HILLARY CLINTON—THE ANTI-WOMAN
HILLARY CLINTON—THE ANTI-WOMAN: SHE’S NEITHER FEMININE NOR A FEMINIST
by
Ken Eliasberg
One aspect of the current political season that I find particularly interesting, if somewhat exaggerated, is the emphasis being placed on electing the first female president. Don’t get me wrong, I think this may be an idea whose time has come (and, then again, it may not). But regardless of the timing of that long-awaited event, be assured that Hillary Clinton is not that woman. Why? Because Hillary Clinton is not a woman at all (that’s the interesting part - picking this particular woman as a female exemplar)—she embodies none of the nurturing warmth that we commonly associate with the fairer sex. I recall my reaction when Hillary commented on the deplorable state of the male condition—i.e. given the sorry state of manhood (I’m paraphrasing here), she expressed the opinion that she was surprised more women were not gay. My reaction was (and continues to be) that if more women were like Hillary, you would find a dramatic increase in the number of men who were gay. I love women, but I have to tell you if there were ever anything that would cause me to re-examine my commitment to heterosexuality, it would be the prospect of being paired with an unappealing harridan like Hillary. Thus, while I cannot condone Slick Willie’s tawdry sex life, I find it easy to understand why he might feel the need to wander.
There is nothing feminine about Hillary, even the way she mothers Chelsea—how could any mother expose a daughter to such a shameless father, and how could she explain her remaining coupled to this sorry excuse for a man? And she could not tell Chelsea the truth—that she stayed there because there was no chance of her being considered a candidate for any position of leadership if she did not have Bill’s coattails to ride on. In short, the marriage, notwithstanding all this garbage about love, is one of convenience. As one of the Clinton biographies described it they are Partners in Power.
But this brings me to the second thing she is not—a feminist. The feminist movement was—and is—distinguished by the notion of a strong, competitive female, one who is not only capable of being independent, but one who thrives on that status. You know, the I-am-woman-hear-me-roar type of woman. The woman who Gloria Steinem had in mind when she uttered her famous quip—women need a husband like fish need a bicycle (as I have previously pointed out, since making that quip, Gloria has acquired her very own bicycle). The point here is that no feminist would tolerate a spouse who is rampantly promiscuous (and who apparently is promiscuous with anyone and every one other than his spouse—but, again, as previously observed, who can blame him).
Didn’t Hillary, in that famous 60 Minutes interview, tell us that she was no Tammy Wynette, i.e. that she was no little woman who would stand by a philandering scoundrel You know, the interview, occasioned by the Jennifer Flowers tabloid revelations (that she had had a more than 10-year affair with Bill Clinton—which Bill finally grudgingly condensed to a one-night stand on copping to it, after first lying about it). No, she’s quite right, she is no Tammy Wynette—Tammy would have bailed a long time ago. But Hillary cannot bail. Why? Because without Bill, she’s nothing—absolutely nothing.
Let me go further, she not only tolerates his philandering, she prospers by virtue of it. She is more than merely the consummate enabler. You see, Hillary is a very unlikeable witch, and that’s the way most people saw her—until Monica. Then she moved from villain to victim, becoming the object of sympathy. And as I have frequently queried, how do you become a victim on your husband’s 500th peccadillo? Hillary has always known of his “problem.” It has persisted throughout their marriage and even during their courtship. Indeed, in her Talk Magazine interview with Lucinda Franks, she pointed out that it was an addiction, the result of being sandwiched between 2 powerful women—his mother and his grandmother - while he was growing up. Isn’t that always the way with a leftie—you’ve behaved badly so let’s medicalize the situation, i.e. you just could not help yourself—you’re not bad, you’re just sick.
But it’s more than sympathy which Hillary needs to polish her image; she needs some demonstration of an accomplishment, and she gets this—or at least the opportunity for this—as the result of his bad behavior. In essence, she derives power from his sexual exploits, at least those exploits which result in his being caught. Because then she rushes in to protect him. How? By persecuting the women—you know, the “bimbos” —that have had the bad taste to sleep with her husband. And, for doing this, he owes her, and she is rewarded with some plum, e.g. her health care assignment. Think about that for a moment, she doesn’t go after her husband—and certainly won’t leave him—she goes after the women that he has bedded. How’s that for a feminist—suffer any number of marital indignities and then blame them on the other woman. Indeed, the stories abound of her hiring private detectives to find out who he’s sleeping with - not to punish him, but to silence them. Also, think about labeling these women “bimbos.” What sort of way is that to treat women—bed them and then castigate them—and all of these women have one thing in common—THEY’RE ALL DEMOCRATS!!!
Why does Hillary do this? Again, because without him, she goes nowhere. There is nothing in her background which would qualify her for any position of leadership. Quite to the contrary, she has screwed up everything that she has ever touched—including her family. This may seem unkind, but think about it for a moment. What sort of mother allows her daughter to be exposed to this type of marriage? How does she explain it to Chelsea? Daddy has this little problem—he needs to sleep with any and every woman he can (except, of course, your mother)? And how does Slick Willie present his case to his daughter—I’m just an ol hound dog who can’t keep his pants on? Perhaps we could take more seriously her rant about defending the interests of children for some 35 years if she had provided a better home for her own child. (and maybe even prevailed upon her low-life brother to pay his child support payments to his former wife, Barbara Boxer’s daughter).
No, Hillary is no feminist; she is merely an opportunist who recognizes that her only real opportunity to acquire power is to remain married to the resident rapist. Think about that ladies—what woman puts up with that kind of crap, including the rape of another woman (and then tries to silence the rape victim)?? No, ladies, Hillary is no spokesperson or role model for women—she is a shameless, opportunistic incompetent!! Or, as Kathleen Willey put it in Target (at page 229) “Hillary is no feminist, no champion for women, no advocate for women. She is an advocate for one woman: Hillary Clinton.”