A Woman's Place is in the (White) House

Camryn Bierria, Miranda Jackson, Hinal Patel

Presidential Primaries

Mercer University

Abstract:

The nation's top executive office is arguably the most masculine in American politics.

The presidency is often considered a gendered space in which masculine norms and images are considered to be the ideal. Female candidates running for the presidency not only face gendered treatment by opponents and voters, but media, image politics, and gender dynamics continue to shape American views on a woman’s ability to establish a legitimate candidacy. This dynamic was clearly seen through Hilary Clinton’s run for the presidency in 2016 where media coverage outlets treated her differently than her male counterparts. Our study provides a gateway into assessing how this same dynamic plays into the current presidential primaries, specifically the ways in which Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are portrayed by various media sources.

Introduction:

Gender dynamics have been at play in the U.S. presidential elections for many years and continue to guide current party nominations. Many political theorists and authors have described the presidency as a gendered space in which masculine norms and images are reified as the ideal, adding, "the masculinist assumption-made-normal is strong and is made even stronger when it goes unnoticed for its gendered aspects" (Dittmar). As a result, female candidates are often expected to meet the masculine expectations of the office through their words, actions, dress, etc.

Female candidates face gendered treatment by opponents, voters, and media, reminding us that presidential politics is far from gender-neutral” (Dittmar). One study that analyzed social media rhetoric for the 2020 elections found that “Female candidates are frequently marginalized and attacked on character and identity issues that are not raised for their male counterparts, echoing the problems found in the traditional media in the framing of female candidates”. In addition to this, women running for president received significantly more negative tweets from right-leaning and non-credible sources than did male candidates” (Oates). Due to this, “women face the no-win situation of being either warm and womanly or competent and masculine. In other words, they must choose between highlighting their communal traits and running as nurturing candidates or emphasizing agentic traits and running as strong equals to their male counterparts”

(Bradley). This inevitably affects their media coverage no matter which route they choose to go down. “In an examination of five consecutive presidential elections, a study found a strong correlation between the amount of coverage that presidential candidates received and the proportion of people with an opinion about those candidates. Therefore, the incidence of coverage received is important to address not only because women have consistently received less coverage than men in political campaigns, but also because more coverage may influence public opinion of a candidate” (Bradley). In this paper, we seek to address the ways in which the media has contributed to the 2020 presidential election as two female candidates, Amy

Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren, have both received unequal treatment as a result of their gender.

Research and Findings:

It is evident that gender is one of the primary fault lines running through contemporary

American politics. The media coverage of women in America reinforces rather than challenges the dominant culture, thereby contributing to women's marginalization in public life. A prominent example of this can be traced to Hillary Clinton's historic run as the 2016 Democratic

Party nominee. Media coverage treated her differently as first lady, senator, and then soon enough presidential candidate. The media and rhetoric surrounding her campaign allow scholars and journalists to contextualize decades of scholarship on sex, gender, and the American presidency. Several months before Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy to be the 2016

Democratic presidential nominee, political commentators speculated about whether or not she would run for president “like a woman” (Heldman). From the very beginning, it seemed that her gender was going to play a big role in the outcome of the election and many have noted that throughout the process she was “held to different standards than her male competitors in terms of negative framing, consideration of scandals, and evaluations of fitness for the office” (Heldman).

One of the topics the news media seemed to focus on specifically is Clinton’s appearance. This was not surprising since “much research to date notes the persistent gender differences in coverage of men and women candidates' appearance (where coverage of women includes more attention to hair, hemlines, and husbands), as well as the implications of those disparities for women candidates' support and success” (Dittmar). One Slate Columnist wrote that “Hillary Clinton isn't a lesbian, but she dresses like one” (Dittmar). Matt Drudge, a political commentator, claimed that “Hillary Clinton must be wearing wigs, posting a series of tweets perpetuating his theory and making it a front-page story on his site” (Dittmar). Texan radio host and Trump supporter Alex Jones stated that "[Hilary Clinton] is a creep, she's a witch, she's turned over to evil”. He continued on to say “Look at her face… All she needs is green skin”.

Jones even played a video comparing the former first lady's laugh to a hyena (Taylor-Coleman).

