Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power -- Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry -- love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously.
It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either.
I'll vote for America's Maggie Thatcher, when America finds one. Hillary Clinton isn't her. And Nancy Pelosi's triumph isn't soul-satisfying either. She needs to shut up about her uterus and stick to business. One more word about her kids and grandkids.......
Hillary is not the New Iron Lady. I know, stating the obvious. Over at TCS Daily, though, are reasons, why:
Moral clarity: Margaret Thatcher's approach to the Soviet Union lacked the self-doubt and ethical confusion so often mistaken for intellectual sophistication.
Resolve: With this moral confidence came the courage to show strength. Famously, Thatcher warned George H. W. Bush not to "go wobbly" over the Persian Gulf.
The UN and the US: In reference to the United Nations and to the International Criminal Court, Thatcher wrote: "because there is no world 'nation', no world political identity, no world public opinion," the only way to enforce the will of international institutions would be "to suppress democratic instincts, resist democratic pressures."
I don't think the problem with Hillary Clinton is the Democrat primaries. I think the problem is Hillary, herself. What Bill and Hill have in common is the innate sense to serve themselves. When serving themselves bumps up against serving the country, past experience tells us what they'll choose.
If Margaret Thatcher is Hillary Clinton's model when it comes to security, defense and personal strengths, the policy direction this would suggest is clear: a confidence in American global leadership and an acknowledgement of American moral superiority over her enemies; a refusal to take orders from the United Nations, and a general skepticism of international institutions; a robust approach to domestic terrorists and a refusal to "go wobbly" over threats such as Iran.
This Thatcherite approach is certainly a formidable and attractive foreign policy on which to run for President. It presents only one problem for Sen. Clinton: making it through the Democratic primaries with a platform anything like it.
Hillary Clinton has been running for President for a long, long time. She was running before she became Senator Clinton. She knew that she could not become President without keeping her ride hitched to her husbands. Expedience.
She has an authoritarian nature that supercedes her intellect. Actually, in the Senate, her nature is tempered by the constraints of the institution. As President, she will have few of those constraints.
There is no question that Hillary Clinton would be a strong, powerful leader. But there are many strong, powerful leaders in the world guided by whim and greed. They cause big problems in the countries they lead and for the world at large.
Don't mistake the shared sturdy legs and somber tone with shared steely resolve and moral clarity. The style may be vaguely similar, but the substance could not be more different.