Not so fast.
“There. I said it. A set of testicles is rarely a divisive quality in a candidate. Men get a pass on hawkishness and corporate complicity. That’s not a good thing: Every candidate should be held up to the sort of scrutiny Hillary Clinton has faced, but it just so happens that only women are.”
No, Hillary is the largest arms merchant in the world, having sold $165 billion of arms to the Middle East as Secretary of State, as well as having voted for the Iraq War, having counseled in favor of the Libyan incursion and more involvement in Syria. Yet she receives no attention for this, especially from the mainstream media. She is getting a complete pass. Are you seriously suggesting that Hillary takes heat for being a hawk, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld were not held up to “the same sort of scrutiny?” They are to this day symbols of the evil military-industrial complex, something which has never stuck to Hillary, even though it is arguably more true in her case. I think my throat is still hoarse from shouting them down 15 years ago, but I haven’t heard anything but silence with regards to Hillary.
Hillary is getting a pass and a boost because of her gender. We are not talking about Shirley Chisholm here. This is 2016. Hillary is not forcing change. The country is ripe for it.
Flip the genders. Bernie enters the race as a kindly old white-haired grandmother from Vermont, a little cranky, but with her heart in the right place. She calls for single-payer health care, breaking up the big banks, free college tuition, and more. She says, “I think the DNC really doesn’t like me. They’re out to rig the election.”
Hillary is a male, the largest huckster for the military-industrial complex in history, resident for decades in the bowels of the Democratic Party and the Washington power structure. It turns out that he and his cronies did rig the election. And you would write afterwards about Hillary’s getting skewered for being a hawk, which is objectively not true? Please. If the genders were flipped, Hillary’s 2008 PUMAs would be out in the street with assault rifles, defending the candidacy of the grandmother from Vermont.
The rest of the article rings true, especially that this election is about principle vs. power. Yes, it is. Or rather, yes, it was. Now it’s about power vs. power. Both candidates are distasteful in different ways, although I agree with you that Hillary is a better choice. If only it weren’t for the trail of bodies and blood she has left behind in the Middle East. It makes me yearn for somebody else.