These ongoing references to Clinton’s appearance were also accompanied by criticism on the way she spoke. “At an October 2015 debate, Bernie Sanders responded to Hillary Clinton's criticism of his record on gun policy by arguing that "all the shouting in the world" would not end gun violence” (Dittmar). As a response, Clinton stated that "I've been told to stop, and, I quote, 'shouting about gun violence.' Well, first of all, I'm not shouting. It's just when women talk, some people think we're shouting” (Dittmar). Many saw this as Clinton using her gender to her advantage. At a rally in Washington, Trump told the crowd "You know, she's playing the woman's card...If she didn't play the woman's card she would have no chance, I mean zero, of winning” (Khalid). It seemed that there really was nowhere for Clinton to turn since any route she decided to take resulted in a discussion of her gender, appearance, or tone. What made this more interesting was that “Clinton was arguably the most qualified presidential candidate in history and certainly was the most qualified in the modern political age. By contrast, Trump had no political or military experience” (Heldman). Heldman, in her book “Sex and Gender in 2016

Election” continues on to state that “We could expect the press to be vigilant in pointing out the substantive differences in experience, preparedness, policy positions, and strengths and weaknesses as political leaders. Instead, we find that the press favored Trump in the amount and type of coverage he received, that the press artificially leveled Clinton’s and Trump’s fitness for the office, and covered unsubstantiated scandals in a way that hurt Clinton” (Heldman). Political leaders and the press effectively framed Clinton in sexist ways that diminished her candidacy.

Hilary Clinton’s run for the presidency provides a gateway to understand just how much sexism is embedded in the election process.

The issue with how female candidates running for the presidency are portrayed in the media is that they are unable to write their own narrative. While their actions are within their control, what has emphasis placed on it is decided by those within the media. While one might state that this cycle is always the nature of the press, there is a clear difference between which areas are focused on and magnified in a female candidate and which areas are of interest in a male candidate. Amy Klobuchar is a significant example of just how far this division between candidates can go. Tone, standard and emphasis are all major ways the media is able to portray female candidates differently than men, and specifically how they have written Klobuchar into the presidential race.

Klobuchar, having dropped out of the race, has been one to face gender stereotypes head-on. In an exit interview with the New York Times, she spoke on the current state of the democratic nomination process by posing the question: “Were they looking for a man to run against Donald Trump?” (Lerer). It would appear that, unfortunately, people have been looking for a man for much longer than this election. With no female presidents up to this point and no female vice presidents as well, one can assume that this is not just an occurrence with the state of

Trump’s possible re-election. Television commentators, such as Meghan McCain, have been quick to make remarks on this issue, saying that the media often portrays women candidates as

“not likable…too shrill…not warm enough. It’s every woman that runs and I think there’s a feeling of exhaustion among a lot of American women” (Musto). It raises the question of expectations. Female candidates, throughout the media, appear to have been given much higher standards. McCain continues by also raising a question: “When are we going to start treating them like men?” (Musto).

The media has undoubtedly created its own narrative for Senator Amy Klobuchar. Mean, nasty, aggressive and inexcusable have all been terms used to describe her behavior by the press.

Klobuchar herself has stated that these standards are not “measure[s] we use with men” (Golden and Holzberg). One of the main issues that the media has expressed with Klobuchar is how her interactions with her staff have appeared. In some articles, Klobuchar has been compared with another seemingly aggressive candidate, Bernie Sanders. However, articles state that “both can be tough on the people who work for them, though Klobuchar has been accused of harsher treatment” (Cramer and Hensley-Clancy). A former communications aide to Klobuchar spoke on her interactions with staff stating, “Male senators yell quite a bit. But if a woman yells at you, it’s like, ‘I got yelled at by my mom.’,” further reinforcing the idea that bias goes into this process (Flegenheimer and Ember). Klobuchar’s treatment of staff has been labeled in news articles as “not just demanding but often dehumanizing” (Flegenheimer and Ember).

However, Klobuchar is not the only candidate to have had issues with their staff and complaints from within. Klobuchar’s suggested treatment of staffers has defined her campaign, while it has been something one must search for in other campaigns. While she has held the highest turnover rate for staff in the Senate, fellow former Democratic candidate Senator Cory

Booker was in the top four senators with highest turnover rates in 2019 (“Worst Bosses?”).

However, he has not seen the same narrative within his run for the presidency. In addition, one of the current candidates, former Vice President Joe Biden, has had a former aide write a memoir about his days within the Biden staff, calling his boss an “egomaniacal autocrat,” and stated that

Biden was “determined to manage his staff through fear” (Martin). Biden has also received claims of poor treatment of his staffers in Iowa (Klippenstein). Another top candidate, Bernie

Sanders, has received attention for a pay gap between women and men in his staff, as well as female staffers reporting incidents of sexual harassment during Sanders’ 2016 campaign (Oster).

