkind(sic)", but currently, she looks like a lot of mouth and hair, with little going on between them other than a wish to be in charge. Which isn't to say Obama looks much better: lots of mouth, no hair, some vague idea about change..............
JT, Sheffield,
Like Hillary Clinton, Sandra Parsons doesn't understand the difference between being tough and being strong. Lady Thatcher and Condoleezza Rice do. The former springs from weakness, the latter from confidence.. If the only way you can succeed is to be a ball-buster you are indeed tough, but your strength is highly questionable. Of course, in Sen. Clinton's case, her husband is weak enough for too. I just don't think Hillary is entitled to my vote as recompense for having put up with Bill for all these years.
Mary McLemore, Pike Road, Alabama, USA
Maggie Thatcher... sexy? Two words I never thought would appear in the same sentence till today.
Shane, Guildford, England
Feminist drivel.
The fact is that Hillary Clinton would not be running for President except for the fact that she is married to Bill Clinton. She certainly wouldn't be a senator from New York. She can't ride his coat tails and then complain that her gender is a handicap.
I have a whole lot more respect for Condi Rice who hasn't relied on "her man" to become the most powerful and important woman in the US. She overcame racial prejudice and poverty to get where she is. Hillary was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and has had evrything handed to her throughout her life. The one thing she tried to accomplish, socialized health care, was a dismal failure.
Hillary's problem is not that she is a woman. It's that she has no core values other than blind ambition. The idea that a woman who, to support her philandering rapist husband, destroyed the lives/reputation of her husband's victims, somehow deserves the support of "women" is incredibly ironic.
John, Seattle, Washington
Round of applause for managing to get things done in the morning? Round of boos for negative and outdated comments about men wanting to avoid bedtime and bathtime? A hiss for the total stupidity of sticking your arm in a train door, endangering yourself and making all the other passengers suffer because you couldn't wait the minutes until the next train? And how about a slight doze from the words you've wasted on this tedious insight into your martyrdom and fascinating life? Zzzzz...
Carl, Manchester,