WaPo woman writer Kathleen Parker dishes up a doozy today: in her op-ed 'Stop Demonizing Hillary Clinton' , the wise woman writer offers up this advice:
[Y]ou must stop witchifying this woman. She has one of the best résumés in the country, certainly compared to anyone who might challenge her.
....
[M]en beating up a woman summons a number of associations that only make women recoil in revulsion. Two, while you were hunkering in your duck blind, women the world over were getting busy organizing and helping each other. There’s a global movement afoot in which Hillary Clinton has played a crucial part.
If you attack her, all but the most rigidly ideological women will circle the wagons, and you will lose. On the bright side, you won’t have to worry anymore about birth control. Your own, that is.
...
Thus, my advice: Marshal your sharpest thinkers and create a product people want. If you can’t win with the strength of your arguments and the clarity of your vision, you can at least lose with your dignity intact — a decent start to a much-needed Republican Reformation.
Nevermind the anti-male "jokes" that permeate the piece (water off a duck's back)...
It's the concept of 'Hillary the untouchable female' I find troubling. Surely no professionally trained journalist worth her salt today would suggest the press once again back off on critically evaluating a presidential candidate's fitness for getting the job done, based on her track record results.
Gives new meaning to the term "press pass"
Sec. of State Clinton logged a lot of air miles distributing aid abroad, and she certainly made promoting women's rights abroad a high priority in her work. But look closer, Kathleen:
what were the real results
today, not in the promises of worldwide sex-role changes down the road?
Look at Libya, nevermind Benghazi.
Seems the only thing this administration learned in doubling down on the Bush/Cheney middle east follies was not to go in alone this time, so there'd be no American sole power taking of the blame. Thus,
NATO supplied the air power that supported the rebels, who overthrew the dictator, who was the last man left standing between a central rule and absolute governing chaos.
Plus,
if you're in the accurate
recollection business for boys
and girls, remember it took much longer for those NATO-backed rebels to overthrow their government than initially speculated upon by the Obama administration advisers -- they needed more and more outside help -- which might have been the first clue that these rebels were in no way ready to assume the daily business of running a sovereign country, even poorly.
This is all fair game for hard questions of how Hillary Clinton would rule the world in the future. This is
her record; she owns it. No glossing over the resume, no 'it's behind us; what does it matter?' excuses that might work in personal matters of the heart, but won't cut it on worldwide matters of deadly importance.
Gals certainly can gird their loins too, and jump into the fray, but nevermind Parker's pretty pink advice here, expecting the rules to be re-written to accomodate the tender(er of the) sex...
In short, there will be no special treatment for the ladies in this arena, thankfully.
If she runs, and wins, it would be nice to think she's simply the best man for the job -- in the most inclusive sense of the word; no p.c. language necessary -- with a plan for leading the
whole country forward.
Boys and working men included...
-----------------
Good luck to all true competitors.
* Many of us think HRC missed her true calling in sacrificing so much of her early years -- and personal credibility -- to serve alongside her husband's political needs. No doubt, without his overriding influence shaping her career, she could be the CEO of a private international charity group, nudgingly raising money and awareness -- like Bono -- for the humanitarian causes nearest to her heart.
