The real question about Hillary is this: When people take a new look at her in the coming years, will they see the past or the future – Mrs. Clinton or Madam President? – Maureen Dowd
IT’S A classic front page from Huffington Post, coupled with a post by Jason Linkins, which details what’s been going on. There’s also another brand of “Hillsteria” that belongs to the Hillary derangement divas and jackals, the president of that club being Maureen Dowd.
It’s as if Maureen Dowd feels that since William Safire is in the grave she’s got to carry his venomous torch and channel his unhinged Nixonian legacy through her writing.
The New York Times’s Ms. Pearls has always had the oddest sort of feminism fetish. When she did her so-called relationship book, her research was gathered from people in cubicles around her or a phone call away. What she knows about marriage you could fit in a tweet. The ever acid Bush fluffer has never quite been able to understand that a married feminist like Hillary Rodham Clinton would be proud to be called Mrs. Clinton, which doesn’t take away from her rescuing the State Department from the dung heap of President W. and Dick Cheney, any more than it diminishes putting women on the map where America’s foreign policy is concerned.
And leave it to Ms. Pearls to have the ears of the “top Democrats” who “worry” about — wait for it — Hillary’s “old insecurities,” because she’s willing to do “anything to win.” Yes, bitches, it’s back to the past, though we all knew we were going to get there soon enough.
Even top Democrats who plan to support Hillary worry about her two sides. One side is the idealistic public servant who wants to make the world a better place. The other side is darker, stemming from old insecurities; this is the side that causes her to make decisions from a place of fear and to second-guess herself. It dulls her sense of ethics and leads to ends-justify-the-means wayward ways. This is the side that compels her to do anything to win, like hiring the scummy strategists Dick Morris and Mark Penn, and greedily grab for what she feels she deserves. – Maureen Dowd
Even putting aside that I laid out in historic detail what the guys did to win in 2008 in my book, it’s remarkable that the thought of Mrs. Clinton running for president again sends Ms. Pearls into orbit, wondering how any woman could be as aggressive as any man seeking the presidency.
Twisted by Hillsteria derangement, Ms. Dowd sees the man as assertive and showing conviction, while Hillary’s ambition “dulls her sense of ethics” leading her to an “ends-justify-the-means” desperation.
She won’t call Hillary an ambitious shrew who’s only in her position because of her husband and she can’t get away from him, which is why all of America won’t ever be able to see Hillary as “Madam President.” As Dowd sees it, Hillary’s forever shackled by her husband, because whatever Bill Clinton did is his wife’s fault, because a good woman controls her man.
It’s all tied up in Dowd’s gooey feminine mystique web.
Dowd coupling Dick Morris with Hillary twenty years after her president husband hired him is the giveaway of her Safiresque desperation. The comparison to Mark Penn apt only if you compare his 2008 campaign ineptitude to the Watergate burglary.
The “top Democrats” inclusion is simply a Washington – New York pastime and a golden oldie technique Ms. Pearls can’t resist. At least she didn’t start her column off with “will she run or won’t she?” that shows she’s at least a step ahead of Beltway variety vapidness.
“Greedily grab,” however, is important and gives Maureen Dowd away, thanks to Sheryl Sandberg laying out why eviscerating a woman for what a man would be applauded for doing is holding women out of leadership positions.
It also reveals why we still don’t have a female president today.
If the most qualified female politician in modern times is going to be characterized, in the New York Times no less, as being greedy for being willing to fight for the presidency, there’s little hope we’ll ever see a woman in office as long as Maureen Dowd’s brand of Hillsteria is given one whit of importance.
It’s only relevance today is to unmask the sabotage that women looking to take on top leadership roles have to combat.
Hillary Clinton is being preemptively vilified for possibly being called Mrs. Clinton if she won the presidency, when we all know what would happen if she weren’t married at all. If she had divorced Bill, can you imagine the emotional caterwauling over a divorced, wronged woman in the White House and what it would mean? Would she date or not? Can America elect a divorced woman? What message would that send to young women?
But what do we do about this woman’s ambition, should she decide to run in 2016?
How dare a woman seek the presidency with the same fierce determination of a man!
How dare a female with a resume of secretary of state, New York senator, first lady of the United States for two terms, lawyer, and on and on unapologetically demand to be taken seriously. How dare she stand up and fight for the position of president, because she believes she’s the best person for the job, just like any man.
No, we can’t have a woman running for office with the same ferocity as a man. But we especially can’t have that woman who, like any man, would do anything to win, which would worry top Democrats.
It’s all just too unladylike to imagine.