Not surprisingly, many articles address this with an allowance for Sanders to rebut negative comments and stand up for himself (Clark). To add to the comparison of Klobuchar to other Democratic campaigns, Trump has also faced many absurd claims of his treatment of staffers. Trump staffers have sued for pregnancy discrimination and have made claims about the president’s moral integrity (Gerstein). Some articles have even accused Trump’s staffers of blatantly ignoring the president (Graham).

Ex-staffers have referred to Trump as an “egocentric micromanager”, stating that “Donald loves

Donald” (Laughland). Trump himself has set a record for the White House turnover rate of staff

(Wise). 61 percent of his senior aides have left their position, in comparison to Klobuchar’s 34% turnover rate (“Worst Bosses?”). In the cases of male opponents such as Booker, Biden, Sanders, and Trump, the accusations have only been part of their media coverage. Why then are the claims against Klobuchar so heavily ingrained into her entire personhood? Asal Sayas, a former

Klobuchar staffer, spoke on this topic stating that “Women shouldn’t be expected to nurture their employees or colleagues more than men, and they should be no less entitled to challenge them”

(Jones). However, the media is quick to call this view “poisonous”, stating that a positive spin should not be placed on Klobuchar’s high standards (Miller).

Klobuchar has also been attacked for her “nasty” behavior (Wegmann). In one article titled “Minnesota Nice Gets Nasty: Klobuchar Snaps at Buttigieg”, Klobuchar is framed as an overly aggressive candidate in her run-in with fellow former candidate Pete Buttigieg during a debate, where both took part in a discussion over policy (Wegmann). The entire article, as it so clearly portrays in the title, seeks to point out Klobuchar as the vile candidate, even though it goes on to say “in truth, it was the boyish-looking “Mayor Pete” who smilingly stuck the knife in first” (Wegmann). Klobuchar is not fortunate enough to have equal colloquialisms and is made the villain of the situation, even though facts are stated that both candidates took part. While her male counterparts, if they had engaged in this same discourse, may have been declared victorious and assertive in taking on another candidate, Klobuchar remains “nasty” (Wegmann). Klobuchar has also stated that while Buttigieg is qualified, she does not believe that a woman with his same experience could gather the same support as himself. “Could we be running with less experience than we had? I don’t think so. I don’t think people would take us seriously,” Klobuchar stated to the New York Times (Astor). She continued and argued that “Women are held to a higher standard. Otherwise, we could play a game called ‘Name Your Favorite Woman President’”

(Astor).

Buttigieg and Klobuchar have been compared many times, both being what some voters, unfortunately, see as an oddity, as Klobuchar is a woman and Buttigieg is the first openly gay man running for presidential office, as well as their moderate democratic stances being similar.

In one interview, with both of these candidates being brought up into a discussion, a voter spoke her concern with a woman running for president, and stated “Those old white guys? They aren’t going to listen to a woman” (Kruse). The interview continued and the woman was asked whether she thought Buttigieg could win over a woman, to which she replied yes. “Does that disappoint you?” she was asked, but the woman just replied, “No, I think that’s the way it is” (Kruse).

Articles continue to scrutinize Klobuchar in comparison to Buttigieg, especially concerning how both candidates dropped out of the race on the same day. In a Buzzfeed article titled “Amy

Klobuchar May Be Out Of The Race, But Her Wrath Will Endure,” Klobuchar is criticized for her choice to drop out of the race hours after Buttigieg, so, as the article states, that she could have “one last triumph over the perfect Pete Buttigieg” (Miller). In this, Klobuchar is cited as having a “churning rage” towards her opponent, and the article states that during debates she had “at least a few moments of rage that suggests Klobuchar in her suit and New Balance sneakers pulling out a book of matches” (Miller). It is unfortunate that a decision to drop out of the race, along with her male counterparts, is skewed as part of a woman’s “wrath” and “rage” (Miller).

Another incident in which Klobuchar was treated vastly different than her male adversaries is an interview in which Klobuchar, Buttigieg and fellow candidate Tom Steyer were all asked to name Mexico’s president in a Telemundo interview. Buttigieg could recall the name, while both Steyer and Klobuchar could not. However, Steyer’s forgetfulness was pushed aside, while Klobuchar’s memory gap was not. Articles headlined stating that “Amy Klobuchar’s ignorance on Mexico is inexcusable” included the factual evidence that both Steyer and

Klobuchar made the same mistake, but chose to write their own narrative on who should be the one villainized (Krauze). “That Steyer, a billionaire who has never held elected office, could not recall the name of a foreign leader might be forgivable,” the article claims, “but Amy Klobuchar, a sitting U.S. Senator, is another matter” (Krauze). Steyer is allowed a hall pass for his wealth, yet Amy Klobuchar, a woman who has also had a noble position of being a Minnesota Senator, is deemed “inexcusable” (Krauze). In this case, not only gender but wealth create an environment where Klobuchar is, once again, measured to a different standard by the media.

