Gender politics and the Hillary enigma
Updated on 16 November 2007
So much for a different kind of politics - the fight between the Democrat challengers just gets fiercer by the day.
Last night's Las Vegas debate is a case in point.
Call it assertive, maybe, but Hillary Clinton accused her rivals of acting "right out of the Republican playbook". John Edwards accused her of being part of a "corrupt and broken" political system.
Moments later, she accused Barack Obama of advocating a $1tr tax hike.
All of this could be a sign that she's acting less like the assured nominee - focussing her attacks primarily on the Republicans - and more like a candidate facing an unexpectedly stiff fight.
Her outfit, she insisted, was asbestos. So, in the city known for its prize fights, and after a rather rocky two weeks for her campaign, did her performance withstand the flames?
The consensus seems to be yes, for now.
Last night Hillary was asked whether she favoured diamonds or pearls. None of the others was asked about their gemstones of choice.
This from her spin doctor Mandy Grunwald: "It was a very good evening. She retaliated to strong attacks and Obama stumbled - inexplicably."
For her campaign, though, this was about repairing her image; all those contradictory answers on drivers licences for illegal immigrants, while hardly a hot-button issue in itself, have made her look shifty and inconsistent.
Then there was the fuss about planted questions, and she got accused of playing the gender card by talking about the all-boys club of Washington politics.
Last night, she insisted her opponents were not attacking her because she was a woman, but because she was out in front.
But there is a gender issue here. Part of the excitement around Hillary's campaign is that she genuinely could become the first female president in American history - in a country with an appalling record on promoting women to senior political positions, Condi Rice notwithstanding.
But part of the opprobrium, too, goes with being a woman seizing power.
Hillaryland is testimony to her ability to retain the support and intense loyalty of a tight knit team.
As the Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg points out, a lot of the criticisms hurled at Mrs Clinton - that she's shrill, cold, or unfeeling - were also hurled at Pat Schroeder, Geraldine Ferraro, Carol Moseley Braun. It's been a struggle for all of these women to be liked.
Politically, Hillary's highest ever approval ratings came at the lowest point of her personal life - the awful humiliation of the Lewinsky affair.
Goldenberg points out that her attempts to be a truly modern First Lady, taking an active part in political life, were consistently mocked and ridiculed.
Women have a hard time knowing how to campaign in an age obsessed with appearance, image and the folksy photo-opportunity of candidates at play.
Last night Hillary was asked whether she favoured diamonds or pearls. None of the others was asked about their gemstones of choice.
But all of this still leaves Mrs Clinton a complete enigma, deliberately opaque about her personal life, her passions, even her political philosophy.
All we are allowed to see is cautious, middle of the road, a mantra of experience and competence. "I take solutions wherever I find them," she told Goldenberg, "I am a problem solver".
All of which might come in extremely handy for a country driven to distraction by the Bush years. And it is possible for Hillary to overcome her negatives, even be liked by the crowds.
After all, Hillaryland is testimony to her ability to retain the support and intense loyalty of a tight knit team, which have seen her through the nineties to today.
But now she needs to find a way to take a few risks, to take a few stands, to find a truer voice.
She's still winning the polls. She's still winning the money race. Now, with a campaign team which invented Bill Clinton as the comeback Kid - not once, but thrice - can they find a way to give Hillary the edge that can win?
