Hillary the Feminist?

By: kathstack
Published On: 1/27/2008 12:29:04 PM

I am really, really tired of Hillary Clinton. I wish she would just retire to the Vineyard, or a think tank, or Bill's library or something and leave us all alone. On dark days I think she is a Republican plant--the one candidate they want to sell Democrats, because she's the one candidate they think they can beat.
As best I can identify my major gripe, it's this--how is this woman a feminist? Her whole career is courtesy of Bill, from the law firm appointments while he served in Arkansas (no conflict of interest there, nooo), to the "advisor" status she claims during his presidential term. Even her Senate election was a gift from him; he campaigned for her and she had "his" name recognition. All she had to do was let him run around and a golden future was hers. Even now--what is she doing but promising a trip back to the halcyon days of her husband's presidency?
Now I support any woman's right to chose that which she thinks will make her happy, even if it's putting up with a serial adulterer in hopes of a payoff. Hillary didn't want diamonds and social position, she wanted political office; but as far as I am concerned that is not a choice that by any stretch of the imagination could be called feminist. A sugar daddy is a sugar daddy is a sugar daddy.
Bill is now running around doing "black bag" work for her campaign, while Hillary claims to be unable to control him or his mouth. Yeah, boy, that's really a combination I want leading this country.
Why would we want a Republican-lite one-term Senator with a Cheney-like enforcer in the back room or alternatively, a "little woman" whose candidacy is just a cloak for Bill Clinton's third term? Who would agree to be vice president to this menage? What would a Clinton candidacy do to the underticket?
We have two other excellent candidates, and we should agree on one of them. I know Hillary has had a tough life--but that doesn't mean the country as a whole needs to make it up to her.

 * * *

I see Mr. Bush has decided to "take steps" to improve the economy. Not, I suspect, because he really cares whether poor Americans freeze or starve to death under bridges, or get shot to death in Iraq or Afghanistan, or die because they can't afford medical treatment, or drown because they lacked the foresight not to be poor in New Orleans. After all, the unfortunates to whom this happens are not his friends or intimates and probably wouldn't be allowed to attend his rallies.

No, I suspect the problem is that even he and his self-absorbed advisors have finally awakened to the fact that our economy is in shambles and headed for a recession. What Mr. Bush will propose, I think, is measures that will stave off the inevitable "correction" until he is out of office, so it won't be a "Bush recession," it will be an "Obama recession" or a "Clinton recession" or a "McCain recession."

That, after all, is his plan for Iraq--make somebody else the leader who "lost" it. If a lot of troops die in the meantime, that's not a price he or his party mind paying. What a loathsome set of slimeballs they are.

* * *

Puttering around the house today, finishing up odds and ends. Hung some pictures; finally put the doors on the armoire that's been sitting around half-finished for at least 10 years, and read around the net a little.

Don't do this too much as it is discouraging. My default position on the Democratic party has evolved down to "yes, they're spineless and clueless cowards, but they're my spineless, clueless cowards. Christianity teaches that redemption is always a possibility, so we must continue to hope."

Anyway.


Comments