Has Hillary Clinton been subjected to more "scrutiny" on account of her gender? All signs point yes. A cursory examination of the media coverage will find Clinton having to contend with questions directed at gender in a way that, say, John McCain won’t. Here’s just one of countless examples. Enter Maureen Dowd (courtesy of Media Matters):
After saying she found her
"voice" in New Hampshire,
she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had
Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic
Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a-Former-President Hillary,
It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary,
Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and
hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke
up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a
political solution to her problem. If she can only change this or that
about her persona, or tear down this or that about Obama’s. But the
whirlwind of changes and charges gets wearing.
And Maureen Dowd, by the way, is supposed to be a liberal. But, like we’ve been saying, the liberal op-eds disappoint. In the face of such evidence, Ruth Marcus argues that Clinton cannot claim to be "hampered" by her gender. Marcus’s claim (isn’t she supposed to be a liberal too?) has what we professionals call a ring of falsity to it. But she also makes a conceptual claim to support the false empirical claim:
The candidate of inevitability and the victim of the uneven playing field aren’t compatible concepts.
The candidate of inevitability is an empty concept. There might have been a presumption among media types like Marcus that Clinton was the candidate of inevitability, but there hadn’t been an election yet. Besides, being a candidate for a job, as I can attest from personal experience, doesn’t mean you’ll get the job–or that you even have a chance of getting the job.