The Specter of Weakness: the Absent Clinton Campaign Strategy In

Home , Hillary Clinton

The Specter of Weakness: The Absent Clinton Campaign Strategy in Combating Toxic Masculinity Dafnah Strauss and Limor Bar On, Department of Politics and Communication, Hadassah Academic College

Within hours of the 2016 elections, pundits and scholars alike began to search for explanations for the causes for Hillary Clinton’s defeat. This flood of analyses covered a gamut of causes, including, among others, long-term economic and social conditions, demographics and turnout, the role of traditional and new media, the Comey effect, and, of course, the uniqueness of the two leading candidates. While recognizing that no one explanation will suffice, this paper seeks to join the discussion by exploring and critiquing the choices made by the Clinton campaign in the wake of a series of closely related events: Hillary Clinton’s bouts of coughing during the first week of September, her fall as she was helped into a van after leaving the 9/11 memorial event in New York, and the subsequent announcement by her campaign that she was suffering from a mild case of pneumonia (Golshan 2016). In focusing on one episode in a long and volatile election season, we hope this paper sheds light on two larger aspects of the 2016 elections: the degree to which gender bias complicated and constrained the Clinton campaign, and the serious misjudgment of the Clinton campaign regarding this challenge. Our argument can be summed up thus: Although a unique combination of causes brought about Clinton’s defeat in the elections, there is an underlying cultural constraint in American society which explains why a large segment of the public could vote for, and even embrace, an extremely flawed man, but was unwilling to put an experienced, talented and highly qualified woman—arguably the most accomplished woman in American politics— into the White House. This constraint is the elusive and subtle yet deeply seated cultural fear of the archetype of the unruly, dangerous woman. We further argue that this cultural constraint posed a complex challenge for the Clinton campaign, especially in face of Donald Trump’s viscously negative campaign of toxic masculinity, which did not adhere to accepted boundaries of political language, a challenge that Clinton and her team failed to counter. Polls conducted over the years have suggested growing acceptance among Americans toward a “well-qualified” Madam President (Horowitz 2007; Pew Research Center 2015; Connelly et al. 2016; Malone 2016). Nevertheless, the political arena has remained a challenging place for women candidates, especially when running for executive offices (Conroy et al. 2015); for women seeking the presidency, as we all know, it has been

1 impossible. To quote Karrin Vasby Anderson (2002:126), who has researched the field extensively, it seems that “the requirements for qualification tip the scale dramatically in favor of male candidates.” The presidency—the office of the top executive and commander in chief of the armed forces—has always been a position steeped in a mythic image of masculine prowess. The figure of the president has been constructed for over two centuries now through a gendered discourse as the hypermasculine “symbolic head of the national household”: a heroic and virtuous father and protector who has self-confidence, is tough and competitive yet rational and self-directed (and until the recent elections, also self-disciplined). These highly symbolic expectations of the presidency pose in themselves a barrier for women candidates (Wahl- Jorgensen 2000; Duerst-Lahti 2007; Heldman 2007:27). But the barriers do not stop there. As men continue to occupy far more top managerial positions in businesses and corporations, in the military and in many branches of government (Broadwell 2012; Rodríguez 2014:235–236; Egan 2015),male candidates are perceived as more competent in economic and military issues. More importantly, fewer women candidates can enter the political arena with the experience and accomplishments that are deemed relevant to public life. Thus, in a quest for public support, a male candidate running against a woman can usually demonstrate more easily his viability and electability as a candidate and his expected advantage once elected to office (Gordon and Miller 2001). Furthermore, the news media in such races tends to view men’s candidacies as more viable than those of women, thus exacerbating existing media patterns that marginalize women candidates both in volume of coverage and in tone (e.g., Aday and Devitt 2001; Carlin and Winfrey 2009; Carroll 2009; Klenke 2011; Dittmar 2015, and see references therein). In the recent presidential campaign—even more so than in 2008—Clinton had by far more public-service, policy-making and political experience compared to all other candidates, both Democratic and Republican. This became all the more obvious when Donald Trump, having experience in none of these domains, became the Republican presidential candidate. This most apparent contrast offered the Clinton campaign what seemed to be a simple and persuasive argument. And, indeed, the theme of Trump as unfit for the presidency made up a significant part of the Clinton message. For example, of the 42 ads released by her campaign and by ‘Priorities USA’ from the beginning of August to election day, nine explicitly convey

2 this message, and 13 convey it indirectly, by portraying him as misogynist, racist, liar, and tax evader, altogether a theme imparted in almost half of these ads.1 Simultaneously, Donald Trump’s lack of governmental or public service experience posed a challenge for his campaign. Unable to attack Clinton’s viability as a candidate in the traditional manner, by linking her femininity with lack of public experience, the Trump campaign quickly moved to attack her femininity in a vastly different way: by deploying some of the most primeval, misogynic stereotypes and tropes used in western culture to denigrate women. This strategy proved very successful. Not only did it answer the needs of the Trump campaign, but it soon became apparent that a large segment of the public was willing to listen to it, accept it, believe in it, amplify it and act accordingly on Election Day and beyond (note the Pizzagate shooting; Aisch, Huang and Kang 2016). This message worked well in a campaign that from its beginning, in the ‘testing grounds’ of the GOP primaries, was steeped in toxic masculinity and a deep hostility to ‘political correctness’ and to basic rules of civility (Brooks 2016): Trump used slurs and foul language against Hispanics and a range of other social and cultural ‘others’, misogynic language against Carly Fiorina and other women, demeaning language against his male rivals, and inciting language against journalists. Thus, by the time he clinched the GOP nomination, Trump had a unique but well-tested and normalized political discourse and style of campaigning that easily accommodated his message on Hillary Clinton. And although stylistically extreme, this hyper-misogynic message nevertheless drew on and fitted into several widely-accepted and intertwined rhetorical patterns and narratives in addition to that of the hypermasculine presidency: (a) the archaic yet ever-present fears of powerful, unruly women; (b) gender- biased press coverage of women candidates; and (c) Hillary Clinton’s “troubling and contradictory political image” (Parry-Giles 2014:180). This strategy proved to be much more forceful and salient than what the Clinton campaign perceived it to be, and one that it miserably failed to address. * * * The events of Sunday, September 11th, 2016, are well known. Hillary Clinton attended the 9/11 commemoration ceremony in New York that morning, but left before it was over and was seen staggering, possibly fainting, as she was helped into a van that took her to her daughter’s apartment. Clinton left her daughter’s place about two hours later, telling the

