Hillary (Democratic) logic

If you’d like to get a perfect sampling of illogical thought masquerading as logic, check out this Brutally Honest post, which examines Hillary’s latest bon mot.

Speaking of Hillary, I heard a woman today telling Michael Medved that, while she is a Republican, she’ll vote for Hillary because she wants to see a woman in the White House.  That’s the reason.  She’s willing to accept Hillary’s political positions because she wants a woman in the White House.

This is the reductio ad absurdum of identity politics.  I can see that 2008 is going to be an election reminiscent of the one in 1920, when women voted in droves for Warren G. Harding, whom most would agree was one of the worst presidents ever (and certainly one of the most corrupt), simply because they found him handsome.  In other words, this is may be one of those elections where women embarrass themselves and hurt our country.

And, yes, for those of you who don’t know, I’m a woman — but I’ll only vote for a woman candidate when there’s actually a good one.  I know a good one will come along, and I’m pragmatic enough to wait, so that I get the best for my country, not just the most female.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Danny Lemieux says

    Take heart, Book. There are a lot of women that will not vote for Hillary because she is just an awful example of a woman. Also, the description of her hubby’s firing of the U.S. attorney’s when the Clinton Administration took office should have included “…including said attorney’s who were fired while investigating Clinton’s alleged misdeeds as Governor of Arkansas”, thereby derailing the investigations. This is also known as obstruction of justice, BUT the attorneys served “at the pleasure of the President”. The Clintons will keep historians employed for many, many decades to come.

  2. says

    Here’s a bright note, BookWormtessa: In a brilliant episode of the long forgotten Man Show, Jimmy Kimmel (of Jimmy Kimmel fame) set up a table at a prominent woman’s college collecting signatures from the enlightened feministas urging the end of “womens’ suffraging” and believe it or not…he got many signatures from the Perpetually Outraged, Offended Primadonnas who gladly demanded an end to women’s suffraging. I nearly choked to death on my teevee dinner laughing so hard. If my husband would have been made a widower, he’d be a wealthy man, thanks in large part to the ridiculous amount of money Swanson and the Comedy Network would have had to pay him.

  3. swampacreage says

    But what if todays men like the Harding women of the 20′s vote for the beautifully handsome Hilary Clinton ? Or is that just ridiculously absurd ? It wouldn’t be the first time men were accused of not thinking with their head !

  4. says

    Oh, and the bright note is that many stupid women would gladly sign away their right to vote…maybe we should have an IQ test on people to see if they are smart enough to vote…only kidding, this would be improper…on the other hand, the definition of the word Incumbecile (I made this word up) is a voter who gripes about the idiots in congress and then reelects his idiot congressman(woman or crossdressing transvestite)

  5. says

    Ah, how much less do we women think with ours, Swampy! My queasiness about a Gore presidency was only worsened when the womenfolk around me thought he would be a great president based upon the way he kissed his wife. Or maybe the ponytailed guy in ’92 who wanted to be likened to children with the president being our “parent”. Aaaah for the good old days, when there were no consequences for voting for whomever.

  6. says

    In 1992, one of my friends got really upset with me because I said that America was not ready for a woman president. I honestly didn’t think that as of that point in America’s development, Americans as a whole were ready for that. I think now there has been enough change in our country that we as a country ARE ready for a female president, however, I do not believe there are any female presidential candidates that are properly qualified to be president.
    In my opinion, Hillary is a political opportunist who is dangerous for this country because she stands for whatever is politically popular at the time. This is a dangerous position for someone who seeks to be the leader of the country, and not something I would support in a candidate.

  7. JJ says

    I don’t know, Jauhara, re your #4. I have to confess my mind is not entirely made up on that. The people who established this country absolutely thought that voting should have been restricted to those who actually contributed to the common weal, and had a stake in (in the sense of “paying for”) the outcome of elections. They weren’t at all sure that people who contributed nothing ought to have a say, and they weren’t at all sure that people who know nothing of the issues/process/candidates’ positions ought to, either.

    I don’t know whether “literacy tests” were an entirely bad (or good) idea – though there is no question that what all too many old-time democrat political machines in the south used them for was blatantly wrong. But at the same time I have grown up watching people vote for JFK because of his wife’s hairdo, and Bill Clinton because evidently large numbers of women regard him as hot (he never once won the male vote) – you know: really great reasons to vote for or against someone. I begin to think that a demonstration of some competence to know what the election is about might not be an altogether bad idea.

    As Earl Butz once remarked in regard to the Pope’s comments on birth control: “you no play-a da game, you no make-a da rules.” If you can’t demonstrate that you know what the election’s about, maybe you shouldn’t get to influence it. “Attractiveness” does not qualify.

Leave a Reply