After her disasterous debate performance on Tuesday in which she stonewalled on the failure to release documents from when she was first lady and took anywhere from two to four different positions on drivers’ lisences for illegal immigrants, the Clinton campaign is whining about “the politics of pile on and today the Washington Post has her advisors saying the idea of an all-male field of opponents criticizing her will help her with the female vote. This is absurd. She is the runaway frontrunner, so she will obviously get the brunt of the tough questions. The fact that she bungled them is not anybody’s fault but her own. And it would actually be sexist if her opponents avoided criticizing her just because she is a woman. Playing for sympathy benefitted her in her first New York Senate race when Rick Lazio invaded her personal space in a debate by trying to get her to sign a pledge to not take “soft money.” Her tactic may work among the Democratic electorate in the primary, but if she pulls this type of thing in a general election, she’s toast. The general American electorate does not want to elect a commander in chief during wartime out of sympathy.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.