1Ads retrieved from The New Republic 2016 Campaign Ad Archive (https://newrepublic.com/political-ad- database; accessed Dec. 10, 2016).

3 reporters “I’m feeling great. It’s a beautiful day in New York.” At first, her campaign explained her abrupt exit as a case of overheating, but later that day released an announcement that Clinton was diagnosed with a mild case of pneumonia. By then, however, a recording of her staggering and being almost shoved into the van went viral, and the media was in a state of frenzy, with commentators wondering if she would have to drop out of the race (Martin and Chozick 2016). These events, fairly dramatic themselves, came after Clinton had suffered several fits of coughing in interviews and campaign events over the summer. A video of one of these bouts, taken at a Cleveland rally on Labor Day (Sept. 5), was already circulating widely on the internet, with the help of the Trump campaign (Cathcart 2016; Golshan 2016). This became one in a series of videos and ads released and circulated by the Trump campaign that represent Clinton negatively deploying fearmongering. Of the 33 ads produced by Trump campaign, 22 focus on Clinton, depicting her as wrinkled and old-looking, her face distorted or even somewhat deformed, particularly when she is laughing. These ads are all accompanied by words associated with dishonesty, manipulation, malevolence and danger.2 Furthermore, the September 11th incident came not long after Trump had stirred the media and his supporters into a discussion, having much of the trappings of a conspiracy theory, about Clinton’s health. On Aug. 6th, for example, Trump said at one rally that Clinton “took a short-circuit in the brain. She’s got problems. Honestly, I don’t think she’s all there” (Foley 2016), and at another that she is an “unbalanced person” and “unstable (Diamond 2016).” Then, around mid-month, fake medical records, purporting to show that Clinton suffers from seizures and dementia, received mainstream attention after the Trump campaign embraced their “finds” (Farley 2016; Golshan 2016). All this time, trump continue to return to this theme in his rallies, as he did on August 15th, at an event in Youngstown, Ohio: Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment, as said by Bernie Sanders, stability, and temperament and the moral character to lead our nation. Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS and all of the many adversaries we face (Foley 2016). The theme of Clinton’s frail health, however, was not new, neither in Trump’s campaign nor among his followers. Conservative media outlets, such as Fox News and the Drudge Report, as well as alt-right groups, had been discussing the topic since 2014, suggesting that Clinton

2 Ads retrieved from The New Republic 2016 Campaign Ad Archive (https://newrepublic.com/political-ad- database; accessed Dec. 10, 2016).

4 was hiding a serious physical or mental ailment which originated in her 2012 concussion and resulted in seizures (Foley 2016; Gearan and Phillip 2016). Borrowing from these sources and refueling them, Trump began advancing the theme of Hillary’s poor health early in the primary season, when he said in November 2015, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” the following: I think that my words represent toughness and strength. Hillary’s not strong. Hillary’s weak, frankly. She’s got no stamina; she’s got nothing (Gearan and Phillip 2016). He reiterated his words shortly after at a rally in Iowa: [s]he’ll do a couple of minutes in Iowa, meaning a short period of time. And then she goes home. You don’t see her for five or six days. She goes home, goes to sleep. I’m telling you. She doesn’t have the strength. She doesn’t have the stamina (Dec. 5, 2015; Clairborne 2015). Several days after the September 11th events, Trump returned to the topic of Clinton’s health by referring to the “tremendous stamina” the presidency demands: “You think Hillary would be able to stand up here for an hour and do this? I don’t know. I don’t think so” (A. Smith 2016). The measure of success of Trump’s repeated attacks on Clinton’s health and stamina is revealed in a staggering eight million hits found in Google for “Hillary” + “health” compared to the four million hits for “Trump” + “health” (many of which are, no doubt, his comments on Clinton’s health); and this despite the fact that the two candidates are very close in age, and Trump is the older of the two. It has been pointed out that although Clinton has been subject over the years to a wide range of attacks, an assault on her staying power was new; indeed, it was precisely her unusual endurance that tended to raise unease among many of her detractors. While some commentators suggested that these “coded, always personal,” attacks were “aimed at raising questions in voters’ minds” as to whether her “age could affect her ability to serve,” others saw them as a manifestation of sexism (Gearan and Phillip 2016). We would like to argue that indeed, this was a coded sexist language, and that ageism—which for women is closely associated with sexist double standards (Chrisler, Barney and Palatino 2016)—was deployed in the service of sexism. Accordingly, the emphasis on illness and frailness served not only to question Clinton’s viability as a female candidate without needing to mention her extensive experience, but also to enhance a range of images that are negatively associated with femininity, namely those comprising the archetype of the unruly woman. Historically, as Kathleen Hall Jamieson (1995:53) reminds us, “women have been identified as bodies not minds, wombs not brains.” Although the medical and scientific

