My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Andy Martin asks: “If Hillary Clinton were a man…”

Andy on “My Fair Lady” Hillary Clinton. Martin says even the language changes with male candidates. In the wake of West Virginia, Democrats and the media would be clamoring for Obama’s opponent to “take off the gloves.” Only on Broadway can we find the answer. Professor Higgins posed the question long ago.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”






(NEW YORK)(May 14, 2008) We are fortunate in the United States that both political parties have incorporated women as full partners in the political process. Or so they say. Republicans and Democrats go about the process in different ways. For sure. Republican women are different than Democratic women. And yet.

Between Sunday (May 11th) and Tuesday (May 13th) I was stunned by the sexual discrimination and condescension in the way Hillary Clinton was treated by Democrats and the media (is there a difference?).

First, Sunday. The Sunday morning talk shows acted almost as though Democratic Party poobahs were saying, “Oh, all right, let the little woman run.” There was senator Chris Dodd, who made not a ripple in his own presidential campaign, lecturing Clinton that she could run only if she was “positive.” Positive has become the new mantra of Democrats. Clinton would be allowed to run her campaign so long as she conducted herself in a manner consistent with Dodd’s diktats. Well thank you Senator Dodd.

The consistent theme was that Hillary Could run, but she could not “campaign.” Her voice as a candidate would have to be silenced. She would have to restrict herself to laudatory remarks about herself, not comparisons with or criticisms of her opponent. “Let the little woman run, so long as she remains positive,” was the apparent order of the day. Mr. Obama had become sacrosanct.

Would pundits and politicians be treating Clinton the same way if she was a man? Not on your life. If Chris Dodd were still in the race? Lecturing him? Telling him he had to limit his campaign speech to the politically correct and inoffensive? Barring him from comparing his campaign to that of his opponent? They would be telling Dodd to “take off the gloves.” Clearly there are overtones of sexual discrimination in the way Democrats are treating Clinton.

The odor of arrogance, sexism, chauvinism, condescension and overall contempt was inescapable. Even “Johnny Cool” Obama was telling Clinton she could stay in the race so long as she didn’t tarnish his record, in other words as long as she didn’t really campaign against him. The little woman was welcome to be a little woman, not a man.

Tuesday night Clinton won a massive psychological victory in West Virginia. Keith Olbermann, who has been known to have his own problems with women, trashed Clinton as though she had been discovered at a crack house. The hostility was not disguised. Olbermann was so abrasive even Chris Matthews was left at a loss for words how to respond.

Why would West Virginia be so critical if a man was Obama’s opponent?

Well, those of us who have actually been in the political arena know that anyone will draw a few negative votes. Even John McCain has been facing his Huckabee backlash and Ron Paul contingent in the later primaries. But no one indicates the protest votes are a sign of impending disaster. Or that McCain is doomed in November because of the “Huckabee vote” in May.

But in Clinton’s case, the more than 2-1 defeat of Obama in West Virginia, a bedrock Democratic state that is slowly but steadily trending Republican at the national level, surely indicates that the “mountaineers” are not as dumb as people try to suggest. West Virginians have seen that more welfare and higher taxes may not be in their interest either. Obama left them cold. They sent him to the showers. How can Obama pretend to be the salt of the earth when he is resoundingly rejected by the real salt of the earth state? Now that’s a conundrum for a Reverend Jeremiah Wright sermon.

And so, ask yourself, if a man was now Obama’s last opponent, and if that man decisively defeated the “presumptive nominee” in the backyard of Obama’s Democratic Party base, would that man be subjected to the invective Clinton received on Tuesday night? Not on your life. On the contrary, national reporting would focus on the abject humiliation and possibly fatal blow inflicted on the party’s frontrunner. Using masculine analogies, headlines would read “A new ballgame.” But for Clinton such headlines were not to be. She struck out.

People often ask me if I am supporting the Clinton campaign. I am not. I am not working for any candidate or campaign. But I do call ‘em as I see ‘em. And Democrats have a major problem of sexual arrogance and confusion on their hands. Equal means equal. Obama is not more equal than others. Or more equal than a woman.

Last week I said that perhaps only three people believed Clinton should “take it to the convention.” Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and myself.

This I know; If Hillary were a man, her supporters would be clamoring for her to make a floor fight of the nomination in Denver. They would be demanding a roll call vote. They would be cajoling. They would be welcoming a summer of competition and campaigning between the two contendas. No one would be demanding that the candidate cut it off in three weeks on June 3rd, or tell him to exit the stage at a time when votes could change and an unpredictable summer campaign could bring unexpected woe to the “presumed nominee” Obama.

On February 20th, I told Clinton to “take it to the convention.”

That is still my advice. If she was a man, I would not be so alone in making that recommendation. Not to crow, but in the same column I also predicted the “Myth of the Two Democrats,” and exploded the mainstream media’s illusory claim that the two candidates, Clinton and Obama, were interchangeable forces in November. I knew then they were not. The mainstream media pretended otherwise. And so I will take a bow. We were three months ahead of our martini-sipping competitors.

