Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Powder Room Politics
by Kathleen Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


WASHINGTON -- Will women vote for Hillary Clinton only because she's a woman?

That question keeps getting bounced around and I've recently revised my answer from "no" to "yes."

That is, yes, women will vote for Clinton because she's a woman --if men target her as a woman.

Translation: Gentlemen, if you don't want another Clinton in the White House, do not say unkind things about her persona, demeanor, appearance -- even if bull's-eye true. Not even in your own kitchen with your own wife.

Women have radar for anti-woman sentiments -- and all guys have them to some degree. Blame Mom, if you haven't already. And no one has benefited more from being a victim than the candidate formerly known as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The truth is, Clinton might not be a senator from New York if not for her victimization as first spouse. How soon we forget the circumstances of her rise to power. It may be arguable that Clinton is a good-enough senator -- that's not the point -- but it is (BEG ITAL)in(END ITAL)arguable that she won the office in 2000 because women rallied around her.

Overall, women voted for Clinton over Republican Rep. Rick Lazio 60 percent to 39 percent. In upstate New York, typically a Republican stronghold, women voted for Clinton 55 percent to 43 percent.

And that rally had as much to do with Clinton the Victim as Clinton the Candidate. Throughout their White House years, the worse Bill behaved, the better Hillary looked. All women, without exception, could relate to her position and could admire her classy handling of the situation.

Polls during the campaign indicated that women identified with Clinton's struggles and "saw some of themselves in her," according to Clinton pollster Mark Penn.

Today we have a different Hillary Clinton. Now a consummate politician in her own right, Clinton has a record and a position (or two or three) on national issues that transcend her domestic life. Criticism of her policies isn't just appropriate, but necessary.

But she should lose the presidency for legitimate reasons, not because men find her unappealing.

When Clinton's campaign recently played the victim card following a debate in which the other top Democratic candidates "piled on," they misspent her gender equity. The men weren't piling on because she's a woman, but because she's the leading candidate, as Clinton subsequently acknowledged.

Invoking sexism was a risky strategy that almost worked, but not quite. Enough women navigate all-male boardrooms without needing special protections. They and others in more traditional roles were surely insulted by the implication that a woman running for president needs special handling. They've come too far to bat those lashes.

But. Let men criticize Clinton personally and a funny thing happens. Contaminating the air is a slight whiff of misogyny that women recognize and recoil against. When men speak derogatorily about Clinton's looks, all women feel a little bit wounded. What woman can withstand such scrutiny, after all?

Women may attack each other -- I've been known to observe the shrillness of Hillary's voice -- but when a man does it, something female kicks in among even the least girly of us. Bottom line: What women have in common with Hillary Clinton will always exceed what they have in common with men. This is powder room wisdom. Two women can disagree on the most controversial issues at the table, but when they head to the ladies' room, inevitably together, they see eyeball to eyeball real fast over the most basic, and ultimately most important, matters.

Hair, for instance. But also, seriously, children, family, life, love and those mysterious creatures -- men. Women may cut each other's throat for a man's affections, but most will also come to a sister's aid when men behave badly. It's human nature to empathize with the pain of those most like us.

Similarly, what men have in common with Bill Clinton exceeds what they have in common with women -- even if they are contemptuous of his narcissism and lack of self-control.

Many of us witnessed this in our own kitchens during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The deeper Ken Starr cut into Bill Clinton's very private life, the more men felt sympathy for and aligned themselves with the president. In the locker room, schadenfreude has its limits.

Will women vote for Hillary just because she's a woman? Only if men attack Hillary as a woman.

So be nice, boys, or you may end up choking on the words "Madam President."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
1 in 12
Recently I was working with a group of 12 women. One and only one said she would be voting for HRC. The rest of us just look around and said nothing. If those are the odds? ? ?

thx: ET1 writes:
The notion that the Global Warming-Climate Change hysteria may have its financial roots and continual support lies with OPEC and the Saudi monarchy is - I confess - speculative; but the payoff is absolute. It is the foreign oil suppliers that benefit most from us being addictively dependent on what they produce.

The only "alternative energy" source which can supply the necessary power is nuclear and we know the list of constraints that block this implementation.

Hilllary Clinton
I guess I'm not a woman. My birth certificate says I am. I've given birth to four children, but if the litmus test for being a woman is to vote for Hillary Clinton, I had better go down to the beer joint and start hanging out with the guys.
Ruth Valdez

How sad
I think it's so sad that the worst sexism exists among women who distrust other women. This sounds like a meeting of a high school mean girls club.

FUNNY HILLARY CLINTON VIDEO ON YOUTUBE
Check out http://www.youtube.com/undercvrconservative. Hillary Clinton and Larry David in a spoof of CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM. This is what we Hollywood Republicans do during the writers strike...we make youtube videos. Lol. Enjoy.