5 arguments of the Victorian Age have been long rejected, deep-seated cultural beliefs enhanced by popular cultural images continue to inform the stereotyped female body as “fleshy, leaky, and linked to the primitive, “whereas the male body is “associated with the mind, logic rationality, and civility.” Women are thus understood to be frail, weaker, more irritable and less in control of their bodies, hence more predisposed to illness and insanity than men (Smith-Rosenberg and Rosenberg 1973; Lim 2009; Kosut and Moore 2010:4). And since this stereotypical gendered body is a discursively maintained cultural construct, to reiterate Judy Butler (1990) in Gender Trouble, it serves as the base line for the discursive sanctioning of culturally approved behavior. Women who overstep gendered expectations by seeking a public role of agency must walk a thin line between asserting themselves in the masculine political arena and demonstrating their femininity—by signifying motherhood, nurturance and domesticity, or through an appearance that is pleasing to the male gaze—otherwise they are prone to be discursively disciplined. The line is thin indeed, posing what Jamieson (1995) identified as a series of double binds, or what would be termed in everyday talk, a “lose-lose situation.” Such women must be cautious not to over cultivate their femininity, for they will be judged unfit for the task; but if they display male-like expertise and language patterns, they endanger the naturalized order, and gendered boundaries will almost always be rhetorically reaffirmed by deeming them unruly (Campbell 1998:5; Lim 2009). This is done through language that mechanizes and masculinizes them as aggressive and cold—e.g., radical, feminist, lesbian, emasculator, iron maiden; refers to the female body and to female sexuality in offensive, animalistic terms—e.g., cunt and bitch; and depicts these women as manipulative, deviant tricksters, who are agents of sin and madness—e.g., the mentally ill, the witch, the devil (e.g., Campbell 1998; Anderson 1999; 2011; Heldman 2007; Carline and Winfrey 2009; Lim 2009; Smith 2010; Giordano 2016; Ritchie 2013; Colmenero-Chilberg, forthcoming). These examples are only a fraction of the terms used against women who have sought to enter political life, especially on the national level. All of these terms have been used over the years in both mainstream and fringe media, as well as by political adversaries, to depict Hillary Clinton. As an outspoken feminist, who publicly refused to be a stay-at-home mom, who emphasized her professional accomplishments, employed a forceful, masculine-like rhetoric, was directly involved in political affairs as First Lady, remained with her husband despite his sexual scandals, and eventually sought an independent political career, Clinton’s coverage tended to be violent, offensive, demonizing, even dehumanizing, and shaded with misogyny and sexual innuendoes. In addition to the examples above, she has been portrayed

6 as a cold wife in a marriage of convenience, who compromised the president’s and “America’s heroic masculinity,” driving him to other women; as “cankles,” referring to her unattractive, thick ankles; as pantsuits, nutcracker, testicular fortitude and cyborg; as “Shrill,” referring to her devil-like, high-pitch voice; Lucifer; and as Lady Macbeth (e.g., Toner 1992; Jamieson 1995; Campbell 1998; Anderson 1999; Lim 2009; Miller, Peake and Boulton 2010; Smith 2010; Tucker-McLaughlin and Campbell 2012; Richie 2013; Parry-Giles 2014; Giordano 2016; Blake and Sellers 2016). These images comprise various manifestation of the archetype of the unruly, powerful women, the manipulative and dangerous women, who has overstepped her gender boundaries and must be disciplined. It is thus not surprising to find the image of jail—with the accompanying chants of ‘locked her up’—as the ultimate twenty-first-century trope for the discipline of such a woman. A drowning test or burning at the stake would be, after all, too much of a give-away, although in 1996, a Hillary voodoo doll with ready-to-tear-off limbs was sold at the Republican convention (Smith 2010:14). As the ‘lock her up’ chant suggests—although we will need to await full-fledged studies to assert the following claim— the deployment of the tropes of the unruly woman in the 2016 campaign reached an unprecedented peak. One cluster of these figures—the witch, the devil and Lucifer—deserve more scrutiny. Far beyond a simple notion of evil, they clearly carry complex meanings, which seem to have been in play during the recent election, as these meanings are closely associated with women, with the female body and with ageism. Moreover, they are linked with the notion of rebellion against society and God, which stand, among other things, for the socially sanctioned gendered order. The witch, a common figure in popular culture, was considered for centuries—and by some even today—to be ‘in league with the devil’, able to manipulate the natural order, and bent on the destruction of the well-ordered Christian society. Women were especially vulnerable to charges of witchcraft, and comprised the vast majority of people executed for such deeds. The most common image of a witch was that of an old hag. Indeed, most of women accused of witchcraft were old women, many of which were considered sexually driven, an idea closely associated with the notion of women being sexually voracious (Bailey 2003:xxi–xxii, xxxvi, 5–6, 37–38; Lim 2009). This last notion was coupled with the understanding, prevalent in Puritan society and lingering ever since, that the female body—weak, porous, leaky and moist as it were—could not provide adequate protection for their soul, as the male body did. Hence, the souls of women were at risk. Whereas witches made an active choice to conjoin with Satan, women in