Article after article chooses to place emphasis on Klobuchar’s mistake, while Steyer sees no stand-alone articles drawing attention to himself on the same mistake.

The issue of the forgotten name and Klobuchar has been attributed to her loss of momentum in Nevada’s primary. It is uncomplicated to pose the comparison of Steyer and

Klobuchar in this area, but it is even a more significant contrast when you compare Klobuchar’s one-time memory gap with frontrunner Biden’s long-standing issues with misspeaking. New York Times summed up Biden’s slips of the tongue by saying “He has mixed up countries, cities, and dates, embarked on off-message asides and sometimes he simply cuts himself off” (Glueck).

In the past few months alone, Biden has claimed that he was “a Democratic candidate for the

United States Senate” (Jacobs), called a student attending an event in New Hampshire a “lying dog-faced pony soldier” (Noor), and referred to a group as “O’Biden Bama’ Democrats”

(Burke). Different media outlets have even created lists such as “Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes” and

“The Many Ways That Joe Biden Trips Over His Own Tongue” (Glueck). However, this all relates to the narrative written about both candidates. Referring to Biden’s speaking flukes, Steve

Drahozal, a Democratic chairman from Iowa, says that “It doesn’t necessarily bother me’

(Glueck). Instead, Drahozal describes Biden’s “halting speaking style” as something that “might simply be thoughtful” (Glueck). Biden has countered the repetitive rhetorical issues by putting teleprompters as the foundation for his speaking engagements and shortening his speeches, with the media simply calling this as a new “strategy” (Wootson Jr.). While both candidates,

Klobuchar and Biden, have received heavy coverage for their speaking gaffe(s), Klobuchar’s narrative is that she has inexcusable behavior, while Biden is seen as thoughtful. The media has allowed the deeply driven bias of a female’s role to warp the expectations given to female candidates. The sense of equality seems to be nonexistent. Men are held to much lower standards throughout, as clearly displayed throughout Klobuchar’s campaign.

While standards are gapingly different between female and male candidates as portrayed throughout the media in how their mistakes are amplified, standards also have a wide division in how women are expected to be likable and warm in comparison to men running for president.

Our current president, speaking on Elizabeth Warren who has now dropped out of the race, stated, “People don’t like her. She’s a very mean person and people don’t like her, people don’t like her. They like a person like me that’s not mean” (Cillizza). This sentiment was also greatly seen at the debate on February 20th, 2020 when she cracked down on all of the candidates on the stage. This was met with her being portrayed not as strong, like her male counterparts would have been, but angry. While Bernie Sanders gets applauded for being angry, many of the female candidates are brought down due to that same emotion and put into a box that showed them what they could and could not be. Elizabeth Warren, like her counterpart Klobuchar, faced challenges when it came to the media and their presentation of the female candidates.

Elizabeth Warren was what many would say to be a strong contender when it came to the

2020 presidential election. She had the skills, the background, and the policies that many wanted out of a president. Though she was just as qualified and just as strong as her other opponents on the stand, she still was looked down upon within the media and criticized heavily. In the early levels of her campaign, she was watched like a hawk. Many people said that Elizabeth was a promising candidate from the beginning of her campaign, but as her campaign continued and the media projected certain aspects of her, that sentiment began to fall. Coming into the presidential election, sexism was rampant and continued to get worse as the months went by and the female candidates dropped out. Up until the end, unreachable expectations of how Elizabeth Warren should have been in her campaign, executed herself during debates, and handled herself after she dropped out were all pushed through the media. Elizabeth Warren was raised up in the beginning just to be dragged down by the end.

The media has a way of shaping narratives for others whether there is oversaturation within the media or they are underrepresented within the media. When it comes to women in politics, there is a shaping of the narrative that takes it out of the ladies’ hands and creates a story that tends to not be the absolute truth. This feeds into the theory of media sexism which is

“the (re)production of societal sexism through under- and misrepresentation of women in media, leading to a false portrayal of society through a gendered lens”(Haraldsson, Wängnerud). Media sexism follows a female presidential candidate before they even tell the world that they are running. It comes in the form of how the articles are shaped, and what is said within these articles. Usually, it is about how “surprising and bold” it is that this candidate will run in whatever political election that they are running for. For Elizabeth Warren, this was no different with her and the presidential campaign.

