August 14, 2013

"Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet."

WaPo's Kathleen Parker says, arguing that the Hillary for President message should be: "She can save the world."

Even assuming women's equality is the key to world peace, what's the big connection between a female U.S. President and the condition of women around the world? Parker notices that gap in her argument:
What does this have to do with Hillary? Quite a bit.

Rewinding the tape to 1995 at the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, then-first lady Hillary Clinton empowered women as never before with just a few words: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”...

At the time, it was a revolutionary statement and helps explain why Hillary is one of the most recognized and revered individuals in the world.
So she read a line in a speech that was an utterly standard proposition of feminism, and she did that because she was the wife of a political leader, and... voila!... recognized and revered... therefore... ????
She became recognized because of the achievements of her husband. That has nothing to do with advancing women's rights. She's revered? Has that been established?! But let's assume she's revered. What does that have to do with advancing women's rights? Like being the wife of a powerful man, a woman's being revered isn't an aspect of female empowerment. The most traditional societies embrace the idea of a woman who inspires reverence, someone who's good and worthy of respect. The Virgin Mary is revered.

Parker continues:
While Americans obsess about Hillary’s hair and married life, others have been studying her for inspiration. To millions, she is a role model and a warrior for women’s right to self-determination. 
She's applying for the job of leading Americans, and we tend to take her married life into account when deciding whether to find her inspiring or not. But Parker tells us there are "millions," apparently not American millions, who would like to model themselves on her, who are inspired in some way that doesn't have to do with achieving prominence through marriage and enduring a husband's infidelity.
As secretary of state, she continued the work of predecessors Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright, who first insisted that women’s rights be part of our foreign policy, and then pushed further. Under Hillary’s watch, Obama made permanent the Office of Global Women’s Issues and appointed longtime Hillary colleague Melanne Verveer as ambassador-at-large.
So women's rights have been part of the work of the State Department for a long time, and Hillary was the third female Secretary of State.
Whether one likes or dislikes Hillary, few dispute that she has matured in her public role. Her résumé can be topped by few and the symbolic power of electing a woman president — especially this woman — can’t be overestimated. 
We just did the symbolic power of electing a black President. Did we overestimate that? I think we did. Isn't it time for substance and not mere symbolism? We've OD'd on symbolism. What are Hillary's achievements? Lines on a résumé aren't the same as accomplishments. In fact, when you've had powerful positions, the lack of specific achievements is the opposite of inspiring.
Many doubtless shudder at the prospect of Hillary Clinton as the most powerful person in the world, but we’ve done worse.
Parker's argument has gone from "She can save the world" to "We could do worse." I can't believe how bad this column is! Why can't The Washington Post do better? Perhaps millions are inspired that a Woman has written a column in The Washington Post. The symbolic power cannot be overestimated!

Parker ends with the assertion that "the world’s women are watching" the American 2016 election "closely." Parker is big on assertions!
In 2007 when I traveled through the Middle East with then-first lady Laura Bush, every woman I met was riveted by the U.S. presidential election and wanted to talk about only this question: Will Hillary win?
Every woman was riveted by the question whether Hillary would win?
In 2008, it seemed possible. In 2016, barring a Benghazi surprise, it seems probable.
Oh, wouldn't it be terrible, wouldn't hope for the world collapse, if Hillary doesn't win, which would be undermined if there were a "Benghazi surprise"? You mean if we actually found out what happened in Benghazi?!

Remember when The Washington Post made its reputation through investigative reporting, when it worked hard at uncovering what powerful people were trying to hide?

79 comments:

Darrell said...

Yes, because she did so well as Secretary of State.

Darrell said...

Hillary would be a better NFL running back--with her broken-field running and all to dodge snipe fire--than she would be POTUS. Too bad the patriarchy didn't give her a try-out when she was of age.

damikesc said...

This is, easily, the most ridiculous assumption I have ever seen.

"Women won't be violent"? Does Parker not KNOW any women?

Reality check: In relationships, women are every inch as violent as men are. Always have been. Men keep quiet about it (can't really defend ourselves physically because jail does kind of suck) but it is a simple fact.

Women in positions of power are every inch as predatory as men. The spate of women teachers having sex with their male students isn't exactly undetectable.

