Last week, before she lost everyone in the news media to Bernie Sanders (seriously, did anyone see Andrea Mitchell admitting that the private email server was for nothing more than to escape oversight – and complaining about lack of media coverage?), Hillary Clinton was trying to lay out a case for her election.
She listed the regular stuff, sure – she supports gay marriage (kind of moot, but oh, well), she’s great at foreign policy, she wants everyone to have a fair shake, she’s the champion of the middle class – but she also threw in a curveball, quite literally, that we hadn’t yet seen this cycle. As the Democrats jump ship from an old white woman to congregate towards yet anothter old, white male, she reminded her amassed supporters that it’s very important to vote for Hillary Clinton – because she’s got all the requisite ladyparts.
Technically, speaking, based on those qualifications, Caitlyn Jenner could run for President and she’d already probably be more qualified than Hillary Clinton. And to be fair, at least Caitlyn Jenner worked for her ladyparts. Hillary Clinton happened to be born with them. Which, of course, also makes Hillary Clinton’s statement incredibly sexist. What is it about ladyparts that make us female-identifying gender-heteronormative ladies so much better than the rest of the political world? Do my ovaries have independent degrees in foreign policy? Is my uterus able to successfully navitgate a Congressional backlog? Does my special ladybrain give me supernatural abilities I’m only now just hearing about?
I suspect all of these are legitimate questions. I wonder if they’ll be asked in a debate.
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://thespectator.com/world.