Warren was a target of Donald Trump’s tirades as a senator, and that did not stop once she became a presidential candidate. Before she announced her run for the presidency, Trump said at a rally, “I see those candidates before my eyes, every night before I go to sleep, sometimes while I am sleeping, I love them so much...Corey Booker, Pocahontas…” The heritage of Elizabeth Warren was a topic of debate for a while with many trying to figure out if she was actually Native American or not. Trump ran with it and continued to call her Pocahontas whenever he referenced her. Elizabeth Warren's claim on her heritage and Trump calling her out was always something that belittled everything else that she did. This was due to what was focused on by the media that decided to focus only on Warren and Trump’s interactions, rather than her actual entry into the 2020 Presidential Campaign trail. This carried on into the beginning of her campaign and started it off on a slightly slanted trajectory. Though she was hailed as being strong with what she was presenting, this narrative around her heritage and Trump’s racism towards it had already started to take control of the narrative surrounding her presidential capability.

In the beginning and towards the middle of her campaign, there was a better focus on her campaign and her presidential campaign. There were fewer articles discussing her heritage and more talking about her policies and what she planned to do as president. Though this shift occurred there still seemed to be oversaturation regarding Warren and certain topics that she would discuss while on the campaign trail. Every word that she said was nitpicked and overanalyzed no matter what it was. Due to this over-analysis, only portions of what Warren said at certain events were taken into context while the rest were left out. This was seen with her discussion of tech companies and how she was planning to break them up.

Warren has continually addressed big businesses within the tech field and how she would like to limit the control they had over the field and in the government. Warren stated that “I want a government that makes sure everybody ― even the biggest and most powerful companies in

America ― plays by the rules. And I want to make sure that the next generation of great

American tech companies can flourish. To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and his throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor.” This portion of what she said presented the core meaning of the solution she was raising and it was ignored by most of the media sections that produced articles surrounding this topic. The media focused on her talking about taking apart the companies and shaped it as an attack rather than showing the background behind it. It took deep-diving into articles to create a full understanding of what she had said and even to get the basics that Warren had stated more than her breaking apart the companies. This over-saturation of this one topic and the misrepresentation of what she said led her to face many challenges when it came to her campaign and getting followers.

It could be argued that this happens to all political candidates whether they are male or female but that would undermine the more intense impact that it has on the female candidates.

When this oversaturation occurred it was all that was discussed about Elizabeth Warren and began to be seen as something that “ended her campaign.” In one article the writer said Warren

“has gone off the rails. Frantic to stand out in a crowded field of Democrats running for ​ president, the Massachusetts senator has grabbed ahold of one outlandish policy after another, leaving most common sense Americans far behind. Her most recent idea? Breaking up

America’s successful tech companies, which have created untold wealth for the United States and are the envy of the world” (Peek). They went on to say, “Instead, Warren has probably concluded that her moment has passed” (Peek). They began to deem her finished even though it was the beginning of her campaign and many of the people discussing it did not see the whole picture. Many of the other male candidates produced similar “outlandish” topics at the beginning of their campaigns but they weren’t faced with the oversaturation nor the thought that their campaign was over. It was a “let’s see where this goes” rather than a “they have sealed their fate” type of narrative. That is where it differs for men and women candidates. Women are criticized harsher, and over-analyzed while men get to say what they want and not be criticized as harshly or as long as women, no matter what they say. Men are seen as progressive while women are seen as “desperate” and damaging to their political careers.

The high expectations surrounding women politicians within the media allows for disproportionate anger and harsher criticisms to be brought down upon them. When Warren did not directly say that she would give monetary compensation as a form of reparations for ​ African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves, they highly criticized her. Though this question had been asked to many of her counterparts with Bernie Sanders saying, “What do they mean? I'm not sure that anyone is very clear. What I've just said is that I think we need to do everything we can to address the massive level of disparity that exists in this country”, she was the only one highly criticized for not having a direct answer to the topic (Lee). Warren did say, “I believe that's what's right is we to sit down, we need to talk about our history, we need to address it head-on, we need to talk about what the long-term implications of racial discrimination have been, including more recent racial discrimination" which was neither a denial or acceptance but a different proposal (Lee). The way that the headline produces it by saying “Elizabeth Warren declines to say if she supports financial compensation as a form of reparations” allows for more ​ ​ misconstruing of what actually occurred and with such a big topic at hand, allowed for unwarranted hate to be fueled for Warren in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Race (Lee).

