This post is by guest blogger, Mrs. Angry Moderate:
I have been pondering what it is about Hillary Clinton that annoys some but not all people, but particularly men. Here goes--she is not a tough broad. Who is a tough broad? I got to thinking about Margaret Thatcher. I can imagine the Iron Lady sitting down and having a scotch straight up with Winston Churchill and holding her own with the guy. She was tough but in a tough broad kind of way. Who are other tough broads? Katherine Hepburn. Barbara Stanwyck. Betty Davis to name a few actresses. Ann Richards was a tough broad. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, is a mountain climber. I think that definitely qualifies her as a tough broad. The Queen of England is a tough broad. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Sandar Day O'Connor is a tough broad. Think of the school teacher who could dismiss you with a flick of the wrist. I had a few. My guess is that Nancy Pelosi is one behind that smile. I bet she can rule with an iron fist. These are women who you just do not want to mess with. Being a tough broad is part genetic, part environmental, but however it is arrived at, you can sense it immediately. You can see it in their dress, in their demeanor. They like hanging around men and men like hanging around with them. They are tom boys perhaps, and they have more manly traits than womanly traits. They can wear a dress or a suit all right, but you can just see the steeliness in the eyes, the "don't bother me with nonsense and get on with it" attitude. They have no patience for chit chat. They mean business.
Hillary says she is tough but her toughness is not in a tough broad kind of way. I simply cannot see Hillary Clinton having a scotch, let alone one with Churchill where they shoot the breeze and maybe smoke cigars. She has many more womanly traits. She went to Wellesley, an all girls school. She likes to hang around with women. I imagine her as being way more into having tea parties with her sorority sisters than say, joining a softball league. Her idea of being tough is by relying on cliques to surround her and pulling out the claws when necessary. That is so like a girl. When I hear her idea of being tough I feel like I am in the school yard at recess. Am not. Are too! Am not. Are too! You can imagine that if she ran for class president her idea of winning was to spread rumors about her opposition. If I had to name women in power who are the Hillary type of woman, I would nominate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She is smart but she is no Sandra Day O'Connor. Another might be Barbara Boxer from California. I like her, she seems to be fun and smart and I agree with her about a lot of things, but I don't see her as a tough broad.
There is no way out of this for Hillary. She is what she is and all of her declarations of toughness will not make her Margaret Thatcher. That is why I say, we need a woman to be President, just not her. I like Susan Collins of Maine myself. She seems sensible and tough. Some of these women Governors may be up and coming. The lady from Arizona, Janet Napolitano, is pretty cool. We need to let them get battle tested and ready to go. They are out there. Let's hope they bubble to the top and succeed. But whoever it is, I think there can be no doubt, to be considered electable by most men and some women, the first woman President will have to be a real tough broad.
And where is Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey in this assessment? I actually peg them both as tough broads. Oprah is a little more touchy feely but my guess is that she has it in her to be steely. Martha is definitely a tough broad. She might be a home maven but I would not want to mess with her. As for chatting with the ladies, Martha could never do that. I don't see it unless she is chatting about stock options and how to make more money.
4 comments:
Hillary Clinton is not a tough broad in any way, shape or form. Maggie Thatcher worked her way up the party system and learned the art of politics. Hillary does not have that training. She was handed the senate seat with the blessing of its former occupant, the late Daniel Moynahan. She was the First Lady, not the co-president. Or even the Vice President.
What I get a kick of is Hillary running as a woman, obviously counting on the women's vote, but she never wears a dress or demonstrates any womanliness. Have you noticed that? Now she told us all back in '92 that she wasn't going to do tea and cookies and certainly was not going to be the Tammy Wynett wife. And so far she's been the anti-woman. She wears a uniform just like the boys do. She wears a pants suit at all times. The only time I have seen her wear a dress or skirt is when she wears an evening gown.
Hillary signals her "toughness" by her bold, solid color uniforms, the simple-line pant suits. Bold yellows, blues, reds. She accessorizes with simple jewelry, scarves, and black pumps. There will be no wardrobe malfunctions with Hillary.
Maggie Thatcher wore dresses and skirts. Queen Elizabeth wears beautiful dresses and her ensembles are stunning. Hillary misses the point. You don't need to wear pants to be president. Women want to see a woman who can wear a skirt and convey her toughness at the same time.
Absolutely! She tries to convey toughness in her appearance and in the stridency of her tone. But that is not how it works. To me, the issue is, to whom does she relate mentally. She gets the womens vote for a reason--they can relate to her on a girl to girl level. I use that phrase deliberately.
You are correct, she said she was not going to do cookie recipes. To me, that is the Gloria Steinman feminist talking. It is beneath her to bake cookies. Tough broads don't really need "feminism." A tough broad would not be afraid to have a cookie recipe. I think a tough broad would remember her mother and bake those cookies lovingly while discussing free trade.
"She was the First Lady, not the co-president."
Amen. Have looked in vain for that co-president thing in the Constitution. The Clintons just had to rub that idiocy in; turned out to mean a special protected status, someone who gets involved in decisions but gets to be immune from criticism.
I've given some thought as to why men generally, not necessarily more than women maybe, dislike Hillary [it would seem]. The above is certainly one reason; it reminds me of wives who sometimes get involved in their husband's business. That often follows a similar pattern that verges on being intolerable: Somebody who is basically your boss but who you can't interact with in a normal way.
Thatcher good, Clinton bad
I agree that Thatcher & those actresses you mentioned are the type of women that are comfortable hanging around with men, and men are comfortable with them. They have an understanding of men and aren't hyper-defensive against them.
I like to recall a "Seinfeld" episode where they were talking about Elaine having only male friends, and Kramer said bluntly "of course, you're a man's woman...you hate other women and they hate you." Not that I think that of Thatcher and the others, but the meaning is easily seen.
The thing about Hillary is that she's a woman who's got something against men. She's not competing with them, she's competing against them. She's a (pardon me) ball buster. She's the type of woman you wouldn't want to work for, you'd be stepping on eggshells the whole time. You have to watch what you say around her because you never know how she'll take the most innocent of comments.
And this is all aside from her complete and total dishonesty, pandering, and lack of integrity, which I condemn totally. She just turns my stomach with that condescending grin and that "it's my Presidency" attitude.
I just can't say enough against her. Please excuse me, I'm going to go throw up now.
-NoGuff
Post a Comment