Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I just wrote about Hillary and her candidacy last month, and not in a very favorable way. This month, I find myself writing about her again, and not in a very favorable way. Perhaps some in Hillary’s campaign would charge me with “the-politics-of-piling-on” Hillary because she is a woman. That’s what her campaign did after Hillary’s poor outing in the last Democratic presidential debate when the other candidates went after her: It implied that the other candidates, all male, had “piled on” Hillary because she is a female. Methinks Lady Hillary doth protest too much.
Indeed, the same week that Hillary’s campaign accused her male counterparts of “the politics of pile on,” she also appeared at her alma mater, Wellesley. When addressing a crowd of “Hillblazers,” young female supporters, Hillary said, “In so many ways, this all women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.”
Well, apparently it didn’t. If it had, Hillary would have known the difference between being singled out because she’s a woman and being singled out because she’s got a 20-point lead on the men.
Whether I think Hillary is the best Democrat in the field is irrelevant to the fact that, before playing the gender card after the last debate, Hillary had run the smartest campaign of anyone in the Democratic primary. Even though she’s not my candidate, I thought that she had outperformed Obama, Edwards, and the others every time. During the debates, she projected strength, experience, knowledge, and self-assurance. She never got ruffled. She was virtually untouchable.
Then, in the last debate, she was asked about whether New York governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to offer illegal immigrants driver’s licenses was the right decision. Hillary waffled, saying first one thing, then another, and then finally accused Tim Russert of asking her a “gotcha” question when it became apparent that her answers were doublespeak. If it was a “gotcha” question, it certainly didn’t “get” any of the other candidates. And even if it had been a “gotcha” question, it’s a debate, Hillary. That’s the point: to ask candidates tough questions to see how they handle them under fire. Hillary had been great under fire. In the last debate, she wasn’t.
In short, the last debate wasn’t Hillary’s finest performance. She should have simply acknowledged that after the debate and come loaded for bear the next time.
But she didn’t. Instead, she had her campaign accuse the male candidates of “piling on,” implying that six men piling on one woman was unfair. She played the gender card, which was stupid. Until then, Hillary hadn’t played the gender card. She didn’t have to. Everyone knows she’s a woman. She’s not exactly in the closet.
More importantly, the men on the stage didn’t go after Hillary because she’s got a
va-jay-jay . They went after her because, until then, she was more than 20 points ahead of her nearest male competitor.
Frontrunners have bull’s eyes on them, whether the frontrunners are males or females. If Hillary learned anything at Wellesley, in the White House, or in her time in the Senate about the “all boys’ club of presidential politics,” she should have at least learned that.
Writing from the liberal side, Houston attorney Daryl Moore has a general practice and is board certified in civil appellate law.