Feminist Sets Feminism Back Decades

Every so often it's a good practice to look at how other people view you. I mean step back and really consider how you're seen by other people. In politics, it's a good idea to do it often because people don't vote issues as much as they vote likability--that's the truth and has been for centuries. People like Barack Obama and they like John McCain, their stories and their folksiness are huge selling points and neither would be where they are were it not for the likability factor.

Which brings us to Hillary. We've watched and heard Hillary for the last sixteen years, more than enough time to judge the character of a person--even one as meticulously fabricated as Hillary's is. I think when the nation selects its candidate for the Presidency, they will take into account whether or not they like Hillary, would she be someone they could be friends with if she lived next door. She'll come up lacking in that key voting area as poll after poll show her unlikability to be higher than any past candidate.

Hillary has always used feminism as another arrow in her quiver even though she has done more to hurt the cause over the last two decades than any woman, from her behavior during the Lewinsky affair to her crying at a campaign event in New Hampshire, she has set the feminist cause back in ways no man ever could.

Today we have this inane piece in the Inquirer in which a woman author whines about Hillary's treatment because of her gender:

No one has called Barack Obama a witch.

No one has suggested John McCain is too ambitious.

No one has disparaged Mitt Romney for misting up.

No one has accused John Edwards of faking emotions.

No one has depicted Mike Huckabee as calculating.

No one has critiqued the pitch of Rudy Giuliani's voice.

No one says male presidential aspirants are cold or feisty or careless about their cleavage (or any other anatomical feature). If they tear up, or even - gasp! - cry, no one says men are too weak to run the country. If they blow a gasket (à la Bill Clinton), it's manly. If they blow off a question (classic Reagan), it's strategic.

But when a woman has a chance to win the presidency, all bets are off. It's no conspiracy; this is America.

Sure, Hillary Clinton is a popular target in ways that other women are not. Clinton-hating is something of a blood sport, and nothing Clinton does will undo that. Still, the haters did little to diminish her husband's popularity (no matter what he did to help them) when he was in office. We're talking about something different now, something . . . sexist.

Oh no, sexism is alive and well in America. Of course the author never takes that critical second to look at who Hillary is without looking through feminist, partisan glasses. If she were to take a few moments and really look at the Hillary the rest of America is seeing, she'd see a woman who has been shady in business deals, cruel as a boss, psychotic in her calculating ways to win the campaign and disgusting in using easily deniable surrogates to whisper about Obama's race and drug use. I would be just as appalled if these things were done by a man and Hillary has gotten essentially a free ride from the press for doing things that would have sunk a Republican or a Democratic male.

Spare me the sexist rhetoric, Ms. Enda. It's not that people dislike Hillary because she's a woman, it's because she's just not a very likable person. People look at her like Liberals look at Dick Cheney, dislike at every sight.