While I have never been fond of the Clintons, and I have not developed a late season admiration for Bill, I am still surprised at the way the party establishment has turned on him, and her. Let no good deed go unpunished. Clinton got elected. Twice. He took the party to the promised land. And with all due respect to his accomplishments, Obama is not electable. He may say he is of the “Joshua generation,” but for sure he is no Moses.

Make no mistake. “Johnny Cool” Obama was taken to the showers by the people of West Virginia. David Axelrod can pretend otherwise all he wants. Obama’s convention delegates were won a winter ago, at a time when Clinton faced a crowded and confused race. Since the race became one on one, Clinton has beaten Obama hands down. West Virginia was a stunning rejection of Barry O.

Will Clinton fold? Beats me. I have a possible book contract working on the chance she will take it to the convention so, yes, I have a very small vested interest in seeing her name placed in nomination in Denver.

Here is my best guess. Bill Clinton is not a fool. Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented person. She will never be an electric candidate, but she is becoming a formidable campaigner now that she is reaching her stride and finding her voice.

Obama, on the other hand, is a delicious summer confection, a handful of political cotton candy. All sail and no anchor.

So, if I could reach into the heads of the Clintons, I would bet they are going to take it to the convention. That’s what a man would do. Democrats, you heard it first; from a Republican. If I were Bill, I would say “Honey, don’t get any ideas about early June. You’re staying on the road. We’re taking this one to the convention.” And he would be right to do that.

The media are all from Broadway. From My Fair Lady. “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”

Bill and Hillary are listening to me, even if no one else is. Soon enough they will get around to reading my column, “The Alamo Speech,” and use that as their game plan for the “summer campaign.” And take it to the convention. Rejecting the media establishment and the party elders is a gutsy strategy. But there will be no tomorrows for the Clintons. No 2012. Denver, or bust. Take it to the convention. I’m already writing my column.

Chicago's Number One Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, Andy Martin, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at;


Blogger skeptical said...

I know this is not the right article for the following comment, but here it is.

I don't see why the Sinclair story should be covered by the press.

Mr. Sinclair has an alternative, either to follow the litigation road and keep his evidence, if any, for this process or to make it public, since it might be relevant to the political process.

He cannot do both at the same time. He might be telling the truth, but his insistence on litigation and secrecy, albeit understandable, is inconsistent, to say the least, with running a site impliedly devoted to the political process aspect of his allegations.

I don't like Mr. Obama, but I also believe in fairness. I don't think Mr. Obama believes in fairness, but I run my life on the basis of other principles.

The best source of information on this case is perhaps:

Some of the comments are interesting.

Feel free to delete this comment.

6:45 PM  
Blogger skeptical said...

A follow-up comment.

Allegations based on old facts are clearly difficult to defend against. They are often unfair.

The basic problem with Mr. Sinclair and his supporters is that they ignore the common sense and legal rule concerning accomplice's testimony.

Assuming this case deals with criminal charges - I appreciate that Mr. Sibley is trying to avoid the criminal law evidence rules in his civil proceeding, and it does politically speaking, both Mr. Sinclair and the unknown limousine driver, if any, are accomplices, and Mr. Sinclair was at the time a drug dealer.

I presume the evidentiary criminal rules are roughly similar in the older common law juridictions, namely U.S.A., England, Canada and Australia.

Either corroboration or a strong caution to the jury is required, and for both Mr. Sinclair and his driver. Quite a hurdle.

I don't see why one should bother with his allegations.

Most likely what the Supreme Court wrote in CASH V. CULVER, 358 U. S. 633 (1959):

All that stood between the petitioner and a verdict of acquittal was a testimony of Allen, an admitted accomplice. Although Florida law does not require corroboration of an accomplice's testimony to sustain a conviction, Land v. State, 59 So.2d 370, the defendant has a right to demand that the trial judge instruct the jury that the "evidence of an accomplice should be received by the jury with great caution." Varnum v. State, 137 Fla. 438, 449, 188 So. 346, 351. The Florida decisions also establish the right to cross-examine an accomplice witness as to whether he is testifying under an agreement for leniency, and even

Page 358 U. S. 638

as to whether he believes that his testimony will be in his best interest. Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897; Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 555, 185 So. 625, 627 (concurring opinion). A layman would hardly be familiar with these rights.

Moreover, Allen's testimony concerning the petitioner's commission of other crimes and the commission of a crime by the petitioner's brother, who allegedly also participated in the burglary which was the subject of the trial, if not inadmissible in its entirety, certainly raised serious questions under Florida law. As the Florida Supreme Court has recently noted, "There are literally thousands of cases in this country discussing the admission of such evidence." Padgett v. State, 53 So.2d 106, 108. The problems which this testimony raised were thus beyond the ken of a layman, and it was clearly the kind of testimony that could seriously damage a defendant in the eyes of a jury. Finally, the transcript of the petitioner's previous trial would have offered a lawyer opportunities for impeachment of prosecution witnesses, opportunities of which we cannot assume that a layman would be aware. [Footnote 7]

Thank you for your blog, for the opportunity to express my frustration and for your refusal to get involved in this matter.

8:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home