From the WSJ Opinion Archives
|
Always
a Woman to Me
"Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton launched a drive
on Tuesday to mobilize women voters to help her break the 'hardest and highest'
glass ceiling by winning the White House," Reuters reports from Washington:
Clinton, a New York senator who hopes to become the first woman U.S. president, said her experiences as "a woman, a wife, a mother" would shape her campaign and influence her decisions if she reaches the Oval Office.
"I believe that my experiences and my qualifications uniquely equip me to hit the ground running in January 2009," she said at a luncheon for Emily's List, an influential group that helps Democratic women candidates who back abortion rights and has already endorsed Clinton.
Well, heck, if being "a woman, a wife, a mother" qualifies someone "uniquely" for the White House, our sister-in-law should be president!
Meanwhile, the New York Sun reports that at least one prominent feminist--and we're not talking about Ann Coulter--has been won over by John Edwards's womanly charms:
"Why John Edwards, given the historic nature of our extraordinary campaign for the presidency this year with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and all the others?" [abortion activist Kate] Michelman asked as she warmed up the crowd for Mr. Edwards. "I've gotten to know a lot of political leaders over the years that I've been an advocate for women's rights. I know the difference between those who advocate as a political position and those who understand the reality of women's lives." . . .
"As a lawyer, as a senator, as a husband, as a father of two daughters, he understands the reality of women's lives. He understands the centrality of women's lives and experience to the health and well-being of society as a whole. . . . He understands that on an extremely personal level," she said. . . .
Pressed about how Mr. Edwards could have a feel for women's problems that is even comparable to that of someone like Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Michelman said her concerns goes beyond identifying the issues. "He doesn't just understand. You have to begin with understanding. It's an understanding but it is a commitment. . . . He understands in a way that is tied to all of his beliefs about lifting everyone up."
But not everyone agrees that the lawyer, the senator, the husband, the father of two daughters is more suitable spokesman for the fair sex than the woman, the wife, the mother:
"I would argue that Hillary has a really good sensibility, as well, of what it's like to be a woman," the head of NARAL's New York chapter, Kelli Conlin, said with a chuckle.
The leader of a group that endorses and funds female candidates supportive of abortion rights, Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List, said Mr. Edwards's sensitivity can only go so far. "Every once in a while we get in a primary race where a man says he's the best woman in the race. I've never seen a candidate win with that argument yet. It's just ridiculous," she said.
"Hillary Clinton has spent her entire adult life working on behalf of women and children. She has a unique experience as a woman who has faced the obstacles in the way of women," Ms. Malcolm, whose organization has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said. "No white man can understand the experience a woman has to go through to move ahead."
"No white man"? Someone will have to explain that racist non sequitur to us. While you're at it, try to make sense of Malcolm's claim that Mrs. Clinton is "unique" for having "faced the obstacles in the way of women." Apparently she is the only woman ever to face the obstacles that are in the way of them all.
In any case, there's something odd and pathetic about this whole exercise. Did Margaret Thatcher campaign on the claim that as a woman she had a unique understanding of "the reality of women's lives"? Did Golda Meir or Indira Gandhi?
Doubtless America will one day have a female president. But our guess is it'll be someone whose appeal transcends sex--who tries to win votes not from women qua women but from men and women qua citizens. So far that would seem to exclude both Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards.
Lock
Up Your Daughters!
"Clinton Focuses on Women"--headline, PoliticalWire.com, March 7
Fake-Based
Initiative
Our item Tuesday on John Edwards's comment that Jesus "would be appalled"
by American selfishness brought this comment from reader Mark Thompson:
I don't think anyone could think of this as a sincere profession of religious faith. Listen carefully: "I think he would be appalled, actually."
First point, the obvious one: "would" is the conditional mood. What is the conditional being implied here? Think carefully about your answer. Jesus would be appalled, if he could see what's going on today? He would be appalled, if he were alive today? Hmmm, as a profession of religious faith this is extremely unimpressive.
