Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Victory Will be a Hollow One for Feminism

She is a too flawed to do the movement any favors

|

It's over for Donald Trump. He was already limping from many self-inflicted wounds by the time PussyGate broke. And what was left of his candidacy, Hillary Clinton masterfully destroyed in the final

Women for Hillary
UN Women Gallery via Foter.com /

debate – calmly baiting him till his head exploded.

But it would have been much better for feminism, I argue in my latest Week column, if Hillary had lost to a good man rather than win against a bad one. The notion that women are as capable as men of occupying high office is now firmly entrenched in the zeitgeist. A female U.S. president was a question of when not if. So feminists could have waited for a less flawed candidate.

But, I note:

The conundrum for feminists is that if they ask Clinton to reconcile her actions and positions, they risk exposing her hypocrisy and making her vulnerable in the face of an intolerable alternative. But if they don't, they end up undermining their own credibility and effectiveness. They can't even acknowledge that Clinton cannot use the bully pulpit to make sexual assault a big issue of her presidency. Most men would have been able to do more if they chose.

Go here to read the piece.

NEXT: The Fifth Amendment and Touch ID

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I detect a bit of premature poultry accounting…

  2. It’s over for Donald Trump.

    Who knew Shikha Dalmia was clairvoyant?

  3. Skihka, you have never been one of my favorite writers here. Not that my opinion means anything to you, but you are no longer second-to-worst on my list. The worst is Chapman, followed by Suderman, then you. Congrats for sucking less than those two!

    1. Cut her some slack. If she ever stepped out of line and incurred the wrath of the Prog media mafia, her career would be over. It would be back to Gandhi land for her. She really doesn’t have any choice.

      1. Hadn’t thought of that. Maybe I shouldn’t grade her with the same criteria as other Reason writers.

    2. When Foval’s turned against a Hillary supporter, you can only say “Daaaaaaaaaaayyyum.”

      1. It was quite surreal: watching Scott Foval explain how crafty and important he is from… was that the bar at Applebees?

  4. Like Obama, the ranks with close tightly and Hillary will be a perfect person who has never done anything wrong ever and cannot be second-guessed.

    History, though, will remember her as America’s Eva Peron, with a large pinch of suffragette Laura Clay thrown in.

    1. She’ll be the Carrie Nation of sex relations.

  5. LaTimes Reuters and IDP all say the election is tied or have Trump ahead. Are all three of them just evil immigrant hating Republican outfits?

    If reason wants to be taken seriously about anything, they might want to do something besides repeat the daily Prog talking points.

    1. I saw those.

      I think IDP was extremely predictive last presential election?

      The gap is still pretty big elsewhere, so I’m still curious what those polls will say.

      1. When three polls have it close, I think anyone claims otherwise owes an explanation why all three are wrong. One sure but all three?

        1. I think it comes down to the electoral college.

          RCP’s map shows a gradual polarization (red states getting redder, blue states getting bluer). At this point Trump would have to take every state that’s a tossup to prevent Hillary getting 270.

          If 1,000 people switched from Hillary to Trump in Ohio, it affects the outcome more than 1,000 people switching from Hillary to Trump in Kansas.

          1. If some of the polls are outliers either way it makes the RCP average worthless. And as far as the EC goes, only once in living memory has the candidate who won the popular vote not one the election. Can that happen this year? Sure. It if it does, that means the election is extremely close and neither side has won

            1. “If some of the polls are outliers either way it makes the RCP average worthless.”

              No, it doesn’t. That’s precisely the point of averaging polls. It reduces the effect of outliers, and possibly eliminates them if they offset.

  6. Tweet

      1. Twut

  7. If Clinton is the first female president of the USA, she’s likely to be the last for a century or so.

    -jcr

    1. You have it exactly right. Just like we will never see another black President after Obama

  8. And what was left of his candidacy, Hillary Clinton masterfully destroyed in the final
    debate ? calmly baiting him till his head exploded.

    Uh huh.

    Now, purely as an intellectual exercise, let’s ask ourselves how many people may have observed her unconcealed smarmy disdain for them and asked themselves, “Does that odious harpy really deserve to be President of the United States?”

  9. Hillary “masterfully destroyed” Donald?

    Thats not the debate we all saw. You make it sound like she was Cicero giving his defense of Roscius.

    1. Nobody saw that debate except for rabid Democratic partisans.

  10. I never wanted Donald Trump to win.

    I never even considered voting for him.

