WHY HILLARY CHOSE VICTIMHOOD

by Marc H. Rudov
August 18, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Both Ends of the Spectrum

Hillary Clinton blamed the demise of her 2008 primary campaign on sexism and misogyny, while simultaneously bragging about receiving 18M popular votes — a US record. This is transparent hypocrisy on its face: Hillary’s it’s-all-about-women campaign was the epitome of sexism. Hillary was the sexist.

So, why did Hillary play the victim? Easy answer: she wanted pity, which she somehow confuses with compassion and respect. The real answer is that female victimhood sells in this gynocracy, and sells big-time — despite women comprising 54% of the electorate, 60% of college graduates, 70% of divorce filers, and 90% of child custodians. In addition, women control 60% of American wealth and make 80% of consumer purchases. This is victimhood? I’d like some of that, with fries.

In reality, female whiners are fake victims. They’ll alternately use victimhood and power, depending on the situation. To wit: When Hillary competed to become commander in chief, she was powerful. In defeat, she was a victim. Why, then, can women exploit both ends of the spectrum? Simple: men fall for it every time.

Men are afraid of women, as I explained in “Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her.” How else can one explain mayors, governors, legislators, judges, jurists, and presidents bending and mutilating the Constitution — unilaterally for women — to effect such bear traps as VAWA, IMBRA, rape shields, abortion, safe havens, and instant restraining orders?

Fear not, however, for Senator Clinton’s pity-wallowing was not in vain. She had many helpers stirring the victimhood stew, including Elton John, Geraldine Ferraro, and NOW. Yes, they all blamed Hillary’s narrow loss to Barack Obama on the hatred of women. Gawker and Jon Stewart’s Daily Show even blamed me somewhat for her loss, because of my famous “take out the garbage” quip on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto. Give me a break!

Managerial Incompetence

Too bad Hillary’s protestations, and those of her supporters, were fallacious and disingenuous. In the September, 2008, issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Joshua Green wrote a detailed investigative portrait of Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign — replete with internal documents and e-mails — called “The Front-Runner’s Fall.” Here are two critical paragraphs from Green’s article, which proves that incompetence and high negatives sank her campaign, not sexism:

I have no reason to critique, delve into, or expand on Mr. Green’s eye-opening treatise, which taught me a lot; it stands on its own merits. You can read it for yourself, and you must. My objective, in including Green’s piece, is to present evidence that the sexism and misogyny charges of Hillary and her friends were bogus and dangerous. Because American men are reluctant to criticize women, women rarely hear it. So, when the rare man criticizes a woman, he’s automatically labeled a misogynist.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

When a woman calls her detractors sexists and misogynists, she’s displaying true weakness. The fact is, Hillary Clinton ran an inept campaign, was unpopular, and deserved to lose. Carelessly and cowardly playing the sexism card, to mask incompetence or for any other reason, is as pernicious as capriciously playing the racism card. In the end, false accusers diminish themselves.

Hillary chose victimhood because she could. That choice rallied a lot of female support, and many men gave her a pass for it. Alas, Americans easily and willingly see women as victims — a sign of disrespect, not compassion. Until women reject this dysfunctional pathos, the irony will be lost on them.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

If Hillary runs a competent and successful presidential campaign in 2012, it will mean that choosing victimhood was a good strategy. It also means that a victim could be answering that White House phone at 3AM. Is that what you want?

© 2008 - Marc H. Rudov - All Rights Reserved