Second point, more subtle: "appalled"? "Appalled" indicates shock, dismay, being at a loss for words, being sick to the stomach, being nonplussed, being frightened. It comes from an old word meaning "pale." A Christian believer who knows Jesus from the Gospels would not naturally think of the Lord as being "appalled." He was sometimes furious, or disappointed in someone, but remained always in command of himself and of the situation. He was so seldom the mere passive recipient of emotion that we still speak of the single occasion when he allowed himself to be so as the Passion of our Lord. Appalled? Naah. To a believer, it doesn't ring true. Of course, this could just be a clumsy choice of words, but isn't Edwards supposed to be such a rhetorician?
I don't think anyone who didn't like him already will be persuaded of his devoutness by this "profession."
Maybe he should have said Jesus would be "cross."
Gray
Lady Sells Her Soul
A New York Times editorial applauds the "guilty" verdict against Scooter
Libby:
What we still do not know is whether a government official used Ms. Wilson's name despite knowing that she worked undercover. That is a serious offense, which could have put her and all those who had worked with her in danger. We also do not understand why the federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, chose to wage war with the news media in assembling his case, going so far as to jail a Times reporter, Judith Miller, for refusing to reveal the name of a confidential source.
The potential damage from that decision remains of real concern. But it was still a breath of fresh air to see someone in this administration, which specializes in secrecy, prevarication and evading blame, finally called to account.
It's all a matter of priorities, of course. The Times would stand unequivocally against any diminution of press freedom in the name of, say, national security. But this is different. This is for a really important cause: nailing someone--anyone!--in the Bush administration.
Barbara
Bush Weighs In
"White House Mum on Libby Pardon Talk"--headline, FoxNews.com, March 7
No
Blood for Braunschweiger!
In Western Pennsylvania, a man named Craig Gates was accused of shoplifting
braunschweiger and got into an altercation with a supermarket security guard,
Bernard McNally. And it's President Bush's fault! The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
explains:
Mr. McNally, of Carnegie, faces a trial June 19 on charges of aggravated assault and reckless endangering Mr. Gates. Mr. Gates' attorney John Elash said the security guard beat and choked Mr. Gates and his client suffered a broken nose and bruises. Police informed Mr. Gates' wife a security guard had shot at him as he drove away and that he might be hurt.
Mr. Elash said he thinks the security guard may have been trigger happy as a result of having served for the U.S. military in Iraq.
"I feel sorry for him. He's a victim of George Bush's crazy policy to send kids to Iraq. Even in Pittsburgh, only an insane person would shoot at somebody over braunschweiger," he said.
Slate's Jake Weisberg no doubt agrees: "American soldiers . . . are victims as much as 'heroes.' "
Bennies
and the Jet
It appears that, contrary to the blog item we cited last week, Al Gore does
not buy "carbon offsets" from Generation Investment Management, the
firm he helped found. Rather, according to both CNSNews.com
(hat tip: Iain
Murray) and an email that a reader of this column received from GIM's Louise
Martin, GIM buys carbon offsets for Gore from another source. Here's
the Martin email:
Generation Investment Management LLP is an asset management company that invests in long-only, global, public equities with a concentrated portfolio of 30-50 companies. Generation is not a carbon offset provider, and does not invest any of its assets under management in carbon offset projects.
As part of its broader commitment to sustainability, Generation offsets the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its staff, including Mr. Gore. This is done through third party providers and is based on rigorous assessment of the team's total energy footprint.
So Gore can fly in private jets, tool around town in an SUV, and burn electricity at his Nashville mansion like there's no tomorrow, and it's all fine because his employer pays for his dispensations. If only we could all get in on this scheme, we could prevent "global warming" and it wouldn't cost us a thing!
Another
Man's Victim?
Reuters has a cute little human interest story about funny people from Vermont
holding "town meetings" where they call for President Bush's impeachment.
What caught our eye was not the darling little Vermonters, though, but something
in this paragraph:
Doug Dunbebin, who walked door-to-door collecting signatures to get the question onto the town meeting ballot, said there are still unanswered questions about September 11, 2001, when hijacked plane attacks killed 2,992 people at New York's World Trade Center, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.
That number, 2,992, looked unfamiliar to us. We went back and looked at our December item on the Associated Press's bogus "grim milestone" (U.S. military deaths in Iraq surpassing total 9/11 deaths), and sure enough, the AP's 9/11 count was different: 2,973 to be exact.
