As for overseas travel, the papers show that Clinton did spend some time conferring with foreign leaders on strategic issues. But the records suggest she spent a lot more time fulfilling the traditional role of the first lady: meeting the leaders' wives and focusing on women's and children's issues.And no one who's serious about being the American president would do something so frivolous as to focus on women's and children's issues! That's not real politics. Why, she might as well have been playing with dollies!
The contempt for "women's and children's issues" could not be more palpable.
Why is that, do you think? I'm not sure—although I do know it would be very, very intemperate, over-reactionary, illogical, and possibly hysterical of me to suggest that it might be attributable to a contempt for women and children, or at least an indifference to their suffering. (Perhaps this is also why the media doesn't regard egregious abuses against women and children being perpetrated or ignored, and children's needs being repeatedly vetoed, as the unconscionable failings that they are.) And I know quite certainly that it would be positively indefensible of me to suggest that a general contempt for women might be playing some role in the coverage of The Particular Woman whose focus on women's and children's issues is used to dismiss her experience, rather than bolster it.
[H/T to Shaker KR.]