Hillary uses enough hairspray, doesn't she?

What Sooey said:

I dunno but it suddenly dawned on me, too, in these Feminist backlash times in Liberal/Democrat whirld that if Hillary Clinton was the strongest REPUBLICAN contender - she'd be a shoo-in. You know it, girlfriend. It'd be tales of Maggie Thatcher and her beloved Ronnie Reagan and old home week at the Prom when men were men and there was no reason why a woman couldn't be elected President as long as she wasn't a Feminist Bitch on the Left.

Well, how about it, men on the Left? Because there will always be a reason NOT to vote for a political candidate but when you're the guys with the strongest Presidential contender in either Party and she's a WOMAN and a FEMINIST, there is only one reason NOT to vote for her and that's because you don't really want HER in the White House.

Face it. It'll be forever until there is a female contender for President again (unless the Republicans come up with one - and she won't be a Feminist) and you know it.

So suck it up and hold your chauvinistic, excuse-making noses - because it's now or not in our lifetime.

Comments

[sooey]

Thanks to not linking to my piece last week on Obama calling for worldwide rioting in the streets if he didn't win. That whole idea is so yesterday I can't believe I wrote it now.

Go Hillary!

[johnnykap]

I'm not sure why Sooey has a requirement that any female candidate must be a feminist. After all, we all know why feminism was created in the first place. (For those of you who don't know, it was created to give ugly women access to the mainstream of society.) Most normal people don't care if a candidate is female or black. They care about ideology. And any way you slice them, Hillary and Barack are far left libs.

[Marky Mark]

What's interesting about this election, looking just at the Democrats, is the matter of "identity politics." Clinton appeals to voters wanting to elect the first woman, Obama appeals to voters wanting to elect the first African American and Edwards appeals to voters concerned about class as he runs as the "son of a mill worker."

If identity politics is relevant, it's hard to prioritize among identities. What if you are a poor African American woman-with whom of the three are you supposed to identify?

I think that to the extent that the above quote is supportive of the argument that Clinton should be favoured not because she is a woman but because she is a feminist, it isn't at all clear to me that the other candidates aren't themselves supportive of feminism. Can't men be feminists as well?

At the end of the day some people prefer one of the two other candidates over Clinton for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender or her feminism-e.g., support of the Iraq war, a desire for someone new, a concern over choosing someone thought to be more electable.

At the same time I do think that much of how Clinton is judged has to do with her being a woman. But those judgements seem to be made not just by men but by women as well.

I thought Peggy Noonan's latest column was a good read on these issues:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/declarations.html

While some opponents of Clinton are anti-feminist and a subset of that group might well be misogynistic, the fact is the working assumption behind someone not being a Clinton supporter should be assumed to be a good faith political view. Analogies would be that those who don't support affirmative action shouldn't be assumed to be racists bigots (even if there is a subset that deserves that label) and those who are critics of Israel shouldn't be assumed to be Judeophobic.

[D Shapiro]

It has been all too easy to see the coverage of the Clinton run for president as sexist -- because that's what it is. Which other candidate is known primarily by first name? That is a clear and unambiguous put-down, treating her like a little girl. And the excuse, which you may hear, that it's done to distinguish her from her husband, is a mere lie; if in doubt, one could surely refer to her as Senator Clinton, since her husband was never a U.S. Senator.
As a Canadian, I'm not so much a supporter as an admirer, and have been ever since I watched some of the public debates she had with her Republican opponent when running for the Senate. Her obvious command of the issues, her clear exposition of her point of view and policy proposals, and her self-possession impressed me, and none of these things had anything to do with gender. The opening-up that she is accused of manufacturing, the little moment of emotion, seems so thoroughly simple and unimportant in contrast to all that, but if it helped remind people that a person gets tired and upset when things aren't going as well as she (or he) had hoped they would, okay. But pretty much everybody I know would have been less in control, more angry, and less articulate.
My only concern about her ability to function as president is that she's not enough of a leftist, and will look too feminine in trying to find compromises, to make things work, and it will be interpreted by her opponents as a sign of weakness. She's simply more of a political centrist, like her husband. But I so admire her intelligence, and an inner strength arising from knowledge rather than from empty-headed conviction. What a change that would be from Dubya!

[Rachel Marsden]

Mitt Romney uses more hairspray than Hillary. I'm sure you'll be sending me a lovely fruitbasket now...or something...for having contributed this brilliant gem of political insight to your blog.

[sooey]

Ooh, I'm going to ask for a gourmet chocolate basket OF SOLID GOLD, then.

[johnnykap]

Sooey, would you be satisfied with a honey necklace?

[Marky Mark]

Re: whether the candidate should be referred to by her first or last name, see the following from the candidate's official website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

"Hillary for President"

"Ask Hillary"

"Join Team Hillary"

"Women for Hillary"

"hilaryhub.com"