What's the difference between 2,992 and 2,973? Nineteen. It seems Reuters is counting the terrorists--or should that be "freedom fighters"?--among the victims of 9/11.
Mother
of the Year
"A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit
against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her
child," the Associated Press reports:
The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.
Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint.
Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges. . . .
She gave birth to a daughter on Dec. 7, 2004.
One day Jennifer Raper's daughter will punch her mother's name into Google and discover that she was the result of "a failed abortion."
Bossie
Nods
In place of yesterday's column we published Political Diary, not Political "Dairy,"
as the introduction originally said. But we've corrected it, so the point is
mooot.
Arrest
That Police Detail!
"Police Detail Plot to Behead NYPD Chief"--headline, Associated Press,
March 7
Damn,
Why'd We File One?
"IRS Has $2.2 Billion for People Who Have Not Filed a 2003 Tax Return"--headline,
IRS press release, March 7
'The
Dog Ate My War Report'
"Israel Watchdog Challenged on War Report"--headline, Associated Press,
March 6
At
Least Drugs Are Cheaper
"Gasoline Prices on the Rise, Crack $3 in California, Hawaii"--headline,
FoxNews.com, March 8
Wouldn't
It Be Cheaper to Beat Him at Home?
"Jason Wahler to Go to Jail for Beatings"--headline, Associated Press,
March 7
News You Can Use
- "Watch Your Car in Forest Park"--headline, WSB-AM
Web site (Atlanta), March 6
- "Obese Couples Have Tougher Time Having Babies"--headline, Reuters,
March 6
- "You Can't Travel Back in Time, Scientists Say"--headline, LiveScience.com, March 7
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Dixie Chicks Overlooked in Country Music Awards"--headline, New
Zealand Herald, March 7
- "Lottery: No Ohio Winner in Record Mega Millions Drawing"--headline,
Associated
Press, March 7
- "Manhattan Parents Fret Tots' Fate as Preschools Announce Picks"--headline,
Bloomberg,
March 7
- "Term 'Visible Minorities' May Be Discriminatory, UN Body Warns Canada"--headline,
CBC.ca, March 8
- "Importance of Rice in Asian Dishes"--headline, Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo), March 6
Drink
One Shot Every Time She Says 'a Woman, a Wife, a Mother'
"Typically deemed a male-dominated past time [sic], drinking games are
now more popular among women, according to a recent study," reports the
Daily Collegian, school paper at Penn State:
The Loyola Marymount University (LMU) found that male and female students engage in similar drinking routines, but women are more likely to be playing drinking games when drinking.
Women played drinking games an average of 27.7 percent of the time they drank while men averaged 24.7 percent, according to the study.
This reminded us of a New York Times story from last July:
Two summers ago, on a Congressional trip to Estonia, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton astonished her traveling companions by suggesting that the group do what one does in the Baltics: hold a vodka-drinking contest.
Delighted, the leader of the delegation, Senator John McCain, quickly agreed. The after-dinner drinks went so well--memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much--that Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, later told people how unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be. "One of the guys" was the way he described Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, to some Republican colleagues.
But if drinking games are now a feminine diversion, maybe that means John Edwards is less of a woman than Mrs. Clinton after all.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ethel Fenig, Brent Silver, Rod Pennington, Jim Orheim, Harald Stavenas, Stuart Creque, Jason D'Amico, Ed Lasky, Cheryl Sturm, Scott Wright, Brendan Schulman, Greg Lindenberg, Mike Holzworth, Glenn Rubin, Mark Van Der Molen, Marc Young, Andrew Robinson, Paul Haley, Jeff Spiegel, Mark Finkelstein, Jon Kirkwood, Todd Edmunds, John Sanders, Todd Barney, Brian Azman, R.J. Cruz, R.J. Sorce, Jonathan Stephens, John Williamson, Daniel Foty, Ray Burnham and Nick Klein. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Debra Burlingame: How an unscrupulous legal and PR campaign changed the way the world looks at Guantanamo.
- Daniel Henninger: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the role of the presidency.
- Fred Barnes: D-Day in Little Rock: Eisenhower's civil rights showdown.
