Hillary Clinton n'a jamais pleuré devant les caméras avant la course à l'investiture démocrate. Cela signifie-t-il qu'elle tente aujourd'hui d'attirer la sympathie des électrices en essuyant ou en ravalant ses larmes? Oui, conclut le blogueur Andrew Sullivan dans ce billet, qualifiant la sénatrice de New York d'anti-féministe. Je le cite dans le texte :
There were also, of course, the now famous New Hampshire tears - to evoke sympathy. And the blunt appeal on gender grounds alone. And the refusal to disavow the use of her husband for her own political purposes, even as he told lies and cast racist aspersions about her opponent. And, on the eve of Super Tuesday, the tears again. Can you imagine a male politician breaking down in public the day before a crucial vote - and expecting it to help?
It's time feminists realized that Clinton is a dream gone sour. If you believe in women in politics, in female leaders who lead by themselves, on their own merits, with no strings to pull and husband-presidents to rely on, do yourself a favor and vote for Obama.
One day, there will be a woman worth electing to the White House. But not this one.