Cultural and political image
Observers have consistently characterized Hillary Clinton as a
polarizing figure in American politics. By 1992, during her husband's presidential campaign, a reporter asked her, "Some people think of you as an inspiring female attorney mother, and other people think of you as the overbearing yuppie wife from hell. How would you describe yourself?" Political operatives said she could be easily seen as either a positive
role model or a nagging "
hall monitor" type. The polarized response to Clinton ran along both political and cultural lines. In 1995, after the failure of her health care reform initiative,
New York Times reporter
Todd Purdum labelled Hillary Clinton "a complex and polarizing figure in public opinion," and "the First Lady as
Rorschach test;" the latter assessment was echoed by feminist writer and activist
Betty Friedan.
In part, this led from her background and her new role.
Colorado State University communication studies professor Karrin Vasby Anderson describes the First Lady position as a "site" for American womanhood, one ready made for the symbolic negotiation of female identity. In particular there has been a cultural bias towards traditional first ladies and a cultural prohibition against modern first ladies; by the time of Clinton, the First Lady position had become a site of
heterogeneity and
paradox. Nowhere was this paradox more evident than when Clinton achieved her highest approval ratings as First Lady late in 1998, not for any professional or political achievement of her own but for being seen as the victim of her husband's very public infidelity.
University of Pennsylvania communications professor
Kathleen Hall Jamieson saw Hillary Clinton as an exemplar of the
double bind, who though able to live in a "both-and" world of both career and family, nevertheless "became a surrogate on whom we projected our attitudes about attributes once thought incompatible," leading to her being placed in a variety of
no-win situations. The world of
political cartoons also played in the symbolic negotiation:
University of Indianapolis English professor Charlotte Templin found cartoonists using a variety of stereotypes such as gender reversal, radical feminist as emasculator, and the wife the husband wants to get rid of, to portray Hillary Clinton as violating
gender norms.
Over fifty books and scholarly works have been written about Hillary Clinton, from almost every possible angle. There has been a veritable
cottage industry in attack books against her, put out by
Regnery Publishing and its brethren, with lurid subtitles such as
Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House,
Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House, and
Can She Be Stopped? : Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States Unless .... When she ran for Senate in 2000, a number of fundraising groups with dire-sounding names such as Save Our Senate and
the Emergency Committee to Stop Hillary Rodham Clinton sprang up. She was a reliable
bogeyman of Republican and conservative fundraising letters, on a par with
Ted Kennedy and the equivalent of Democratic beggings to fear about
Newt Gingrich.
By the 2000s she had escaped the First Lady role for the Senate, but her polarizing status largely remained. In 2006, before her presidential campaign began in earnest,
Time magazine's
Ana Marie Cox said "she may be the most polarizing figure on the current political landscape,"
NPR's Daniel Schorr said that, in light of her qualities as a public figure and candidate, her polarizing force made her the "great political paradox of our time," and historian
Gil Troy titled his biography of her
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. A
Time magazine cover that year showed a large picture of her, with two
checkboxes labeled "Love Her", "Hate Her", while
Mother Jones titled its
Jack Hitt-written profile of her "Harpy, Hero, Heretic: Hillary". A typical public opinion poll reporting Hillary Clinton's favorability versus unfavorability showed large percentages in both camps, few undecided, and none who did not know who she is. By the time of her presidential campaign for 2008, however, there were a few signs that her polarizing quality be abating. Democratic
netroots activists consistently rated Clinton very low in polls of their desired candidates, while some conservative figures such as
Bruce Bartlett and
Christopher Ruddy were declaring a Hillary Clinton presidency not so bad after all.