7 general were in danger of passively succumbing to the devil (Reis 1995). This state of the female soul, which in medieval times was considered to be inherently sinful, had a similar negative association with laughter. Due to the unstable fluids, the humors, that made up their bodies, women were considered less capable than men to control their behavior and more prone to excess, unruly passions. Laughter was one sign of this uncontrollable unruliness (note the etymological link between ‘humors’ and ‘humor’ and the conceptual link between excessiveness and hysteria). It was also a behavior closely sanctioned: the wise, sexually controlled woman only smiled; the foolish, sexually promiscuous woman, who did not heed to gendered boundaries (and thus associated with the ‘woman on top’ trope), sniggered and laughed out loud in public. This dichotomy has outlived the medieval ages, and is still echoed in contemporary stereotypes (Perfetti 2003:13). This bears out in the numerous and well- traversed referrals to Clinton’s laughter, both by the Trump campaign and the echoed- echoing social media, and the close association of many of these to her depiction as a witch (Lim 2009).3 While the Trump campaign made use of these multi-layered tropes—either out of ingenuity or just by stumbling upon this symbolically rich field, but nevertheless knowing how to make the most of it—the media was a central player in enhancing the effect of the Trump campaign. Numerous articles have already been penned on the role of the media in this election campaign. Nevertheless, one should realize how traditional conceptions of the political arena as a masculine territory continue to create media ambivalence, if not outright hostility, toward women in positions of power, and even more so toward women who seek such positions (e.g., Aday and Devitt 2001; Carlin and Winfrey 2009; Carroll 2009; Klenke 2011; Dittmar 2015, and see references therein; on the role of popular culture in perpetuating these notions, see Vaughn and Michaelson 2013). Perceived as a deviation from the norm and straddled by a ‘competence/likeability’ double bind (Jamieson 1995; Lim 2009), women candidates are repeatedly submitted to harsher scrutiny than their male counterparts, and the media tends to be marginalize, stereotype, and objectify them to the point of pornification (Jamieson 1995; Carlin and Winfrey 2009; Anderson 2011). Women candidates tend to receive less media coverage, and this coverage dwells more on their body, attire, personality, emotional state, marital or parental status, and less upon their positions, experience and accomplishments, even when they are more experienced

3 A Google search for “Hillary” + “laughing” gives over 13 million hits (https://www.google.co.il/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF- 8#q=%22hillary%22+%2B+%22laughing%22; accessed January 4, 2016).

8 than their male opponents and make issues a cornerstone of their campaigns (e.g., Kahn and Gordon 1997:74; Aday and Devitt 2001:54–56; Heldman, Carroll and Olson 2005; Woodall and Fridkin 2007; Carlin and Winfrey 2009; Heldman, Oliver and Conroy 2009). While gender is an unmarked trait for male candidates, women’s gender is often described as relevant to their candidacy, either explicitly, to suggest that they are less viable candidates than their male contenders (Kahn and Gordon 1997; Aday and Devitt 2001:54–56), or implicitly, by alluding to traditional stereotypes of femininity and by using belittling metaphors and images that liken them to children and pets. Furthermore, attacks on women candidate, even when humorous, tend to use degrading imagery, and can easily move into disparaging and obscene language (e.g., Heldman, Carroll and Olson 2005; Carline and Winfrey 2009; Anderson 1999; 2011). As demonstrated above, the coverage of Hillary Clinton over the years fit into this pattern, although it always represented an extreme case. Following the 2008 Democratic primaries, leading scholars and pundits argued that her campaign was seriously constrained by sexism and negative gender stereotypes which were advanced across the media (e.g., Coco 2008; Carlin and Winfrey 2009; Carroll 2009; Lawrence and Rose 2009; Lim 2009; Falk 2008; Anderson 2011; Ritchie 2013). These and other studies have identified several recurring themes in the negative gendered frames used in Clinton’s press coverage over the years; two are particularly interesting. Clinton has often been portrayed as a calculating and overly ambitious woman (has any man ever been overly ambitious?), so fanatically hungry for power that she used unconventional tactics, for she “could not handle a bare-knuckle fight” (Lim 2009:262). This frame is related to her depiction as a dangerous, smart but evil Lady Macbeth. A second theme in Clinton’s portrayal is her “inauthentic” figure. Shawn Parry-Giles (2014:179) argues that the press advanced this frame because it was unable to accommodate Clinton’s complex, at times contradictory, womanhood. As she defied accepted gender roles, her “femininity” could not be a true one, leading to her representation as deceitful, secretive, evasive and “inspired by unbridled political ambition”. Once again, we see how themes in Clinton’s press coverage fall squarely within larger cultural themes concerning the archetype of the dangerous, unruly woman. Women who subvert and threaten to destabilize deeply seated gendered expectations raise the suspicion that they achieve power and enact it through indirect, manipulative methods, namely by sexual attractiveness or, conversely, by withholding sex (Landay 1998:6). A “fundamental tenet of the social relations of the sexes in American culture” explains Lori Landay (1998:11–

12), is that “[t]he only way for women to survive, given their subordinate position and limited opportunities for exercising overt power, is to use the covert power of the female trickery.” It is not surprising then to see a First Lady whose husband was implicated in several sex scandals portrayed through this frame, and for a campaign the 2016 slogan depicting her as ‘crooked’ having the saliency it enjoyed (Patterson 2016b). Clinton’s media coverage during the 2016 campaign was the combined outcome of traditional patterns in covering woman candidates in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular; and of Trump’s unique ability to dominate the political communication arena and “meet the media’s professional values and needs” (Sheafer 2008:3). A series of studies conducted by the Harvard Shorenstein Center on Media found that throughout the election season (mid-2015 – November 2016) Clinton’s media coverage was proportionally more negative compared to all other presidential candidate, including Donald Trump, reaching at times a high of ten negative items to one positive (Patterson 2016a; 2016b; 2016c; 2016d; Stein 2016). This was already evident during the pre-primaries period. More pointedly, Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down Clinton. Trump’s positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end (Patterson 2016a). This was facilitated through two meta-narratives used by journalists. The first was that Clinton was the candidate best prepared for the presidency; the second was that she represented the political and the money elites, was distant and robotic, was less than trustworthy, and that voters couldn’t relate to her. The second narrative dominated the coverage. For one, Clinton’s extensive experience in public service, prior to being First Lady, during those years and as U.S. senator and Secretary of State, was all but absent from the press coverage. And then were her emails, which received by far more attention than her policy positions and were covered negatively over 90% of the time. Consequently, Clinton’s controversies, which took the form of ‘scandals’, got 19-to-1 more negative coverage and al in all four times more attention than Trump’s treatment of women. Moreover, it got 16 times more attention than her most heavily covered policy position. It is not surprising then, that the discussion of the two candidates’ fitness for office was virtually identical in terms of its negative tone, what was widely termed ‘the false equivalence’ (Patterson 2016b; 2016c; 2016d).