    Now I want Trump to win, and I might vote for him out of spite.

    Mostly because of articles like this one.

    So you mean there are downsides to President Hillary?

    Really?

    Who knew?!

    And the downsides don’t have to do with her accepting money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State?

    And the downsides don’t have to do with her campaign paying thugs to instigate violence at her opponent’s speeches to shut down dissent?

    No, the downside to President Hillary is that it isn’t all upside for feminism?!

    Where’s my barf bag?

    1. I never wanted Donald Trump to win.

      I never even considered voting for him.

      Now I want Trump to win, and I might vote for him out of spite.

      This is exactly where I am. As I see it, this election is turning from a contest between two crappy people, to a referendum on whether we continue living under the rule of a condescending class of powerful elites. Regardless of the outcome, I don’t think anything will change though.

      1. Might as well go down with our middle fingers in the air.

      2. Ah yes, the sockpuppet infiltration masque slips and the Red Death leers… how predictable!

  11. But it would have been much better for feminism, I argue in my latest Week column, if Hillary had lost to a good man rather than win against a bad one.

    Her’s a thought- maybe those “feminists” should not have adopted such an odious unfeminist cunt as their standard bearer.

    1. So much this^^^^^.

  12. How can someone who took positions that can in many cases reasonably be called insane and told one lie after another he said to have won a debate?

    Is Dalmia just repeating the talking points or does she honestly think substance is irrelevant to a debate?

    1. Is Dalmia just repeating the talking points or does she honestly think substance is irrelevant to a debate?

      Those are not mutually contradictory statements… In fact the first really requires the second to be true. 😉

      1. Serious question. Has she ever written anything in reason that anyone found intelligent or insightful? If she has I can’t think of when it was. You would think she would eventually get better by repetition if nothing else

        1. I like this one, but to be fair I’m a gun nut.

          link

          1. “I’m a gun nut.”

            I think the preferred nomenclature is “Second Amendment enthusiast” or but it might help the movement if they started referring to each other as “gun fags”–with all respect.

            ’cause being against “gun fags” sounds homophobic, you see.

        2. The pieces on Detroit were excellent.

          It’s just that once she perceives an issue as being anti-immigration, all sense of proportion goes out the window.

          I doubt she understands that some of us might support Trump for reasons that have nothing to do with immigration, Syrian refugees, or building a wall on our southern border.

          I’m sure she understands that we say that, but I doubt she really believes it.

          I haven’t seen any indications that she even knows that Hillary took money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. I haven’t seen any indication that Shikha even knows that Hillary paid thugs to instigate violence at Trump rallies and speeches.

          But I see plenty of evidence that she doesn’t know about these stories–it’s right here in this article. Why would you look past those two huge stories to talk about how Hillary isn’t the feminist everyone wants her to be–if you knew about those stories?

          This is like saying that OJ lost his endorsement deals because his fashion sense was outdated. For all I know, maybe his fashion sense was outdated, but if I heard Dalmia say that, I wouldn’t necessarily assume that she was denigrating the murder of two people. I might conclude that she simply doesn’t know that OJ is thought to have murdered two people and gotten away with it.

          It just comes across to us as a slap in the face, but I doubt it’s intended that way. Dalmia just has no idea what we’re talking about.

    2. It’s TDS.

      Once you mention the Trump word, her entire perspective becomes distorted.

      I’m sure it genuinely seems rational to her.

      It’s almost like a libertarian perspective that’s highly susceptible to identity politics.

      She’s insightful as long as you don’t bring up immigration. Now, apparently, it’s about feminism?

      If you convinced her that Stalin’s opponent was anti-immigration, I suspect she’d be all in for Stalin. I’d say she’d disregard those of us who oppose Stalin as a bunch of cryptoracists, too, but she’d be more likely to associate support for Stalin’s opponent with over racism–nothing hidden about it.

      1. People always talk about the college educated being against Trump. I live almost exclusively around the colleg educated and find them as a group to be anything it educated. They always seem to believe some really stupid and counter factual things. The less someone is exposed to the education system the more sensible they seem to be

        1. They’re just not reading the same websites, going to the same movies, talking to the same people, etc.

          And they become contemptuous of average people.

          Desmond Doss was a childhood hero of mine. I grew up around a lot of people just like him. I was really looking forward to Hacksaw Ridge coming out in a couple of weeks, and then I heard it got a standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival–now I’m dreading it.

          The only thing worse than a bunch of elitist assholes disregarding the story of a simple but courageous man, who refused to compromise on his religious principles, is a bunch of elitist assholes using the story of a simple courageous man to bludgeon simple people everywhere for not sharing their elitist views.

          Convince me that this election is a referendum on elitism, and I’ll vote against the elitist.

          1. You need convincing, really?

        2. My college educated Republican friend in Philly suburbs are almost unanimously voting (or saying they are voting) for Clinton or even Johnson this time. Trump has managed to change the suburbs from trending purple to blue. He will probably cost at least one GOP congressman his seat and several GOP state legislators. The rest of Pennsyltucky is probably redder than usual this time, but doesn’t have the votes to offset the blue tide in Phila. suburbs. Just one state, mind you, but I think Trump could be the Goldwater (39%) of 2016.

        3. There’s a sizable portion of the population that has no business getting a four year degree and there’s such a thing as being over-“educated” beyond redemption. Many of those people have no business getting that degree because they don’t know how to think in the first place, so when you saddle them with a liberal arts education you do little more than exacerbate the Dunning-Kruger effect that these people are already susceptible to.

    3. Substance does not teally have much to do with whether one wins a debate and it surely has had little to do with how either Clinton is perceived by the media.

  13. Masterfully? Christ, Shikha, wipe your chin.

    Of course she’s going to win, but there was nothing masterful about that debate. Trump did fine, but it doesn’t matter anymore.

    1. There is no way she believes that. The question is why does she feel the need to over compensate so much.

    2. The women the Republican Party threatened to coerce are going to stomp the snot out of it, and both soft machines may keep spoiler vote count reporting low. But the Dem and GOP voters are both losing in the bargain. Our job is to gather in some LP spoiler votes and repeal bad laws!

  14. masterfully destroyed in the final debate ? calmly baiting him till his head exploded.

    This is how you euphemism.

  15. Just so I’m clear, Reason will post articles about fake tweets, 20 year old claims of touching an arm on a plane, fake assaults at trump rallies, trumps logo looking like a penis, and national enquirer stories about ted cruz having a harem.
    But not a word about video proof of the DNC inciting violence and shutting down speech, and colluding with the media to promote their candidate.
    Free minds indeed.

    1. Their refusal to cover that and walk back from their claims of last summer is a New for reason.

    2. I guess you don’t listen to The Fifth Column.

      1. I never listen to audio podcasts, but I know that Welch said that O’Keefe had no credibility. I disagree. O’Keefe is obviously tendentious and he spins his reports. Still whatever he reported in the past was fundamentally correct. And in this case we have video evidence of the kind that won’t lose its power no matter the context — the two operatives were fired or resigned.

        It’s clear from their voting survey that the vast majority of Reason staffers prefer Clinton to Trump, if the choice is just between the two. They are just doing their bit to carry their second-best candidate over the finish line.

    3. Yep. And we’re expected to believe that all these people claiming that they’re either voting for Gary Johnson or not voting at all are really being completely honest.

  16. SHIKHAAAAAA DALMIAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

  17. The more “feminist” the candidate the worst it will be some feminism today is just another word for crazy person.

  18. But it would have been much better for feminism, I argue in my latest Week column, if Hillary had lost to a good man rather than win against a bad one.

    Hillary will lose and fuck feminism.

    1. Feminism is fine, the idea that men and women should be treated equally.

      That’s not what today’s feminists want.

  19. It’d be interesting to see Dalmia attempt an article on Hillary accepting money from foreign governments while Secretary of State.

    Shikha may not even be aware of why we think that’s true.

    I doubt she could write something about the Clinton campaign paying people to instigate violence at Trump’s speeches either–I doubt she’s read anything about it.

    Once Dalmia became convinced that Trump was anti-immigration, Hillary could grow horns, a tail, talk backwards, and eat people’s babies, and Shikha Dalmia might not even notice.

    1. And what was left of his candidacy, Hillary Clinton masterfully destroyed in the final debate ? calmly baiting him till his head exploded.

      I don’t think it really has anything to do with Trump. With Shikha’s “you go girl” attitude (that statement above is fawning), I’m betting she was planning to vote Clinton all along.