Thatcher, who was the most effective female leader the world has seen in a long, long time was more than willing to use violence when needed. Ditto Golda Meir. Ditto Indira Gandhi.

What kind of mindless pap qualifies as serious thought nowadays?

And how the hell is "Stand by your husband while he fucks anything with a pulse while you toss out insane conspiracy theories" INSPIRATIONAL?

Lying about dodging snipers is inspirational? How about leaving Americans to die in Benghazi for hours? Screwing over Iranian democracy protestors? Turning Egypt into a country now well known for MASS RAPING FEMALE JOURNALISTS? Turning Syria into a human rights hellhole? Fucking up Iraq? Fucking up Afghanistan?

This is Hillary's LEGACY. This is what SHE did in her abysmal term in office as, easily, the worst Sec of State I can think of in the last 30 years. And some morons find this something to ADMIRE?

Aren't women insulted that they are viewed so poorly by the elites? Aren't you offended that they truly believe you are so easily pandered that you'll ignore all of the shortcomings because "Hey, this candidate for President possesses a vagina" but few other qualifiers? I cannot think of a candidate, outside of the current President, who had fewer actual qualifications for the office.

And the world doesn't give a damn if we elect a minority or a President. Most think we're morons for even giving a shit about it one way or the other.

If basically 90% of the Post writing staff has a job next year, it shows that the new management doesn't have a clue why this terrible paper is such a damned money pit.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Hillary is indeed shamelessly exploiting her position of free-rider and hubby's coattails to grasp for the gold ring of the Presidency - with no executive or policy-setting experience of her own, except for the failed Hillarycare attempt.

One glib politically correct President of no executive experience per century is about all this country can afford.

Enough free-riders in office. Let's hear from some articulate executives who can defend their years of responsible administration and outline a proposed future without empty phrases like 'hope and change'.

That certainly isn't Hillary, holed up mute while Obama marches us toward the cliff and the MSM posts artificial cheers on her behalf.

ganderson said...

I should say up front that I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of Hilary Clinton. The notion that she's accomplished a lot has always mystified me. We had dinner the other night with another couple- my wife and the other woman both have real achievements on their resumes, and are both fans of Mrs Clinton- (I'd say my wife is more accomplished than I am) and I asked them both "what has HRC actually done? "- crickets!

David said...

It would indeed be surprising if we ever find out what actually went on at Benghazi.

Rebecca said...

God, what a crock of crap. It is as if these women have never worked with other women in their lives. I hate to break it to all these elites - women are just as capricious, mean and there is zero evidence that women would do any better than men in running the world because NEWSFLASH: they are still just people.

TML said...

It's really astonishing to see how many heavy garments of achievement she's trying to hang on the thin wire hanger of Hilary's utterly banal political career. What a joke.

FleetUSA said...

Some listened to the world in their admiration for B0, e.g. hundreds of thousands attending a Summer 2008 FREE rock concert in Berlin - oh, and getting a speech from B0.

And then after B0 getting a FREE Nobel Peace Prize for doing what? We still wonder.

elkh1 said...

She can save the world but not Ambassador Stevens and the three Americans who were expendable to save the woman who can save the world.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet."

-- That's provable? Either or, you know this isn't serious since Parker would not vote for Palin vs. Biden for President if given the opportunity.

Hagar said...

It is indeed remarkable how provincial this is. How do the "women's movement" manage to ignore the long record of successful women heads of state - queens, empresses, prime ministers, and presidents - reaching all the way back into the mists of legends?
Women have ruled larger countries than the U.S. and under far more perilous conditions for their countries and certainly for themselves.

Hillary! may have ammassed a larger personal fortune than any of them, but that would seem to be her only outstanding achievement.

SteveR said...

This will work out great, next up find a nice liberal Hispanic to take the next spot. By 2024, it will be time.

jimbino said...

Sure,

Women's rights to take the child support, the house, the kid and to unilaterally decide to take the fetus are our rights to have those things taken!

Bob Boyd said...

