IS THERE ANYTHING DUMBER OR MORE DATED THAN THE “FEMINIST CASE” FOR ELECTING HILLARY? “She became recognized because of the achievements of her husband. That has nothing to do with advancing women’s rights. She’s revered? Has that been established?! But let’s assume she’s revered. What does that have to do with advancing women’s rights? Like being the wife of a powerful man, a woman’s being revered isn’t an aspect of female empowerment. The most traditional societies embrace the idea of a woman who inspires reverence, someone who’s good and worthy of respect. The Virgin Mary is revered. . . . Parker’s argument has gone from ‘She can save the world’ to ‘We could do worse.’ I can’t believe how bad this column is! Why can’t The Washington Post do better? Perhaps millions are inspired that a Woman has written a column in The Washington Post. The symbolic power cannot be overestimated!”

A lot of women of a certain age are excited by Hillary, because they identify with her. But, like Obama, the fact that a segment of the electorate identifies with a candidate is no guarantee that the candidate is competent. Certainly Hillary’s record as Secretary of State — something no one seems to want to look at too closely right now — doesn’t suggest any particular degree of competence.