May 8, 2008

My Female Pride in Hillary Is Emerging

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Before I finish writing this, I may be running for the Pepto Bismol.  That's not a joke. 

I thoroughly disdain nearly every single thing that Hillary Clinton has done in her life, from latching onto Bubba's charisma instead of her own abilities, to riding shotgun on all his many deplorable abuses of vulnerable women, to staying with the lout for what seemed naked political ambitions of her own. 

I abhor her government solutions to every human problem as much as I do Obama's. 

Right now, though, I'm feeling downright proud of her as a fellow female.

My vote in 1972, for George McGovern, was one I made as a foolish, young college student, mainly because all of my professors taught daily that was the only way a self-respecting American, "good person," could vote.  But that was my very last vote for a Democrat in any election, other than school board or county commission in all these 36 years.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in November, no matter what. 

Unlike Ann Coulter, I deem the makeup of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years of the utmost importance, and I know a little about what the "Progressives" want to do with the Constitution through the Court.  I have (with my husband) raised children, unlike Ann, and I don't play around with their futures.

All of those disclaimers are out of the way now.

And I'm so proud of Hillary Clinton right now that I could burst.

Seriously.

By staying in this race, refusing to quit, she has shown the kind of grit, fortitude, perseverance and strength that makes it patently obvious why God picked us women to be the child bearers.

Labor, like campaigning for the Presidency, is not for wimps.

In many ways, we women are the weaker sex; that's undeniable to reasonable people.

But in just as many ways, we are the stronger sex and I would like to personally thank Hillary Clinton for this ample demonstration of that very authentic fact.

Hillary has been hounded by her once-adoring Democrat fans to withdraw and fade quietly from the race.  For the good of the party, they have said.

Balderdash!

If there is a single shred of grown-up quality left in the Democrat Party, it is only evidenced by Hillary Clinton's refusal to let the Party blindly nominate a thoroughly wet-behind-the-ears, know-nothing candidate, who has gotten to this political height on the strength of a cowering, blind media elite (as Bill Clinton said earlier in this campaign), a bunch of hormonally driven college students, and the color of his own skin.

What else could it have been that got Obama here? 

He has nothing of substance to offer this Nation.  No integrity of character.  No wisdom.  No experience, except continuously campaigning, organizing and latching onto bad mentors and money-raisers.  Democrat qualities all, to be sure, but usually their candidates have something else to bring to the table.

Hillary Clinton has actually served more than one full term in the Senate.  She has actually served in a Republican-majority Senate.  And she actually has crossed the aisle and worked side-by-side with Republicans to actually get a few things done.

Barack Obama has done nothing, nothing. 

Yet, Hillary has been painted by the media as the humorless shrew, an old hag, and a pantsuit-wearing, androgynous harridan.

Barack, on the other hand, has been painted as the charging young knight on the valiant steed, daring to do combat with the older, "dirtier," generation.

Was it her sex, and not his race, that drove media coverage?

I'm rarely one to charge sexism, which is why it actually means something when I make the charge.

And I'm making it now.

It's a well-known truism that women are harder on their own than men are.  And during this entire campaign, a great many female columnists have pounced on Hillary.  I have been among those.

We women heaped scorn on her for playing the gender card early in the race.  We women were thoroughly disgusted when she broke down and teared up on a few occasions.  In fact, women columnists have been the first to do the dirty work on Hillary.

But she changed.  She stopped whining.  She stopped crying.  And she stopped playing the gender card.  She grew up a lot, and got tough, in my opinion. 

So, why haven't the mainstream media fawned over Hillary's huge strides instead of leaping to Barack's rescue day in and day out?

If it isn't plain, old-fashioned, despicable sexism, then what is it?

Of the two Clintons, Hillary has demonstrated that she is absolutely the better one.  So, why aren't the Democrat big-wigs and the Hollywood donors and the media elites running to her side the way they did with Bill?

In the beginning of this campaign, Obama shied from using the race card, but who can deny now that every time he is confronted with substantive questions from a slow-to-catch-on media, he bristles as though he is somehow above scrutiny.  If that isn't playing the race card, I really don't know what is.  And he has played it more and more and more throughout, as he has relied on the African-American vote to claim this nomination. 

Hillary has done the opposite.  She started out feeling entitled and above our questions and has become now the candidate who is actually interviewing for the job.  Fighting for it.

And she is actually demonstrating the kind of mettle needed in a President and Commander In Chief, while he, on the other hand throws inconvenient folks under his arrogant male bus.  She has made it abundantly clear that Iran will be annihilated if it attacks Israel. 

He won't take a public stand on anything controversial, no matter what.

So, who is the better man? 

Hands down, it's Hillary.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She blogs at commonsenseregained.com/ and welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com.
If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives