Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for a very long time, which means much has been written about her -- including quite a few adjectives. But some of these adjectives are now off-limits.
That's according to the Clinton "Super Volunteers," who have promised to track the media's use of words they believe to be sexist code words. The New York Times's Amy Chozick tweeted a missive she received from the group (which we would note is almost definitely not connected to official Team Clinton) on Wednesday:
So these words are now off the table: "polarizing," "calculating," "disingenuous," "insincere," "ambitious," "inevitable," "entitled," "over-confident," "secretive," "will do anything to win," "represents the past," and "out of touch."
Also apparently off the table: "tone deaf" -- at least according to a new Twitter account that appears to be from the group:
The thinking here, of course, is that these kinds of words are attached to Clinton in a way that they wouldn't be attached to male candidates -- that people wouldn't call Clinton "ambitious" if she weren't a woman, that there is a double-standard for such traits.
But do the media actually use these words to describe Clinton? Well, yes, but only if you loosely define "the media" as "the conservative media" and "people who don't like Hillary Clinton."
In fact, if you Google "Hillary Clinton" and "calculating," there are 140,000 results. The first slew of results come from conservative outlets like The Daily Caller, The Blaze, Breitbart, the Daily Telegraph and also the Republican "America Rising" super PAC. One result comes from the Los Angeles Times, but it's a defense Bill Clinton lodged in 2007 against the attacks.
"Calculating" is almost completely something used to attack Clinton or describe the attacks on her. The same goes for "disingenuous," "insincere," "entitled," "secretive," "over-confident," "represents the past" and "out of touch." These are all loaded words and not terms used casually by mainstream media journalists like Chozick to describe a politician.
The same cannot be said for some other words. "Polarizing" is a word that has long followed Clinton, as has "ambitious," and "inevitable."
And some of these words should indeed be reined in -- if not necessarily for the reason this group wants.
"Polarizing," for example, is a word that now describes pretty much every well-known politician in the country, up to and including Barack Obama and George W. Bush. The politician who isn't polarizing is the exception rather than the rule. And it usually means that the politician just isn't well known enough to be polarizing. Yet.
And while we're at it, go ahead and retire "inevitable," too. We've been talking about it for a while, sure, but it's probably been overdone (not too mention it aims to predict the future). Now it's all about whether Clinton gets any capable primary opponents. Until then, call her a huge favorite and leave it at that.
As for "ambitious," nobody runs for president without having an extraordinary amount of ambition. Not Ted Cruz, not Barack Obama, not Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush, and definitely not Bill Clinton -- all of whom have had their unusual amount of ambition chewed over by the media.
The words?
Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch
Now, I could see if you didn't want to call her a couple of slurs usually associated with women, but any of those? COME ON.....
Hilary Clinton is, Polarizing, Calculating, Disingenuous, Insincere, Ambitious, Entitled, Over Confident, Secretive, "Will do anything to win" Represents the Past, and Out of Touch.
I think politicians that try to strangle the 1st Amendment (in this case, freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc.) are worse than any specific stance on any other topic.
Yeah. I can get how all of those are negatives save calculating. I'd consider calculating to be a good thing in a leader XD
Someone descried as calculating tends to be seen as cold, or aloof. Nor a good thing for a politician, as they want to be seen as human and approachable.
Yeah. I can get how all of those are negatives save calculating. I'd consider calculating to be a good thing in a leader XD
Someone descried as calculating tends to be seen as cold, or aloof. Nor a good thing for a politician, as they want to be seen as human and approachable.
It's certainly not sexist, though.
Can't agree with you more. It certainly isn't sexist.
Huh, interesting. To be frank, Clinton comes across somewhat Out of Touch with modern ideals of free speech, where people can say whatever the hell they want and claim there can be no consequences. In this regard, I suppose you could say she Represents the Past where the media could be especially harsh, but being as Polarizing, Calculating and Amibitious as she, you can hardly blame them. Her Secretive agenda and Entitled, Over-Confident attitude makes her an easy target for bad press, not to mention her Insincere and Disingenuous tone. As wargames, we all know how hard it is to like the guy with the "Will do anything to win" mentality. Just not fun to be around.
