There are two books coming out about Hillary Clinton called “Her Way” and “A Woman in Charge”. Both these books have come under some criticism for their biased approach and focus on Clinton’s personal, rather than political, life.

More information on the issue can be found in the below links.

News Coverage:
Books Paint Critical Portraits of Clinton
Rival Books on Hillary Clinton Play Leapfrog on Debut Dates
Hot on Hil’s campaign trail: An ‘explosive’ bio

Blogger Coverage:
Hillary Clinton: “Her Way” and “A Woman in Charge”
Those Two New Hillary Clinton Books
Yawn?
Peers have criticized Clinton bio co-author Jeff Gerth for flawed reporting
STUNNING REVELATIONS IN TWO NEW CLINTON BIOS

Does Hillary Clinton speak like a lady? According to The Power Of Speaking Ladylike on ScienceDaily she does.

Mark Liberman of Language Log, however, is less than convinced at the “science” that the study uses to back up its gender essentialism. In his post Women and men again, you know? he calls into question the study’s methodology:

The authors’ argument is based on citing the relationship between their findings and the earlier literature on “language and gender”. The idea is to show that Hillary and Bill conform to previously-claimed patterns of gendered language use. There are two problems with this method. The first one is that the authors’ data is equivocal: the features that they measure in the Clinton’s interviews partly agree with the previously-claimed gender differences, and partly disagree. This is exactly what we’d expect if the differences had no particular connection to sex or gender at all. The second problem is that many of the background “facts” about sex/gender differences cited in this paper were originally asserted without any empirical evidence — and some of them have turned out not to be true.

I do have to wonder what the motivations behind this study were. Were they political — aimed at getting Senator Clinton to appeal more to traditionalists? — or playing of of the Clintons’ fame in order to lend legitimacy to gender essentialist claims that have little to no factual basis? Regardless, I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that this study popped up at a time where Senator Clinton is making a bid for the presidency.

News stories based on the study

Hillary Clinton: Runs like a man, talks like a girl
Clinton-speak reflects political gender: Hillary’s use of language is more ‘ladylike’ than Bill’s, researchers say
Hillary talks like a ‘lady’ — STUDY: Unlike husband, she uses ‘non-powerful’ words
Scientists: Hillary Clinton’s a Lady … When It Comes to Her Speech
Why Hillary Talks Like Bill (Bad science debunked here)
When Hillary speaks, a lady emerges

Myths and falsehoods about Hillary Rodham Clinton

She has an article on the whole debacle on Salon (worth the commercial for the site pass):

Regardless of its motive, the result of the smear campaign was to send a loud, clear signal to young feminist women. It tells them that campaigning for Democratic candidates, and particularly doing so in positions that would help the candidate connect with young feminist communities like the one that thrives in the blogosphere, is a scary, risky prospect. There are few things like having Bill O’Reilly work himself into a pearl-clutching fit while speaking your name over the air, or watching your in box fill to the brim with sexually violent, threatening e-mails. Young feminists certainly picked up on the message. As one wrote in a blog post tracking back to Pandagon, “I will never, ever go into any sort of actual work on any political campaign. I still might have to close off my original teenage wasteland-style blog. People will gleefully tear you apart any day of the week — but I’d rather not have that done to me over politics.”

When I was trying to decide whether to resign, no other concern weighed as heavy as the fear that resigning would tell the right-wing mob that harassing young feminists works. That would only encourage the hit squad in the future. As many commenters at Pandagon noted, we’re far from living in a postsexist era where feminism is not needed, if one can’t be an outspoken young feminist and work for a campaign without producing waves of outraged commentary. But in the end I decided it might be better for the campaign if I was no longer around to draw fire.

Whether or not it was the intention of the right-wing noise machine to throw more obstacles in the way of Democrats who want to play to their pro-choice, pro-gay rights feminist constituents — it’s also plausible that the right-wing noise machine was working on pure misogynist emotion — the episode has had a chilling effect on the future of Democratic outreach to feminist communities, particularly the younger ones that flock to computers for political information as earlier generations flocked to television sets and newspapers.

Christian Science Monitor:

The Ivy League has reached a milestone in gender equality: Half of the eight schools are now run by women.

Drew Gilpin Faust emerged from the weekend as Harvard University’s first female president. A current Harvard dean, she will not only sit at the pinnacle of higher education, but will oversee a budget on a par with top corporations. Of the 20 female CEOs in the Fortune 1000, only one runs a firm with assets greater than Harvard’s.

Despite the 50-50 leadership split at the Ivies, only 20 percent of US colleges and universities are run by women. Dr. Faust’s appointment could have a lasting impact on the gender imbalance among faculty at Harvard, and in the leadership ranks across academia, experts say.

