The perfect switch?

As I sat on my couch Tuesday night watching the Democratic presidential debate in Ohio, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. When it came to debating the issues, I thought she won; her policy discussions were more polished and (of course) detailed, and her attacks were more effective. But the reasons I think Clinton “won” are the same ones that give many people ammunition to say she “lost” – she is too detailed, we are sick of her political attacks. And as I watched her sitting on the stage just not getting it – not getting that repeatedly interrupting everyone on the stage so she can fit in more responses makes people think she is bitchy and not getting that complaining about always getting the first question makes her look like a whiner – I am sad to say that I thought she became more and more like a caricature of a high school loser trying to fit in by throwing out disses on the wrong person, the cool kid.

“Hillary’s annoying,” my boyfriend, who I convinced to watch at least the first half of the debate with me, blurted out during the prolonged health care discussion. “She just won’t shut up. Look, Barack’s trying to say something, and this bitch just keeps talking.”

As I watched Clinton continue with behavior I knew wouldn’t work for her, this comment brought up a question in my mind that has been plaguing me throughout the election season: What would the Democratic race be like if the personas were switched? Not the platforms, just the personas. Would Clinton be the ultimate candidate, having the killer résumé and the likeable cool, calm and collected personality to go with it? Or, would she be no match for Obama, who would be an assertive fresh face with unbeatable judgment and a nearly unmatched mastery of politics and policy?

Perhaps the debate can help us analyze those questions.

Clinton was tense, picking on every detail, leaning forward on her elbows when she spoke, arguing with the moderators seven times in order to get her responses in when they wanted to move on. Obama made her look foolish when she made a point to argue semantics about support from unwanted endorsers. The camera caught a brilliant reaction from him, listening intently to his rival’s response, but when he realizes her attack on him is that “there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” a huge smile crosses his face as he, and probably lots of viewers, thought the core of the attack was silly and unnecessary.

This demeanor defined Obama throughout the debate. His relaxation was a foil to how tense Clinton was. He sat back in his chair most of the time, and didn’t feel the need nearly as much to cut off the moderators – he only interrupted them once.
So what if she were relaxed and he were tense? Clinton would sit back, letting the debate move on, while Obama would feel like he needed to harp on a point over and over just to prove his worth. Clinton would get laughs just from saying “Sounds good” after MSNBC mistakenly played a clip of Obama doing an exaggerated impression of her. And Obama would labor to make a joke based on the already-popular humor of “Saturday Night Live” just to be left as the only one in the auditorium thinking it was funny. Obama would be picking on Clinton’s every last word while she sat calmly, able to shoot smug smiles to the moderators and the audience. She would be giving vague, feel-good answers while he had every point down to the last detail.

It’s hard to imagine this after months of listening to Clinton’s hounding voice, desperately telling us point by point why she is better. And while of course people would have varying reactions to a softer, inspiring Clinton and a harsher Obama, there is no doubt in my mind that Obama would not be seen nearly as negatively as Clinton is. He would probably just look like a normal male candidate. Sure, he would not be the inspiring, hopeful mobilizer he is now, but I think few would argue he would be given labels that are the male equivalent to “bitch” or “nag.” I’m not even sure there are such equivalents. At the same time, if Clinton acted like Obama, there is a risk, not a guarantee but a risk, that she would be perceived as too weak, to passive, too sensitive to run the country. Although many men hate her now because, as Maureen Dowd said, she reminds them of their ex-wives, I believe they would find new reasons not to vote for her if she were too sweet and nurturing like Obama. She wouldn’t have the guts to protect the country, they would say, or she wouldn’t stand up to make needed changes.

Of course not everyone found Clinton “annoying.” Thomas Murray, a former John Edwards campaign worker who switched his support to Clinton after Edwards dropped out, told me he wasn’t perturbed by Clinton’s personality.

“I thought she did just fine,” he said. But, like me, he picked the reasons she won the debate as the same ones many others would use as evidence that she lost.

I am not saying that the race is not coming down just to gender and how it is perceived by society. There are too many other factors – such as Clinton’s history and Obama’s undoubtedly inspiring rhetoric – to narrow the election down to a contest of boys versus girls. But, I think it is worth recognizing that Obama started off with a wider range of acceptable personas to choose from while Clinton is just one of a range of woman that will come around, and probably lose, before enough Americans adapt to the idea of both men and woman leaders. Only then, when we look at male and female candidates on a debate stage, will use the same adjectives to describe the way we perceive them.