Avatar 720 wrote: Hilary Clinton is, Polarizing, Calculating, Disingenuous, Insincere, Ambitious, Entitled, Over Confident, Secretive, "Will do anything to win" Represents the Past, and Out of Touch.
Slarg232 wrote: Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch
None of these words are sexist (as much as a word can be sexist...). These people need to learn the definition of sexist. They have the definition of stupid down pat though, so there's that.
Avatar 720 wrote: Hilary Clinton is, Polarizing, Calculating, Disingenuous, Insincere, Ambitious, Entitled, Over Confident, Secretive, "Will do anything to win" Represents the Past, and Out of Touch.
*Waits for the death threats*
This is why those words are not allowed. Because she is all of these things and she is now using her gender as a shield to cover her inadequacy as a person and her ineptitude as a leader. If she were a person of character, she wouldn't have to hide from these criticisms and would endeavor to prove them wrong.
A quick edit: her SUPPORTERS wouldn't have to hide her from these words. She might not be, but her supporters are. Somehow I find that even more shameful.
SharkoutofWata wrote: A quick edit: her SUPPORTERS wouldn't have to hide her from these words. She might not be, but her supporters are. Somehow I find that even more shameful.
A bit like our last Prime Minister did, especially before the end (where she was deposed by the guy she deposed in the first place).
SharkoutofWata wrote: A quick edit: her SUPPORTERS wouldn't have to hide her from these words. She might not be, but her supporters are. Somehow I find that even more shameful.
A bit like our last Prime Minister did, especially before the end (where she was deposed by the guy she deposed in the first place).
Prepare for a new Victim-in-Chief, I guess.
Honestly that just reminds me of the ridiculously sexist tripe I had a lot of LNP voting family members say about Gillard. Tired 'hur hur patriarchy check your privilege' jokes aside, there definitely was a sexist angle to the criticism launched at her.
feeder wrote:I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.
You find that in many communities, video games and wargaming included, but I think it's not really sexist to say that Hillary isn't any of those things. To be honest if a politician isn't described like that then they're just very good at hiding it. In reality it depends on the context, are people being more harsh to Hillary because she's a woman? I think in some cases you could say yes, but she certainly has points to be criticised like any other person.
Breotan wrote:There was an article the other day about how Hillary also has supporters monitoring her wiki page like hawks.
Just like I imagine there are people monitoring their respective favoured politician's pages like hawks. Certain corporations also heavily monitor their own wiki pages.
Here's the important bit in the OP that everyone seems to have missed:
That's according to the Clinton "Super Volunteers," who have promised to track the media's use of words they believe to be sexist code words. The New York Times's Amy Chozick tweeted a missive she received from the group (which we would note is almost definitely not connected to official Team Clinton) on Wednesday:
This isn't a mandate from her office, from the White House, or from a government body. It's a Twitter group, ffs.
MrScience wrote: Honestly that just reminds me of the ridiculously sexist tripe I had a lot of LNP voting family members say about Gillard. Tired 'hur hur patriarchy check your privilege' jokes aside, there definitely was a sexist angle to the criticism launched at her.
She played the victim at every turn, and when you occupy the highest office in the land that's just pathetic.
Slarg232 wrote: Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch
None of these words are sexist (as much as a word can be sexist...). These people need to learn the definition of sexist. They have the definition of stupid down pat though, so there's that.
I guess you're just Out of Touch and Over Confident in your Entitled opinion on sexism.
SharkoutofWata wrote: A quick edit: her SUPPORTERS wouldn't have to hide her from these words. She might not be, but her supporters are. Somehow I find that even more shameful.
A bit like our last Prime Minister did, especially before the end (where she was deposed by the guy she deposed in the first place).
Prepare for a new Victim-in-Chief, I guess.
Ok, minor quibble, but this narrative bothers me every time I hear it repeated: she was never 'deposed', Rudd did not conduct some kind of coup against her, she fell on her sword.
feeder wrote: I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.
