« Iraq Nab 1,000 Al Qaeda, Pelosi Still At Large | Home | Wright On Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, Et Al »

Hillary Gets Women’s History Wrong - Again

From the Hillary campaign, via YouTube:

“… [T]onight I’m thinking about Florence Steen from South Dakota, 88 years old and in failing health when she asked that her daughter bring an absentee ballot to her hospice bedside. Florence was born before women had the right to vote, and she was determined to exercise that right, to cast a ballot for her candidate who just happened to be a woman running for president. Florence passed on a few days ago, but I am eternally grateful to her and her family for making this such an important and incredible milestone in her life that means so much to me…”

The Hillary campaign had earlier made this same claim in their Mother’s Day press release:

“The Vote of a Lifetime” “To [Florence Steen], a woman born seven months before her gender won the right to vote in August 1920, seeing Clinton’s name on a presidential ballot and marking her vote nearby was a dream realized… ‘She was very alert, very serious in studying the ballot,’ [her daughter, Kathy] Kraus said. ‘And when she marked it, she just kept circling and circling that mark with her pencil.’”

But in actual fact, South Dakota granted women the right to vote in 1918, two years before Mrs. Steen was born:

Of course Mrs. Clinton has never let the facts get in the way of a good story. (Cf. her Bosnia snipers, her China speech, her name, her attempt to join the Marines…)

But this is not the first time that our preeminent feminist has gotten the facts wrong about the history of women’s suffrage in this country.

As we noted back in April, Hillary was similarly wrong about when women got the vote Montana (in 1914) — when she was similarly pandering in that state.

Moreover, as Christ Wilson at Slate has noted, Mrs. Clinton was also wrong about dead people having the right to vote in South Dakota. They don’t.

Maybe she was thinking of Chicago, where of course it is a common practice, whether it is legal or not.

Does the smartest woman in the world ever get anything right?

Related Articles:

  Print Email

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Saturday, May 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm. You can leave a response.

7 Responses to “Hillary Gets Women’s History Wrong - Again”

  1. U NO HOO
    May 17th, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    She actually took $ from an eleven year old boy?

    Sounds like she is pimping Dalton Hatfield.

  2. vastrightwing
    May 17th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    The poor nincompoop. I can only shake my head and laugh. “Smartest woman in America”?? sheesh.

  3. BillK
    May 18th, 2008 at 5:56 am

    From the AP:

    Clinton’s female fans wonder what if - and when

    By Jocelyn Noveck and Beth Fouhy

    Philipina Heintzman, 81, drove 80 miles across the South Dakota prairie to experience history in the making: a woman running for president, something she never dreamed as a child that she would live to see.

    That event, a Hillary Rodham Clinton rally in Bath on Thursday, also marked history unraveling.

    As Clinton’s prospects sink in the Democratic race, Heintzman and many women like her are feeling the poignant letdown of seeing the first woman with a strong chance at the presidency fall short.

    “It would hurt my feelings a lot because I think she should be No. 1, she should be president,” Heintzman said of Clinton’s likely loss to Barack Obama. “Give a woman a chance to do something good.”

    From young feminist activists to the grandmothers who embrace Clinton along the rope line at her campaign events, many women who voted in large numbers for the former first lady during the primaries have begun mourning the turn of events. They know their dream of electing a female president this year probably will not come to pass — and wonder when it ever will.

    “For us, getting a woman elected is major,” said Laurine Glynn, 72, of New York City. “We’ve waited, fought a lot for this. I do worry that my generation won’t see a female president.”

    “Women are feeling a lot of sadness, disappointment and some anger as they look back at what happened in this race,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

    And at least part of that anger, Walsh says, is directed at the sexism that some feel seriously harmed the former first lady’s candidacy — from T-shirts bearing photos of Clinton and Obama with the slogan “Bros Before Hos” to Hillary Clinton nutcrackers sold in airports.

    Women — especially older white women — have been at the center of Clinton’s electoral base. During the primaries, she bested Obama among women overall 52-45 percent. Among women over 65, Clinton won by 61 percent to Obama’s 34 percent.

    Obama advisers note that he defeated Clinton among women in at least 12 states during the primary contest, in part because of overwhelming support for his candidacy among black women. Obama would be the first black president.

    And among women under 30, Obama beat Clinton overall by a margin of 56-43 percent — suggesting that they were more inspired by Obama’s message of hope and political change than they were by the prospect of electing one of their own.

    Paula Horwitz, 84, of Pittsburgh, said some younger women “just don’t understand. They’ll elect a man, and the men will keep on telling the women what to do.” Horwitz displayed a Clinton sign in her front yard for the Pennsylvania primary won by the New York senator.

    The generational rift became even more apparent last week, when NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights advocacy organization dominated by white female activists, endorsed Obama over Clinton — producing an outcry among many in the women’s movement who felt the group had betrayed one of its own.

    Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL who supports Obama, said Clinton didn’t stand for the new direction that voters — including many women — now crave.

    “Hillary Clinton represents the status quo at best, and keeps us rooted in a place we need to move from,” Michelman said. “I’ve watched younger women come into their adult lives from a different set of experiences, and Hillary Clinton was not the president to make the transition to the newly inspired movement that we need.”

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....112D03.DTL

    Complete cluenessness about the world and the United States’ part in it is apparently what today’s female voters “crave.”

    Let’s see how abortion rights fare when Sharia Law becomes the standard across the land, when abortion doctors are killed not by “wacko right wingers” but because they are an affront to Islam.

    Funny how these feminists just don’t seem to get that.

    But that’s right, that could never happen here, and women in those Middle East countries just don’t matter anyway.

  4. wardmama4
    May 18th, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Of course she gets American women’s history wrong always - it ruins her stump (and the feminazi’s platform) that American women have always been held down, ignored, and treated like possessions - and were/are utterly helpless to change it. It really hurts that FIRST moniker she and all the feminazis want to attach to her permenantly.
    I am surprized that someone from the left does not embrace Mrs Woodhull since she was such a feminist and free love advocate - but of course I fail to understand the ‘one cause above and beyond all others’ concept. Just as ‘feminist’ Nina’I'd be happy to give him (President Bill Clinton) a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal’ Burleigh’s willingness to embrace a serial sex offender for abortion - I guess the left have to ignore Mrs. Woodhull’s typical liberal (feminism, women’s suffrage, free love, anti-slavery, civil rights) stance because of the ever present desire to ignore and distort history to acheive an agenda today - Women deserve this candidate. . .Doesn’t help the feminazi cause to remind everyone that Mrs. Woodhull did all of this in the mid-1800s now does it?!?

  5. U NO HOO
    May 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    “Hillary Clinton nutcrackers”

    So that is what she does after they aren’t claimed from her lock box.

    (OK, I apologize now.)

  6. DEZ
    May 18th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    U NO HOO, can you imagine going to a party and finding a set of Clintoon nutcrackers in the bowl with the mixed nuts?
    Bet the hard part is getting the damned things open!, and the complete feeling of disgust when you do!

  7. Lipstick on a PIAPS
    May 19th, 2008 at 1:31 am

    Ah, Hillary we are going to miss you. You are a laugh a minute funfest. The new Photo Shoots with your Jim Carey smiles and giggles. All of those homespun stories everyone researches but your own staff. Gosh, we gonna miss ya lady! See you in 2012! ROFLMAO


Leave a Reply

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.


« Front Page | To Top
« Iraq Nab 1,000 Al Qaeda, Pelosi Still At Large | Wright On Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, Et Al »