Women for Hillary: Myth vs Fact


Women, in particular, responded: Several said they chose to vote for Mrs. Clinton at the last moment because she had shown a human side of herself that they had never seen.

“At first, I thought it was bad that she cried, but then I thought she is a woman, give her a chance,” said Diane Fischel, a tailor and a grandmother, who cited the emotional display for deciding to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primary instead of for Senator John McCain on the Republican side.

The coverage is pretty simple.  Women voted for Hillary because she is a woman.  Because she showed her emotions, and by golly gee don’t women run on emotions rather than reason?  Bullshit.

Elizabeth Dole would not have won NH.  Ann Coulter would not have won.  The only reason the emotional side had any impact whatsoever, was because the media has worked so hard to present Mrs. Clinton as a cold calculating bitch.  She isn’t, and the heavy breathing wingnuts who insist she is are revealing more about themselves than Hillary.

Hillary Clinton won because her message resonated with voters:  “I am committed, I am someone you can trust, and I will fix this country”.  Clinton’s approach is, far more than any other candidate, about finding the middle ground.  She is the mushy centrist to end all mushy centrists.  And that can be damn appealing, especially in a state like New Hampshire.  Whether or not that will carry over to future primaries remains to be seen.

Her display of emotion did have a pretty remarkable effect though.  It showed how patently false the painfully constructed media narrative was.


12 Responses

  1. Yea but she’s still a cold calculating bitch.

  2. I disagree with a lot of her politics, and she is a panderer, but she is not a cold bitch, and your language betrays the irrational hatred conservatives have of everything Clinton. Get over it.

  3. Good thing I’m not a conservative or I might be confused by your standard liberal response. The Clinton’s are/were bad for this country.

  4. <snark>Gee Michael D, you’re not a conservative, and not a liberal. I guess you’re just a golly Ron Paul revolutionary, huh? Who happens to believe in non conservative talking points like socialism is the devil, universal health care is wrong, the dept of education needs to go, taxes are bad, poor people are lazy, immigration is evil and the free market will solve everything. Yup. Definitely not a conservative.</snark>

  5. You can keep supporting communism (socialism) if you like but I think most people reject it. I reject the two party system because it has been tearing the country apart for too long.

    It’s not the party you support that matters it is the “content of character.” that matters.

  6. I strongly dislike the two party system. At the same time, going by “content of character”, Ron Paul is an awful person.

    Communism and socialism are vastly different. Keep proving your ignorance in support of your points. And keep calling me a socialist, while you are at it. I guess anyone who supports universal health care is a socialist, huh?

  7. Ok then bright boy, what do the initials USSR stand for? Hmmm?

  8. Michael D,
    The Soviet Union was Communist. Communism and Socialism are not the same:

    A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are “socialist” in the same way that Republicans are “compassionate conservatives”. That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.


  9. I’m certainly no conservative, but I’m absolutely convinced that Clintons in general are cold and calculating people. They “feel our pain” in order to get our support. Then they stab us in the back. Yes, the press blew her little episode out of proportion. Yes, conservatives jumped on the chance to make sexist remarks. But none of that changes the fact that she’s horrible and she probably wasn’t sincere. She used the moment to soften her image, and then attacked Obama while people were feeling bad for her.

  10. And you agree by strongly disliking the two party system while disparagingly criticizing only half. That’s not consistent. When I look at the condition of humanity and realize that it is a direct result of politics as usual I am truly vexed. With regards to the two party “system” literally sucking the freedom out of the masses, may the god of your choosing damn the both of them.

    I appreciate the lesson on communism. I haven’t studied it because I don’t believe in it. I do believe in a constitutional republic. It is “supposed” to be the law of the land to ensure freedom.

  11. communism


    They may not be the same but they are surprisingly similar.

  12. New(er)Leftist,
    Sigh, to a large degree you are right, and to a large degree it doesn’t matter. Hillary is effectively a Lierberman in Democrat’s clothing on many issues, just not all of them. And to be perfectly honest I am really wondering what I will do if she is the nominee. I don’t want any of the Republicans to get into office, but I don’t want her to win, either.

    Michael D,
    You tire me out man. I criticize the Democrats on this site. But even if I didn’t, that wouldn’t provide inconsistency at all. Criticizing the two party system isn’t the same as criticizing both parties themselves. I’d like to see more parties and alliances, like you get in European systems of government. Ideally, I’d like to see no parties, but I don’t know how practical that is.

    I appreciate the lesson on communism. I haven’t studied it because I don’t believe in it. I do believe in a constitutional republic. It is “supposed” to be the law of the land to ensure freedom.

    Haven’t you ever seen “The Hunt for Red October”?

    Capt. Bart Mancuso: [Ramius comments in Russian to Borodin that Mancuso is a “buckaroo”. Ryan laughs] What’s so funny?
    Jack Ryan: Ah, the Captain seems to think you’re some kind of… cowboy.
    Captain Ramius: [in Russian] You speak Russian.
    Jack Ryan: [in Russian] A little. It is wise to study the ways of ones adversary. Don’t you think?
    Captain Ramius: [in English] It is.

    Study communism. Then look with new eyes on China, Cuba, and post soviet Russia.

    Socialism is a step before communism in the communist view of things, and they do have an aspect in common (how they treat ownership, believing it should be about community not individuals, which reminds me why your tripe about my being a socialist is so laughable). But from the linked definitions, here is the key difference (communism):

    a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

    That is a pretty striking difference.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: