News Flash: Hillary Clinton Is Not Pregnant
By Anita Finlay on April 29, 2014
Featured Member Post
Media outlets are abuzz with Chelsea Clinton's announcement that she and husband Marc Mezvinsky are expecting their first child this fall. Sharing the joyful news at a “No Ceilings” event for young women in New York, Chelsea said, “I just hope I will be as good a mom to my child and hopefully children as my mom was to me” while Mama Hillary looked on, beaming in the seat next to her. But if anyone is under the impression that pundits would lay off the snark for five minutes to join in the celebration, forget it.
New York Times financial analyst Andrew Ross Sorkin suggested on Morning Joe that the timing of this was staged to soften Hillary’s image in time for her presidential run. This grandbaby will be a “game changer,” he said. Radio host Marl Salzberg declared that Chelsea's pregnancy was “staged” in order to “curry sympathy.”
I’m impressed the Clintons made time in their very busy schedules to plot out Chelsea’s ovulation calendar! By this reasoning, Hillary must have arranged for Chelsea to marry a man with a high sperm count to guarantee results. Did he have to fill out a questionnaire? It must have been a doozy.
How a grandbaby is magically supposed to land Secretary Clinton in the White House, these guys never say. Must be a magical baby! Critics on the left and right, fond of blaming her for every cloud in the sky, have endowed Hillary with an omniscience that is oddly complimentary, telegraphing how threatening she is and how much she lives rent free in the heads of her detractors. (Sarah Palin could speak to this issue as well.)
The idea that Hillary Clinton’s daughter would – or even could – guarantee a pregnancy to help her mother’s alleged upcoming campaign is as insulting as it is goofy. To follow this line of reasoning, Chelsea Clinton is merely a prop – an obvious falsehood apparent to anyone spending five minutes in a room with these two women. The talking heads offer up this foolishness anyway.
Still others were speculating how having a grandchild would affect Hillary’s ability to be Commander-in-Chief. Sexist much?
Ms. Jodi Kantor of the New York Times inquired:
"How will the public view the prospect of a grandmother presidential candidate, a commander in chief who bounces a toddler one day and orders drone strikes the next? Does the word “grandmother” connote authority, durability and wisdom, or a less-flattering set of associations?"
Did you get that? This serious inquiry came from The New York Times, that bastion of progressive, unbiased, enlightened thinking. How many men have been grandfathers while President and which of them has ever been asked such a question?
The Guardian Liberty Voice had the best take on this new “controversy” in their article, Hillary Clinton, Grandmother-in-Chief: “There are no signs as yet that Chelsea and husband Marc Mezvinsky are planning to make grandma Hillary the primary care giver to their child.”
Hey, ya never know. Perhaps Ms. Kantor is sweating that Hillary will be testing baby formula with one hand while juggling a phone call to President Putin with the other?
Please don’t worry. Us wimminz are real good at multitasking. We’ve been doing it for centuries. I hear Hillary folds a helluva diaper.
What is the main function of a grandparent, you might ask? Often, it is to pop in once a month with gifts and spoil the grand-kiddies. This doesn’t sound taxing. While this is not to take away from grandparents who take a more active role, I'm sure Hillary can handle the balancing act -- just like Papa Bush did as President and Grandpa concurrently.
For anyone who missed it, Hillary is not the one with the baby bump. I guess Sorkin and Salzberg are worry about an approval bump, however. Someone should tell them that Millennials are more concerned with earning the scratch to move out of their own Mama’s house to start their own families. So, while we should celebrate Chelsea and Mark’s anticipated bundle of joy, the only joy voters will find is in a leader who can get us on better economic footing, baby booties notwithstanding.
These granny “questions” smack of excuse-making and are desperate jabs to find reasons why a woman, any woman, cannot be a qualified leader. Ms. Kantor’s questions bring into sharp focus the innate bias we still carry about a woman’s inherent “softness.”