Huh?
Hillary's a woman? Why, yes -- I believe she is. And *what* a woman. Vava-voom. That in itself should be enough to recommend her to the Highest Office. But not only that, she has already lived in the White House. Her credentials, then, are solid.

What more qualifications does one need? Celebrity or celebrity-by-marriage is surely enough. Consider Sonny Bono's wife. And, uh, that dictator and his wife. Peron? Whatever. My point is already proven. I don't need evidence.

I'm starting a Hillary collection. Kind of cruel, especially since I don't even care about her, but here's the latest.

http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2007/11/clinton-unvei ls-three-step-plan-for.html

J

Imagine
JAMES writes: Wednesday, November, 14, 2007 11:05 PM From your blog:
"ALTERNATIVE ENERGY" FAKERY
Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:57 PM

Try to see what cannot be seen and the rest of the mystery will then come into the clear.



Imagine a Sheik Moham bin Moola Moola whose primary social-financial-economic-political interest is OIL-OIL-OIL and the best thing possible for this creep-sheik is the US to remain desperately dependent on acquiring its oil needs for foreign sources.

My response:

Imagine you live in a country that has limited economic prospects. You want to feed your family, shelter them, provide an education and be left to live your life as you would leave others to live theirs.

Imagine mad men want to control your life and are fighting to control your countries relationship with the outside world.

Imagine the last best hope for world wants to find a way to ignore your suffering. The people who have sacrificed to liberate millions of people declare your cause to expensive. Your plight hopeless, your cause lost and the task of saving you too hard.

Imagine a segment of the society that is your only hope of salvation has an excuse. "Oil" is the only reason anyone could care about "you".
The few who can't see the desperation in your eyes because of the "oil" in their own, demand demand you be sacrificed.

Imagine you are ignored to death by the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. Imagine

so much for fact based conservatives
i am a liberal who will not vote for hillary but my decision is based on her stated politics and policies. as i perused this thread, except for a few exceptions, all the posts speak from an emotion based set of factors not on her politics.

we should use facts to decide who the president should be---not feelings. here are some examples.




Everytime Hillary speaks, especially if she raises her voice, I want to run for the hills.

Rather, look at her as a person: Scheming, manipulative, very dishonest, rude to people who are her protectors and helpers, willing to do anything, or be anything, as long as it helps her to get what she wants.

That any woman can sympathize with this pampered haridon is beyond the pale.



Additionally, thanks to chivalrous male politicians & judges, women have the majority of civil, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America. Result? Women are abusing “No-Fault Divorce”: women apply for 70% of all divorces while utilizing children as financial assets IOT leverage the largest amount of de facto Alimony: i.e., child support. Given their child custody monopoly, mothers commit 70% of all child abuse. Contrary to the implicit sexism of the $20B “Violence Against Women Act” women commit 50 % of domestic violence. Women routinely lie about spousal abuse and assault their husbands.

Always honest! Unless....
Farmer's Wife writes: Wednesday, November, 14, 2007 10:30 PM

from your blog:

Folks vs. Politicians
Saturday, November 11, 2006 12:28 PM

"Here I am again, preaching to the choir, myself. But, I find it very therapeutical. I seem to be a reasonable person, and I agree with myself more often than not.

If I believed what Democrats say on TH about conservative Christians, I would have to just shoot myself because of the hate filled, racist, bigot, hypocrite they say I have become. Fortunately for me I don't believe anything Dems say, at least not when they are talking about those who disagree with them. Sometimes though, if you listen carefully, you will hear them being honest about who they really are."

My response:
.....they want you to vote for them. The biggest lie you can tell, "It's free from the government". If you don't have a soul, it is OK to have someone else steal from your neighbor.

Why I went to your blog:

"She had her eye on the Presidency since before Bill was elected. One certainly has to give her credit for playing the cards she was dealt and the ones she has been able to stack very well."

My response:
.....We could all see the "cult of personality" (not my term) was being developed. It's not my term, we could argue terms, applied to the leftists and D.U.I. It was after all their choice to align themselves with politicians whose only identifiable values are personality and government largess.

Women's Voting
Will Women vote for Hillary ???

NO. No. NO. NO.
NEVER would I vote for Hillary just because she
is a woman.
What a ridiculous reason to vote for a presidential candidate!

Of course, where Hillary Clinton is concerned, I would not vote for her for any reason.

Her negatives go 'way beyond her sex to the point that they have absolutely nothing to do with her gender.

Rather, look at her as a person: Scheming, manipulative, very dishonest, rude to people who are her protectors and helpers, willing to do anything, or be anything, as long as it helps her to get what she wants. Power is what she wants. Adulation, control, the big "I AM" looking down on all the rest of the "sheep", as her statements have shown.

Hillary's idea is that we do not have the sense and knowledge to take care of ourselves, but HER socialistic/communistic government should provide all that we need. Of course, she expects us to pay for it.

Bill Clinton is a sophomoric narcissist, while at the same time being a very charming and a highly capable, smart politician.

