In today's column, David Brooks spews the typical hostile rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has been facing lately. To wit: "why would she insist on pursuing her campaign now that the odds of her winning the nomination have narrowed? what an egomaniac! What a monster! She is bent on destroying the party!"
With all the attention on race in this campaign, it seems that no one is noticing the gender issues. Does anyone think that such attacks would be levied at Hillary if she were a man? Folks, it's classic. If Hillary were a man, the narrative would be about Clinton's brave effort to continue a difficult campaign, complete with lots of war/warrior terminology. I cannot recall any other primary battles where the underdog was so dismissed and disparaged.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
