Kerstin Gehmlich reports on a potential pitfall for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign:
PARIS (Reuters) – Socialist Segolene Royal failed to win over a majority of women voters in France’s presidential election and may have paid a price for focusing too much on her gender at the expense of promoting her policies.
Only 48 percent of women voted for Royal, according to an Ipsos poll conducted on election day on Sunday, while 52 percent supported rightist rival and overall winner Nicolas Sarkozy.
Mrs. Clinton faces a daunting challenge. She can either campaign on her sex, to become the first female president; openly on her politics to be the first sociaist president, or campaign as the charlatan. Her choice is obvious.
More, Don Surber asks is it “[a] sign for Hillary?”
Addendum : (Bit)
Boortz is reporting that Hillary Clinton’s handlers are in damage control mode, this morning:
So .. today we find Hillary’s Handlers in damage control mode. They’re out there telling us that the comparisons between Hillary and Segolene are just flat-out invalid.
Question: What do you think Hillary’s handlers would be saying if Segolene had won? Do you believe for a minute that Wolfson et al would be trumpeting Segolene’s win as good news for Hillary and an indication that modern voters aren’t afraid to support a woman for their leader.
Neal’s point of course is quite correct. (As is usual when I quote him.)
Had Royal won, Hillary would be trying to ride that victory to her own win here in the States. As it is, she’s desperate to distance herself from it.
Tags: BitsBlog, Democrats, Elections, Honor those who serve
May 8th, 2007 at 7:34
That was a point I meant to touch on in the Ramble, last night.
I was amused over dinner last night when Mara Liasson on Hume expressed some confusion as to why Royal didn’t carry the female vote. It struck me at the time that Liasson was working udner the idea that because Royal was a woman that that would override issues of policy with other women. Liasson was clearly confused when that didn’t happen.
That, it strikes me, is a weakness of thought process unique to liberals, and particularly liberal feminists.
As I think I said last night, there’s an awful lot in the way of parallels between Royal and Hillary Clinton.
Ones I suspect and suppose she’s not even thought of, yet.