In the Sunday April 20th edition of the British Daily Telegraph, Philadelphia-based feminist social critic Camille Pagilia has penned an article rambling on why women should not vote for Hillary Clinton without ever really enumerating any actual reasons that should offend women so.
Here are the lowlights:
A spotty record or her naked political expediency.
Apparently Obama’s resume is not as spotty in the mind of the creative class professor of the arts from Philly. Nor his willingness to acquiese with the GOP on energy and other issues or his throwing various core constituencies of the Democratic base such as gays and the eldery under the bus not readily appartent to Ms. Pagilia. She continues:
Hillary’s public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband’s success.
Her husband was President of the United States and governor of Arkansas and a successful one at that and yet here she stands on her own record and accomplishments. But there’s more from chere Camille:
Hillary has always been a policy wonk, a functionary attuned to bureaucratic process, but she has never shown executive ability, which makes her quest for the presidency problematic.
News for you, Obama ain’t no policy wonk and I’d like to see what executive ability or legislative record Obama has. She points to the failure of Mrs. Clinton’s failed health care initiative of 1993-94 but doesn’t touch as to why it failed nor the lessons she might have learned from that experience. And she conviniently overlooks Mrs. Clinton’s role in passing the SCHIP bill. And in a rather bizarre forgetfullness of she is actually writes, she goes:
The argument, therefore, that Hillary’s candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates’ constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism . . . Genuinely disturbing are the caricatures of Hillary (called “Hitlery” or “the Hildebeast” on the web) that rarely accrue to male candidates: she’s portrayed as a hectoring nag, a witch on a broomstick, or a castrating bitch.
Two paragraphs apart. I hate to say this but calling her “a castrating bitch” is a tad sexist. And it doesn’t stop there. Apparently women are responsible for their husband’s dailiences.
It is Bill Clinton who is responsible for the tainted sexual aura around his wife.
I know not of what Camille Pagilia speaks.