Dissents Of The Day

A reader writes:

I had to laugh when I read your post comparing Hillary Clinton to Claire Underwood, especially the last paragraph.  With the exception of her dogged desire to believe the husband she loves, the sins you list that supposedly disqualify Clinton from being a feminist icon are exactly what make her one. Her hardball legal tactics, her managing her image, her “ruthless” pursuit of power – she behaved exactly like a man.  She refused to be defined by her gender in one of the most brutal arenas in our society. That’s why she’s a feminist role model, not having robotic obedience to some ever-shifting set of feminist virtues.

Another is on the same page:

Of course Hillary Clinton can still be a feminist icon! One of the main points of feminism is equality for women, not a woman’s obligation to stand up for all other women at all times. Clinton is a ruthless politician and she’s also a woman. It’s not either/or. In the examples you give, she’s dismissive of these women because they’re interfering with politics; their gender is much less important than their political relevance.

Another:

Your feminist standpoint kinda sounds like the Obama “not being black enough” crap. Why do we have to wait for a perfectly independent female politician who never relied on fathers and husbands beyond age 22? Don’t all the previous presidents used wives/mothers connections/powers throughout their adults lives? No men succeeded alone.

Another blows a ref whistle:

About Blair’s entry about “whiney women” – Blair did not quote Hillary saying that.

From your excerpt, it looks like that was Blair’s comment about Hillary’s view of these women, but not necessarily Hillary’s quote.  Who can tell who used the word “whiney” at this point?  There is no “gotcha” moment here.

Keep going. And another:

You’re saying Hillary herself tried to smear Flowers as a “fraud, liar and possible criminal”? Suddenly words written by Bill’s campaign strategists can be attributed to Hillary? If that’s to be the standard, we’re in for a long campaign indeed.

A side note from a reader:

Your nostalgia for faded and forgotten Clinton scandals brought back memories of my own. Specifically, your reference to “that amazing $100,000 windfall in cattle futures” reminded me of article I read by James Glassman long ago in 1994, which sought to determine just what illegality or impropriety could have been involved. The only serious charge was Ms Clinton’s broker cherry-picked successful trades for her, but Glassman said the evidence actually contradicted that possibility. So what was he left with? Nothing more than Hillary and Bill were given slack on required margin calls during the more harrowing sections of a roller coaster ride of massive gains followed by massive losses. Glassman also noted the Clintons’ experiences with the broker were no different than his other clients, both with regards to the wild swings of profit and margin call laxity. His account was an interesting example of draining the fever swamp of conspiracy with facts, and I recall it to this day. And who was the editor for James Glassman article? Why you, Andrew! I could probably dig up my old issue if you need a reminder.

I remember it well.