After 227 years of white men in the nation’s highest office, this election has experienced a “surge” in diversity. Among the announced Democratic candidates are half Mexican-American Gov. Bill Richardson, half African-American Sen. Barack Obama, and full Woman-American Sen. Hillary Clinton. Yet while Clinton has the novel opportunity to potentially be the first female politician nominated for the presidency by a major party, her surname will constantly remind us that she is not just any lady.
As comedian Amy Poehler stated while lampooning the senator on “Saturday Night Live,” Clinton has been running for president since she was five years old. Her records as a student, attorney and politician are all laudable and compatible with the nation’s highest office. In spite of her efforts to spotlight her own accomplishments and marginalize her femininity, her connections to the very masculine, very sexed Bill could poison her campaign. His past scandals, along with whatever is to be unearthed in the next 22 months, will distract from her platform and damage her appeal.
Herein lies the irony and tragedy: the campaign which should empower ambitious, individualistic women is contingent on the public’s reception of a philandering husband. Ignoring her marital status, Clinton would be the ideal symbol for the female achiever. Intelligent, articulate and sexless, she represents a challenging counterpoint to the traditional politician. Unfortunately, she is married to a former president who was impeached for improper conduct. The public will not be able to view her in isolation from her husband, regardless of how hard she tries to distance herself during the campaign. By evoking memories of Paula, Jennifer and Monica, an opponent could easily raise the question of Clinton’s values and severely, if not fatally, wound the campaign.
Clinton is not the first female candidate to suffer because of her husband’s misdeeds. Geraldine Ferraro, Democratic vice-presidential nominee for the 1984 election, drew criticism and lost public support because of her husband’s suspicious tax filings. His unscrupulous financial behavior led many to question her suitability for the vice-presidency. While Mr. Clinton’s relevant transgressions are more physical than fiscal, the same principle applies: a woman politician must answer for both herself and her husband’s personal actions. The inverse does not necessarily hold; President George W. Bush was never politically burdened by his wife’s 1963 car crash which resulted in the death of another driver. Whereas certain unfortunate events can be shuffled to the background, the senator’s spousal connection will remain front and center.
I do not wish to claim that Clinton won’t win because of her husband’s baggage or would win if she had no association with him at all. The injustice of the situation extends beyond her, since it communicates a poor message regarding the autonomy of accomplished, independent women. While her run is historically significant, her possible failure may reveal that our culture is not as progressive as we think it to be. This is especially relevant for Georgetown, which is a community littered with female students with aspirations to achieve top governmental positions historically dominated by men. Their careers and goals could be jeopardized by the perception of their spouses’ records and behaviors. If Hillary’s journey to the presidency is cut short due to her husband’s male proclivities, women across the nation should be frustrated with the country’s social climate.