A few of us have expressed incredulity that gender neutral words and phrases have been deemed sexist. Rather than play identity politics as your first line of argument perhaps you could substantiate how these words are in fact sexist, as it may alleviate some concerns.
Calculating and calculated have "scheming" connotations. In public speaking / journalism it's a word to avoid if you want to give a positive spin to the subject you're writing about, because it immediately draws the inference to a negative, almost secretive, plan to fool or defraud.
Used in scientific and technical writing, calculating is neutral - hell, even positive. Used to describe something to everyday sheeple though, it definitely has slightly negative undertones of a combination of sneaky and scheming.
My company avoids this (and many other) words in its advertising brochures, but freely uses it with technical data literature. Two different audiences, two different ways of writing.
MrScience wrote: Honestly that just reminds me of the ridiculously sexist tripe I had a lot of LNP voting family members say about Gillard. Tired 'hur hur patriarchy check your privilege' jokes aside, there definitely was a sexist angle to the criticism launched at her.
She played the victim at every turn, and when you occupy the highest office in the land that's just pathetic.
Defending yourself does not constitute playing the victim.
There's plenty of instances of sexism levelled at her in the media and in politics, is she not allowed to respond to it? I've even got a lit review on the subject here: http://eview.anu.edu.au/burgmann/issue2/pdf/ch08.pdf which lists numerous examples of her being attacked for her gender; such as the 'Bob Brown's Bitch' placard.
feeder wrote: I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.
A few of us have expressed incredulity that gender neutral words and phrases have been deemed sexist. Rather than play identity politics as your first line of argument perhaps you could substantiate how these words are in fact sexist, as it may alleviate some concerns.
feeder wrote: I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.
A few of us have expressed incredulity that gender neutral words and phrases have been deemed sexist. Rather than play identity politics as your first line of argument perhaps you could substantiate how these words are in fact sexist, as it may alleviate some concerns.
I guess this is better than some guy in the country with a beard saying "Can't have no womens in president n' stuff" all over tv. Will still happen of course.
"Hillary Clinton is a very ambitious women"
This could be set is or complimentary depending on the tone and what words are emphasized. Our society isn't a big fan of ambitious women still.
or entitled, it could be used to imply sue only got this far because of her husbsnd, rather than her own merits
hotsauceman1 wrote: "Hillary Clinton is a very ambitious women"
This could be set is or complimentary depending on the tone and what words are emphasized. Our society isn't a big fan of ambitious women still.
or entitled, it could be used to imply sue only got this far because of her husbsnd, rather than her own merits
Well, they called Caesar ambitious once. Look how that turned out for him.
I think the choice of words they are afraid of is a more interesting story than the ways in which the words even directly apply to her.
Yeah. I can get how all of those are negatives save calculating. I'd consider calculating to be a good thing in a leader XD
Someone descried as calculating tends to be seen as cold, or aloof. Nor a good thing for a politician, as they want to be seen as human and approachable.
It's certainly not sexist, though.
Ehh, the way you put it though, well, for a man to be cold or aloof, it would often be left at that. But there are other, less polite, terms used to describe a woman who is cold or aloof. So, I can kinda see the point here, but it is going overboard to claim the words in that list are specifically sexist.
Yeah. I can get how all of those are negatives save calculating. I'd consider calculating to be a good thing in a leader XD
Someone descried as calculating tends to be seen as cold, or aloof. Nor a good thing for a politician, as they want to be seen as human and approachable.
It's certainly not sexist, though.
Ehh, the way you put it though, well, for a man to be cold or aloof, it would often be left at that. But there are other, less polite, terms used to describe a woman who is cold or aloof. So, I can kinda see the point here, but it is going overboard to claim the words in that list are specifically sexist.
See, the thing is, I can understand not wanting to call her a witch, but to just say "You can't call her cold" is just as sexist as some words that legitimately shouldn't be used to describe her (The kind not seen in civilized conversation).
Psienesis wrote: Here's the important bit in the OP that everyone seems to have missed:
That's according to the Clinton "Super Volunteers," who have promised to track the media's use of words they believe to be sexist code words. The New York Times's Amy Chozick tweeted a missive she received from the group (which we would note is almost definitely not connected to official Team Clinton) on Wednesday:
This isn't a mandate from her office, from the White House, or from a government body. It's a Twitter group, ffs.
