By Selwyn Duke

There has been much talk about Hillary Clinton’s disastrous performance at the last Democratic debate.   Unfortunately, her stumbling and waffling probably won’t be the body blow to her campaign that some might fancy it to be.

As you may know, Clinton was asked by moderator Tim Russert about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens; in response she offered contradictory answers, among them being a sanction of the idea.   Because of her obfuscation, Russert pressed her for clarification, and her Democratic rivals piled on as well.  And rightfully so.

But I don’t see this having any lasting negative effect on Clinton’s snow job of a campaign.  Besides the fact that this will soon be forgotten, her presidential venture serves as proof that, although the Human Genome Project hasn’t yet identified the location of the gene, the XX chromosome configuration definitely provides immunity from political attack.  For instance, I just heard that a poll of women in the Northwest showed that they felt more sympathy for Clinton because of the drenching with hostile testosterone.  There go those big bad men again.  Why, we’ll show ’em!  We’ll be even more supportive of this empty skirt. 

Although I’m now talking about the behavior of women, this relates to a piece I wrote titled The New Chivalry.  There is a contradiction here: On the one hand, we say that women must be treated just like men and that chivalry is condescending.  On the other, when men take this to heart and treat women as they do men, many people cry foul.  Why, he was mean to the girl!  Don’t hit girls now, Johnny. 

Look, if you can’t stand the heat, get back in the kitchen.

Hillary Clinton has decided to enter what she has called the "all boys’ club of presidential politics";  thus, for her or anyone else to imply that  she should receive some special dispensation from the slings and arrows of that arena is preposterous.  Unfortunately, many women have imbibed the feminist malt and will nevertheless empathize with her, as they react emotionally and relate this incident to all the mistreatment they think they’ve suffered at the hands of that infernal patriarchy.

Clinton understands this phenomenon well.  As Barack Obama has said, she is playing the "gender card."  Of course, Obama knows all about the politics of victimology, as he has played the black/diversity card with aplomb.

As for Clinton’s pulling of this card, on Thursday she spoke at her alma mater, Wellesley, and said,

“. . . in so many ways this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.”

Ironically, this is yet another untruth peddled by Lady MacBeth.  After her performance at the debate, fumbling and stumbling simply because the necessary answer wasn’t in her well-rehearsed script,  she doesn’t seem very prepared at all.

But that’s Hillary Clinton.  Intellectually and philosophically vacuous, all she can do is rehearse, memorize and train.  It is campaigning by rote.  And it works well when you have a sympathetic media and enter forums in which only softball questions are asked.  In a debate setting, however, with adversaries seeking to pounce and a moderator who actually does his job, such a facade of competence can quickly be stripped away.

But she’ll still get the nomination.  Hey, you don’t hit girls, and that’s all there is to it.  As for those bad boys, they need to have a strap applied to their posteriors.