[1]The liberal establishment, political and media, likes to depict Mrs. B.J Clinton as if she were a strong woman, from Ed Morrissey, Hot Air: [2]
The view that America’s choice of leaders amounts to a global didactic seems more than a little self-centered and arrogant. Frankly, I think the idea that the world would reform itself if only a woman led the most powerful nation on Earth probably was disproven by Queen Elizabeth I about four hundred years ago. It should be noted that the English were among the more reluctant monarchies to allow queens regnant at that time, too, which is why her father was so desperate to have a legitimate son as heir.
The most humorous part about the scrum is Mike Barnicle putting Hillary Clinton on a pedestal in answer to Deutsch’s use of a generic woman leader. “No one is ever going to confuse her (Hillary) of being weak,” Barnicle says. Why not, after Benghazi, the flabby US foreign policy during her time as Secretary of State to the dangers of the Arab Spring in general (and perhaps specifically in Egypt), and the toadiness of the “reset button” with Russia? While one shouldn’t assume any woman in general would be a weak leader, isn’t it acceptable to reach that conclusion based on past performance — or is that a violation of some code as well?
Any woman who refused to protect her marriage, a Secretary of State who refused to protect her ambassador, can not be expect to protect her country. After all it was the so-called Smartest Women in the World, who gave the Russian her “reset button” which the Russian used to restart the Cold War.