A few years ago I read about a hunting accident. A man shot and killed another hunter. By all accounts this man was just a regular guy, not a an idiot, not generally irresponsible. He told authorities he had thought the victim was a bear and he just couldn't believe it when he approached his kill and it turned out to be a man, not a bear.
The man he shot had been sitting on a stump, smoking a cigarette, wearing orange coveralls.
We see what we want to see.

Greg Hlatky said...

I think it's just wonderful that a woman from an impoverished, hard-scrabble background, without friends, without backers can through the force of her radient personality and her awe-inspiring list of accomplishments be considered the front-runner for the Chief Magistracy. A regular Horatia Alger story if there ever was one!!

Edgehopper said...

"Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet."

What is "Things never said about Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir, Alex?"

bpm4532 said...

Bringing up the Virgin Mary in a discussion of Hillary? God help us from Chelsea!

Deirdre Mundy said...

She's right! Look at how Janet Reno brought her powers of peacefulness to end the Branch Davidian standoff!

Women are totally about peace and love and all that. And if left to their own devices, all men would be out waging war instead of sitting at the bar, drinking beer, and watching the game....

G.K. Chesterton seemed to think that it was women who were always spoiling for a fight. But he's a man, so what does he know---- And if he was a real man, he'd be out there slugging heretics instead of sitting around drinking and smoking!

Paddy O said...

I think counter-examples abound, but I'm thinking of British history, so some quick examples.

Boudica. Elizabeth I. Margaret Thatcher.

Warriors three.

Lyssa said...

damikesc Aren't women insulted that they are viewed so poorly by the elites? Aren't you offended that they truly believe you are so easily pandered that you'll ignore all of the shortcomings because "Hey, this candidate for President possesses a vagina" but few other qualifiers?

I am. Absolutely, 100%. It's truly disgusting, insulting, embarrassing, and demeaning. I want to be spitting mad about it.

But I can't be. Instead, it just makes me sad. Because I know that it works with over half of the women out there, and I don't know what the hell can be done about it. People like to be pandered to.

Tank said...

With this column Parker moves into Thomas Friedman territory. On the other hand, I laughed out loud twice reading AA's critique. Then I went and read the actual column. Ya know, I remember when the Times and the Post had real columnists. It's true.

Meanwhile, I'd say that, at his moment, Hillary is more likely than any other candidate to be the next President. A lot of people will nod along with Parker and agree. Hey, enough people voted for Zero 2.0 for him to be re-elected.

Yes, next it's 8 years of the hildabeast.

Libya ? We'll never know.

Michael K said...

Hillary Clinton is even more radical than Obama. As a young lawyer she was fired from the Watergate Committee counsel's office as "a liar."

Full quote: "“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Leopard -- Spots.

Bob Ellison said...

He has a wife, you know.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet.

It's unproven and Parker is just suggesting that it needs testing. Clinton would find herself surrounded by a world of bellicose enemies in any event so what difference would it make?

If Clinton somehow came clean on Benghazi, people might trust her again on foreign policy. As for domestic policy, she's just going to continue running the economy into the ground like Obama is doing in the name of "equality." Give me one good example of a clean break from Obama domestic policy.

SGT Ted said...

The notion that women are more peaceful than men is just a shining example of the Magical Thinking associated with Leftist political assertions.

It also shines a light onto the sexist, supremacist attitudes and assumptions of Modern leftist Feminists. The blatant sexism completely escapes them.

MathMom said...

Hillary has done exactly what?? for millions of Muslim women owned by their husbands, covered in black bags, and refused the right to drive, to get an education, or to be given life-saving treatment at the scene of an accident by a male who is not a family member?

She has had time to wave her magic wand and empower all of these women...why aren't they all in school, wearing sensible attire, allowing their lovely hair to waft on the breeze?

Because Hillary! cares about Hillary! and always has. Hillary! is more full of bullshit than the Kansas City Stockyards.

If Kathleen Parker wants a long resume of substantial accomplishment, she could look up Sarah Palin's.

Nah. Didn't think so.

sonicfrog said...

I thought electing a black man was going to save the world!


PS. Great... Now I 'm going to be accused of being a racist!

Bryan C said...

I'd have preferred Clinton to Obama, on the premise that she'd be the less awful of the two choices. I'd hoped she'd be a politically pragmatic and generally competent administrator, like Bill Clinton. And unlike Obama, who was clearly neither of those things.

