Posted on 05/09/2007 8:25:21 AM PDT by presidio9
What does the defeat of Segolene Royal, the first woman to seek the French presidency, mean for Hillary Clinton, in the midst of her pursuit of the Oval Office?
Does Royal's failure signal that the seemingly irresistible momentum of female candidates worldwide is screeching to a halt?
After Angela Merkel was elected chancellor of Germany, Michelle Bachelet won the Chilean presidency and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf took Liberia's presidency. At the time, it seemed that women were on the move globally.
Does Royal's defeat mean that the momentum is waning?
In one important respect, French gender politics is the opposite of American. In the U.S., women vote to the left of men. But in France, men vote to the left of women.
More likely to be observant Catholics, the women of France typically are the mainstay of the conservative parties. French men, who fill out the ranks of the country's powerful unions, back the Socialists.
In nominating a woman, the French Socialist Party was cutting across its normal gender lines. It would be as if the Republicans, not the Democrats, had nominated a woman to run for president.
Royal's defeat was largely due to her inability to lure women who usually back rightist candidates to cross over and back her. In France, ideology and class proved more important than gender in structuring the female vote.
On another level, the lessons of Royal's defeat are important for Hillary to learn.
After a shaky performance touring the Middle East early in her candidacy, the idea took root that Royal was unprepared and unqualified to be president. Her gaffes in seeming to side with the Palestinians against Israel were magnified. She was painted as out of her league on the global stage.
As the campaign continued, Royal embraced an explicitly female posture in the race, seeking to become the modern equivalent of Marianne (the French revolutionary who might fulfill an iconic self image as Uncle Sam does for America) and Joan of Arc, the towering medieval French heroine.
Sarkozy mocked her style, noting that she appeared to be in a bad mood and suggesting that it was due to her standing in the polls. Royal seemed to lend herself to a negative caricature of a female candidate: headstrong, impulsive, uninformed, moody, and emotional. Her posturing did not sell well.
Most ominously for Hillary is how Royal's marriage played against her. The candidate's long-term "husband" (although they were never married) is Francois Hollande, the head of the Socialist Party. She was widely seen as a stand-in for him and voters saw him as the real power behind the throne.
Will Americans cast Bill in the same role as the hidden power behind Hillary? Will it hurt her as much as it injured Royal?
At the moment, few people would say that Hillary's strings are pulled by Bill. But in 1990, when Bill was contemplating retirement as governor to dedicate himself to the 1992 presidential race, Hillary contemplated running in his place.
But polls that I conducted for Hillary showed that voters rejected her candidacy, seeing her as a puppet of her husband.
The Royal-Hollande debacle in the election sends a message to Hillary: Don't let Bill be seen as your master.
When Royale began threatening that riots would take place if she didn’t win, I wondered if she wouldnt show up at the Bastille wearing a floppy cap and brandishing knitting needles a la Madame Defarge.
I would have liked to be a fly on the wall in the Royal-Hollande household listening to them discussing the election outcome. She was a sock puppet who carried out what to me looked like a PMS-based campaign. He does not have enough personal charisma to run for the presidency so he pushed her forward beyond her ability to function. It will be interesting to see if Bill can control himself while Mrs. Clinton is making her run. I seriously doubt it. One bimbo eruption during her campaign would be enough.
I’ve learned to never take Dick Morris seriously when the topic is the Clinton’s. He’s always wrong on this particular topic, as history shows us.
My second thought is its a mistake to take elections in other countries, one’s with such widely differing sets of circumstances both politically and economically, and apply them to our election cycle two years in the future.
Finally, Ms Royal represented the incumbent’s policies (Chirac) as opposed to Merkle, for example. And the incumbent’s view as we’ve seen repeatedly has been discredited by numerous votes and events - the EU vote a couple of years ago comes to mind, which humiliated Chirac - the incumbent.
I like hearing what Morris has to say on any other topic, but when its the Clinton’s...well, he has Clinton Dysfunction Syndrome in my opinion, and as such is worthless.
Two completely different people. Royale is a socialist. Hillary is a...well, ok skip that one. Royale is shrill and stubborn. Hillary is....skip that one too. Royale speaks French and English. Hillary speaks English and faux Kentucky. Royale is definitely slim and Hillary is like unto a vat of cottage cheese. Big difference!
Woe betide any male politician in the U.S. or Canada who dares to suggest that his female opponent is moody or emotional. The blowback would turn him to a pile of ashes.
Any specifics?
“He’s always wrong on this particular topic, as history shows us.
Any specifics?”
Sure. Morris predicted Hillary wouldn’t run for NY’s Senate seat. He then predicted she wouldn’t win. He then wrote an entire book about Condi Rice v Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to the Clinton’s, his political compass reacts the same way a real one does as you approach either the northern or southern pole of this planet.
The conservative, married Christian woman will be the swing vote in the ‘08 election. The candidate who appeals to those voters will win.
“Hillary speaks English and faux Kentucky.”
And don’t forget Southern Darkie when she’s in a black church campaigning.
Thank you. How do you explain this many mistakes, seemingly concentrated in only this particular area?
“Thank you. How do you explain this many mistakes, seemingly concentrated in only this particular area?”
I don’t know...perhaps its the result of the numerous attacks by the Clinton’s against him.
Heck, even West Wing smeared him in multiple episodes when it was on the air, and Dee Dee Meyers was one of the many consultants to the show.
I just know his track record is pretty good, til it comes to the Clinton’s.
A female socialist is a socialist.
Conservative married Christian women always vote Republican. Are you saying they are now in play?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.