On September 11, 2016, less than two months before Election Day, Hillary Clinton attended the 9/11 memorial service in New York City. Reportedly, Clinton left the event early, and as she was getting into her SUV, she fainted. A bystander caught on camera a wobbly Clinton needing assistance getting into her vehicle, which he posted to Twitter, where it immediately circulated (Kafka Reference Kafka2016). News media outlets soon picked it up and were quick to air the footage. Initially, the Clinton campaign explained that Clinton had been “overheated.” Later that afternoon, however, the campaign announced that two days prior, Clinton had been diagnosed with walking pneumonia, and despite being advised to rest, she had attended the memorial event.
In What Happened, Clinton only briefly mentions this incident. In the chapter “A Day in the Life,” Clinton describes the few days leading up to the memorial service as busy as usual, but, unlike usual, she was not feeling well. Clinton went to see her doctor, who diagnosed her with pneumonia and recommended that she stay home and rest. However, as Clinton describes in her book, missing the memorial “wasn't an option,” so she opted for strong antibiotics and attended the event. Although Clinton describes the fainting incident only vaguely, the gravity of it seems to echo: “On Sunday, when I got to the memorial, the sun was beaming down. My head ached. You know the rest” (Clinton Reference Clinton2017, 230).
Attention to Clinton's stumble as she left the event was covered by the media and shared on social media, in as much depth and to the degree that it was, because it happened within the context of an ongoing conversation about Clinton's health and fitness for office that was informed and exacerbated by “defamatory speculation on the part of conservatives pundits and politicians who have implied that she has some physical impairment that should concern voters” (Hamblin 2016). For months, and even years, far-right websites such as the Gateway Pundit and independent self-described “journalists” on Twitter had been sharing what they argued was evidence that Clinton was physically impaired, frail, and weak, such as photos that made it look like Clinton needed help up the stairs (Hoft Reference Hoft2016) or needed assistance to stand (Cernovich Reference Cernovich2016).
Unfortunately, speculation like this was not unique to the remote corners of the internet. In August, several months before the election, Rudy Giuliani, former governor of New York and failed presidential candidate, appeared on Fox News, where he told viewers to do an internet search for “Hillary Clinton illness” (Hellmann Reference Hellmann2016). On MSNBC, Donald Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson alleged that a previous brain trauma had left Clinton with a rare speaking disorder, dysphasia (Easley Reference Easley2016).
Why did these rumors about Clinton's physical strength and stamina gain a foothold? In the context of American politics, the relevance of strength and stamina to political leadership takes on added meaning when a woman is in the race. While, historically, men who run for president are also held to unattainable standards of physical stamina and masculinity (Conroy Reference Conroy2015; Katz Reference Katz2016; Smith Reference Smith2017), women face an even steeper uphill climb because of their association with femininity—and physical weakness and frailty—which is seen as incongruent with American politics.
LEADERSHIP IS MASCULINE AND WOMEN ARE FEMININE
The conventional notion of “leadership” in the United States is largely masculine in nature. According to a meta-analysis of three psychological research paradigms for understanding leadership and stereotypes about men and women, descriptions of leaders, professionals, and managers overlap most closely with descriptions of men, and these descriptions are mostly masculine (Koenig et al. Reference Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell and Ristikan2011). The authors of the meta-analysis write, “The characteristics that people ascribe to women, men, and leaders contribute to the challenges that women face in obtaining leadership roles and performing well in them” (630). This is because the ascribed characteristics for women are incongruent with those descriptions of leaders. However, the characteristics used to describe men are the same as those used to describe leaders. The authors conclude by arguing that their meta-analysis presents evidence that the meaning of leadership is “culturally masculine” and that “men fit cultural construals of leadership better than women do and thus have better access to leadership roles and face fewer challenges in becoming successful in them” (638). While women certainly can be viewed as leaders, and even masculine leaders in many instances, the psychological association between leadership and masculinity, and masculinity and men, puts women at an inherent disadvantage. It is from this disadvantaged position that women wade into politics and government.
