For all the attention paid to Hillary Clinton’s plan for healthcare, her foreign policy experience and her plans to reform financial aid for college students, these topics continue to compete for attention with the aspect of her candidacy that is perhaps easiest to grasp — if elected, she would become the first woman president. Though her election would be a watershed in American history, Clinton’s policy positions would prove more influential over the next four years of her presidency than any symbolic significance attached to her gender.
Nevertheless, talking heads watching her candidacy, as well as strategists within her campaign, have relentlessly highlighted her gender as either a blessing or a curse, depending on their agenda. Campaign workers have joined the candidate herself in telling the public how hard it is for a woman to run for president against age-old prejudices.
Regardless of whether this is constructive to the political process, Clinton has the right and the ability to play this gender card as long as it helps women and some men voters identify with her. This is to be expected from a presidential campaign.
Media commentators, on the other hand, should think twice before delving too deeply into the effect Clinton’s femininity has on her campaign before it dominates their coverage at the expense of larger issues. Savvy political watchdogs should know better than to over analyze how her cracking voice and hint of tears could throw an election.
Clinton has also highlighted more of her specific policy initiatives than either of her Democratic rivals, however. Though distinguishing herself on policy is no tall order between John Edwards, who has resorted to repeating vague promises of social justice, and Barack Obama, who reveals his opinions less often than most of the voters he counts on, Clinton nevertheless deserves credit for balancing her appeals to women with substantive talk on the issues.
So far, the strategy seems to help Clinton, with many women voters reporting they identify with her struggles. This plan may backfire if the candidate proceeds into the general election and the Republican nominee resorts to the harsher attacks that always come late in a presidential run.