My favorite headline today:
This time, Hillary will run as a woman
Golly, I could have sworn she was a woman in 2008. But, no, I get it: this headline on a CNN column by Democratic operative and talking head Donna Brazile highlights what will be the cornerstone of Hillary Clinton’s gender-driven 2016 campaign for the White House. Brazile writes:
It seems that Hillary has found her outer woman, which is to say, she's found the person that she wants to present on the campaign trail, and that person is resolutely female. This time she seems to have decided to fully embrace her womanhood as an asset in her quest for the White House and to trust that the voters will do the same.
Of course, Hillary hasn't officially announced that she will be running for president — and Universal Studios has not officially announced that there will be a sequel to the blockbuster "50 Shades of Grey." But it's hard to imagine 2016 happening without both of those things, seeing as how they both have such excellent prospects of success.
Of course, I am officially dreading both the movie sequel, which I won’t actually see, and a presidential campaign based on the candidate’s gender, which is reprehensible and reflects the absence of other achievements. Mrs. Clinton’s lack of achievements on which to run ensure a return of the phony “war on women” smear, based on misrepresentations and outright lies (e.g., that Republicans care an iota about whether women use contraception).
Still, it must be admitted that Mrs. Clinton has certainly been a relentless champion for one woman, but her ruthless campaign against women who claimed to have been sexually exploited by her husband deserves to be noted, as does her reportedly having paid female staffers significantly less than male staffers in her Senate office.
The “war on women” rhetoric was a bust in 2014. The GOP had good candidates and the “war on women” smear didn’t stick. But the GOP had better be prepared for it again, and this time it will be used by a candidate whose determination tops anything seen in 2014 (or before!).
That she has few achievements on which to run will make her use of her gender all the more important.
Remember that is how Margaret Thatcher became the first female Prime Minister of England. Oh, wait—Lady Thatcher had actual achievements and was not reduced to running on her gender.
In fact, her historical importance is such that that the gender first gets lost in the roll of her other achievements.
Not so with Mrs. Clinton.