This situation provided Trump with better opportunities to define Clinton than vice versa. And since he was by far more brash at doing so, he not only enjoyed more coverage, but had a larger voice in Clinton’s press coverage. As a result, his “lock her up” and “make America great again” were heard more often in the news than Clinton’s “stronger together” and “he’s unqualified” messages (Patterson 2016d). Furthermore, as Clinton’s controversies were more focused, badgering her “had a laser-like focus.” The state of her health is a case in point, as its coverage was four to one negative over positive (Patterson 2016c; 2016d). All this leads us back to our case study—the specter of weakness in Clinton’s September 11th episode. To recap: the archaic fears, prevailing popular culture images and media trends that continue to inform gendered attitudes toward women who seek positions of power—let alone when it is Hillary Clinton and the position is that of the presidency—pose formidable obstacles. One could argue that this is said in hind sight. However, the extensive research literature on female political candidates in general and in what has recently been dubbed “Hillary Studies” (Edwards 2011) is full of warnings. When read against the backdrop of Trump’s unique campaigning strategies and political discourse—already in full sight when the national campaign began—these signs of warning scream: beware! Did the Clinton campaign take heed? Our case study clearly indicates that it did not. Two response strategies were apparent both prior to September 11th and in its aftermath. The first was statements to the press, first affirming Clinton’s “excellent health” (Golshan 2016; Healy 2016) and later reporting her improved health Golshan 2016; Chozick and Haberman 2016). The second was Clinton’s participation in entertainment-oriented talk shows (Cathcart 2016). This medium allowed her to laugh away rumors and concerns while presenting herself in a laid-back, friendly venue that appeals to large numbers of viewers and focuses their attention on candidates’ personal qualities and likeability (Baum 2005). For example, On August 23rd, Clinton appeared on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’, where she joked about the rumors concerning her health and leisurely discussed Trump’s strategy of saying ‘wacky things’. “Back in October, the National Enquirer said I would be dead in six months,” she commented, as she asked Kimmel to take her pulse. After jokingly finding “nothing there”, Kimmel handed her a jar of pickles to open (NPR 2016; for additional interviews see: D’Addario 2016; Chozick 2016; Haskell 2016). Although such shows and friendly interviews have become a must on every candidate’s campaign (Baum 2005), appearance on them, much like the essential statements to the press, was too conventional for the task, leaving a lackluster impression. The negative effects of this rather bland strategy was exacerbated by Clinton’s almost complete absence from the campaign trail during the month of August, as

11 the month was dedicated to extensive fundraising, leaving her with very few public campaign events (Haskell 2016). The marks of lackluster conventionality and lack of creativity are also striking when examining Clinton’s website statements (‘The Feed’).4 This tightly controlled messaging platforms was never deployed for building a dynamic, healthy-looking image for Clinton. Granted, an explicit reference to Clinton’s health might have worked to needlessly re-echo the topic without the much-needed damage control. But, with only two items with any reference to Clinton’s stamina—one penned by a professional woman boxer, who describes Clinton as having a “fighting spirit” and one who “stays on her feet and stays focused on what’s important to her…” (Ali 2016), and one penned by Jimmy Carter, who writes “That’s a special thing about Hillary—when there’s a job worth doing, she doesn’t abandon it” (Carter 2016; emphasis in the original)—the missed opportunities become all the more apparent. Lastly, None of Clinton’s ads—another tightly controlled platform, but exponentially more widely-circulated—address the issue of Clinton’s health. Clinton’s appearances in the 42 ads released from the beginning of August to election day are all pleasant-looking, of course, but none are made to convey stamina, energy, or forcefulness.5 This style fits the clean, “old-school”, all-in-all civil and optimistic approach that characterized the operation of the Clinton campaign. Such an approach, however, is inherently ill-suited for a neck to neck race, as the 2016 race was; nor is it helpful in a race in which one side conducts a viciously negative campaign. This plays out clearly when comparing the ads produced by the two campaigns. A full two-thirds of Trump’s general campaign ads present a violent message of dehumanizing and delegitimizing Hillary Clinton: her image was doctored to make her witch- like and the language was not only violent but made ample references to the archetype of the unruly woman. In comparison, while about half of Clinton’s ads discuss Trump’s unfitness for the presidency, only a quarter or so of the ads refer to his personality flaws, but none are violent or doctored, even when using footage of his own words or expressions; some do not even include an image of his.

4 The Clinton campaign statements (The Feed) retrieved from https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/ (accessed November 12, 2016). 5Ads retrieved from The New Republic 2016 Campaign Ad Archive (https://newrepublic.com/political-ad- database; accessed Dec. 10, 2016).