Orlanth wrote: Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?
I guess that depends how capable of enforcing arbitrary requests a group of random people with twitter accounts are.
Psienesis wrote: Here's the important bit in the OP that everyone seems to have missed:
That's according to the Clinton "Super Volunteers," who have promised to track the media's use of words they believe to be sexist code words. The New York Times's Amy Chozick tweeted a missive she received from the group (which we would note is almost definitely not connected to official Team Clinton) on Wednesday:
This isn't a mandate from her office, from the White House, or from a government body. It's a Twitter group, ffs.
Then there was the whole age thing the Hillary camp was leveling at McCain, saying he was too old to be president. I wonder how she will defend herself on that front since she is not much younger than he was at the time he ran. I wonder if that will be another forbidden thing to speak of?
I propose a compromise: I will agree that there have been and will be sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, just as there were on Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Warren and will be on any other high profile woman who runs in a major campaign; if you will agree that the words above are not intrinsically sexist and are generally applied to any politician regardless of race or gender.
Relapse wrote: Then there was the whole age thing the Hillary camp was leveling at McCain, saying he was too old to be president. I wonder how she will defend herself on that front since she is not much younger than he was at the time he ran. I wonder if that will be another forbidden thing to speak of?
I doubt very much that Hillary's age will not be discussed. The health of a candidate is fair game for a presidential election and she would tie for the the oldest president ever elected.
In fact, that disingenuous (heh) article asks if the media will ask such questions of her, deciding that, "in the tank as they are", they will not, when in fact a simple google search immediately returns such aticles, including this one by MSN-fething-BC.
I propose a compromise: I will agree that there have been and will be sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, just as there were on Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Warren and will be on any other high profile woman who runs in a major campaign; if you will agree that the words above are not intrinsically sexist and are generally applied to any politician regardless of race or gender.
Relapse wrote: Then there was the whole age thing the Hillary camp was leveling at McCain, saying he was too old to be president. I wonder how she will defend herself on that front since she is not much younger than he was at the time he ran. I wonder if that will be another forbidden thing to speak of?
I doubt very much that Hillary's age will not be discussed. The health of a candidate is fair game for a presidential election and she would tie for the the oldest president ever elected.
In fact, that disingenuous (heh) article asks if the media will ask such questions of her, deciding that, "in the tank as they are", they will not, when in fact a simple google search immediately returns such aticles, including this one by MSN-fething-BC.
Actually... I thought the meme was that she broke her hips and had to walk around using a "walker".
So, your argument can be summarized as: Cut this frivolous crap out! There's much more serious things to discuss!
But folks keeping this alive by making silly arguments like: Hey... you know there's a "mens" aisle and "women" aisle in the shoe store? It really should be called Cisnormative Footwear.
I propose a compromise: I will agree that there have been and will be sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, just as there were on Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Warren and will be on any other high profile woman who runs in a major campaign; if you will agree that the words above are not intrinsically sexist and are generally applied to any politician regardless of race or gender.
This is a proposition that I would happily agree with
cincydooley wrote: You have to remember that Sarah Palin is completely fair game because she's both a Republican and reasonably decent looking.
My god, the amount of Palin smut that popped up not even a month after she was niminated.
Lol... yeah, once conservatives start plastering this kind of thing there might be an argument for this clubs existance, but this super friends group must have been on holiday for this one
Spoiler:
Its certainly a good thing we are discussing all these bad words too, we wouldn't want to discuss real things that relate to Clinton like her lack of discretion with emails ect
hotsauceman1 wrote: "Hillary Clinton is a very ambitious women"
This could be set is or complimentary depending on the tone and what words are emphasized. Our society isn't a big fan of ambitious women still.
or entitled, it could be used to imply sue only got this far because of her husbsnd, rather than her own merits
Yeah, I think ambitious typically has more negative connotations when used to describe a woman rather than a man. It's not quite the double standard as, say, "promiscuous", but it is rare to see that word used in an entirely positive context when describing a woman around here. Generally it indicates a woman who put her career ahead of her family (which is often considered worse than when a man does it) or to bring up the image of Lady Macbeth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.