The high expectations did not leave Warren even after she dropped out of the race with many people on social media criticizing her for not endorsing someone right away, specifically

Bernie Sanders. When people objected on social media, especially the platform Twitter, many people came down hard on Warren because they felt that she was not doing enough as an elected ​ ​ official. This caused a debate surrounding what was expected out of a candidate once they removed themselves out of the race between a few users on Twitter with User @TheBlackLayers saying “An elected public servant doesn’t owe us anything??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????...” (Pictured

Below) r, Theresa S: X .a'\, ,o \.~ t, Breya M. Johnson •i :fr ',1:TlleBlackLayers She doesn't owe you an endorsement. She does owe An elected public servant doesn't owe us you her policy work in the Senate. This isn't anything???????????????????????????????????????? complicated. No one flipped out when other candidates ??????????????????????????????????????????????? didn't endorse right away.. . She's back to her day job of ??????? crafting bills designed to help us.

::., T Ray-Ray O :n-Russi,rn Stc1r-r Mar 9 Elizabeth Warren doesn't owe you shit.

S poggermoment ·: ,. 1 18 PM Mar 10. 7070 ~~ . She claims to be progressive yet out of Berni e and Biden she hasn't endorsed anyone??? 6.8K Rct•Nccts 53.2K Likes

Many said that she had already “screwed them over”(Pictured Below Left )

0biden bama 20.. uh ... 3030330

The first photo is of Al Johnson who made 200 calls for Bernie the night before he died of cancer.

In the second photo is Elizabeth Warren days after she suspended her campaign and refused to endorse Bernie.

18.3K 98.9K and would screw them again because she was not endorsing Bernie. When she went on Saturday

Night Live after she suspended her campaign, she was criticized for wasting time and was even compared to a man with cancer that made 200 calls for Bernie the night before he died due to her lack of endorsement of Bernie. Twitter User @ericissac said “The first photo is of Al Johnson who made 200 calls for Bernie the night before he died of cancer. In the second photo is

Elizabeth Warren days after she suspended her campaign and refused to endorse Bernie.”

(Pictured Above Right) This was a peculiar thing to see considering many people had dropped out previously and not endorsed anyone for a long time but when she dropped out everyone wanted her to endorse right away. They even used her lack of endorsement for Bernie to undermine the positions that she had previously had on the campaign trail. People put her on a pedestal and expected her to act a certain way to make sure their male candidate was enhanced and got the boost that he needed for the rest of his campaign trail. There was a separation of person when it came to Elizabeth after this and she was only seen as an endorsement rather than someone who blazed the way and marked a monumental race. It was belittling and continues to follow her as she fights for the plans to contain COVID-19 with many people underneath her tweets telling her to endorse Bernie Sanders. Where her counterparts were allowed a smooth exit, even without endorsing another, she is stuck in this loop of expectations that won’t let her go until she does what people think is right.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, women are forced against much larger standards from the media. Their mistakes, appearance, and tone are all treated differently than their male counterparts. As discussed, this all plays into their inability to establish legitimate and respected candidacies.

They are criticized for not recognizing their innate feminine qualities, as well as not being able to fulfill requirements that are deemed as standard for male personas. Hillary Clinton, Amy

Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren have all seen the effects of this biased mindset resulting from the media. It would be a shame to see their unsuccessful runs based solely on their actions, as what is beyond their control has contributed much to their failure. The narratives of female candidates displayed by the media, up to this point, are unable to compete with the merciful stances that are taken for male candidates. This viewpoint overflows into social media, further displacing female candidates. While the media may seem like a faceless entity, it is the influence for how voters continually withdraw from supporting female campaigns. As political parties choose nominees for the presidency it's important for voters to understand just how much of an impact outside factors play a role in personal biases against women. Even after all of the hate and gender discrimination, these women have continued to fight for what they believe in and their impact has been felt by countless other women and girls across the world. In the words of Hilary

Clinton herself, “Whether I am meant to or not, I challenge assumptions about women. I do ​ make some people uncomfortable, which I’m well aware of, but that’s just part of coming to grips with what I believe is still one of the most important pieces of unfinished business in human history — empowering women to be able to stand up for themselves”.

Works Cited

Astor, Maggie. “Women Are Held to a Higher Standard,’ Klobuchar Says at Debate.” The New ​ York Times, 20 Nov. 2019, ​ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-women-pete-buttigieg.h

tml

@TheBlackLayers “An elected public servant doesn’t owe us ​ anything?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????” Twitter, 10 Mar. 2020, 1:18 pm ​ ​ https://twitter.com/TheBlackLayers/status/1237427614974988288 ​

Bradley, Amy M., and Robert H. Wicks. "A GENDERED BLOGOSPHERE? PORTRAYAL OF

SARAH PALIN ON POLITICAL BLOGS DURING THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL

CAMPAIGN." Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 88.4 (2011): 807-20. ​ ​ ProQuest. Web. 26 Mar. 2020. ​

