The WaPo weighs in with another hit piece on Hillary,complete with the notion that she insulted women who "stay at home and bake cookies."
The article is nothing but a mishmash of random negative comments ranging from "men don't like her," to "she's [unlike every other politician on the planet] too packaged."
You can like Hil (I do) or hate her. You can disagree with some of the stances she's taken (I do), or agree with every word she's ever said. But could we PLEASE drop the double standard for female politicans?
Where's the piece on McCain that talks about his legendary bad temper, his broken marriage and his wife's drug issues? That mentions his weird jowls and how voters really don't know much about him except what they've heard in the media which is that he's "independent"? And, while we're at it, Laura Bush had plastic surgery before the 2004 election. Where's the story on how she "changed her looks"??
Don't make me bring out the flying monkeys.
1 comment:
What double-standard? There was a piece like this about Mark Warner in the Ny Times mag, a piece like this on Ron Paul in WaPo last weekend, a piece on Rick Santorum in the NYTimes, etc., etc. This is standard. In fact, once she enters the primary, there will be profiles of all the candidates and they will all be scrutinized to no end. I wish we could get past pretending there is a double-standard when there isn't. It seems that is a cheap tactic to make female politicians into sympathetic victims so as to increase their appeal. Playing the victim is not what leaders do, and I doubt it is how Hillary will run for President. I don't think she needs that kind of help.
Post a Comment