Did his actions with other women make Hillary a victim? NO WAY. They are a pair of political climbers, with one goal in mind, and that goal has never been a sweet, trusting, loyal marriage, as most people think of it. Any anger or hurt which Hillary felt by Bill's adulterous actions was simply that she feared it might hurt their (especially HER) political ambitions.

I, as a person who is very definitely a woman, never had one ounce of pity for Hillary. She plays whatever role she thinks will get her ahead.

In Bill, she has a capable, charming person who can help her succeed. That's all.

As for each of them, well, it is hard to figure out just which is more immoral.

Women should not be fooled by her.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Quantitative Analysis:

100% = total adult population

To wit sixty (60%) percent actually voted in the last presidential election

The Republican-Democratic divide was 50-50; ergo thirty (30%) eligible voter population voted Democrat.

The lunatic leftos are twenty-five (25%) percent of the Democrats; ergo the loo-loos make up only seven-point five (7.5%) of the general population.

So, therefore, on a crowded bus or subway car here in NYC maybe 10 - at the most - are leftist loo-loos and if the same bus was placed in Omaha the sole leftist loo-loo would be the one that smells needing a bath.

Farmer's Wife
Howdy!
My trip was exhausting, but very nice, thanks.
As to Mrs. Clinton, I think Bill is just a means to an end. If she does win, watch for him to quietly "disappear" after her term(s).

Hey YLG...
Welcome back. Hope you had a good trip!

A woman's touch is...
a very good thing in many ways. The old saying goes that behind every successful man stands a good woman. Well, Bill by many measures is a successful man and Hillary did stand behind him.

Hillary, however, had more on her mind I think, than standing behind her man. She likes to play both sides of the aisle and knew that many (conservative leaning) women would see her as a woman who took her marriage vows seriously, you know that part that says,"for better or worse".

She had her eye on the Presidency since before Bill was elected. One certainly has to give her credit for playing the cards she was dealt and the ones she has been able to stack very well.

I think Hillary really believes her way is best. I just don't agree with her and would not vote for her if she were my own sister, much less because we are of the same gender. I know there are a lot of women that agree with me and I am hoping it is the majority.

MotleyCrue
Hello, darlin'! ;-)

I've just returned from my mini vacation, and lo, I find you here!

So, did I miss anything of import, or just the usual suspects?

gender politics
funny how it wasn't perceived as gender politics when women voted overwhelmingly for bubba based on his appeal to the weaker sex. That any woman can sympathize with this pampered haridon is beyond the pale. She allowed herself to be a doormat while her molester husband publicly humilated her. Her choice of action was to defend him and act has his chief enabler. Using the presidentcy the clinton's made millions selling off bubba's presidentcy. Later she ran for the senate and has made thousands more and still after owning two mansions millions in the bank still portrays herslef as a victim. But I have yet to see any serious attack that doesn't go after her politics. She however must defeat her own worst enemy and that is the missus clinton. No matter what the issue she will always use her fallback which is pity me I am a helpless woman when it is convenient for me to use that ploy

THE FIRST PITCH
"Clinton might not be a senator from New York if not for her victimization as first spouse."

There's a story about how Bill Clinton, attending the first baseball game of the season, picked up Hillary, who was sitting next to him in the stand, and hurled her over the fence into the outfield.

An extremely agitated Secret Service Man rushed up and whispered loudly in Bill's ear: "Mr President, I said 'the first pitch.'"

Hillary says to Bill, "Sweetheart,
you know what would be fun? You taking me somewhere I've never been before."

"Okay," he says dubiously. "But what's so exciting about the kitchen?"

Greetings, Anne, m'dear. How are you today?

Interesting Comment
Today I read this comment in a newspaper column by Geraldine Ferraro. It answers the statement that "At the Democratic debate all the other candidates didn't gang up on Hillary Clinton and attack her for two hours because she is a woman, but only because she is the front runner". Ms Ferraro's comment (which I am paraphrasing here) was "Fine. Rudy Giuliani is the Republican front runner. Let's all watch the next Republican debate to see if all the other candidates gang up on him and attack him for two hours."

Defeat...
leaks from the demonicRAT party, like stink from a pig.

Women voters
Anne writes that I missed the consensus here..... So?

lethrneck: It appears you MISSED

the consensus here.....







Women voters
Voting for a woman because she is a woman, just goes to show how insecure women are about their own qualifications for any particular position.

What they are saying is, "I know we aren't as qualified for that position as a man might be, but by golly we women have to stick together."

The overhanging question is: Why? Are there no individuals among women? No pioneers to explore the wilderness? No 'Tugboat Annies' capable of doing a man's work equally as well as he does?

Woman: Insecurity is thy name. (Self made that is.)

Hear me roar:
Vote for Shrillary? Not only no -- HELL no! Why would I open the door to Communism in my lifetime just because the candidate has ovaries? No, thank you!

