Clinton's story, to which all the right-thinking do now and will in future nod until they realize what it actually means, is a revealing fantasy in its view of the astonishing psychic hold all those big strong men have on all those little weak women.
Why Hillary Clinton was right about white women – and their husbands
Many had expected Clinton to rally women, the same way Barack Obama rallied black voters in 2008 – and if she had, she would have handily trumped Donald Trump.
But while Obama won 95% of the black vote, Clinton won just 54% of women – a percentage point less than her male predecessor atop the Democratic ticket.
Among white women in particular, she fared even worse: a slim majority voted for Trump.
Last week, Clinton, who has had a lifetime to contemplate the women’s vote, copped to having a theory.
“[Women] will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women. They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’,” she said in an interview as part of a tour promoting her new memoir of the 2016 campaign.
And all those white husbands, fathers, boyfriends, and male employers, so aggressively dominant you would think she must be talking about Saudi Arabia, followed those white women right into the voting booths to make damn sure they did the right thing, too.
Does this mean all those big, bossy men who dominate politics worldwide would have completely cowed stubby little Hillary?
If that's what she truly sees as typical in male-female power relations, I mean.
Remember her story of how she felt about Trump stalking her on the debate stage, how she wanted to respond with an angry protest and personal insult but did not?
And did she not dare?
GW just laughed at Al Gore when he tried the same tactic.
Remember that old film of some early male competitor for office coming across the stage to her podium and lecturing her?
She froze like a deer in the headlights.
No comments:
Post a Comment