To conclude: Clinton’s stumble on September 11th set off a press furor of speculation in the United States and around the world regarding her health and the future of her candidacy. Furthermore, it landed a full-blown discussion of her health into the mainstream media, raising suspicion of a cover-up along-side the concerns (Golshan 2016). The events raised doubts among votes as well. A HuffPost/YouGov survey showed that following these events, there was a 13-point drop, from 52 to 39, in the percentage of Americans who believe that Clinton was in good enough health to assume the presidency (Foley 2016). We believe that with more effective damage control, undertaken immediately upon Clinton’s first episode of coughing, the September 11 incident may have remained in public discourse more closely aligned with what it really was: a stumble. Although not ignoring the allegations concerning Clinton’s health, her campaign personnel failed to adequately address them. Mistakes were both small and large: from failing to provide Clinton with unwrapped lozenges at the right moment to failing to effectively counter or deflect the overbearing and multi-layered theme of illness and physical weakness advanced by the Trump campaign. Thus, during the second half of August and early September, Clinton’s campaign lost miserably in controlling the public image of their candidate, and with the “help” of Trump’s allegations of Clinton’s illness and his negative campaign, the situation soon escalated into a full-blown calamity. This, of course, was particularly critical since the race was neck to neck. In a tight race, candidates must conduct a negative campaign in order to undermine their rival. But whereas Trump’s campaign did exactly that, Clinton’s campaign did by far less, as evident when comparing the ads released by each campaign. Clinton’s attack ads were very mild compared with those of Trump, and her dominant message of inclusiveness could not counter Trump’s negative messages. Besides being more effective in a tight race, a far more aggressive message could have imparted an energetic image onto the Clinton. We further argue that besides ads and statements a campaign team could use numerous tactics in order to deflect a candidate’s unhealthy image and to proactively build a positive, health-radiating image. A talented campaign manager would have promptly acted to minimize the damage caused at the first signs of illness, let alone a public fall. Such tactics abound: being ready with unwrapped lozenges and with alternative speakers, and having the press take photo-ups of the candidate the day after the first coughing spell, as she is jogging through the park or working-out at a fitness club. A really talented campaign manager would spread these photos throughout the web, so as to grab millions of ‘likes’ and ‘shares’. But

Clinton’s campaign did nothing of this, and literally “waited” for its “9/11” event to happen, with all the literal and figurative connotations it entails. A really talented campaign manager, well-versed in the research literature on woman candidates and on Clinton’s public image over the years, would have a deeper understanding of the damning effect of such a multi- layered theme of illness and physical weakness advanced against a woman, not very young in age, candidate. Sadly, especially for those who hoped to see at last a woman in the Oval Office, the words of Marie Cocco’s from 2008 are still relevant: There are many reasons Clinton [lost]…, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for “change.” But for all Clinton’s political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

Bibliography Aday, Sean and Devitt, James. 2001. Style over Substance: Newspaper Coverage of Elizabeth Dole's Presidential Bid. Press/Politics 6/2:52–73. Aisch, George, Huang, Jon and Kang, Cecilia. 2016. Dissecting the #PizzaGate Conspiracy Theories. New York Times (Dec. 10). http://www.nytimes.com/interactive /2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Ali, Laila. 2016. On Boxing, Hillary Clinton, and my Dad. Hillaryclinton.com (Aug. 17). https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/on-boxing-hillary-clinton-and-my-dad/ (accessed Nov. 13, 2016). Anderson, Karrin Vasby. 1999. “Rhymes with Rich”: “Bitch” as a Tool of Containment in Contemporary American Politics. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 2/4:599–623. Anderson, Karrin Vasby. 2002. From Spouse Candidates: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Dole, and the Gendered Office of US President. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5:105–132. Anderson, Karrin Vasby. 2011. “Rhymes with Blunt”: Pornification and U.S. Political Culture. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 14/2:327–368. Bailey, Michael D. 2003. Historical Dictionary of Witchcraft (Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements, No. 47). Lanham–Oxford. Baum, Matthew A. 2005. Talking the Vote: Why Presidential Candidates Hit the Talk Show Circuit. American Journal of Political Science 49/2:213–234. Blake, Aaron and Sellers, Frances Stead. 2016. Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky and Lucifer, explained (July 20). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/

2016/07/20/hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-and-lucifer-explained/?utm_term =.d26324213a28 (accessed Dec. 27, 2016). Broadwell, Paula. 2012. Wanted: Women in top military roles. CNN: Security Clearance (Feb. 22). http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/22/wanted-more-women-in-military- roles/ (accessed De. 22, 2016). Brooks, Anthony. 2016. Trump’s War On ‘Political Correctness’ Is at the Center of His Appeal. WBUR: Politicker (July, 21). http://www.wbur.org/politicker/2016 /07/21/trump-political-correctness (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Brown, David and Gearan, Anne. 2012. Hillary Clinton’s blood clot in her skull, doctors say. Washington Post (Dec. 31). https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health- science/hillary-clintons-blood-clot-most-likely-in-a-leg-experts-say/2012/12/31/ d2c853ea-5376-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html?utm_term=.e6c1fc24b097 (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Bruce, Mary. 2014. Hillary Clinton Took 6 Months to ‘Get Over’ Concussion, Bill Says of Timeline. ABC News (May 14). http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/ hillary-clinton-took-6-months-to-get-over-concussion-bill-says-of-timeline/ (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York. Campbell, Karlyn Kophrs. 1998. The Discursive Performance of Femininity: Hating Hillary. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1:1–19. Carlin, Diana B. and Winfrey, Kelly L. 2009. Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage. Communication Studies 60/4:326–343. Carroll, Susan J. 2009. Reflections on Gender and Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: The Good, the Bad, and the Misogynic. Politics & Gender 5:1–20. Carter, Jimmy. 2016. Why I will proudly cast my vote for Hillary. Hillaryclinton.com (Sept. 2). https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/why-i-will-proudly-cast-my-vote-for-hillary/ (accessed Nov. 13, 2016). Cathcart, Corinne. 2016. A Look Back at Hillary Clinton’s Health. ABC News (Sep 11). http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-hillary-clintons-health/story?id=42019034 (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Chrisler, Joan C., Barney, Angela and Palatino, Brigida. 2016. Ageism Can be Hazardous to Women’s Health: Ageism, Sexism, and Stereotypes of Older Women in the Healthcare System. Journal of Social Issues 72/1:86–104.

