Not surprisingly, female celebrities are rallying around Hillary Clinton’s banner, and the mainstream media is portraying her candidacy as a women’s crusade.

But the IWF’s Michelle Bernard critiques this viewpoint in an article in the Louisville Courier-Journal:

“[D]espite the prevailing opinions of media commentators, the female vote isn’t necessarily a slam-dunk for Hillary. To gain the votes of most women — the not-so-famous, so to speak — she’ll have to fight for it, just as other candidates, Democratic and Republican, have done since political pundits began pontificating on the “gender gap.”

“Historically, male and female voting patterns have differed because of competing visions over the proper role of the government. In recent years, a slight majority of women have tended to prefer a larger government with more services — and therefore have voted for Democrats. Meanwhile, a majority of men have voted Republican, preferring a smaller government with fewer services.

“But the gender gap has started to shrink. In 2000, Al Gore won the women’s vote by 12 percentage points. By 2004, however, John Kerry won the women’s vote by just three percentage points, as President Bush improved his standing among female voters dramatically.

“The fact is that women are wealthier, healthier and more independent than ever before. And free market policies have much to do with the strides American women have made.”