“This is a crack in the glass ceiling, in the sense that to have as prestigious an institution as Harvard expand their notion of suitability for the presidency, sets an example for the rest of academia that’s hard to ignore,” says Margaret Miller, professor of higher education at the University of Virginia.

Versace on Clinton:

“I can understand (trousers) are comfortable but she’s a woman and she is allowed to show that,” Versace told Germany’s weekly newspaper Die Zeit in an interview.

“She should treat femininity as an opportunity and not try to emulate masculinity in politics,” Versace said.

This one was emailed to me, and by then I’d seen it and had been sitting on it for a few days. I’m not sure it goes under the annals of hideously misogynistic press coverage.

Its frivolous and concentrates on Clinton’s femininity and clothing, but Donatella Versace is a fashion designer. Of course she is going to have a professional opinion on what a public figure wears. And it’s not totally unheard of to remark on a politician’s choice of clothing in the political arena. CNN’s Greenfield on Obama:

The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what’s getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie.

It is a look the senator seems to favor. And why not? It is dressy enough to suggest seriousness of purpose, but without the stuffiness of a tie, much less a suit. There is a comfort level here that reflects one of Obama’s strongest political assets, a sense that he is comfortable in his own skin, that he knows who he is.

If you want a striking contrast, check out Senator John Kerry as he campaigned back in 2004. He often appeared without a tie, but clad in a blazer, the kind of casual look you see at country clubs and lawn parties in the Hamptons and other toned (ph) locations.

When President Bush wanted in casual mode, he skipped the jacket entirely. Third-generation Skull and Bones at Yale? Don’t be silly. Nobody here but us Texas ranchers.

(He went on to compare Obama to the President of Iran through their wardrobe choices, so it wasn’t without its stupidity).

However, and there’s always a however (I really wish I could do a post without a however), you can’t go anywhere on the political web anymore without some reference to a “pantsuit.” Jokes about how Obama would look in a pantsuit, right-wing articles describe her as “Hugo Chavez in a pantsuit,” “Pantsuit,” “pantsuit,” “pantsuit”– they are dying to say “dress.” Just dying to say it.

Pantsuit. What a ridiculous word. All it describes is a suit worn by a woman. Every male politician wears a pantsuit. And don’t say its because its without a tie because both Senator Obama and the Iranian President go without a tie and they don’t wear a “pantsuit.” If Sen. Clinton wore a skirt, would it be a “skirtsuit”? A “dresssuit”? Why do we even bother to say “pantsuit”?! Oh wait, its worn by a woman.

Because even when men and women wear the same damned thing, we have to call it something different.

Because heaven forbid men be expected to wear anything that women would wear. Even when its the same thing, only smaller, it has to be called something different. Otherwise, they might mistake men for women and women for men, which would lead to cooties!

Yeesh.

I could go ahead and criticize Versace’s implication that “dress = feminine”, but right now I’m just thankful to see someone say “trousers” instead of “pantsuit.”

“do you know a girl is running for president?”

Then, my niece Sullivan (age 6) asked me, “Aunt Molly, do you know that a GIRL is running for president?” I said. “As a matter of fact, I do. Her name is Hillary Clinton.” So, I kept the conversation going by asking, “Hey. Sullivan, how do you think things would be different if a woman was President?” She quickly replied, “Well … her husband would have to watch the kids.” That seemed logical. I asked. “Yeah, what else?” She said, “Laws would be different.” Okay, I’ll buy that. So, I asked again, “Is that it? Anything else? As we approached the Toledo Art Museum she said, “Well, directions would really be less complicated.”

They get to them so young.

At the top of this “Why I’m Not Voting Clinton” list:

1. She hasn’t been a Governor that long. In fact she has been the New York Governor for only two years !!!!

Huffington post (Hattip Elayne) on the electability question:

When people write, “Is America ready for a female president?” they need to know how insulting that is to women. These are the doubt planters. Tell ‘em to go to hell. They’re not asking, they’re undermining. If you want to make someone feel unwell, don’t say, “You look terrible”, because he’ll immediately bounce back with, “I feel fine!” But if you ASK, if you say, “Do you feel all right?” the doubt sets right in. “Why? Why do you ask? What’s wrong?” That’s what they’re doing. “Is America READY for a woman president?” “Why? What’s going to happen??”

Is America ready? The rest of the world probably reads that and shakes its head in bemusement, or incredulity, plain confusion, or maybe even sadness. Is America ready for sliced bread, covered wagons, indoor plumbing, math, the wheel, air travel, computers? Duh. You’re so cute.