Whoa
I've been a woman for a lot of years and I'm not ready for a woman president, especially THIS woman.

Women are much too emotional for one thing. I keep remembering Nancy Poloci "for the children"

Personally, I like the idea of a man being a protector, taking care of the bad guys that pop up. I like hearing a man's voice telling me everything is going to be alright. Or yelling at the bully.
Everytime Hillary speaks, especially if she raises her voice, I want to run for the hills.
Many many women feel the way I do. Don't let the feminists fool you.

Savage99: Whoa...

"I doubt the GOP name on the ballot will mean much."


Please tell me that you mean the Republicans will vote for whomever is on the Republican ticket.... (Not that I'm at all happy with Rudy or Huck...) opposed to Hitlary will win no matter who is on the Republican ticket...


Please, please, please tell me that you mean the former....

The latter is soooo depressing! If you meant the latter, I'd have to go and put myself in a corner and pout for a while.





Once again
opinions are so polarized its impossible to make any reliable judgement. Almost everyone knows what they will do if Hill is the candidate. They will vote for or against her. I doubt the GOP name on the ballot will mean much.

Let's See Now.
We can let Hillary lie, obsfucate, confiscate, pontificate, triangulate, denigrate: No Problemo!
But if we give women the impression we think she might be a woman, we automatically make her a winner? That seems a little steep for me!

UncleMax: Agreed!

old1 (4:28AM) also said it well...
"Not this woman. Not for that woman. I know a viper when I see one."





Mormonism and women
If Romney is the GOP candidate, the issue raised in this article will be significant. The eternal role of women in Mormon belief will be an underlying anti-woman statement that will work in Hillary's favor.

my 2 cents
If someone votes FOR for Hillary solely because she's a woman that is sexism pure and simple.

If someone votes AGAINST Hillary solely because she is a woman that is sexism pure and simple.

To restate - I have not problems voting for A woman, but I do have problems with THAT woman.

New Territory
In dealing with a serious contender with high poll numbers like Hillary we are sort of in new uncharted territory. As Ms. Parker has stated if we are too hard on her personally due to voice looks etc we risk generating same sex sympathy. I prefer to look at her record and what she says she will do if elected. When one looks at her that way one sees a candidate that cannot be supported regardless of gender. People need to work on that and try to keep the personalities to a minimum.

Even more interesting
... than this topic is the question: What makes MEN vote for Hillary?

Many of them did, in New York. Many of them say they would, in polls.

Men vote for Hillary, without the sisterhood card being played. In fact, across Europe and the Americas, the West got started on the path to state socialism before women could even vote. Is it just possible that the origin of humans' tendency to favor invidious, nanny-state socialism is not in women, but in... humans?

Hey, beyond the pale
Thanks for the response. You make very valid points that go beyond her politics and offer good arguments about the shallowness of her cult of personality or Hilaryness, or whatever.

I read what you and some other women are posting here and it is cause for optimism. However, for every beyond the pale, Mother of 4, and Mrs. Paddy, how many are out there watching The View and joining in the crazy applause every time Rosie or Whoopi trots out a left wing talking point?

It's going to be interesting.

I dislike
this article alot. It doesn't bother me in the least if men go after Hillary's looks, voice, whatever. I just say right on and don't go and vote for her.

Hillary wants it both ways.
Hillary wants us to believe that she's the smartest woman in the world, and that she can be as good a president as any man. Yet when she gets criticized, she certainly doesn't take it like a man.

If Hillary can't take the heat, she should go back to the kitchen.

Hillary Parody My Blog
Inspired by It Takes A Village...

Misandry(cont'd)
Additionally, thanks to chivalrous male politicians & judges, women have the majority of civil, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America. Result? Women are abusing “No-Fault Divorce”: women apply for 70% of all divorces while utilizing children as financial assets IOT leverage the largest amount of de facto Alimony: i.e., child support. Given their child custody monopoly, mothers commit 70% of all child abuse. Contrary to the implicit sexism of the $20B “Violence Against Women Act” women commit 50 % of domestic violence. Women routinely lie about spousal abuse and assault their husbands. WRT male domestic abuse, women routinely commit paternity fraud (1%- 10%) and legally force their husbands to pay for some else’s children. Thanks to the rape-shield laws women lie about rape 50% of the time. Women routinely employ abortion as de facto birth control that results in 25 % (1.4M) of all children conceived yearly being aborted for pure convenience. Also, those same chivalrous male politicians enacted social welfare programs ($1.4T per year) that benefit women at the expense of the majority male taxpayer base. Now society is electing female politicians (e.g., Ms. Clinton) who are in the process of accelerating the male to female transfer of income & opportunity. Sounds like a “responsibility-optional” woman’s world to me.

