Geoffrey Wheatcroft at WaPo and Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic have worked very hard to achieve this award considering they were up against Broder and Ignatius today.

Geoffrey refers to Hilary as “someone whose ascent owes more to her marriage than to her merits” Later, he adds: “No one for a second thinks Sen. Clinton’s marital status should be held against her” executing a perfect contradiction of hisself moments earlier.

Sullivan piles on, calling her a ‘phony’ feminist and says “her use of a man’s power to fuel her own was a major setback for American feminism.”

Wankers, both, these born Brits can’t limit themselves to areas where Hillary’s qualifications can be legitimately questioned. Nope, they have to attack her because she has a vagina. And people with vaginas get added scrutiny and added criticism for having the temerity to be dickless. Neo-tards. Not a whit of difference from the retards of the paleo era. They can’t veil their misogyny, even as paid professionals.

Wheatcroft, at least, added some reasonable criticism, before he let his bigotry ruin his arguments:

Seven years ago, she turned up in New York, a state with which she had a somewhat tenuous connection, expecting to be made senator by acclamation (particularly once Rudy Giuliani decided not to run against her). Until that point, she had never won or even sought any elective office, not in the House or in a state legislature. Nor had she held any executive-branch position. The only political task with which she had ever been entrusted was her husband’s health-care reforms, and she made a complete hash of that.

Had he known anything about US history, he’d recognize that there’s examples of carpetbaggers taking advantage of different residency requirements, almost exclusively male ones at that. And while his point about her lack of elective office experience is quite valid, it should be recalled that (a) we’ve had some decent presidents who lacked elective experience, like Ike, for a perfect example, and (b) the Clintons have acted as a team and sold themselves as a team, ever since Bill ventured beyond Arkansas. It’s well known that she’s been in on numerous decisions that Bill has made and his own drive for political success has always been matched by hers, though she didn’t advance her own elective career while busy raising Chelsea.

I also share some of his disdain for the tendency we’re developing to worship royalty:

At a time when Americans seem to contemplate with equanimity up to 28 solid years of uninterrupted Bush-Clinton rule, please note that there are almost no political dynasties left in British politics, at least on the Tory side. Admittedly, Hilary Benn, the environmental secretary, is the fourth generation of his family to sit in Parliament and the third to serve in a Labor Party cabinet. But England otherwise has nothing now to match the noble houses of Kennedy, Gore and Bush.

And he’s right to question the gender bias in our choice of representatives:

In one democracy after another, women have been enfranchised, entered politics and risen to the top. The United States lags far behind in every way. A record number of women now serve in Congress, which only makes the figures — 71 of 435 House members and 16 of 100 senators — all the more unimpressive. Compare those statistics with Norway’s, where 37 percent of lawmakers are women. In Sweden, it’s 45 percent.

But the way forward from their is not to rip a popular woman because her husband’s popular. I think it’s more legit to question whether Bill caused the roaring Nineties that many folks recall or whether they could be replicated by ANYONE with the different world conditions that exist today.

But all of those questions and criticisms get sidelined by the over-focus on Hillary’s gender, which has absolutely nothing to do with her qualifications or lack thereof, to be president.