I’ve ranted on this before, but for my own peace of mind I can’t rant enough on this damned question (at least until they stop asking the stupid thing!). Ms. Boosler just puts in perspective just how freaking backwards we are. You know that cousin you pretend you’re not related to? The racist, sexist cousin who watches Fox News and donates to Focus on the Family?

Well, to the rest of the World, that’s us right now.

On imperfect but serviceable Wikipedia there’s a long list of women who tried, starting with Victoria Woodhull (and the doubts about whether or not she counts) in 1872. All third-party candidates. And vice presidential candidates. Aside from Geraldine Ferraro, all third-party. It doesn’t list the many Democratic and Republican hopefuls who didn’t make it past the primaries (Elizabeth Dole in 2000, Carol Moseley Braun in 2004). Ferraro was historic mainly because she came so damned close by being on a major party’s ballot.

I can’t find a similar list of black candidates (it would be nice to try and get one together), but its reasonable to imagine there’s a similar problem. If Victorian Woodhull counts, then so does Frederick Douglass as her running mate. For primary hopefuls I know Shirley Chisholm tried, and last year Al Sharpton and Carol Braun tried. I think Jesse Jackson made the attempt a few elections ago.

No one on the ballot of a major party past the primary.

So its not because no one’s tried or wanted to make history. Its because the majority of the country wasn’t willing to take the chance on it. They went with the safe candidate. The one who looked like the other guy.

That’s where we get into the interesting part about this election. The Republican Party now has almost a uniform platform, and its the same platform its had for the last 13 years. With that platform, the party has messed up so badly that its considered impossible for a Republican to win in 2008 even when they do apply the attractive “Maverick” modifer to their candidate.

Its considered a given that next year will be a Democratic win unless the Democrats run an exceptionally weak candidate. The two frontrunners are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a black man and a white woman, followed closely by John Edwards. These three are popular enough that really they just have to get past the primaries and avoid doing anything monumentally stupid to be in the White House.

That has to have the racists and the sexists in the country sweating. Here’s where the prejudice inherent in the questions “Would America vote for a woman President” and “Would America vote for a black man?” come out.

Those questions don’t make a bit of difference in the general election. With the general election in our cursed two-party system, its this bum or that bum. The lesser of two evils, and if it looks likely that the greater of two evils will win you go out of your way to make sure your vote gets counted.

The problem is the primaries. That’s the most wickedly effective place to sew doubt about electability. Many of the Democrats in the United States are currently, if you’ll excuse the vernacular, pinging. They are bouncing off the walls, scared to death that somehow they are going to screw this up and get 8 more years of a Republican White House. All of the Republicans know this, and they know the two strongest candidates are the white woman and the black man. All of the closet racists and sexists know this too, and they are more terrified of a woman or a black man in the White House than anything else.

So, on television, they drop the question. “Are we ready for a woman?” “Are we ready for a black man?” It plays on the fears of the Democratic voters that they will do the one thing that could screw up this perfect setup by suggesting that the one thing that could screw up this setup is take a chance on a woman or a black man.

Now, for the traditional disclaimer in posts like this (lest someone answer that I want people to vote for a woman or a black just to vote for a woman or a black man) — Its one thing to go with Edwards or Dodd because you trust, like, and agree with them. It’s another thing entirely to be attuned politically to Obama or Clinton, then go and vote Edwards because you think someone will cancel your vote over race or gender. That’s what that question wants you to do. They figure if they ask it enough, everyone will ask that as they go to the ballot box and some people who would otherwise vote for one candidate will vote for another.

No one asks this if they think that a candidate will win solely on race or gender. They ask this because they are afraid that the candidate in question is too strong to attack on any other grounds, so they chip away at race and gender and play on our subtle prejudices and our fear of others prejudices.

Its a really, really dirty trick, designed to trick Democrats into choosing the safe (and ideally the weak) candidate and prevent making any further progress on civil rights in the United States. Its also becoming really damned obvious they don’t have any more stable ground for attack when they ask this inane question.

Dissent in the Hispanic Caucus:

Three female members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus accused the organization’s male leaders Thursday of treating women unfairly. Rep. Loretta Sanchez said the caucus chairman called her a “whore.”

Rep. Joe Baca denied uttering the insult, which Sanchez cited among grievances that led her to announce this week she was quitting the group.

“Let me be clear: Her comments are categorically untrue,” said Baca, who like Sanchez is a California Democrat.

“He said it. For him to deny it is just a silly thing,” Sanchez said in an interview.

This is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better, isn’t it?