To be fair, most of them are not being used to describe Hillary Clinton, either. At least not in the media that I am aware of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?
They should apply to all female candidates. (Well, the reasonable restrictions. If someone is out of touch, she is out of touch.)
I would not like to see dog-whistle language used to describe any candidate.
But folks keeping this alive by making silly arguments like: Hey... you know there's a "mens" aisle and "women" aisle in the shoe store? It really should be called Cisnormative Footwear.
Sometimes women's footwear can be more comfortable than men's. Sometimes.
Lt. Coldfire wrote: The good news here is that our society is officially out of problems if this is how we're spending our time. Job well done, everybody!
Ooooh. You'd think that, but the reality is far worse: All the previous problems, AND we have the new one of not being able to prioritize them properly!
I would take this whole situation a step further. I would say that by considering Hillary a woman, we are in fact being sexist. Why can't she just be considered a person like all the other politicians? In this day and age when you get to choose to be either man, woman or both, I would submit that pointing out her gender is sexist in and of itself.
One thing to consider is that all the words are subjective and represent an opinion. Theoretically no actual news outlet should use them to describe anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing to consider is it is worse to call a woman these things as compared to a man. A man that is described as calculating has a mild negative conotation as well as a bit of positive conotation. A woman described as calculating has a much stronger negative calculation.
skyth wrote: One thing to consider is that all the words are subjective and represent an opinion. Theoretically no actual news outlet should use them to describe anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing to consider is it is worse to call a woman these things as compared to a man. A man that is described as calculating has a mild negative conotation as well as a bit of positive conotation. A woman described as calculating has a much stronger negative calculation.
It is a strange day for language when one cannot call a spade a spade for fear that it might seem more a spade than another.
But as we've never really had a woman get elected for a President, let alone run, can you really say that?
I mean, I guess you could argue that you can extrapolate that from other elections, but the dog and pony show that is the presidency really doesn't seem comparable.
And why is it problem now, with Hilary, when it seemed to be acceptable, and even en vogue, to make similar statements about Sarah Palin? Or even Condi Rice?
skyth wrote: One thing to consider is that all the words are subjective and represent an opinion. Theoretically no actual news outlet should use them to describe anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing to consider is it is worse to call a woman these things as compared to a man. A man that is described as calculating has a mild negative conotation as well as a bit of positive conotation. A woman described as calculating has a much stronger negative calculation.
It is a strange day for language when one cannot call a spade a spade for fear that it might seem more a spade than another.
I would be hesitant to use that expression in certain circles, it could land you in trouble. No surprise here that the 'list' of non-gender associated words is being described as not only gender associated but also sexist.
I wonder if these rules only apply to male journalists? Or would a female journalist also be "censored" in such as way? If the former, that would be in itself sexist.
Orlanth wrote: Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?
I guess that depends how capable of enforcing arbitrary requests a group of random people with twitter accounts are.
I don't care about enforcement, enforcement is not relevant.
The question stands: are the list of 'sexist' words forbidden for reference to just Hillary Clinton or all female electoral candidates?
I think who made the list, and who intends to enforce it, is very relevant when trying to get all outraged about this
You completely fail to understand the point. Enforcement is a secondary issue, it happens or it doesn't happen, and most likely not due to free speech laws.
The main relevance is whether the groups ghat made and/or support that list give special protection against "sexism" for Hillary Clinton, or all female candidates.
That is relevant.
If the protection is just for Hillary Clinton then it should be ridiculed on the grounds that it isn't sexist if it targets one person only if other women are not protected.
If the protection is for all female candidates then we will have to see if all female officials from Sarah Palin onwards figure is also allowed protection against critique, and if not why not.
skyth wrote: One thing to consider is that all the words are subjective and represent an opinion. Theoretically no actual news outlet should use them to describe anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing to consider is it is worse to call a woman these things as compared to a man. A man that is described as calculating has a mild negative conotation as well as a bit of positive conotation. A woman described as calculating has a much stronger negative calculation.
