Why a mom can lead the free world

Since announcing her candidacy for president, Hillary Clinton has received a lot of criticism for being too stern or unfriendly. Being the first female candidate for President of the United States with a real shot at succeeding, we have to ask, is it because she is a woman that she’s getting such bad press?

A year ago, when Clinton broadcasted her candidacy, she was immediately depicted as being too serious. Her campaign attempted to portray her as warm and friendly. No other politician in this race has been so widely discussed based simply on whether he was too serious, too friendly or too much of a politician. Politics is a serious business, so no politician should ever feel a need to be cheery or funny.

When we look at other major presidential candidates, such as Barack Obama, Mitt Romney or John McCain, none of them could be called happy-go-lucky. McCain could hardly be called soft or friendly, and Obama isn’t exactly known for his delightful sense of humor. So why is it so important that Clinton come across as warm and friendly?

The answer is not new. A classic stereotype of a woman is someone maternal, soft and affectionate, and according to critics, Clinton does not exude these stereotypical, womanly traits. But the bigger and not-so-surprising question is: How does this affect her quality as a political candidate?

In the history of the United States, no woman candidate has ever made it as far as Hillary Clinton in a presidential election, where 26 other countries have already elected women presidents. Would Clinton have made it this far if she came across as maternal? No. Voters wouldn’t have believed in her ability to be a strong leader if they saw her as having any amount of weakness, and maternal traits are weaker traits in the political sphere. Instead, her strength, her ability to compete with the male politicians is used against her. For Clinton, it’s a Catch-22: she can’t win either way.

Clinton has already had to reformat her campaign based on the fact that she’s a woman–signs for her don’t read “Clinton 2008” but “Hillary 2008,” in an attempt to separate herself from her already successful husband. Her campaign videos are all done in soft and warm colors, not the grays and whites of the other candidates. Did she have to do this because she’s a woman?

Before the New Hampshire primary, Clinton did show a strain of emotion in a moment of weakness. Suddenly, Clinton is all over the news as being overemotional. Then, after winning the New Hampshire primary, there was speculation that she won only because she showed emotion first, not because the voters believed in her.

So which is it? Do people want her to be like the other candidates, professional and stern, or do people want her to be emotional and “womanly”? Being the first woman in the United States to make it this far, this kind of inconsistency and hypocrisy was bound to happen. I just hoped that as voters, we had reached a point where gender acceptance was commonplace, but I guess I was wrong. I would rather hear debates on whether her foreign policy is well outlined or on her plans for Iraq than discussion of her top being low-cut (a ridiculous notion on John Edwards’ part–Clinton isn’t known for her risqué dress).

The discussion of being too serious or too emotional was never an issue when Ireland elected Mary Robinson as its first female president in 1990. In France’s last presidential election, Sarkozy’s main opponent, Ségol��퀌�ne Royal, was never questioned based on being too emotional, but was questioned based on her politics.

In the end, it’s not the gender or the sex of a candidate that determines his or her quality. You can disagree with their politics, but disregarding a politician because she may wear pantyhose is like disregarding a car because it doesn’t run on gas–you just wouldn’t do it.