Chozick, Amy. 2016. Hillary Clinton Treats Theories About Coughing Attack with Dose of Humor. New York Times (Sept. 6). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/ politics/hillary-clinton-health.html?_r=0 (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Chozick, Amy and Haberman, Maggie. 2016. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Give More Details on Their Health. New York Times (Sept. 14). http://www.nytimes.com /2016/09/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-health-donald-trump.html?_r=0 (access Dec. 22, 2016). Clairborne, Matthew. 2015. Clinton Laughs Off Trump’s Claims That She Lacks ‘Stamina’. ABC News (Dec. 6. 2015). http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-laughs-off-trumps- claims-lacks-stamina/story?id=35586047 (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Cocco, Marie. 2008. Misogyny I Won’t Miss. The Washington Post (May 15). http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403090.html (accessed Dec. 10, 2016). Colmenero-Chilberg, Laura. Forthcoming. Women’s Agency as Madness: From “The Yellow Wallpaper” to Penny Dreadful. In Sharon Packard, ed. Mental Illness: Reflections in Popular Culture (Literary Theory and Cultural Studies, Leuven). Connelly, Marjorie et al. 2016. Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy and the State of Gender Discrimination in The United States: Issue Brief. The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (August) http://www.apnorc.org/projects/ Pages/HTML%20Reports/hillary-clintons-candidacy-and-the-state-of-gender- discrimination-in-the-united-states-issue-brief.aspx (accessed Dec. 10, 2016). Cuordileone, Kyle A. 2005. Manhood and American Political Culture in the Cold War. New York. D’Addario, Daniel. 2016. Jimmy Fallon’s Softball Interviews with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Aren’t Good TV. Time (Sept. 20). http://time.com/4501145/jimmy-fallon- hillary-clinton-donald-trump/ (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Diamond, Jeremy. 2016. Trump Escalates Attacks on Clinton’s Character. CNN (Aug. 6). http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-unhinged- lock-her-up/ (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Dittmar, Kelly. 2015. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 2007. Masculinity on the campaign trail. In Lori C. Han and Caroline Heldman eds. Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House. Boulder. Pp. 87–112.

Egan, Matt. 2015. Still Missing: Female Business Leaders. CNN Money: Leading Women (March 24). http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/24/investing/female-ceo-pipeline- leadership/ (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Falk, Erika. 2008. Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns (2nd ed.). Urbana, Ill. Farley, Robert. 2016. Fake Clinton Medical Records. FactCheck.Org (Aug. 16). http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/fake-clinton-medical-records/ (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Foley, Ellse. 2016. Donald Trump Questions Hillary Clinton’s ‘Mental and Physical Stamina’. The Huffington Post (Aug. 15). http://www.huffingtonpost.com /entry/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-health_us_57b221dbe4b007c36e4fc559 (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Gearan, Anne and Phillip. 2016. Behind Trump’s Strong New Push to Attack Clinton as ‘Weak’. Washington Post (Jan. 1). https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/behind-trumps-strong-new-push-to-attack-clinton-as-physically-weak/ 2016/01/01/96e3196c-ae65-11e5-b820-eea4d64be2a1_story.html?utm_term=. 266c83421c08 (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Giordano, Michela. 2016. “The Ultimate Spinner”: Metaphors of Evil in Hillary Clinton’s Media Coverage. In Elisabetta Gola and Francesca Ervas, eds. Metaphor and Communication (Metaphors in Language, Cognition & Communication 5). Amsterdam. Pp. 201–216. Golshan, Tara. 2016. How Hillary Clinton’s Health Passed from an Online Conspiracy Theory to a Mainstream Debate. Vox (Sept. 13). http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12 /12888498/hillary-clinton-health-conspirac (accessed Dec. 10, 2016). Gordon, Ann and Miller, Jerry. 2001. ‘Does the Oval Office Have a Glass Ceiling? Gender Stereotypes and Perceptions of Candidate Viability’. White House Studies, 1: 325– 333. Haskell, Josh. 2016. Clinton Hits Back at Trump’s Questions About Her Stamina. ABC News (Sept. 5). http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-hits-back-trumps-questions- stamina/story?id=41877640 (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Healy, Patrick. 2016a. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Ages 68 and 70, Share Few Health Details. New York Times (Aug. 22). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/ 08/23/us/politics/clinton-trump-health.html (accessed Dec. 22, 2016).

Heldman, Caroline. 2007. Cultural Barriers to a Female President in the United States. In Lori C. Han and Caroline Heldman eds. Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House. Boulder. Pp. 17–42. Heldman, Caroline, Carroll, Susan J. and Olson, Stephanie. 2005. “She Brought Only a Skirt”: Print Media Coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s Bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Political Communication 22:315–335. Heldman, Caroline, Oliver, Sarah and Conroy, Meredith. 2009. From Ferraro to Palin: Sexism in Media Coverage of Vice Presidential Candidates (Paper presented at the American Political Science Association conference, Toronto, ON, Canada, September 2009). file:///C:/Users/Dafnah/Downloads/SSRN-id1459865.pdf (accessed Dec. 10, 2016). Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2007. How the World Rates Women as Leaders. Pew Center Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes & Trends (Dec. 5) http://www.pewglobal. org/2007/12/05/how-the-world-rates-women-as-leaders/ (accessed Dec. 10, 2016). Jamieson, Kathleen H. 1995. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. New York. Kahn, Kim Fridkin and Gordon, Ann. 1997. How women campaign for the US Senate: Substance and strategy. In Pippa Norris ed. Women, Media, and Politics. New York. Pp.59–76. Klenke, Karin. 2011. Women in Leadership: Contextual Dynamics and Boundaries. Bingley. Kosut, Mary and Moore, Lisa Jean. 2010. Introduction: Not Just the Reflexive Reflex: Flesh and Bone in the Social Sciences. In Lisa Jean Moore and Mary Kosut, eds. The Body Reader: Essential Social and Cultural Readings. New York. Landay, Lori. 1998. Madcaps, Screwballs, and Con Women: The Female Trickster in American Culture. Philadelphia. Lim, Elvin T. 2009. Gendered Metaphors of Women in Power: The Case of Hillary Clinton as Madonna, Unruly Woman, Bitch and Witch. In K. Ahrens ed. Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors. London. Pp. 254–269. Martin, Jonathan and Chozick, Amy. 2016. Hillary Clinton’s Doctor Says Pneumonia Led to Abrupt Exit from 9/11 Event. New York Times (Sept. 11) http://www.nytimes. com/2016/09/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-pneumonia.html (accessed Nov. 20, 2016). Malone, Clare. 2016. From 1937 To Hillary Clinton, How Americans Have Felt About A Woman President. FiveThirtyEight: Politics (June 6). http://fivethirtyeight.com

