I’m beyond fed up with hearing about women being Hillary Clinton’s “natural constituency.” She’s a woman; I’m a woman. So what? Why would any reporter or analyst, or even the candidate herself, assume women will support her simply because she’s a woman?
Being a woman doesn’t make Hillary more qualified or in any way a better choice than her male opponents. Her gender might even work against her on the world stage (dealing with Muslim leaders, for example). She certainly lacks the gravitas of Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher. Or Jeane Kirkpatrick or Madeleine Albright, for that matter.
Instead of assuming women’s allegiance to Hillary, the analysts should consider that women tend to be more critical of women than men would be. Women talk among themselves about other women, judging and assessing one another far more than men do. Women can be very “catty” about other women. Quite simply, women know women better than men do.
And yours truly, speaking as a woman and a voter, does not think much of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. She’s a lawyer… and that helped her back in Arkansas with the White Water scandal, back when she and husband Bill were making plans to get each other elected president someday.
When Bill was elected president, Hillary became First Lady. That allowed her to pick out the curtains and dishes, host lavish parties with big-name guests, and travel widely on the taxpayer’s nickel. Bill did let her take a crack at universal health care, but as it turned out, tricky national political issues weren’t her forte.
When Bill was caught philandering in the White House, Hillary assessed her plans to be president someday and promptly forgave him. Most wives, after enduring such public humiliation, would have thrown the bum out or, since he was president, would have left him, taken him for every cent he had, and lived happily ever after. The noble Hillary, however, took it on the chin for her country and stood by her man.
Eventually Bill left the White House and the Clintons moved to New York. New York, you see, had a Democratic Senate seat opening up. No dummy, that Hillary. “U.S. Senator (D-NY)” would look a lot better on her résumé than “Cookie Baker, D-AR.” Never mind that it made her a very transparent and still-not-very-stylish carpetbagger.
Now, finally, after all her sacrifice and years of preparation, Hillary is, according to most national polls, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. I don’t know if that’s because of or in spite of her careful calculations, waffling on issues, cackles, fashion sense, gender, or “thirty years of political experience.”
Hillary, I’m a woman voter. I’ve assessed your qualifications for president. And, Hillary, you’re no president.
10 thoughts on “A woman voter assesses Hillary Clinton”
Amen… I have always thought, yes, Bill Clinton had a problem, a mental problem, similar to any addiction. Hillary, on the other hand made a conscious choice to enable a serial sex-aholic. She did this for the sole purpose of her quest for power over you and I.
She lied, she stole, she attacked again the women Bill had already molested. All this and she looks us in the eye and assumes we are just too simple to not buy her crap.
I for one am sick and tired of being dumped on by the Clintons,,,
“Gravitas” is a pretty word in that context, and I wonder where you got it from; words of that kind come in as an echo. I remember it dimly from the title of a German poem.
I hope you are right about Hillary, because I cannot understand why she is hated. From here it looks as if they hated her more than Bush who is merely considered incompetent.
I know that foreigners should not stick their noses in your elections, but of course you’d realize that, either because of the dollar or because of your arms and mainly because of our passivity and making hay while the sun shines, Europe depends on the US, not materially, now, but de facto even in the short run.
Gravitas is a wonderful word, isn’t it? It was just what I wanted in this context. I don’t recall where I first heard it.
I glanced at your blog and take it you are Swiss (?) (I plan to explore more later). I’m very interested in your opinions about our elections (crazy, aren’t they?), and certainly that is not “sticking your nose in.” One of our major concerns in electing a president is choosing someone who will properly represent us to the rest of the world.
Most Americans now believe George Bush has been a very poor president. Personally, I agree with your word “incompetent.” The concern about Hillary is that she is not incompetent, but rather, intelligent, cunning, and willing to say or do whatever she finds to be personally expedient. There is also the great concern that she cannot be separated from her powerful husband and we do not want another presidency with the two of them in the White House.
We look forward to electing a president who will restore respect, honor, and a broad world view to our highest office.
As soon as Bush got re-elected, I tried to abstain from reading the Herald Tribune, because I thought I did anyway not understand. I was brought up on the Hitler problem of Germany. I read all I could on that and ended up thinking that the millions who voted for him were more guilty than Hitler himself. The idea is that if millions of people hang on to every word you speak, almost anybody will be dragged off by what these millions want to hear. That is one thing. —
The other one is lawyers and judges. I have not started to read the papers again, because first I would try to find out how it is legally possible that lawyers and judges cannot decide what “interrogation” techniques are legal. Or what rights Bush has to keep people jailed without trial and without lawyers and without deadline. —
In my computer I have only 3 or 4 press photos. One is of chickenwire about 6 feet high and behind that one or two dozens of prisoners who wear clean new tomato red outfits and who KNEEL down before guards who pass by on the other side of the chickenwire with their machine guns ready. — It was published about 4 years ago by the Herald Tribune.
It is beyond me to believe that a different president can change things that are that basic. But I realize that pessimism in these regards is mainly European.
Given the option, I imagine our judges and lawyers could quickly determine which forms of interrogation are legal. That is precisely why the Bush administration declared the prisoners “enemy combatants” (and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions) and incarcerated them outside the U.S. (where they are not protected by U.S. laws). I doubt the matter will be resolved while Bush is in office, but am hopeful his successor will close Guantanamo and resolve the prisoners’ fates one way or another in accordance with the applicable laws (U.S. international, or military).
The real problem is Iraq. Some think that you cannot get out. They say that you have to stay in. All kinds of reasons are given. There are two reason which are never mentioned: oil and China.
I could see good reasons why those two are never mentioned, for instance that they are too terrible to even think about for any length of time. And they cannot be resolved in public debates.
Obama is much more likable than Hillary and McCain has an impressive record ….. as a tough victim. Once I googled all over to find out why Hillary is hated. I think that Bush leaves the country with some grim choices.
Sorry about the mess I made. Would you mind correcting it a little for me?
Beginning of second paragraph: good reasons
End of third paragraph: Out.
(I much prefer reading to writing, but have been writing all morning and wanted to see other things of yours.)
Hope I corrected that the way you wanted.