I’ve never understood why Hillary is so popular with feminist types.
Yes, I know Hillary is liberal, and an acolyte of Saul Alinsky.
But, from the standpoint of how she has lived her life, Hillary is not a feminist ideal.
She stayed married to a man who repeatedly and publicly violated his marriage vows. Feminism tells us that women are not to take such behavior from men in their lives.
Feminism tells women not to be doormats. Yet Hillary clearly was a doormat in her marriage. She is supposedly such a strong leader and all that. Yet she can’t deal with her husband. She just layed there and took whatever he dished out. How does that make Hillary some strong feminist icon???
And feminism praises women who have made it in their career fields on their own, not based on who they are married to.
I would be very sad if my own daughter chose to live her life, the way Hillary Clinton has chosen to live her life.
The L'Oreal lady has got her work cut out for her.
Can you imagine telling Hillary that she needs to wear 5 pairs of Spanx and a 2 boob belts for every pantsuit?
Will Mocchelle’s image consultant successfully merge the Boob belt with the Pant Suit?
Probably the last consideration I would give a candidate would be their lineage.
If Jeb Bush were a reliable conservative with a clear track record of legislating & leading the way he says he will legislate and lead, then I don’t care who his family is.
But that’s not the case with Jeb. He’s a horrible squish, big govt, GOPe puppet who can’t be trusted to be dog catcher. I don’t care if his dad was Ronald Reagan, or nobody at all — I still wouldn’t vote for him if you had a cocked .45 stuffed in my ear.
The article’s argument would be better framed, “Voters who vote for someone based primarily on their family name, instead of their policies, plans and leadership are dangerous idiots”.