Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (18537)	12/4/2007 11:22:40 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224760

Does anyone believe the following premise that Iowa voters are rejecting Hillary due to her gender? lol Mrs Clinton must be in denial that her lack of integrity & warmth is causing voter turn-off. Evidently this reporter resides in Camp Hillary: >Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt BY ROBIN GERBER \| newsday.com, Dec 4, 2007 Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of "Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way" and the forthcoming novel "Eleanor vs. Ike." Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge. But they're blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect. It's not that voters and her opponents think Clinton's experienced and competent, and they don't like or trust her. It's that they think she's experienced and competent and that's why they don't like or trust her. As the study concluded, "These perceptions not only influence whether people respect women's styles of leadership, but also the extent to which women leaders are perceived as trustworthy." Clinton's two main rivals for the nomination, Sens. John Edwards and Barack Obama, are exploiting her double-bind. They realize that she's secured her position as an experienced, accomplished politician. That's why they've taken to accusing her of being dishonest. Edwards put it most baldly, at one debate saying, "The American people ... deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth." Is there evidence proving that Hillary Clinton can't be trusted? Take the example of abortion rights, where Clinton was accused of changing her position to match a shift in the political wind. The attack started in July 2006, when she said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and was immediately pilloried in the media for abandoning her pro-choice stance. But she'd used those same words seven years earlier in a speech as first lady. Clinton is a strong defender of abortion rights and also hopes unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. Where's the dishonesty in that? Clinton's vote on the 2002 resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq has raised the loudest cries about trusting her. Obama's been relentless in construing her vote as a blank check for war, and portraying her as dissembling when she disagrees. As proof of her perfidy, Clinton was accused of failing to make any effort before the invasion of Iraq to influence the president's policy. In fact, she repeatedly pressed the case for weapons inspections in Iraq, and against President George W. Bush's acting precipitously. She said she believed that Bush would live up to his statements about using UN inspectors, and that Bush "took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it." While it's fair to disagree with her approach, there's no fairness in the claim that her actions on Iraq prove her untrustworthy. As a presidential candidate, Clinton has held her know-how and experience up like a battle flag. But along with competence goes the ambition, assertiveness, even aggressiveness that she and other leaders bring to the tough job of leadership. And there's the rub. Dominance, authority and ambition are widely viewed as essential leadership characteristics - as long as you're a man. When Clinton displays this "masculine" style, she loses the public trust. What's a woman running for president to do? Pull the gender card out of the deck and hold it up high. Most people are unaware of their bias or don't want to recognize or acknowledge it. Clinton needs to challenge her opponents and voters with a simple test: Substitute "Henry" for "Hillary" and reassess his/her strengths and weaknesses. They may be surprised to find that the smart, competent, assertive, aggressive, ambitious "Henry" Clinton running for president seems like a very trustworthy man. Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of "Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way" and the forthcoming novel "Eleanor vs. Ike."<