Now, after struggling through two terms of Obama, I hope we can do better than an incompetent former Secretary of State who's primary qualification for high political office is still her husband's former job.

Maverick Collecting said...

Paddy O - my thought exactly! Indara Ghandi, Cleopatra, Cathrine the Great, Joan of Arc, Golda Mayer, Bhuto, Merkle, The current mouthy Argentinian bint...not a great model for world peace, love and harmony amoung them!

Hugh

(No spellcheck - sorry!)

AaronS said...

Not one word of where she has alleviated actual oppression or persecution. She is to be lauded for what she has said and apparently for simply being.
This is what passes for praiseworthiness now.

It is the height of elitism to suggest that the world's oppressed women should feel better if somewhere there is a woman in power. It's really nigh unto god-queen worship from KParker. How far off are we from praying that our leaders will control the weather for us?

Oh, yeah, we already do that.

Seeing Red said...

Maggie helped bring peace, with 2 powerful men. Hillary's no Maggie. Merkel didn't bring peace, other female heads of governments didn't bring peace but she will?

If I were an enemy of the US, I'd be testing that theory.

Henry said...

I think it's interesting that Parker uses the word "provable" when she obviously means "unprovable".

Only the the fact her unprovable premise can't be disproved ("keep in mind this is a long game," she says) allows her to use the word as she does. She should have thrown in a "literally" for good measure.

I also think its interesting that Parker uses "women" as a proxy for "western style capitalism."

In hummingbird circles you aren't allowed to promote western style capitalism, so you promote women instead.

dbp said...

"Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet."

I'll grant Parker this, she can pack a lot of stupid into a fairly short sentence. The premise, far-fetched as it is, is not itself impossible. It is rather obviously not provable.

I would suggest that if the rest of the world developed to the point where women had the kind of rights they have in the developed world, there would be no war. This is because war is not something that seems to happen at all between developed liberal (in the classic sense) democracies.

So, if women gained equality world-wide, how would one "prove" it was that and not the conditions which make it possible to grant such rights, which allowed for peace?

BDNYC said...

I seriously doubt the notion that women are more peaceful than men.

My working premise is that, because of their experience as boys and as teenagers, men are more judicious about the use the force. It hurts to get punched in the face.

cubanbob said...

Remember when The Washington Post made its reputation through investigative reporting, when it worked hard at uncovering what powerful people were trying to hide?"

Actually, no unless there was a republican involved.

Hillary for president? Only for masochists and those who prefer a cure that is worst than the disease. Lets make the rodeo clown from the Missouri State Fair president. We have had enough of amateur clowns in the White House, next time give the gig to a pro.

Misinforminimalism said...

Provable? I don't think that word means what she thinks it means.

Skyler said...

Ann asked, "What does that have to do with advancing women's rights?"

A better question is, why should advancing women's rights be important, or at least imporant to being president?

RecChief said...

Why must we start with that premise? I can tell you, I have served with many women over my career. Once I left the infantry, and entered the support services, I have had female commanders and worked with female officers. Men and women are not equal. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. A better way to say it would be that everyone should be treated with equal respect.

John Scott said...

We might not have as many wars, but the ones we do have would last forever.

damikesc said...

The odd thing is, she is fawning over Hillary, a mediocrity.

We keep hearing how brilliant Hillary is.I've been force-fed that for DECADES now. At a certain point, wouldn't her brilliance be self-evident?

Do people keep saying "Man, that Stephen Hawking dude is kinda smart?" No, that's condescending. That he is brilliant is obvious to anybody who has read his work.

Why aren't they fawning over, say, Dr. Rice? She is legitimately brilliant with the bona fides to prove it. She's overcome racism, unlike the current President. Her foreign policy wasn't a total shit show like Hillary's. She hasn't spent 16 yrs basically biding her time waiting for this (anybody wasting 16 yrs on this dream should NEVER be President). She has some interest, but it is hardly overwhelming, which makes her MORE appealing.

Why isn't Palin fawned over? She didn't ride coattails into office. She won her state by attacking her own party's corruption. Hillary is corrupt herself. She is STILL fighting her party while Hillary is being the quite little school marm, loving even sleaze weasels like McAwful of VA.

