“I don’t think we would be taking her seriously at all if she weren’t a woman,” said Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus on Sunday’s Meet the Press, talking about Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, who appeared earlier in the broadcast.
Thus it’s time for another round of everyone’s favorite game: “Imagine if a Republican had said it . . .” Imagine if Karl Rove had said, “I don’t think we would be taking Hillary Clinton seriously at all if she weren’t a woman.” Mrs. Marcus might spontaneously combust.
Setting to the side the fact that it is difficult to think of a seriously policy accomplishment to credit to the former secretary of state — she has done well getting into positions of power; doing something meritorious in them has proven far more difficult — Hillary Clinton has emphasized her gender constantly. Her great accomplishment as First Lady was delivering the “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights” speech at the United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 — and it is no secret that she hopes to capitalize on her sex to make 2016 a “historic” election: Elect the first female president! The Hill could write in September: “Hillary Clinton is putting women at the center of her agenda as she contemplates a second bid to become the nation’s first woman president.”
Is this unfair? Note Mrs. Clinton’s Twitter account this Mother’s Day:
Daughter, mother, grandmother—and a fierce champion for mothers, children, and families: https://t.co/VINeiM9RC7
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 10, 2015
The simple fact that Clinton is a woman is seen by her, and her camp, as one of her major assets.
Mrs. Marcus exhibits the convenient sexism that permeates the Democratic party. Being a cis-gendered woman is a reason to vote for you — if you’re liberal. If you’re a conservative woman, you’re obviously exploiting your anatomy.