Miandry (cont'd)
Additionally, thanks to chivalrous male politicians & judges, women have the majority of civil, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America. Result? Women are abusing “No-Fault Divorce”: women apply for 70% of all divorces while utilizing children as financial assets IOT leverage the largest amount of de facto Alimony: i.e., child support. Given their child custody monopoly, mothers commit 70% of all child abuse. Contrary to the implicit sexism of the $20B “Violence Against Women Act” women commit 50 % of domestic violence. Women routinely lie about spousal abuse and assault their husbands. WRT male domestic abuse, women routinely commit paternity fraud (1%- 10%) and legally force their husbands to pay for some else’s children. Thanks to the rape-shield laws women lie about rape 50% of the time. Women routinely employ abortion as de facto birth control that results in 25 % (1.4M) of all children conceived yearly being aborted for pure convenience. Also, those same chivalrous male politicians enacted social welfare programs ($1.4T per year) that benefit women at the expense of the majority male taxpayer base. Now society is electing female politicians (e.g., Ms. Clinton) who are in the process of accelerating the male to female transfer of income & opportunity. Sounds like a “responsibility-optional” woman’s world to me.

Misandry
“Let men criticize Clinton personally and a funny thing happens. Contaminating the air is a slight whiff of misogyny that women recognize and recoil against.”

Really? The same women ignore the existence of institutionalized Misandry. We are told ad nauseam by the MSM about the fundamental superiority of women over men:
• Women are able to think more rationally.
• Women can make better choices, especially under pressure.
• Women can understand complex issues, including politics, more easily.
• Women's brains are superior to men's due to some (disputed) studies claiming that women tend to have a slightly larger corpus callosum than men.
• Women have special, innate, or better-developed intuitive or multitasking abilities than men.
• Women are fundamentally morally superior to their violent male counterparts

Reality: MEN continue to do all the heavy lifting (90% of overtime, 95% of all work related deaths, etc.), pay the majority of income taxes (Top 50% of wager earners (Majority: MEN!!) pay 96% of all income taxes & do 98% (women comprise 30% of the military, but only 2% of casualties ) of the dying in a war against a group of ruthless MEN that would love to put all American women in Burkas.

Misandry
“Let men criticize Clinton personally and a funny thing happens. Contaminating the air is a slight whiff of misogyny that women recognize and recoil against.”

Really? The same women ignore the existence of institutionalized Misandry. We are told ad nauseam by the MSM about the fundamental superiority of women over men:
• Women are able to think more rationally.
• Women can make better choices, especially under pressure.
• Women can understand complex issues, including politics, more easily.
• Women's brains are superior to men's due to some (disputed) studies claiming that women tend to have a slightly larger corpus callosum than men.
• Women have special, innate, or better-developed intuitive or multitasking abilities than men.
• Women are fundamentally morally superior to their violent male counterparts

Reality: MEN continue to do all the heavy lifting (90% of overtime, 95% of all work related deaths, etc.), pay the majority of income taxes (Top 50% of wager earners (Majority: MEN!!) pay 96% of all income taxes & do 98% (women comprise 30% of the military, but only 2% of casualties ) of the dying in a war against a group of ruthless MEN that would love to put all American women in Burkas.

Institutionalized Misandry
“Let men criticize Clinton personally and a funny thing happens. Contaminating the air is a slight whiff of misogyny that women recognize and recoil against.”

Really? The very same women ignore the existence of institutionalized Misandry. We are told ad nauseam by the MSM about the fundamental superiority of women over men:
• Women are able to think more rationally.
• Women can make better choices, especially under pressure.
• Women can understand complex issues, including politics, more easily.
• Women's brains are superior to men's due to some (disputed) studies claiming that women tend to have a slightly larger corpus callosum than men.
• Women have special, innate, or better-developed intuitive or multitasking abilities than men.
• Women are fundamentally morally superior to their violent male counterparts

Reality: MEN continue to do all the heavy lifting (90% of overtime, 95% of all work related deaths, etc.), pay the majority of income taxes (Top 50% of wager earners (Majority: MEN!!) pay 96% of all income taxes & do 98% (women comprise 30% of the military, but only 2% of casualties ) of the dying in a war against a group of ruthless MEN that would love to put all American women in Burkas.

Ms. Clinton & "Women in need"
I have never heard a feminist acknowledge that most modern women are by nature afraid and most literally depend on a paternal government to protect them from everything, from the men in their lives (i.e., VAWA) to the right to defy reason, logic and personal responsibility (e.g., Affirmative Action, No-Fault Divorce, Abortions on Demand, etc.) The relationship between feminism (i.e., female-chauvinism) and big government and the promotion of every leftwing cause should be obvious due to the weaker sex’s natural and apparent fear of everything & perpetual need for “security” in all facets of their respective lives. This is of course reflected in how they vote. Economist John Lott, author of the book "Freedomnomics", went back to the 1980s to see what happens when women get the right to vote. His findings? In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately raised as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. Ms. Clinton is just the latest in a long line of politicians pandering to the de facto rulers of modern American Society: single & divorced women who expect responsibility-optional, consequence-free life styles subsidized by the majority-male peon taxpayer population. These are the “women in need” to whom Ms. Clinton consistently refers & they will get her elected President.