Why is Hillary so "special"? Her policies stink. She doesn't seem overly bright. Her resume is not just weak, but outright terrible.

Pettifogger said...

Putting women in power is the key to peace? Really?

Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher.

I have no problem with women leaders as such, and had she been eligible, I would have been delighted to see Margaret Thatcher as president. But claiming women leaders are the key to peace is fatuous.

Sella Turcica said...

"the symbolic power of electing a woman president — especially this woman — can’t be overestimated."

In my estimation, she will succeed where Jesus and the Buddha failed.

I believe I have, in fact, overestimated the symbolic power of electing HRC president.

q.e.d....it burns!

Big Mike said...

Writing as a mathematician, I don't see how "provable" Parker's hypothesis can be when counter-examples come so readily to hand. In addition to fighting female heads of state such as Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir, I also see that Cristina Elisabeth Fernández de Kirchner, the President of Argentina, has reasserted claims to the Malvinas (Falkland Islands). Cristina Kirchner certainly looks like a female to me! At least women like Indira Ghandi, Thatcher, and Meir had wars thrust upon them; Cristina Kirchner appears to be trying to start one.

Sam L. said...

Provable? Yet Proof there is none.

William said...

Is it possible that this is an elaborate put-on?......It would be kind of scary if she actually believed this. Did you ever wonder how all those Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winners visited the Soviet Union during the twenties and thirties and thought that they were witnessing the rebirth of mankind? Hillary Clinton--America's Potemkin Village.

Inga said...

Argentinians may consider Margaret Thatcher to have been a bit of a warmonger.

Hagar said...

"the symbolic power of electing a woman president — especially this woman — can’t be overestimated."

Well, yeah; the symbolic power of electing the the wife of Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend, sitting on nearly a billion dollars saved from their joint salaries in almost 40 years of public service - would indeed be overpowering!

Mark said...

Conservatives want candidates who won't screw things up. Progressives/Liberals want saviors.

Lord save me from saviors, and the people who want them.

Truckee Man said...

Ann
Do you think the weight of HRC's scandal's and failures will bring her campaign down or will the novelty of electing a woman trump that? We should have learned our lesson about affirmative action presidents from Obama's presidency. While HRC is an empty (pants) suit like Obama, she has a long public history to defend.

Anthony said...

I invite anyone who thinks that women rules will bring peace to consider the following 2 maps:

http://www.wmcarey.edu/carey/maps/britishempire1837.jpg
http://www.wmcarey.edu/carey/maps/britishempire1897.jpg

Bruce Hayden said...

Accept this for what it obviously is, early campaigning by Hillary and her cronies in order to lock up the nomination, by scaring off serious competitors in order to save more of her resources for beating the Republican in 2016. She is obviously already in campaign mode, from what she has said and done most recently.

She has a lot of baggage, and so can't be the stealth candidate that the last 3 successful Dem candidates were. Her corruption runs from being thrown off the Watergate prosecution for unethical behavior, through cattle futures, billing records, S&L fraud, FBI files, Bimbo control, trading Presidential pardons for terrorists and embezzlers for campaign funds, to stealing WH silverware on the way out. And really little in accomplishments, besides a million miles of travel as Sec of State. Her law practice was a cover for influence buying Gwen her husband was AG and Gov of Arkansas. HillaryCare cost her husband Congress, and her attempts at bimbo control failed with the blue dress. She had no notable legislative accomplishments in 8 years in her bought seat in the Senate, and her tenure at State was a bust with Benghazi capping her Muslim spring initiative and Snowden getting asylum in response to her Russian Reset.

BTW - we still have to see if there was any connection between her husband's speaking fees from the Saudies, etc., her picking a dept chief of staff whose parents were prominent in the Muslim Brotherhood, and her continuously picking the MB side in Muslim Spring uprisings.

Michael E. Lopez said...

If you are allowed to be equal, then you aren't really equal.

Just sayin'.

Michael E. Lopez said...

If you are allowed to be equal, then you aren't really equal at all.

And what is being discussed doesn't sound like equality at all -- it sounds like being in charge.

dunce said...

