“Hillary Clinton is consistently treated differently than just about any other candidate I see out there. There’s a reason we haven’t had a woman president.”
—-President Obama, playing the gender card, since the race card isn’t applicable, in a campaign speech in Columbus, Ohio.
How disgraceful is this? I know it’s a campaign speech and some hyperbole is expected, but there are limits. The statement is dishonest, insulting, divisive and stupid.
Hillary Clinton is treated differently “than just about any other candidate”? Does he mean Trump? That’s the only other candidate running for President, and sure, he’s treated differently: he’s routinely demonized in the news media, from which he received almost nothing but sneering, negative coverage, and called the equivalent of Hitler by members of Obama’s party. Nobody ever blames the bad press he gets on sexism. I guess she is treated differently.
Of course, Hillary is also the only allegedly feminist Presidential candidate who rose to power on the coattails of her more successful and powerful husband, whose rise she assisted by threatening the victims of his sexual advances into fearful silence, whose claim to being a Wall Street reformer is undercut by the huge speaking fees-as-access gifts she received from big financial firms, and who violated both ethical principles and her oath before Congress by shaking down foreign powers for gifts to her family foundation, aka slush fund, while Secretary of State.
She’s one of two candidates repeatedly caught in substantive and trivial lies, but the only one who secretly violated both her own Department’s policies and basic principles of competence by using an unauthorized e-mail system, exposing classified information to acquisition by hostile powers, destroyed potential evidence she knew would be subpoenaed, and lied to the press and the public about it for over a year. As a result of this and more, only 43% of women find Clinton trustworthy.
Those 43%, by the way, can only find Clinton trustworthy because they are gender-biased or pathetically gullible, because she is so clearly untrustworthy. Sexism is the only reason she has as much support as she does!
Obama’s statement is insulting to men and women, who he implies could not find a candidate within their ranks more trustworthy, honest and appealing than Hillary Clinton. It is also embarrassingly silly. Yeah, there are lots of reasons we don’t have a female President yet. For one thing, women couldn’t even vote until 1920, and weren’t entering the professional work force en masse until the Seventies, just 40 years and eleven Presidential elections ago.
There are still far, far fewer women in politics than men, meaning fewer role models, mentors and networks. I think it might have occurred to Obama that the main reason we haven’t had a female President is that very few have run or even wanted to run, and the pool still is neither impressive nor deep. The best qualified women have chosen other, less nasty, more lucrative, more family-friendly fields. Can anyone blame them? Look how Obama’s party and the news media treated a charismatic state governor who was also a wife and mother when she dared to run for Vice President in 2008. She was an idiot (but Joe Biden was good old, funny Joe!) and an inexperienced leader (but Barack Obama, with less experience, was going to be a wonderful President!).
Quick, Mr. President: name all those women who were obviously Presidential material and stopped from becoming President by sexism. Who are the other qualified women in the Democratic party, since the one your party chose is 69 years old with more political baggage than anyone around, and the wife of a previous President?
This is a fact, and cannot be denied: the only reason Hillary Clinton is this close to the Presidency is because she is a woman. A man with her record and negligible personal appeal wouldn’t have a chance.
President Obama’s legacy, however, is that he intentionally fostered societal divisions, suspicion and resentment for political gain. That’s why is leaving office having created the most divided nation since the Civil War.
This statement just adds to that disgraceful legacy.
Now he can play the race card.
I KNEW this unethical quote sounded familiar!
Obama has said almost the exact same thing in September the last time the election got close…and I made it the Unethical Quote of the Week then, too! (It is gratifying to know that the same things get my goat every time.) That was back when Hillary lied about having pneumonia. In that post, I concluded with this…
And if she is elected, be prepared for the gender card to be played over and over again, as it is being increasingly played the more panicked Democrats get.
I just de-friended a Facebook friend for writing that the only reason I am critical of Hillary’s e-mail machinations is because I’m a man. I cannot begin to tell you how furious that makes me, and how statements like Obama’s deepen my intense contempt for the manner in which Clinton’s corrupted supporters argue for her candidacy.
“There’s a reason why we haven’t had a woman president.We as a society still grapple with what it means to see powerful women and it still troubles us in a lot of ways, unfairly…This should not be a close election but it will be, and the reason it will be is not because of Hillary’s flaws.”
First, let us all take a moment and have a good laugh over the President’s glaringly dishonest claim that if the election is close, it won’t be because of Hillary’s “flaws.” Does anyone, including Obama, believe that? If Hillary Clinton wasn’t a chilly campaigner, an abrasive speaker, a venal master of crony politics, a compulsive liar, didn’t risk national security to avoid public scrutiny and lie about it, hadn’t been a mediocre Secretary of State involved in a failed foreign policy, didn’t aid, abet, deny and excuse her sexual predator husband, and wasn’t going to turn 69 before the election and do so in dubious health—these are all flaws, by the way—is there any question that she would be heading for a landslide victory, instead of facing very possible defeat? PBS pundit Mark Shields told a Georgetown University audience last week that Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is less qualified for the Presidency than Clinton by far, who supports many of Bernie Sanders’ nuttier positions and who has some political baggage of her own, would have beaten Trump in a landslide, and he’s right.
Yet, oddly, Warren seems to be a woman too….
