Hillary’s Critics Don’t Hate Her Because She’s a Woman

Loading

Charles C. W. Cooke:

Hillary Clinton has a heinous, grating, and dissonant voice. She hectors. She lectures. She assiduously over-pronounces, as if she were speaking English as a second language or navigating a densely written legal treatise for the benefit of an elderly relative. When attempting to sound inspiring, she instead seems irritated; when aiming to be meaningful, she comes across as censorious; and, on the rare occasions when she condescends to crack a joke, her demeanor is more tipsy than materteral. She is a bad speaker, and at this stage in her career, she is not going to get better.

I mention this shortcoming not because it represents a dispositive case against her campaign — it does not; that can be found elsewhere — but because, since Hillary spoke last night, I have seen a concerted attempt to cast those who have noticed her ineptitude as “sexist” or “reactionary” or worse. They are no such thing. In a free society, it is imperative that the citizenry is encouraged to say whatever it wishes about those who would wield power, and, judging by the responses I saw yesterday evening, a whole raft of Americans wanted to say that Hillary Rodham Clinton is an atypically unappealing character. By setting their observations beyond the pale, Clinton’s apologists are attempting to foreclose a certain portion of political debate. They should not be allowed to do so.

Underpinning the pushback against those who find Hillary unappetizing is a false and dangerous presumption: to wit, that to criticize Hillary’s mien is in fact to criticize all women. If it were the case that every female politician were greeted with the same appraisals as was Hillary, such a charge might hold water. We might wonder, for example, whether we are so accustomed to hearing men speak in public that we are judging all political orators by their criteria and not by women’s. In addition, we might ask whether the formats, rules, and venues that have grown up around our male-dominated politics suit those of the opposite sex. How, we might inquire, can all Americans be expected to compete under a set of standards that were tailor-made for one group?

Happily, though, we do not need to ask these questions, because Hillary is not indicative of all women, and because the bad reviews that she has attracted are the product of her own shortcomings rather than of a general dislike for her sex. Recall, if you dare, the effusive praise that has been lavished on female rhetoricians over the last few weeks. On Wednesday night, President Obama was introduced by a septuagenarian mother who had lost a son in Afghanistan. By popular acclaim, she was adjudged to have done a wholly terrific job. A night earlier, the first lady, Michele Obama, delivered one of the best political speeches that I — nay, that anybody — has ever heard; such a good speech, in fact, that the press corps began speculating to a man that she might consider running for office herself.

At the RNC, meanwhile, the best of all the addresses was delivered by Laura Ingraham (content notwithstanding). This reflected a pattern. At the 2012 RNC, the most effective speech by far was delivered by Condoleeza Rice (many watching, you will remember, wished in that moment that she were the nominee), while, in 2008, a pre-crazy Sarah Palin all but raised the roof.

This isn’t about women. It’s about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

No.
It is Hillary’s position on various issues:

Hobby Lobby decision is slippery slope against women. I totally disagree.

Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market. And now it is.

Fight systemic racism in education & employment. ”Systemic?” That means it is built in rather than a statistical result of so many who will not use our education system to learn.

Will fight for minorities, immigrants, & women’s rights. They have not got enough privilege yet??? Open the borders, what borders?

Address systemic racism in our criminal justice system. Is it ”systemic,” or are there some groups who practice crime as a lifestyle, even feeling entitled to your stuff?

OpEd: Common Core recycled from Clintons in 1980s and 1990s. That thing has to go!

Establish right to education from pre-school thru college. This lowers what college will supply.

Teacher testing only for new teachers. Yeah, the union hates knowing how utterly stupid some of their tenured teachers are.

Universal pre-kindergarten. Marginalize parents who are good to ”help” warehouse children whose parents are bad.

Vouchers would take money from public schools. Vouchers will not improve our public schools. Wouldn’t want to ”steal” cash from those union workers.

$100B per year by 2020 for climate change mitigation. More cash for Clinton cronies.

Well, you can’t be what she is WITHOUT being a woman.

The more I see and hear Hillary talk, the more I can understand Bill’s philandering. Not that I feel sorry for him. I think it’s poetic justice that they are stuck with each other.

Typical leftist propaganda.

Conservative criticism of Hillary can ONLY be attributed to the fact she is a woman, not her failed extreme leftist positions. (Just as conservative criticism of Obama cannot possibly be due to his failed extreme leftist policies, but can only be due to the fact he is half-black).

Funny how when conservative women are candidates, (Palin, for example), leftist attacks are considered to be “thoughtful” and directed only against her positions and not her sex.

@Pete: Liberals have taken to fielding political oddities as their candidates; gimmicks. They picked Obama because, never having done ANYTHING, he had no record… no bad, no good. Being black, the left could invent the race card. Now, they produce Hillary and hope the V-card can overwhelm her tremendous negatives; negatives not built up by a partisan press but by her actual record as a public servant.