Thanks, Ann, in today's world only a woman can criticize a woman. Should a man say the exact same thing it would be dismissed as sexist hate speech following the same liberal paradigm as racist charges.

William Chadwick said...

Moonbat feminists have been pushing this or similar drivel ever since feminism was co-opted by moonbats. Yet they also seem to believe women superior to men because the Gender Gap shows women to be more disposed to statism and collectivism. Yet you can't have statism without coercion. Ladies, if you want a peaceful world, you need to advocate a world without coercion. Coercion=no peace. Peace=no coercion. Got it?

William Chadwick said...

Moonbat feminist have been pushing this line of drivel since the feminist movement pretty much got hijacked by moonbats. Yet they also seem to believe line that women are superior to men because the Gender Gap shows women to be more statist. Ladies, you will never have a peaceful world based on coercion, and statism is based on coercion. Coercion=no peace; Peace=No coercion.

Crunchy Frog said...

Women bringing peace to the planet? Please.

Think "Mean Girls" on a global scale.

Bandit said...

I'm not a Hilary fan but this column is absurd. If she inspires people I'd like to know based on what.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet.

That is where we stop, because the idea that worldwide rule by women would "bring peace to the planet" is utter bullshit. Women are rather more ruthless than men.

As to how you could "prove" that a world with male/female equality would be peaceful, it would be nice to see her try.

Freeman Hunt said...

This is a thoroughly silly column. It doesn't read like there is depth to the silliness though. It looks like it was born out of need to write words for a deadline rather than need to express deeply held beliefs.

Henry said...

I almost never re-use Instapundit links in Althouse, because of all crossover readership, but this link to James Pethokoukis is pertinent to my earlier point:

“Aid is just a stopgap,” [Bono] said. “Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.”

Kathleen Parker attributes to women what Bono attributes to "commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism."

Parker has to do this. She has to do this to turn economic development into identity politics. Without identity politics Hillary Clinton has nothing to add.

Carl said...

Well, women will never be equal to men until their reaction to one of their own saying outrageously narcissistic things in print shifts from You're wrong, and let me explain carefully and logically why, while still respecting your right to be heard. to something approaching Shut the fuck up and sit down, you useless twat, before I punch your lights out. You make me sick.

Women are still far too tolerant of casual sexism within their ranks. Women younger than Parker are about 500% better, but there's still a ways to go. Needs to be a little creative matricide, perhaps, a putting out to pasture of the elders who are just holding things up with their medieval attitudes.

doustoi said...

Explain to me please why this woman is considered "brilliant"? A woman who doesn't know the proper usage of 'real' vs. 'really'? A woman who doesn't know the difference between the words 'cavalry' and 'Calvary'? Is this one of those Stalinist things where if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes an accepted truth?

Hyphenated American said...

"Her résumé can be topped by few and the symbolic power of electing a woman president — especially this woman — can’t be overestimated. "

Funny, cause exactly same thing thing about the symbolic power of electing Obama was said in 2008.... Something about the logarithmic growth of American power in Pakistan and the rest of the Moslem world because Obama is black.

Spiros Pappas said...

It's not even debatable: feminism and womens' rights are absolutely critical to world peace and to economic development (shockingly so in the Third World). Undoubtedly empowered women would spare us an additional billion or so starving peasants. So what's the problem? Can't handle the truth? Are you like me, a First World male kinda of sick of mouthy females. Whatever... I hope Hillary runs and I hope she kicks butt...

elkh1 said...

We haven't evolved much, have we? After centuries of progress and progressive thinking, we are still waiting for a knight in shining armor to kill the fire spitting dragon to save the world.

The woman who came to fame and power by marrying a philandering husband, whose "reset" button has helped to destroy the little moral authority we had, who has no credible accomplishment, whose incompetence led to the demise of Americans in Benghazi, whose attempt to cover up has landed a scapegoat in jail, yet only she can "save the world" because she is a woman.

Almost as laughable and as sad as those who expected a community organizer who can't organize his own speech without reading the teleprompter to "save the world" because he is black.

Pettifogger said...

Inga said... "Argentinians may consider Margaret Thatcher to have been a bit of a warmonger."

