Hillary: Shrill or Just Assertive

Note: This has been cross-posted from Anonymous Is A Woman

I watched the entire debate last night. In truth, I thought all the Democratic candidates did well.

Barack Obama seemed a bit tired and his voice was hoarse and somewhat weak at certain points. But he stayed on his message of hope, inspiraton and inclusiveness, which worked so well for him in Iowa.

In addition, when attacked, he remained calm and stood his ground. All and all, he gave a solid performance.

Edwards was articulate and impassioned as he insisted that the only way to bring about the change that voters want is to stand up and fight the special interests.

While both Obama and Edwards are claiming the titles of “agents of change,” their styles are very different.

Hillary seems to have stayed with the message that her candidacy offers change through experience and insisted that she has spent a lifetime accomplishing real change.

Now, I’m not a big Hillary supporter, but I am frankly surprised that this video clip, above, is going around as an example of her shrillness.

It’s sound byte taken out of context. She was responding to an attack on her by both Obama and Edwards. At the time, she interrupted to correct the record because Bob Gibson, the moderator, was getting ready to move on.

She did what any good candidate would, and demanded time to respond.

I guess it’s a matter of perspective but what some would call her “angry style” or shrillness, I saw as assertiveness.

I also think it goes back to an old and very real problem of perception that all professional women face, and not just from men but from other women too.

When a man stands his ground aggressively, it’s seen as strength. When a woman does it, she’s seen as being a bitch.

It makes me wonder how a woman can run for office and get a fair shake.

Obviously, lots of times she can and does. We have many successful women candidates who have run at the local, state and national level. Indeed, Hillary has run two successful Senate campaigns.

The difference between running for the presidency and those other offices, however, is that the balancing act for a woman is particularly difficult.

More than any other office in the land, the presidency absolutely requires a person who will be strong enough to be able to protect our national security. Voters need to know that the person they elect to lead them will be tough enough to respond to any national threat. But a woman who strikes a tough stance is still disliked by the public, even the liberal voting public.

This, then, begs the question: Is America ready yet for a woman president?

I think so. But I’m not sure Hillary, for all her obvious intelligence and competency will be the one.

But I don’t think it will be because of clips like this, likability or perceived shrillness.

I suspect it will be a mixture of Clinton fatigue and a desire to move beyond the battles of the past.

But tapes like this are beside the point. They are just campaign fodder by opponents. In truth, Hillary did as well as any of the other candidates last night in articulating her message. And she struck the proper note of assertiveness that would be needed in a President of the United States. She is not, after all, running for Magnolia Queen or Miss Congeniality. She’s running, like all the others, to be leader of the free world.

~ by anonymousisawoman on January 6, 2008.