Hillary, Hillary, Hillary

Poor Hillary Clinton. Has there ever been a woman in politics more scrutinized or criticized? More “dissected, deconstructed and decoded,” to quote this review of an anthology of essays on Clinton that underscores the media’s continuing obsession with the woman.

Based on excerpts in the review, it seems to me that the book, THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY, tells us more about its various well-known female contributors than it does about its subject.

Katie Roiphe writes that Clinton “is trying too hard” and “the spectacle of all of this trying is uncomfortable, embarrassing.” (Huh? Embarrassing to whom? Trying too hard how? If she is trying too hard, maybe it’s because the media and political pundits are expecting so much of her.) Susanna Moore “wishes Mrs. Clinton possessed ‘a certain … sensuousness’–as though this were a quality necessary for being commander in chief.” (Thank you! I mean, look at the last few administrations. Would you call any of those guys sensuous? And, no, Clinton’s husband, Mr. Quarter Pounder, was not sensuous, IMHO.)

Jane Kramer writes: “I continue to subject Hillary Rodham Clinton to the kind of scrutiny I would never think to apply to men. I look at the men running for president and ask myself if their politics are mine, or close enough to mine to be appealing. My interest in Barack Obama runs mainly to: Can you do the job? Are you brave enough for it? Do you have the vision for it? Can you take the heat? My question for Hillary Rodham Clinton is: Why do you want the job? What kind of woman does that make you?” (Well, at least this one’s honest enough to admit having a double-standard. But who gives a rat’s ass? Why would you care any more about a woman’s motives than a man’s? Or less about her capabilities?)

Nora Ephron has called herself a “Hillary resister,” claiming the senator “will do anything to win,” and won’t take “a position unless it’s completely safe.” (Have there been any serious male presidential contenders who don’t seek whatever winning edge they can get or have truly pushed the envelope on issues? And, no, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Ralph Nader never stood a chance, so they don’t count!) And hard-core feminists take her to task for staying with Bill after the Monica thing. (Puh-lease! Ancient history, none of your business and what does it have to do with her ability to act as President, anyway?)

To the reviewer’s credit, the writers are taken to task for their various biases and peculiar views on what Clinton could or should be.

In conclusion, the review states: “In the end, this volume of reflections corroborates Mrs. Clinton’s own long-ago observation that she is ‘a Rorschach test’ for voters. It also suggests that like three other famous blondes (Marilyn, Madonna and Princess Di), she’s in danger of being turned into one of those indeterminate semiotic texts academics love to deconstruct, made to signify everything from the aging of boomer dreams to the future of feminism, even as her every gesture and inflection is sifted, measured and weighed, and her actual résumé and record are increasingly shoved to the side.”

And that flies in the face of everything the women’s movement was supposed to be about–being judged on your merits. Which, regardless of what you think of Clinton’s politics and personal choices, is just a damned shame.