Ms. Clinton & "Women in Need"
I have never heard a feminist acknowledge that most modern women are by nature afraid and most literally depend on a paternal government to protect them from everything, from the men in their lives (i.e., the sexist VAWA) to the right to defy reason, logic and personal responsibility (e.g., Welfare State, Affirmative Action, No-Fault Divorce, Abortions on Demand, etc.) The relationship between feminism (i.e., female-chauvinism) and big government and the promotion of every leftwing cause should be obvious due to the weaker sex’s natural and apparent fear of everything & perpetual need for “security” in all facets of their respective lives. This is of course reflected in how they vote. Economist John Lott, author of the book "Freedomnomics", went back to the 1980s to see what happens when women get the right to vote. His findings? In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately raised as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. Ms. Clinton is just the latest in a long line of politicians pandering to the de facto rulers of modern American Society: single & divorced women who expect responsibility-optional, consequence-free life styles subsidized by the majority-male peon taxpayer population. These are the “women in need” to whom Ms. Clinton consistently refers & they will get her elected President.

Shefali: Really?
I am a woman engineer who used to work in firms with mostly male engineers, and let me tell you, there was a lot of emotion-based decision-making going on, even among this "rational" group.

Really? Speaking as a Research Engineer & Scientist, other than protecting one's own "rice bowl" or drinking the vendor's "koolaid", I would be interested in hearing what you would characterize as being "emotion-based decison-making" amongst your male colleagues.

Hillary's Voice
This is not a personal attack but merely an observation.
I worked for 27 years at a psychiatric hospital.
I found that the 4 best keys to evaluating a person were their eyes, their touch, their laugh and their voice.
I cannot understand why Senator Clinton's voice has always been so strident and loaded with anger. I have yet to see her in a "human moment".
Regardless of what you think of George W Bush, there was no doubting his sincerity when he visited the site of 9/11.
With Senator Clinton it as always straight-ahead anger or the phoney smile which, as some has previously noted, never seems to reach the eyes.
Does Senator Clinton have an emotional core apart from her agenda and it attendant anger?
I really don't know.


I agree, Andy
Ms. Parker is one of my favorite columnists, but she is way off base to say that Hillary handled virtually anything with class. Her of the "vast right wing conspiracy" mantra.

I too, would vote for a woman for president, but not the one currently up for adoption. Give me a Jean Kirkpatrick or Condi Rice and I'd be happy to bestow the presidency upon them.

mother of 4
Amen Sister!

Poor Bill
I for one did not feel sympathy for poor Bill as Ken Starr dug deeper into his Monica problems (and other women). I felt even more disdain for him. The only sympathy I felt for him was being stuck with that shrill (word for for female dog that rhymes with ditch) but that was his choice.

Its Too Much to Expect, Alas.
The sad truth is that while the idea of voting for Hillary just because she's a woman is completely, utterly, and absolutely irrational its too much to expect rational thought from people who have been taught for 2 generations to emote rather than think.

If Hillary can wrap herself in the sacred mantel of THE VICTIM she will gain votes.

This despite the fact that no rational mind would consider a person who could be victimized in the first place as a fit guardian for our country. The very core of the President's job is, after all, to refuse to allow the country to be victimized.

Voting for a person because she is a woman, because his is a man, because of such trivialities as skin pigmentation or ethnic heritage, and on down through the list of identity groups is COMPLETELY ASININE.

Alas, the world is full of human donkeys.

beyond the pale is right
I don't think most women have a problem with mean remarks about a woman they despise. You aren't going to turn a conservative woman into a Hillary voter just because of a man's nasty remark about her appearance. If she were a sweet ladylike woman, it would be different.

Also, the Hildebeest is no victim. She only persevered because of her lust for power.

Mike
Let me see, men NEVER make decisions based on their emotions? Uh-huh. If you really believe that... I am a woman engineer who used to work in firms with mostly male engineers, and let me tell you, there was a lot of emotion-based decision-making going on, even among this "rational" group. Men and women are both irrational at times - just examine US Presidential history BEFORE women got the vote. The key difference, IMHO, is not gender so much as age and property. When only over-30 property owners could vote, the dynamic was different. JMHO.

Re. women and Hillary - I think Kathleen is right. If male candidates pick on her BECAUSE she's female, she may get some sympathy from the independents. Us conservatives won't vote for her no matter what - we know we disagree with 90% of her policies. And the hard left will vote for her even if she's caught with a smoking gun in her hand shooting Edwards during a debate. But the independents might be swayed...

Thankfully, there is SO MUCH to criticize about Hillary, it's very easy to score points against her without referring to her gender.