Burke, Cathy. “Biden goof hails ‘O’Biden Bama’ Democrats during stump speech.” New York ​ Daily News, 7 Mar. 2020, ​ https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-biden-gaffe-obiden-bama-20200307-lujj

msx4pfe57e6bcz4uozq2uu-story.html

Cillizza, Chris. “Amy Klobuchar wonders if voters wanted a man to run against Trump. Did

they?” CNN, 6 Mar. 2020. ​ ​ https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/politics/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-donald-trump

/index.html

Clark, Travis. “Bernie Sanders Pushed Back on Campaign Staffers' Pay Complaints and Voiced

Frustration That Some Went Went to the Media.” Business Insider, 20 July 2019, ​ ​ https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-defends-campaign-staff-pay-after-report

-2019-7. ​

Cramer, Ruby, and Molly Hensley-Clancy. “Remembering This Election’s Strangest Friendship:

Bernie Sanders And Amy Klobuchar.” Buzzfeed News, 3 Mar. 2020, ​ ​ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/bernie-sanders-amy-klobuchar-2020-

campaign.

Dittmar, Kelly. "Watching Election 2016 with a Gender Lens." PS, Political Science & Politics ​ 49.4 (2016): 807-12. ProQuest. Web. 26 Mar. 2020. ​ ​

@ericisaac “The first photo is of Al Johnson who made 200 calls for Bernie the night before he

died of cancer. In the second photo is ElIzabeth Warren days after she suspended her

campaign and refused to endorse Bernie.” Twitter, 10 Mar. 2020, 4:07 pm ​ ​ https://twitter.com/ericisaac/status/1237470210359209984

Flegenheimer, Matt, and Sydney Ember. “How Amy Klobuchar Treats Her Staff.” The New York ​ Times, 22 Feb. 2019, ​ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-staff.html. ​

Gerstein, Josh. “Ex-Trump staffer suing over pregnancy discrimination.” Politico, 23 Dec. 2019, ​ ​ https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/23/trump-staffer-suing-pregnancy-discriminatio

n-089664. ​

@gillsterein “Give it 72 hours before Elizabeth Warren endorses Joe Biden. She's not done

screwing us over.” Twitter, 14 Mar. 2020, 4:11 pm ​ ​ https://twitter.com/gillsterein/status/1238920625596452864 ​

Glueck, Katie. “The Many Ways That Joe Biden Trips Over His Own Tongue.” The New York ​ Times, 30 Oct. 2019, ​ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/politics/joe-biden-debate-gaffes.html

Golden, Amanda, and Melissa Holzberg. “Amy Klobuchar Shuts down Women Candidates Not

Being ‘Likable.’” NBC News, 6 Nov. 2019, ​ ​ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-anal

ysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1077856#blogHeader. ​

Graham, David A. “No One Listens to the President.” The Atlantic, 19 April 2019, ​ ​ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/no-one-listens-to-the-president/58755

7/. ​

Heldman, Caroline, et al. Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election, ABC-CLIO, LLC, ​ ​ 2018. ProQuest. 26 Mar. 2020.

Jacobs, Emily. “Joe Biden says he’s a ‘candidate for US Senate’ in latest gaffe.” New York Post, ​ ​ 25 Feb. 2020,

https://nypost.com/2020/02/25/joe-biden-says-hes-a-candidate-for-us-senate-in-latest-gaf

fe/

Jones, Sarah. “Amy Klobuchar Is the Ultimate #GirlBoss.” New York Magazine, 14 Feb. 2020, ​ ​ https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/why-does-amy-klobuchar-appeal-to-college-edu

cated-women.html. ​ Khalid, Asma. "Is Donald Trump Playing The 'Man Card'?" NPR. NPR, 10 May 2016. Web. 27 ​ ​ Mar. 2020.

Klippenstein, Ken. “The Biden Campaign Pushed Iowa Staffers to Drive in Dangerous

Weather.” The Nation, 24 Jan. 2020, ​ ​ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-iowa-car-accident/. ​

Krauze, León. “The Democrats’ Inexcusable Ignorance on Mexico.” Slate, 18 Feb. 2020, ​ ​ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/amy-klobuchar-mexico-president-latino-vote.html

Kruse, Michael. “Why Voters Are Nervous About Amy Klobuchar.” Politico, 14 Jan. 2020, ​ ​ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/14/amy-klobuchar-2020-campaign-profile-de

mocrats-iowa-098476

Laughland, Oliver. “Ex-Trump workers describe egocentric micromanager: ‘Donald loves

