I just tracked this down online bc I read it in my local newspaper today and found it disturbing...
Cal Thomas wrote a column yesterday talking about how Hillary Clinton is not as adept at spin and whatnot as Bill Clinton was - okay, I can agree with him on that, Bill Clinton was a master.
But then in the second paragraph, I read this:
"Not so with Hillary Clinton, who thinks the Democratic Party notion of entitlement entitles her to be president. We are asked to believe that this woman is the most intelligent female in America, a person with deep convictions, unique vision and the experience to lead the nation in troubled times."
Why does she have to be the most intelligent female in America to be worthy of the presidency?
Does Thomas consider George W. Bush the most intelligent male in America?
My suspicion is that this sentence never would have seen the light of day if the subject of his column was male, but because Clinton is a woman, she has to be the #1 woman in order to lead this country - nothing less will do.
It seems the days of a woman needing to be the absolute best to get what a mediocre man is automatically worthy of have not yet passed. A C average at Yale is enough for a man. For the woman who would be president, nothing but "most intelligent female" will do. And for many Americans, some of whom have spent the last 7 years arguing that GPA and SAT scores aren't important (in support of their Golden Boy of course), it's still not enough.
Maybe Thomas should ask himself who is the most talented columnist in America and consider whether he should continue writing this garbage.
As for the rest of us...
Well, dinner isn't going to make itself.