Bob
The only answer I can give you is two-fold; first, come out west and you will meet the women I am talking about. We can always make room for some more conservatives;-)

Second, in answer to those kinds of women you can always point out that; (a) they should look at their own core politics--is this the "change" they are looking for, and ask what specifically has Hillary done that is so different than G.W.? From where I sit there are not many differences between the two aside from plumbing--and that G.W. hasn't voiced an opinion as strong as Hill about socialized medicine.

(b,c)I would ask them how smart can this woman be if she married a cheater, then didn't know he was cheating, and then when he was exposed, stayed with him? Would they advocate that life plan to their own sister or themselves? Would they view the women in the workplace as "smart" if that was how she conducted her personal life? I also like to ask feminists how can she be so smart if she can't even control her own husband?

If they answer she has stayed with him for political reasons, that it was a great strategy on the road to the W.H. I like to ask--Would you marry and procreate for political reasons? What about Chelsey--what kind of a mother would do that to her own offspring? Would you do that with your own kids?

So at the end of the day--how much do you really have in common with this woman? Most women don't think of her in these terms--they assume that because she is a woman she is like us--she is not. The motives for her actions are not female or male, they are political--and how is that any different than all the men we have in D.C. now?

beyond the pale
Well said. I have to disagree with Ms. Parker as a conservative woman working for the last decade in a very male dominated field. You have to be thick-skinned and CAPABLE, anything less will not succeed, and I'm not even in politics.

I don't appreciate Ms. Parker's assumption that ALL women get their dander up when another woman is lambasted by men. Some of us can THINK, and don't give a hoot who insults whom, for what reasons, or under what circumstances.

I don't know a single conservative woman who would vote for Hillary even if men pelted her with refuse while chanting anti-womam rhetoric and waving phallic symbols. It her POLITICS we don't like, and no amount of jeering, jesting, or joking will change that.

Parasite
She's not a victim, she's a parasite. She stayed with her adulterer husband because of her unbridled ambition. She doesn't care what he does because it's all about her and her quest. I WOULDN'T VOTE FOR HER OF SOMEONE OFFERED ME A MILLION DOLLARS and I mean it.. She is a poor role model for women who don't want to be abused by their husband. Wake up girls....

beyond the pale
Very interesting input. One question may be how many women really are unabashed conservatives that view her as you do (in the northeast I don't meet many) and how many will lean towad that emotional pull Mrs. Parker speaks of.

Most women that I know and have heard speak of her seem at worst neutral, citing some variation of (A) we need a change and anyone would be better than George Bush who's made such a mess of things, (B) she's a "smart bird" as one friend put it, and (C) she's a lady who has perservered through some tough times that would knock most people for a loop and through it all has kept her head held high. The reality of her liberal, socialistic leanings seem to be of little consequence.

The old double standard
So it's OK to slam Mitt Romney because he's too good-looking (the old front porch wisdom about not being able to trust a good-looking man), but you can't say anything -- anything at all -- about Hillary Clinton's shrill voice or women will flock to the side of their offended "sister," the "victimized" presidential candidate. I fear the worst aspects of radical feminism have even infected conservative thinkers: Women demand to be treated as equals – except when they want special privileges.

Despite assumptions about women
Zogby had a poll two weeks ago that said even women 18-40 felt Hillary's negatives at 43%.

Hillary could pull the "girlie" thing in NY maybe even at the senatorial level, but at the pres. level, the competition is just too great for her to get the "vapors." If she's as tough as the guys, she has to prove it.

This is her record on the Iraq war:

10/10/02 voted in support of resolution to use force in Iraq

2/22/05 Rejected idea for a date for withdrawal

12/2/05 Says time table would encourage terrorists

6/22/06 Votes”no” on Kerry amendment to redeploy troops from Iraq

8/7/06 Says she will not take friends’ advice and throw in the towel on Iraq

10/20/06 Advocates troop withdrawal

10/22/06 Regrets the way Bush used force

1/26/07 Voted to confirm Petraeus

2/21/07 Didn’t have all the facts when she voted in 2002

3/14/07 As pres. will end war

3/15/07 Votes “yes” for redeployment of troops from Iraq by 3/31/08

4/10/07 Votes against surge

6/3/07 Says vote in 2002 was a mistake

Says it is Bush’ war and not hers

7/23/07 Democrats have failed to win Rep. support for a withdrawal

9/23/07 If pres., would begin immediate troop withdrawal—NBC Meet the Press

ON THE SAME DAY--

Says to Stephanopolos she will not set timetables as pres—ABC This Week




I am Woman
I am not quite certain that what Kathleen points out is true. Granted, I know few (2 actually) "feminist" women who will vote for Hillary, but they are raving socialists anyway--they like Hillary because she fits what they are looking for politically, and has the added bonus of being female. From talking with them, Hill's being female is not the number one priority on their lists of presidential qualities. For them it is just the cherry on top of the hot fudge sunday. I think it is Hillary's camp that is putting out the perception that women are going to vote for her only because "it's high time we had a woman in the White House".