I am reminded of when my mother broke up a fight between my younger brother and me. She asked how it started, and I replied that it all started when he hit me back.

rcocean said...

Wasn't Parker passing herself off as some kind of Conservative years ago?

O

Henry said...

@Spiros Pappas -- Good post, though you confuse inputs with concepts (though not as opportunistically as Ms. Parker).

Womens rights are crucial to economic development in the third world. Ms. Clinton is right to support this endeavor. But it is telling that Ms. Parker focuses on the women and avoids the economics.

Anyone who attempts to persuade by writing writes for an audience. The wormwood in this editorial is that Ms. Parker does not trust her audience to understand the parallel between human rights and economic rights.

Kirk Parker said...

"Argentinians may consider Margaret Thatcher to have been a bit of a warmonger. "

They would be wrong. No matter which way you look at it (law of nations, self-determination, consent of the governed), the Falklands belong to Britain. Those Argentinians need to get themselves a better mirror.

Pettifogger said...

Inga said..."Argentinians may consider Margaret Thatcher to have been a bit of a warmonger."

This reminds me of an incident when I was a child. My mother broke up a fight between my younger brother and me. When she asked what happened, I said that it all started when he hit me back. That likely neatly captures the Argentine perspective.

stlcdr said...

"Argentinians may consider Margaret Thatcher to have been a bit of a warmonger."

Which nullifies Katherine Parker's argument, of course. Women in power are in power first, and women second (or third, or forth, or whatever).

Firehand said...

Same level of idiocy as the hate for Sarah Palin.
Ask a rabid Clinton supporter to tell you exactly what accomplishments we're supposed to revere her for, they can't; but they'll call you a misogynist and other less-polite terms for asking.

Ask them exactly why they hate Palin and they can't tell you; all you get is "She's stupid!" and variations on that.

They've been told who to worship and who to hate, and that's good enough for them.

DWPittelli said...

While Ms. Clinton traveled a lot as Secretary of State, I am having trouble recalling all of her successes while in that office. I do recall that she is the woman whose husband bought her Senate seat in part with the pardons of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, as well as of Hasidic community leaders who had embezzled $30 million from the U.S. government.

El Pollo Raylan said...

The comparison of Clinton and Palin is inapt. Sarah Palin never had a member of the Washington Press Corpse stand up and say "This woman will bring world peace."

Palin support was and is almost wholly a grassroots phenomenon; Hillary support is almost wholly Washington insider contrived. They're more opposites than alike.

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem is that even if the world would be more peaceful if women were to run it, we would still need to get from here to there, and putting someone like Hillary! In charge of this country would just make us less secure, with men running the rest of the world. Think about Russia, with super-macho Putin in control. Will he respect compassion, talk of peace and unicorns more, or a willingness to use force in our national interest?

I think that maybe a difference between men and women is that men much more typically know when and how much force to threaten and/or use than most women. We have spent our lives posturing and vying for position in the male hierarchy, while women are essentially mostly outside it.

I say most men, because in this realm, we may already have our first female President in Choom-leader Obama, who seemingly also doesn't understand this dynamic, and possibly due to his early pot usage during his formative years. Neither he nor his Sec of State Hillary! seem to have understood the impact of their non-actions the night our consulate in Benghazi was overrun by terrorists. When the 3 am call came in late afternoon, he went to bed early, and she was MIA, famously quipping later "what does it matter?" This statement alone should disqualify her for the Presidency, since it evidences complete unawareness of the geopolitical reality that force is respected, and that most world leaders, along with most terrorists, are males, and view what we didn't do that night as an admission of weakness. They recognize weakness instinctually, which is why the weakest boys are the ones bullied.

El Pollo Raylan said...

I say most men, because in this realm, we may already have our first female President in Choom-leader Obama,..

Nothing says that better than that leaked photo from the situation room when bin Laden was taken out. Hillary has a hand covering her horrified face and Obama looks shlumped in his suit jacket -- as if he'd physically lost tumescence. Everyone else in the photo looked nonplussed.

Tennesee Buckeye said...

Too bad this liberating woman star politician got four men killed through her mismanagement and poor leadership. But, after all, they were only men!