      It’s just convenient to rip the other candidate to death, because there’s lots of judgement going around whether you support Trump or Hillary. So you can support one candidate by only focusing on the flaws of the other while maintaining plausible deniability.

      1. Oh, it’s about Trump.

        It’s about Trump and immigration.

        She’s on a crusade against Trump because of immigration.

        1. She unable to tell the difference between the legal version and the illegal version of the stuff?

  20. Pussygate? Sounds more like the brand name of a chastity belt than a scandal.

    1. If you don’t want
      A girl to mate
      Lock her pussy
      With Pussygate

      From the makers of the Original Dong Thong, comes Pussygate. Pussygate securely traps and locks pussies from unwanted sexual contact. Hold on there, big fella! You’re not gettin’ in there! That pussy is protected by Pussygate!

      If you don’t want
      A girl to mate
      Lock her pussy
      With Pussygate

      1. “Hi, I’m Wilford Brimley and I’m here to talk to you about Pussygate and Pussygate brand accessories. After I was diagnosed with Type II diabeetus…”

  21. Sure, not taking Hillary to task will be the thing that undermines feminist credibility.

    Shikha, they’ve had 25 goddamned years to take her to task. If they don’t care that she is openly corrupt, they should at least care that she has, for decades, enabled her cretinous husband. Oh, and she’s harassed and intimidated his victims, too. But who cares, cuz TRUMP. Gsus.

  22. And what was left of his candidacy, Hillary Clinton masterfully destroyed in the final
    debate ? calmly baiting him till his head exploded.

    Did you watch the same debate? Dalmia, you can see only what you want to see.

  23. Hillary is a master baiter.

  24. I’m not generally an envious person, but I have to admit, it does irk me slightly when I consider my career setbacks in light of the fact that somebody actually pays this mindless, unintelligent, uninteresting cunt to write.

    1. ^This^ delightfully cogent argument was brought to you courtesy of True Positive Christianity?

  25. I’ll cut Dalmia some slack. The stuff she come up with, batshit crazy though it is, is all her own. She doesn’t regurgitate DNC talking points like some.

    1. Well, not usually. There’s a few in this one.

  26. So feminists could have waited for a less flawed candidate.

    Sure, and blacks could have waited for a less flawed candidate than Obama – after all they didn’t flock out for Sharpton in 04.

    But these things are not about getting a ‘good candidate’. They’re about fulfilling an agenda of self-aggrandizement and allowing some people to crow about (and receive plenty of renumeration from) their ‘good deeds’. They’re backing Clinton solely because she had a chance to win. That’s it. Because that’s all that’s important to them. #Winning.

    1. A government of looters… not laws.

  27. Reason has sold out to the highest bidder, and is no longer relevant with any real issues. Worse yet the pseudo infiltrated leadership of the libertarian party has went bonkers crazy, choosing a candidate that has no more libertarian ideals than Hillary herself, and a vice presidential candidate that is well heeled in neo-con idealism. Between the irrelevant comments of Johnson, and the ludicrous articles that the Reason website has presented over the course of this campaign, those who have suffered the most are the real libertarians, who know that they are being sold out for an agenda that does not have their best interest at heart. The ideals that Johnson and Reason reflect are not those of real libertarians, who have embraced the libertarian party for decades. How this came about can speculated on for the remainder of the campaign, but it is plainly clear to me and many other libertarians that there has been a sellout by those mentioned above to achieve a relevance that really doesn’t exist, while embracing the news coverage of the leftist controlled MSM in order to increase Clinton’s chances of winning the election.

    1. I recall thinking the Ed Clark campaign seemed kinda weak and irrelevant, but it harvested a passel of votes. So long as the platform still resembles the 1972 platform and the candidates up and down the ballot get increasing shares of the vote, I’m a happy camper.

  28. Trump recited the Republican Platform script (2200 words of raving against the individual rights of pregnant women), papered over and daubed with another 32000 words of xenophobic paranoia and war hysteria. The fake fanatic stirred up enough foaming rage to get women and civil libertarians to waste overkill votes instead of holding back and casting a few libertarian spoiler votes. It’s like the recipe in Orwell’s 1984: “being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.” Four years from now Christian National Socialism will again square off against Stalinist International Socialism in another rabid dogfight. Freedom and individual rights will NOT be allowed on the debate floor other than as horrified spectators–unless Gary somehow gets five times the vote spread. For that we need for the margin of victory to be narrow.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.