As has been the habit of Obama’s party and supporters in the press for eight long years, the mantra from the Clinton campaign is that one cannot possibly have principled, reasonable, legitimate objections to her corrupt candidacy; the opposition must be rooted in bigotry. Division and hatred are progressive tools of the trade now, for even in his final months in office, Obama seems determined to leave a society shattered along race and gender as his most damning legacy. If you are not a Hillary supporter, it is because you are a sexist bigot who unfairly rejects “powerful women.” Well, more specifically, since Obama was talking to a pro-Hillary audience, its “they” who are sexist bigots. Hillary’s deplorables, those lesser Americans. Now the President is “otherizing” those who don’t do his bidding. Nice.
Obama’s historical assertion that this is a major reason why we haven’t had a female President is so factually nonsensical that it qualifies as intentional disinformation, a false statement that the speaker knows is false, designed to make his audience stupid. Who are those qualified, experienced female candidates who have lost elections because they were “strong”? I’d like some names.
Most “strong women” who haven’t beaten Clinton to the White House didn’t do so because women didn’t even have the vote until 1920. By then, men had a 130 year head start, and when everyone who has held a prominent job has been a male, it isn’t surprising that the idea that it’s a male job gets firmly embedded in people’s heads. Fear or dislike of “strong women” isn’t the problem. Activist Victoria Woodhull ran for President in 1872 on the Equal Rights ticket, but that was nearly 50 years before the Nineteenth Amendment allowed women to vote in presidential elections. It’s fair to say the fact that she wasn’t eligible and couldn’t appear on any ballots was the reason people didn’t vote for her, not because she was a “strong woman” (and she sure was.)
Margaret Chase Smith (December 14, 1897 – May 29, 1995) of Maine, a Republican, was the first woman to serve in both houses of the United States Congress. As a New Englander, I remember her well, though her strongest moment in the spotlight came before I was born, when she attacked Joe McCarthy and his followers for her 1950 speech, “Declaration of Conscience.” Smith ran for the Republican nomination in the 1964 presidential election, but she was a moderate in a party that was turning to the right (Barry Goldwater was the nominee that year), and the problem with Smith was that she didn’t seem strong enough, though like Woodhull, she was—she had to be to as the only woman in the Senate. Smith looked and sounded like the president of the PTA.
In 1972, as the Democratic Party turned left, the first African-American woman elected to Congress, Shirley Chisholm, made a serious bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Nobody had heard of Chisolm outside of her state; she was a sincere but poor public speaker (she had a speech impediment); and she was laboring under a dual handicap of being both female and black. Most important of all, no man with Chisolm’s relative lack of relevant experience, especially executive experience, would have had a chance.
That’s pretty much the list. (Well, there’s Carly Fiorina, whom I’m sure would love to blame her failure to catch on with Republican primary voters on the fact that she’s too strong. In truth, she lost because she’s dishonest and creepy, and was fired from the only top executive position she ever held.)
As Obama knows, women have been rising in politics, many of them very strong, but most women with the ability and character to be President have, on their own volition, chosen to do other things, in other fields, making up for lost time in the culture and making society increasingly comfortable with seeing women in the positions of responsibility and authority that were practically impossible for them to achieve for so long. Despite Obama’s insulting falsehood, most Americans believe it would be a societal advance to have a female President. A New York Times/CBS News poll found broad majorities of both men and women who were pleased that the milestone of a woman nominated by a major party had been passed. They just wished someone other than Clinton was the trailblazer.
The fact that there have been just 36 female governors in our entire history (there are more than 36 male governors in office right now) is among the main reasons we haven’t had a female President. The pool still isn’t very large, and women, for a wide range of reasons, have been more inclined to run for legislatures than for mayor or governor when they’ve been inclined to run at all. You may recall that a strong female governor ran for Vice-President against Obama, and she was savaged by a liberal press that suggested that she should be taking care of her special needs son and unwed pregnant daughter rather than running for office, attacked for her governing experience when she had more than their candidate for President, Barack Obama, and mocked as dim-bulb, which she was not and is not. She’s just intellectually lazy and more interested in fame than serious public service. I have never heard or read anyone who suggested that Sarah Palin’s problem is that he is a “strong woman.” She had so many other problems, real and concocted, that derailed her ambitions.
So once again, accusations of bigotry against others is the Democratic default tactic to avoid accountability for their own shortcomings, failures and misconduct. Democrats rigged their nomination for a female candidate who is a proven dud as a campaigner, whose resume is full of dubious or elusive achievements and whose character is untrustworthy. That Hillary Clinton is “strong” is one of her very few legitimate leadership attributes: if she wins, that will be a primary reason…well, that and the fact that she’s running against a nasty, ignorant jerk who is the least qualified major party candidate ever. If she loses, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with gender discrimination, but that will be the excuse. It will be our fault, not hers.
And if she is elected, be prepared for the gender card to be played over and over again, as it is being increasingly played the more panicked Democrats get. Did you know that the public is only concerned about Clinton’s health because she’s female? Funny, I remember some of the same journalists who are claiming this hammering away at John McCain’s age and health problems in 2008. Dwight Eisenhower’s age and heart problems was a major issue in his 1956 campaign, though in those more civil days the topic had to be handled delicately. No, for some reason, it has always mattered to the public that their Presidents and candidates to be President appear healthy and strong, whether they are men or women. Appearing too strong isn’t Clinton’s problem; appearing ill and lying about it is.
The best “I am so strong, it will blow your mind!” campaign stunt ever was when Theodore Roosevelt took a bullet to the chest from a would-be assassin and gave his speech anyway. Teddy was a little mad, of course, but still: is there any question that if Hillary did that, she’d gain support, not lose it?