It is a strange day for language when one cannot call a spade a spade for fear that it might seem more a spade than another.
I would be hesitant to use that expression in certain circles, it could land you in trouble. No surprise here that the 'list' of non-gender associated words is being described as not only gender associated but also sexist.
The words themselves are indeed non-gender associated. But it's not really the words that could be considered sexist, but the roles and expectations attached to them and the traditional expectations that some people have of each gender. There have been quite a few studies of male bosses vs female bosses and how their leadership styles are viewed differently even if they are exactly the same. A male boss that is "ambitious" or "calculating" is often considered a good thing and that is what people might expect from a man, to be ruthless and get the deal done because that fits the traditional role of a man as a fighter. A woman who is "ambitious" or "calculating" suddenly becomes "bossy" or even a "bitch" because women are supposed to be caring nurturers and paternal. A man who works late hours and missed parent teacher night because he "does whatever it takes to get the job done" is a good provider, a woman who does the same is a horrible mother.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't use the words, it just means that we should stop treating women differently and stop pretending that a woman working as hard as a man is a bad thing. It's not the word that is bad, it's the hidden stereotypes behind them. But instead of not using the words we need to stop the stereotype.
So they're considered to be gateway badwords, like weed is considered a gateway drug to the harder stuff? I understand the concept, i just think it's ludicrous. Especially since the list of gateway words applies so well.
Calculating. HRC knew her husband bill was a philanderer, and she spent a great deal of effort keeping it hushed up so it wouldn't affect his chances at running for president. Calculating.
Political correctness gone too far. If the word applies, the word applies. The only ones engaged in sexist behaviour are the ones saying a person's gender should prevent otherwise relevant descriptions from being used about them.
They are not even gateway bad words, and it's really not that hard of a concept. It really doesn't have much of anything to do with the word itself.
It's not that ambitious is a bad word, it's just that historically our culture has viewed a woman being ambitous as a bad thing.
The problem is not with the words, it's with the old cultured that create the impressions that come to mind when the words are used.
As long as a successful businesswoman who places priority on her career instead of being a stay-at-home mom is considered a bad thing, it won't matter if she is called ambitious or a go-getter or anything else. Banning these words doesn't do anything to change that there are some people who will think like that.
Historically anyone being ambitious or anything on that list has been considered bad. I don't see a male politician who is disingenuous as being any better than a female disingenuous politician. This is just a case of people playing the gender card to try and get HRC an advantage, which i find.... calculating.
skyth wrote: The thing is, they're not calling a spade a spade really. That's kind of my point.
For instance, as a man, if I mention I don't like kids...Well...I might hurt a chance at getting elected to a public office, but not all that bad.
If a woman mention that they don't like kids then they lose any chance of getting elected pretty much.
Yes, there is a double standard, and no it is not fair. But it is real in people's perception.
If a candidate said they were an atheist they would sink their chances with a large part of the electorate. The public have a certain view of politicians that candidates have to meet and non-traditional anything is treated with suspicion. Race came up again and again when Obama was being elected, there were lots of people openly saying they didn't want a black man running the country. A woman will have to go through the same process, a atheist will, and a homosexual. The public see their president as a white Christian family man because that's what they're used to. It's not much different in the UK despite the much lower interest in religion and marriage, people like Ed Milliband married long term partners quickly once it was clear they were going for office and I'm sure conforming to acceptable stereotypes was part of it.
If a candidate said they were an atheist they would sink their chances with a large part of the electorate. The public have a certain view of politicians that candidates have to meet and non-traditional anything is treated with suspicion. Race came up again and again when Obama was being elected, there were lots of people openly saying they didn't want a black man running the country. A woman will have to go through the same process, a atheist will, and a homosexual. The public see their president as a white Christian family man because that's what they're used to. It's not much different in the UK despite the much lower interest in religion and marriage, people like Ed Milliband married long term partners quickly once it was clear they were going for office and I'm sure conforming to acceptable stereotypes was part of it.
Let us not forget the huge kerfluffle because ER MER GERD that JFK is ... CATHOLIC!