Donald’.” The Guardian, 14 Mar. 2016, ​ ​ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/14/donald-trump-former-employee-inter

views-ego-diversity

Lee, MJ. “Elizabeth Warren Declines to Say If She Supports Financial Compensation as a Form

of Reparations.” CNN, Cable News Network, 11 Mar. 2019, ​ ​ www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/politics/elizabeth-warren-cnn-intv-reparations/index.html. ​ Lerer, Lisa. “The Amy Klobuchar Exit Interview.” The New York Times, 5 Mar. 2020, ​ ​ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-exit-interview.html. ​

Martin, Jonathan. “Ex-Biden Aide Pens Angry Tell-All.” Politico, 25 Oct. 2012, ​ ​ https://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/former-biden-aide-writes-angry-tell-all-082897. ​

Miller, Katherine. “Amy Klobuchar May Be Out Of The Race, But Her Wrath Will Endure.”

Buzzfeed News, 2 Mar. 2020, ​ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katherinemiller/amy-klobuchar-pete-buttigieg

Musto, Julia. “McCain, Behar Call out Sexism in Politics: Bernie 'Always Angry,' Female

Candidates Cannot Be.” Fox News, 6 Mar. 2020, ​ ​ https://www.foxnews.com/media/mccain-behar-call-out-sexism-in-politics-bernie-always

-angry-female-candidates-cannot-be. ​

Noor, Poppy. “'A lying, dog-faced pony soldier': just what was Joe Biden talking about?” The ​ Guardian, 10 Feb. 2020, ​ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/10/joe-biden-lying-dog-faced-pony-soldi

er-new-hampshire

Oates, Sarah and Gurevich, Olya and Walker, Christopher and Di Meco, Lucina, Running While

Female: Using AI to Track how Twitter Commentary Disadvantages Women in the 2020

U.S. Primaries (August 28, 2019).

Oster, Marcy. “Bernie Sanders Apologizes to Female Staffers after Reports of Sexual

Harassment by 2016 Campaign Colleagues.” Jewish Telegraph Agency, 10 Jan. 2019, ​ ​ https://www.jta.org/2019/01/10/united-states/bernie-sanders-apologizes-to-female-staffer

s-after-reports-of-sexual-harassment-during-2016-campaign.

Peek, Liz. “Elizabeth Warren's Attention-Grabbing Progressive Playbook.” Fox News, FOX ​ ​ News Network, 11 Mar. 2019,

www.foxnews.com/opinion/elizabeth-warrens-attention-grabbing-progressive-playbook. ​

Strachan, Maxwell. “Senator Elizabeth Warren Announces Plan To Break Up Amazon, Google

And Facebook.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 8 Mar. 2019, ​ ​ www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-amazon-google-facebook_n_5c827b6ae4b0d9

3616273346.

Taylor-Coleman, Jasmine. "The Dark Depths of Hatred for Hillary Clinton." BBC News. BBC, ​ ​ 12 Oct. 2016. Web. 26 Mar. 2020.

@TheresaDewa “She doesn't owe you an endorsement. She does owe you her policy work in the

Senate. This isn't complicated. No one flipped out when other candidates didn't endorse

right away... She's back to her day job of crafting bills designed to help us.” Twitter, 11 ​ ​ Mar. 2020, 10:00 am

https://twitter.com/TheresaDewa/status/1237740102664835073

“Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes.” Time, ​ ​ http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1895156,00.html

Trump, Donald. “Trump Takes Another 'Pocahontas' Jab at Warren - CNN Video.” CNN, Cable ​ ​ News Network, 7 Oct. 2018,

www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/07/trump-kansas-rally-elizabeth-warren-pocahont

as-sot-vpx.cnn. ​

Wegmann, Philip. “Minnesota Nice Gets Nasty: Klobuchar Snaps at Buttigieg.” RealClear ​ Politics, 20 Feb. 2020, ​ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/20/minnesota_nice_gets_nasty_klobu

char_snaps_at_buttigieg__142446.html.

Wise, Justin. “AP: Trump admin sets record for White House turnover.” The Hill, 2 July 2018, ​ ​ https://thehill.com/homenews/395222-ap-trump-admin-sets-record-for-white-house-turno

ver/. ​

Wootson Jr., Cleve R. “The new Biden: Shorter speeches (and less time for gaffes).” The ​ Washington Post, 9 Mar. 2020, ​ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-biden-shorter-speeches-and-less-time-

for-gaffes/2020/03/09/b5bacf28-61a9-11ea-845d-e35b0234b136_story.html

“Worst Bosses?” LegiStorm, https://www.legistorm.com/turnover/worst_bosses.html. ​ ​ ​ ​