Out of all the women I talk politics with, none of the conservative ones react the way Kathleen has described. None of us care if Hilldawg is railed against. Playing politics is a dirty game and you are going to get dragged through the mud, regardless of your gender. In fact, all of us are ashamed to be female every time she is exposed as a enormous fraud, and honestly, every time she opens her mouth. Hillary doesn't envoke a feeling of sisterhood among us--she envokes revulsion. The general consensus among us is "I wouldn't spit on her if she were on fire."

So, Kathleen, I think the only women who react the way you have described are the girls who are voting Dem already. Give us conservative chicks some credit, when the right candidate comes along, we'll vote for him, or, HER, but Hillary aint it, and we all know it.

You're right, Mrs. Parker
And it goes further. Their campaign is well aware that her poll numbers go up whenever she is spun as a victim. As we move deeper into the campaign season, the media will do all they can to seek opportunities to cast her in a victim role so as to tap into this sentiment, and simultaneously portray her as a classy woman who is staying above it all and "focusing on the issues America cares most about."

Unappealling and sad about what it says about us - yes. But there it is.

Already happened to catch a segment on the nightly news where the narration was all about her being ganged up on by nasty Republican males. She was shown as having a great sense of humor about it all, "I guess it's flattering to get all this attention from all these men...", and not letting it get her down. For cripes sake, McCain's comment about missing Woodstock because he was a POW at the time was spun into an anti-Hilary attack.

Get the duct tape ready, folks, because we'll see a lot more of this.

I work with a few woman
I work with a few woman that have stated that they are voting for her only because she is a woman. These woman are NOT near the top of the brightest and best. Big boys are pickin on Hill?? If you can't run with the Big Dogs, stay on the porch! This woman will NOT get my vote and I consider myself a bit of a feminist. Sad to say, I do think alot of woman will vote for her, because they are too busy to REALLY know the stands the politicians take. This is almost as bad as voting for a man because he is nice looking. Very sad!

A VICTIM FOR PRESIDENT ?
I would have more faith in her if she had shot
Bill.

Classy handling of the situation?
I cannot believe that the author wrote this about the bimbo eruptions and Monica. It is reported in numerous sources, both from the left and the right, that Hillary used tlephone taps, PIs, threats and intimidation to frighten many of these women into silence. Those that were brought forward: Kathleen Willey, Monica, Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and the woman Bill is accused of raping were set upon by Hillary and her band of goons to savage and demean.

I usually respect this writer, but this column is way, way off-base.

continued
woman for president, I have a problem with THAT woman for president.

To vote for her to be president primarily because she is a woman is sexist - us guys lost the monopoly on that years ago.

suggested response
I don't have a problem with A

While I agree with the basic theory
I do not think it applies in extreme cases. For the average woman -- for example, Laura Bush -- this would be true; people who mock and jeer at Mrs. Bush from the girly perspective will find women turning against them.

However, as Granny used to say, you can put lipstick on a pig but it still oinks.

Yes, a homely woman can get votes from women; so can a strong and even strident one. Mrs. Barbara Bush had legions of admirers. But if a woman is a homely, shrill-voice busybody who says things like *I am going to take that money away from you and give it to people who need it* then she evokes the Wicked Witch of the West, especially with the voice. And women as well as men have been jerked around by shrill voiced busybodies -- from the ones who keep us standing outside a movie theatre in the pouring rain or freezing cold until 12 noon PRECISELY, to the ones who scream because they cannot be members of the Catholic Priesthood or the local golf club, to the pinch-faced humourless Marching Mommies who demand that ALL of life be Child Friendly because they simply do not have the inclination to make their child world-proof.

Hillary Clinton is one of those shrill-voiced, interfering busybody type women and being homely and shapeless is only another way to reject her. And thank God she is homely and shrill voiced and annoying -- because if she was pert, bubbly and sexy, she would already be President.

Not this woman
Not for that woman. I know a viper when I see one.

There Is the Problem
This country went to hell when we allowed voting to happen during hormonal cycles rather than facts and reason. Look at History.

Women's Vote
Miss Parker writes from her experience and knowledge of her generation - which is two generations removed from mine. What a very sad state we (women) have fallen into if what she writes is accurate! Women of my generation had and used independent thinking. People were judged by the quality of their lives, there proven record on morality, love of country, an understanding of what makes this country great. Hillary does not have a clue! She simply wants to open the vault (other people's that is) and give it all away to the "grateful" albeit mightily beholden masses. And her voice does grate on the nerves - she is shrill, her smile is "pasted" it never reaches her eyes..... on and on and on. As a woman you might say I am entitled to make the comments, but no man should.
Nonsense - I thought honesty was a virtue in a man (or woman). The one ground I might defend her on would be her daughter. Chelsea does appear to be a lovely young woman. So even Mrs. Clinton has one claim to humanhood.

G.M. Alvarez,
California Conservative
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.