Entirely true assuming you define “good” the way Elizabeth Edwards and the campaign’s most notorious hires do. Silky’s staked himself as the true nutroots champion, willing to pander to the hard left on every point of leftist dogma, so in that sense it’s hard to be “better” than he is on gender short of signing on to the SCUM manifesto. On the other end, Hillary’s keen to explode stereotypes about how a woman president would act in office which is one of the reasons why she hasn’t apologized — yet — for her Iraq vote. Remember?
Mrs. Clinton’s image as a strong leader, in turn, is critical to her hopes of becoming the nation’s first female president. According to one adviser, her internal polling indicates that a high proportion of Democrats see her as strong and tough, both assets particularly valuable to a female candidate who is seeking to become commander in chief. Apologizing might hurt that image, this adviser said.
So yeah, if you’re in the market for gender demagoguery, the Edwards campaign’s your best bet. Meanwhile, though, in pimping this on the Report, Drudge misquoted Edwards’s wife not once but twice. Presently the headline reads, “Gender Bender: Wife Edwards Says Hillary ‘Behaving Like a Man'”. The one before it read, “Elizabeth Edwards Shock: Hillary ‘May Not Be Good Advocate for Women'”. The actual quotes:
Look, I’m sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you’re as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues. I’m sympathetic — she wants to be commander in chief. But she’s just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, “Support me because I’m a woman,” and I want to say to her, “Well, then support me because I’m a woman.” The question is not so much how she campaigns — that’s theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she’ll govern? And I’m not convinced she’d be as good an advocate for women. She needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I’ve heard.
The “behave”/”behaving” one is at least arguably fair, although Drudge is being cute with the “Gender Bender” thing by hinting that she impugned Hillary’s physical femininity when what she really seems to be saying is that if you’re not as vocal about the Patriarchy as Elizabeth Edwards would like you to be then you’re de facto part of it. The “good”/”as good” misquote is clearly unfair, though.
Ah well. We all know who the real “woman’s candidate” is. Exit question: Will the nutroots’ high dudgeon over insinuations about John Edwards’s gender lead them to rally to Hillary’s side here? Or will they end up squarely in the tank as usual for this shameless pandering moron and his wife?