Search


About Me

Kyle Smith (Twitter: @rkylesmith) is critic-at-large for National Review, theater critic for The New Criterion and the author of the novels Love Monkey and A Christmas Caroline. Type a title in the box above to locate a review.

Buy Love Monkey for $4! "Hilarious"--Maslin, NY Times. "Exceedingly readable and wickedly funny romantic comedy"--S.F. Chronicle. "Loud and brash, a helluva lot of fun"--Entertainment Weekly. "Engaging romp, laugh-out-loud funny"-CNN. "Shrewd, self-deprecating, oh-so-witty. Smith's ruthless humor knows no bounds"--NPR

Buy A Christmas Caroline for $10! "for those who prefer their sentimentality seasoned with a dash of cynical wit. A quick, enjoyable read...straight out of Devil Wears Prada"--The Wall Street Journal

Rotten Tomatoes
Search Movie/Celeb

Advanced Search
  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • « | Home | »

    Hillary Clinton and Misogyny

    By Kyle | June 7, 2008

    I wrote on April 20 that with Hillary’s defeat would come lots of people blaming misogyny. Bt is hating Hillary the same thing as hating women? I remember seeing a poll that had her winning West Virginia with something like two-thirds of the vote–yet only 51 percent of the electorate described her as “honest.” You would think honesty would be a necessary yet far from sufficient quality in a candidate.

    What this Judith Warner piece in the Times says about Hillary implies a disturbing lack of ability to detect the difference between hatred and jokes. The group “Citizens United Not Timid,” for instance, which Warner thinks is an example of a hate-filled climate, was a joke group with one member that existed solely because its wacky founder (a Republican operative, Roger Stone, who is not taken seriously by even his own party) thought its acronym was funny. The same with Tucker Carlson’s comment about his castration anxiety about Hillary, the same with “iron my shirts.” All of these commenters were trying to get a laugh. A sort of meta-analysis of Warner’s column might conclude that it contains strong circumstantial evidence that feminists are (literally) without a sense of humor. For the party that has made Bush jokes a 24/7 industry, it seems pretty amazing that they thought they could field Hillary Rodham Clinton as a candidate and never suffer a jibe. Of course, if Obama had lost, racism would have been blamed. Democrats can’t view anything without the lens of identity politics. It would be too obvious to point out that neither Obama nor Clinton would have come close to being the Democrats’ nominee if it hadn’t been for the race of the utterly undistinguished half-term senator from Illinois or the ex-first-lady status of the undistinguished second-term senator from New York respectively.

    If you want some laugh lines, read the commenters to Warner’s piece, including one who is outraged that Hillary is referred to as Hillary (which is exactly how Mrs. Clinton’s campaign wants it; ever notice that her campaign placards say “Hillary”? She was trying to distance herself from her husband, whose awfulness is no longer seriously disputed).

    Topics: Comedy, Hillary Clinton, Politics | 4 Comments »

    4 Responses to “Hillary Clinton and Misogyny”

    1. K Says:
      June 7th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

      The mechanics of the “victim” blocs, which the Democrats rely on for political success, is that they must stay angry to be effective and those terms are the red flags to the bull. No matter if they are strictly applicable or even marginally correct.

      What’s ironic is that those blocs have now been incited against each other by those same key words. Bringing it up now just underlines the fact that Hillary is so power hungry and immoral that she will risk the party’s chances in the election. But we already knew that.

    2. Yankeefan Says:
      June 7th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

      @K: C’mon, victimology is as American as football and tax evasion. And it’s hardly unique to Democrats. Tune in talk radio or cable news, and you can hear daily whines about how conservatives are victimized by the “liberal” media, or how Christians (an overwhelming majority in the US and A) are besieged by atheists, or how white folks are losing all of those jobs to affirmative-action babies. Is there anyone in America who doesn’t claim membership to an aggrieved group? And does either political party really have a monopoly on stoking such feelings of aggrievement for “political success”?

    3. Yankeefan Says:
      June 7th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

      >>>>>It would be too obvious to point out that neither Obama nor Clinton would have come close to being the Democrats’ nominee if it hadn’t been for the race of the utterly undistinguished half-term senator from Illinois or the ex-first-lady status of the undistinguished second-term senator from New York respectively.

      It would also be too obvious to point out that W, notwithstanding his many evident gifts, wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the presidency —– much less the governorship of Texas, much less the executive suite of all of those businesses he ran into the ground — if his name weren’t Bush. And you can’t possibly be suggesting that all 43 occupants of the White House — all of whom happened to be white, and all of whom happened to be male — got there purely on a system of color- and gender-blind “merit.”

      Maybe, just maybe, for the first time in our country’s history, being black or a woman has actually been an advantage of some sort in the pursuit of a major party’s nomination. (Though that’s a debatable point: was there something compelling and groundbreaking about the the Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich campaigns that we Democrats all missed?) Horrors! Will our country’s political meritocracy possibly survive?

    4. kyle Says:
      June 8th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

      The point that W benefits from membership in his family, though, has nothing to do with his being a Republican. Kennedys, Gores and Clintons (not to mention Dodd) have all benefited from family connections.

    Comments