/features/from-1937-to-hillary-clinton-how-americans-have-felt-about-a-female- president/ (accessed Nov. 20, 2016). Miller, Melissa K., Peake, Jeffrey S. and Boulton, Brittany Anne. 2010. Testing the Saturday Night Live Hypothesis: Fairness and Bias in Newspaper Coverage of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign. Politics & Gender 6:169–198. Newport, Frank. 2016. Clinton’s Image at Lowest Point in Two Decades. Gallup: Election 2016 (July 25). http://www.gallup.com/poll/193913/clinton-image-lowest-point-two- decades.aspx (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). NPR 2016. Watch: Clinton Opens Pickle Jar in Response to Rumors About Her Health. NPR (Aug. 23) http://www.npr.org/2016/08/23/491044473/watch-clinton-opens-pickle-jar- in-response-to-rumors-about-her-health (accessed Dec. 22, 2016) Parry-Giles, Shawn J. 2014. Hillary Clinton in the News: Gender and Authenticity in American Politics. Champaign. Patterson, Thomas E. 2016a. Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy in Conjunction with Media Tenor. http:// shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pre-Primary-News-Coverage- Trump-Sanders-Clinton-2016.pdf (accessed Dec. 13, 2016). Patterson, Thomas E. 2016b. News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy in Conjunction with Media Tenor. http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content /uploads/2016/07/Election-2016-Primary-Media-Coverage.pdf (accessed Dec. 13, 2016). Patterson, Thomas E. 2016c. News Coverage of the 2016 National Conventions: Negative News, Lacking Context. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy in Conjunction with Media Tenor.http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/09/2016-Convention-News-Coverage.pdf (accessed Dec. 13, 2016). Patterson, Thomas E. 2016d. News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy in Conjunction with Media Tenor. http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads /2016/12/2016-General-Election-News-Coverage.pdf (accessed Dec. 13, 2016). Perfetti, Lisa. 2003. Women and Laughter in Medieval Comic Literature. Ann Arbor. Pew Research Center. 2015. Women and Leadership: Public Says Women are Equally Qualified, but Barriers Persist. Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends

(14 Jan.) http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and- leadership/(accessed Dec. 13, 2016). Reis, Elizabeth. 1995. The Devil, the Body, and the Feminine Soul in Puritan New England. The Journal of American History 82:15–36. Ritchie, Jessica. 2013. Creating a Monster: Online Media Constructions of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary Campaign,2007–8. Feminist Media Studies 13/1:102– 119. Rodríguez, Victoria E. 2014. Women & Politics in the Americas: Political Representation and Policy Agendas in the Executive Branch (Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Policy Research Project Report 179). Austin. Sheafer, Tamir. 2008. Charismatic Communication Skill, Media Legitimacy, and Electoral Success. Journal of Political Marketing 7/1:1–24. Smith, Gay. 2010. Lady Macbeth in America: From the Stage to the White House (Palgrave Studies in Theatre and Performance History). New York. Smith, Allan. 2016. Donald Trump is starting to repeatedly needle Hillary Clinton’s ‘stamina’. Business Insider (Sept. 15). http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump- hillary-clinton-health-stamina-2016-9 (accessed Dec. 22, 2016). Smith-Rosenberg, Caroll and Rosenberg, Charles. 1973. The Female Animal: Medical and Biological Views of Woman and Her Role in Nineteenth-Century America. The Journal of American History 60:332–356. Stein, Jeff. 2016. Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage. Vox (May 20). http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton- media-bernie-sanders (accessed Dec. 11, 2016). Toner, Robin. 1992. The 1992 Campaign: Political Memo; Backlash for Hillary Clinton Puts Negative Image to Rout. New York Times (Sept. 24) http://www.nytimes.com /1992/09/24/us/1992-campaign-political-memo-backlash-for-hillary-clinton-puts- negative-image.html?pagewanted=all (accessed Dec. 3, 2016). Tucker-McLaughlin, Mary and Campbell, Kenneth. 2012. A Grounded Theory Analysis: Hillary Clinton Represented as Innovator and Voiceless in TV News. Electronic News 6/1:3–19. Vaughn, Justin S. and Michaelson, Stacy. 2013. It’s a Man’s World: Masculinity in Pop Culture Portrayals of the President. In Justin S. Vaughn and Lilly J. Goren eds. Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics. Lexington. Pp. 135–159.

Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. 2000. Constructing Masculinities in US presidential Campaigns: The case of 1992. In Annabelle Sreberny and Lisbet van Zoonen eds. Gender, politics and communication. Cresskill, N.J. Pp. 53–77. Woodall, Gina Serignese and Fridkin, Kim L. 2007. Shaping Women’s Chances: Stereotypes and the Media. In Lori Cox Han and Caroline Heldman Ed. Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House? London. Pp. 69–86.