Experimental evidence suggests that implicit gender bias is activated when respondents are asked to identify whether a hypothetical woman in politics, compared with a man, is better able to handle political issues such as national security or child care and whether she is more likely to be a strong leader or compassionate. With marked consistency, respondents identify men as more competent at dealing with masculine policy concerns and more likely to possess masculine traits, whereas women are seen as more competent at dealing with feminine policy concerns and more likely to possess feminine character traits (Dolan Reference Dolan2010; Sanbonmatsu Reference Sanbonmatsu2002; Sanbonmatsu and Dolan Reference Sanbonmatsu and Dolan2009). These studies support the argument that gender stereotypes pervade American politics.
PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP, MASCULINITY, AND THE 2016 RACE
The Trump campaign operated in a manner that showed it was aware of gender stereotypes and drew criticisms of Clinton from long-standing notions of presidential leadership. For example, at a campaign event in Cleveland, Ohio, on September 5, a few days before the 9/11 memorial event, Donald Trump asked his audience of Hillary Clinton, “Does she look presidential, fellas?” The following day, ABC's David Muir asked Trump about that comment. Not one to walk back controversial statements, Trump repeated the line, saying, “I just don't think she has a presidential look, and you need a presidential look” (Keneally Reference Keneally2016). By invoking a “presidential look,” Trump tapped into ideas that a near-universal presidential look exists and reminded his audience that Clinton does not look the part. This strategy was simultaneously effective at downplaying the conversation about who would better play the part of president, where Clinton's experience far outmatched her opponent's.
Another common attack used by Trump to invoke gender stereotypes was to describe Clinton as lacking “stamina” and “strength.” Between November 2015 and November 2016, Trump questioned Clinton's stamina at least 11 times on Twitter; each time he tweeted about stamina, he also mentioned strength.
On December 9, 2015, Trump tweeted, “Hillary Clinton does not have the STRENGTH or STAMINA to be President. We need strong and super smart for out next leader—or trouble!” Trump again attacked Clinton's strength and stamina on December 13, 16, 20, 23, and 26. Trump also brought up Clinton's stamina at the first presidential debate on September 26. Toward the end of the debate, moderator Lester Holt asked Trump about his “presidential look” comments. Trump responded, “She doesn't have that. The look. She doesn't have the stamina. I said she doesn't have the stamina. And I don't believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country you need tremendous stamina.”
These remarks about Clinton's stamina during the debate were widely mocked and recognized as overtly sexist. However, for many viewers, these sorts of remarks prime their considerations of candidate qualifications and shift voters’ evaluative criteria to a domain in which women are at a disadvantage. So long as the presidency and presidential leadership are associated with masculinity, these sorts of tactics will be effective.
CONCLUSION
In Clinton's retelling of the day of the 9/11 memorial, she recounts running into Chuck Schumer, Democratic senator from New York, who greeted her cheerfully and mentioned that he had recently been set back by pneumonia. In her memoir, she writes, “The difference between us was that Chuck didn't have to go out in public as a candidate when he was under the weather. He told me that he had followed his doctor's orders and stayed home for a week. Looking back, I should have done the same. Instead, I ended up having to parade in front of the cameras after leaving my daughter's apartment—where I had gone to rest—to reassure the world that I was fine” (Clinton Reference Clinton2017, 244).
In this passage, Clinton contrasts her life with that of her colleague, Schumer, who also had pneumonia, but, unlike her, he was not running for office while sick. However, another difference between Clinton and Schumer is that Clinton is a woman and Schumer is a man. While Clinton does not draw this distinction, layered in her remarks is the harsh recognition that men have more options when they are sick: although men are also punished for the appearance of physical weakness, women have more to lose given many of the assumptions about women and their physical strength. Moreover, as described, rumors were already circulating about Clinton's health, and Trump and his campaign had planted the seeds of doubt about Clinton's stamina. In this environment, Clinton felt as though she had no choice and could not stay home and rest. Even though Clinton was in fact ill, and momentarily weak, she was expected to “parade” in front of cameras to reassure the world that she was “fine,” even though, for a day, she was not.
Women enter politics at an inherent disadvantage, given the traditional notion of political—especially presidential—leadership in the United States; that notion is male, and especially masculine. The inherent disadvantage stems from the psychological incongruence between the field of politics, which is largely perceived as masculine, and assumptions about women as feminine (Eagly and Karau Reference Eagly and Karau2002). It is in this environment of heightened scrutiny of women as incongruent that Clinton's moment of weakness captured the public's attention and was used as evidence that she was not presidential.
