Dick Morris: Hillary uses gender to win

"Hillaryism" is what I use to refer to women (and occasionally, men) getting into or just plain being able to have a go at getting into high political office based largely on who they're married to or as in the case of some societies wherein marriage to a particular man isn't required or expected, just romantically involved with.

This is different from aristocracy, since usually aristocratic women, like aristocratic men, have their positions handed to them by accident of birth. I am referring to aristocracies of all kinds, actual titled ones with some powers still invested in them, and untitled de facto aristocracies, such as found here in the US taking the form of wealthy families. Hillaryism is also distinct from someone getting a better chance at electoral success due to their being married/involved with some kind of celebrity or other non-politician high-profile figure, such as an actor/actress. (This is how John Warner, former US senator from Virginia, got a better shot at the office; at the time he was married to actress Elizabeth Taylor, so he had that handed to him automatically as an advantage due to her name recognition. Likewise, being from the DuPont family, for example, gives one name recognition from the name of the company the family owns, and so gives either men or women who are part of it an advantage just for that reason, never mind campaign finances. These examples are distinct from advantages gained by being the spouse/mate of a high-office political figure.)

Male political aspirants or elected officials can also be examples of Hillaryism in action; it's just there are a lot fewer examples of male Hillaryists than female ones.

If it weren't for her being married to Bill, she would never have made it past, at best, being a member of the House of Representatives. She could never have carpet-bagged her way into the Senate representing New York if even to check a box. While in the Senate supposedly representing New York, the state's joblessness rate actually went up post-recession (which it may be argued never really ended). Nonetheless you'd think that at least with her husband being a former US president, she could have done more for the people of the state. Instead, she focused on a lot of other things (when she wasn't focusing on her strategy for her next political move), none of which saw an improvement to the state's economy.

As much as Bill is a well-established liar - "I did not have sexual relations..." (one) and "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." (two), etc. - he has the kind of charisma of all successful politicians: a Svengali-like ability to Mesmerize people into forgetting he's a pathological liar and get them to actually believe what he is saying, and also to like him despite his numerous previous violations of the one basic rule of reliable human communication: tell others the truth when speaking to them. (Like how I managed to get Svengali and Mesmer into the same sentence? Yeah, it was overkill. I couldn't resist it, though.)

Hillary doesn't have that. Watching her speak is like watching some new android developed in Japan or Silicon Valley in California respond to questions or speak a set dialog. You know the whole thing is pre-programmed and it's there just to try to get people interested in the company that is desperately trying to get acquired by Google or at least get more venture capital funding. At least however such androids say different kinds of things, though. With Hillary, it's the same thing over and over: "Vote for me, I'm female. Women are oppressed. Girls are oppressed. We need more tax money for programs and pro-woman affirmative action, special programs in schools and colleges, special laws, more rights, etc., etc."

She avoids discussing other things wherever possible since it's hard articulating what you've done in your political career when so much of it has either not worked out as you wanted it to, or what you did do doesn't have much impact on voters' daily lives, especially those who actually may have voted for you. However Obama gave her a consolation prize, knowing full well she'd take it to satisfy her unjustifiably outsized ego: the office of Sec'y of State. In addition, knowing State is an exhausting position and one he can keep a close eye on, he could make sure she stayed so busy running around and doing nothing without his approval, she'd be too busy to plot a primary challenge in 4 years. (Your friends you keep close; your enemies, you keep closer.) This is one thing Obama got right, at least as far as his political strategy to keep his office into a second term goes.

Funny thing about Hillary and other feminists is that they seem to save their greatest hostility for women who got to high office without having husbands who did so first. Regardless of whether or not such women are also in their political spectrum, it seems any female political leader or aspirant who is not hitched to a successful male politician like a caboose on a train gets gang-walloped by political fem-wives like Hillary. Funny, that. Guess having another female politician who contrasts so sharply with oneself as a woman who got where she is without the assistance that a fortunate choice in marriage partners brings just makes women like her veerry uncomfortable.

No matter, I really doubt she'll try to get the Demo nod for a run in 2016. As I've speculated previously, there is something significant holding her back. Possibly a health problem that she'd prefer not to share with the rest of the world for whatever reason; it may deflate the Democrat voter base, or just may be nothing she feels she need share with others. After all, health issues are private business unless they may affect your ability to perform a job. Being POTUS is a significantly high office in the US and if you're going to ask the voters to hire you for it, you need to be square with them, or else possibly face even more distressing events: impeachment due to inability to function but refusing to leave the office, or the job stress hastening your decline in health. Ain't nobody got time for either.

Of course, it could be other things as well. Worries about how it may affect Chelsea's life, for example. Or it may be the skeletons in her closet; no one has the life course she has w/out collecting a good number of skeletons, probably enough to fill the entire house, not just the closets. In the past, pols could count on a lack of information available to reporters and the public to keep skeletons from falling out. A bone here or there might come flying out, but not the whole thing. Now, it's not quite the same. "The Internets" (thank you, GWB, for that) have given damn near everyone the power to publicize damn near anything ("Edward Snowden" - need I say more?) and thus allow others to find out lots of stuff on lots of people previously unavailable. It's entirely possible Hillary, if she wants to run in 2016, will have her own Snowden-like event wherein someone with a large cache of incriminating documents decides to scan them all as PDFs and publish them on about 1,000 separate web sites (at ~$5.00/mo. for unlimited outgoing bandwidth and gigabytes of storage, it wouldn't be that expensive, and yes, some web hosting companies cost that little), then sending the web site addresses to about 10 million of their best friends. That's grief no one needs.

So no, I don't think she'll run. I may speculate rather cynically (what, me cynical? Never!) that she won't take herself out of speculation until the Clinton Foundation has collected as much money as it can. After all, they're used to living a certain way, having loads of money, etc. That's a hard habit to break. Once rich, you never want to not be rich. But I am being cynical here, not catty. I'd say the same thing if she were a he, and a Republican/Libertarian/etc. instead of a Democrat.

she must demonize men. she will, to appease her fan base, rip men up 24/7/365 about everything men do. another thing she will do is make women out as total victims.

I can't speak for everybody, but who hasn't realized lately w/ all the commercials and such vilifying men, that getting harsh w/ fathers, husbands, sons and brothers doesn't play well? its a losing approach.

otoh, the war on women has become the straight line for jokes. it is patently ridiculous on the face of it to imagine that the most pampered group of people ever to have existed on earth, American women, are being warred upon by men. almost every man I know pays a woman in one way or another. they have special gov. privileges out the wazoo. there isn't anything in our society that isn't female driven. they spend the vast majority of all the $$ spent. in general, they have it made. some war.

of course, there is always the promise of more handouts; but, we've just had 2 presidential cycles of that. other people's money is running out, and following our present disaster in chief w/ more promises of even more free stuff will only play to a very limited crowd.

then she has her accomplishments while in office to showcase. one word - Benghazi. 'nuff said.

and let's not forget the baggage from whitewater and all the funny business from her and billy boy's past. rich ground there for sure for pub's to till.

come to think of it, I hope she does run.