Maybe in an alter-universe, but...
One name not found anywhere in the Common Core agenda is Victoria Woodhull. Hence, why Ms. Clinton was able to pontificate about being the first female to be a presidential nominee?
Once again, Ms. Clinton lied. It's a too bad she didn't take US History while she was studying to perform the perfect subterfuge to con Americans. A speech recognizing Ms. Woodhull and how she plans on carrying her predecessor's great history into the 21st century would have much more stirring than screaming about how she owned the new ceiling when she didn't.
In 1872, Ms. Woodhull ran in the presidential election on the Equal Rights ticket. She didn't get any electoral votes; however, her popular vote has been long disputed. Funny, that many don't know about this woman, considering she was one of the grand dams of Suffrage. She was quite a provocative character; believing in 'free love' - which meant a "woman's ability to marry, divorce and have children without government interference." She believed women were capable and rightfully equal to men.
Unfortunately, in a salaciously torrid scandal, she was incarcerated mere days before the election for exposing a prominent minister's affair. However, she was far from disgraced as she was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame in 2001. So the history was there for any of Clinton's handlers to find had they bothered to look.
Granted, when she ran, it was illegal for her to vote for herself - but the fact is, she was the very first female presidential candidate and owner of that infamous glass ceiling everyone keeps sputtering on and on about.
Look up this cavalier and you'll find she was quite a character in her own time - as well as ours!
Just a tidbit of history to brighten your day.
so... you mean...
ReplyDeleteHillary LIED????
Ha ha, nothing new for her!
DeleteShe lies a lot. This is one of her light ones.
DeleteBeing a candidate and being the nominee are two different things. There have been several female candidates but Hillary Clinton IS the first to be nominated. She is correct in claiming that honor.
ReplyDeleteSorry 9:38PM you are incorrect. Woodhull was nominated just like Clinton.
ReplyDeleteLinks:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-not-female-presidential-nominee-article-1.2666318
http://time.com/3771209/hillary-clinton-female-candidates/
http://www.thenation.com/article/may-10-1872-victoria-woodhull-first-woman-nominated-president/
http://www.almanac.com/fact/victoria-woodhull-became-the-first-woman-nominated
https://newseumed.org/artifact/victoria-woodhull-first-woman-nominated-for-presidency/
Thornton is correct when he said Clinton is not the first nominated. Clinton's claim is false. The Time article shows five women throughout US history have been nominated but the first was in 1872.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading that clinton said she's the first woman to be nominated by a major party, Thornton wasn't nominated by a major party but the Equal Rights Party I think. So in a technical sense, Hillary was right if she specified that. Not agreeing with her or anything just adding more info into this topic.
ReplyDeletePlease see comment above with several links all different sources. I'm not alone in my assessment, 11:46PM.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what your definition of "is" is.
ReplyDeleteShirley Chissum ran for president in 1972....or did you not know that
ReplyDeleteActually the Time article shows five women nominated before Clinton. The point of the article 826 is Clinton isn't the first contrary to her claims.
ReplyDeleteHillary will NEVER retract this, just you watch!. NEVER! She will stand behind this lie just as she has stood behind the others!
ReplyDeleteWatch this and wait. You Hillary supporters will have to suck this lie up at one point or another, but with all the other lies, at this point, what difference does it make? She lies all the time, in fact, nothing out of her mouth in the last 6 years has held an ounce of truth.
Any retort to this out there?