Camille Paglia -- who says she will definitely vote for Hillary if the latter is nominated -- describes exactly why Mrs. Clinton is the wrong woman for the presidency.
Hillary's stonewalling evasions and mercurial, soulless self-positionings have been going on since her first run for the U.S. Senate from New York, a state she had never lived in and knew virtually nothing about. The liberal Northeastern media were criminally complicit in enabling her queenlike, content-free "listening tour," where she took no hard questions and where her staff and security people (including her government-supplied Secret Service detail) staged events stocked with vetted sympathizers, and where they ensured that no protesters would ever come within camera range.
That compulsive micromanagement, ultimately emanating from Hillary herself, has come back to haunt her in her dismaying inability to field complex unscripted questions in a public forum. The presidential sweepstakes are too harsh an arena for tenderfoot novices. Hillary's much-vaunted "experience" has evidently not extended to the dynamic give-and-take of authentic debate. The mild challenges she has faced would be pitiful indeed by British standards, which favor a caustic style of witty put-downs that draw applause and gales of laughter in the House of Commons. Women had better toughen up if they aspire to be commander in chief.
She goes on to write that Senator Dianne Feinstein of California would have been a far superior first-female Democrat presidential nominee, and I have to agree. Feinstein, as a Democrat, isn't exactly my cup of tea, but she's unflappable, strong on defense, smart, well-spoken, and dedicated. The Democrats are certain to do far worse with whomever they end up nominating.