Is it sexist to talk about Hillary Clinton's age?

Article here. Excerpt:

'Like Mitt Romney and John McCain, Hillary Clinton will (probably) run for president in 2016 as a grandparent. This seemingly unremarkable fact has triggered a spasm of media self-analysis: is Clinton the victim of a sexist double standard?

It's a question that has been -- and will be -- asked often.

We keep asking, because we refuse to see the plain answer. Hillary Clinton is not the victim of a double standard. She is the beneficiary of a double standard.

Consider the grandmother question. If elected in 2016, Hillary Clinton will be the second oldest president in U.S. history, after Ronald Reagan. At age 69, will she be too old? That was a question people felt free to discuss when John McCain ran for president.

CNN.com reported on June 15, 2008:

"Listen to some Democrats, and you'll think the 71-year-old Arizona senator is a man lost in a perpetual fog. He is 'confused' and has 'lost his bearings' or is 'out of touch.'" The "lost his bearings" innuendo was used by candidate Barack Obama himself, in a May 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer.
...
In other words: as between Hillary Clinton on the one hand, and John McCain or Bob Dole on the other, the same standard is a double standard.

The same method applies to the discussion of Hillary Clinton's marriage. The Clinton camp's view seems to be: When it's helpful to Hillary, her marriage is urgently relevant; when that marriage might be politically harmful, it's sexist and insulting to mention it.

When Hillary Clinton sought the Democratic nomination in 2008, she argued that her tenure as first lady ought to qualify as a bona fide job credential. She told National Public Radio in March of that year:

"I represented our government and our country in more than 80 countries, and I know that people are nitpicking and that's fair -- it's in a campaign. But compare my experience, even after the nitpicking, with Sen. (Barack) Obama's. I mean, let's look at this objectively here, and I think my experience is much more preparatory for the job that awaits."

Yet when Republican likely candidate Rand Paul suggested that Hillary Clinton ought to be held to account for some of the scandals of her husband's administration, Team Clinton went into outrage mode. The influential columnist David Corn (Mother Jones/MSNBC) chuckled, "Paul's waving of the Monica flag has been dismissed by pundits on the right and left as odd and irrelevant. ..."
...
Hillary Clinton asks two things of us. On the one hand, she wants to be judged exactly as we'd judge a similarly accomplished man in politics. On the other hand, she wants us always to remember that the hopes of all womankind are fixed on whether she personally gets the job she wants. ...'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

If we did that, we'd quickly judge her to be the worst of a bad lot of choices. Instead, what she really wants is to get elected based on anything that will get her into office. If that means shouting "I have a vagina, vote for me!" each time she enters a room, that's fine by her. In politics, it's the end game, and no one knows that better than her. She has done nothing but pursued political opportunities by any means she can since she was... who knows how young? 18? 20? The day she married Bill? The reason she married Bill? Or something else?

Look in the dictionary under "opportunist" and there you'll see HC's picture, and while no politician is *not* an opportunist (not if he/she wants to stay at it for long), can there be any doubt HC excels at it? After all, her entire life has been a political career, and past the time most people who can afford it happily retire, she's still at it, campaigning for anyone who will throw money her way.

Will she try to run in 2016? My prediction is not. But would she run if she thought she could? Yes, no doubt about it. Falling asleep in meetings and needing mid-afternoon naps didn't stop Ronald Reagan, why her? The only thing that can stop HC from seeking the 2016 Dem nomination (which if she does, she'll get, since the Dems have no other obvious contender for 2016 -- which is an improvement on what the GOP has, which is no one at the moment) is herself. And right now, it looks like that'll do it.

Like0 Dislike0