'What if Hillary Clinton Were a Man?'

Allyne Caan

She wouldn't be a presidential nominee, that's for sure.

". . .  But is being nominated because you’re a woman — and, more specifically, because you’re a woman who effectively played the role of devoted wife defending her high-powered husband’s seduction of women — really something to tout?

Let’s be honest. Hillary’s policies haven’t driven her career. Her gender, combined with her last name, have. If you want to track Hillary Clinton’s rise, start with her marriage certificate.

"This makes the irony of Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen’s missive this week even more potent. “What if Hillary Clinton were a man?” he asked. “What if she were a 68-year-old man rather than a 68-year-old woman? Would we think differently of her? Her raised voice would be lower. She would be better at physically commanding the stage. Her indomitability might be seen as manly. If she were taller and bigger, might she have been able to get away with saying nothing about her email server — as Donald Trump has with his tax returns? As they say, I’m just askin'.”

"Well, to answer, if Hillary were a man, she never would have gotten to the Senate, let alone to the presidential nomination. Even the Democrat Party wouldn’t nominate a man as inept and unlikeable as Hillary. " . . .