Jennifer Granholm, an operative of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, said on Tuesday that women in New Hampshire supporting Senator Bernie Sanders - young and old - don’t grasp the severity of the patriarchal oppression in America.
Attempting to explain away Clinton’s weakness relative to Sanders with young women in general according to recent polls, Granholm speculated that there was a generational gap in appeal.
Sanders is 74-years-old. Hillary Clinton is 68-years-old.
“Every single major leadership position [in New Hampshire],” said Granholm, was occupied by a woman. This phenomenon, Granholm said, disconnected New Hampshire’s women from the broader struggle she for equality between the sexes she claimed exists across the country.
Continuing with the political agitation to drive a wedge between the sexes, pitting men and women against one another, Granholm parroted the feminist narrative of America as a sexist society hostile towards women.
“So maybe there is a feeling not as relevant as women in other states, who feel like, ‘Alright, men have held this office for 227 years. Isn’t it time we had a woman as Commander-in-Chief?’” speculated Granholm, suggesting that Clinton be elected President on the basis of her becoming a woman.
This is the contempt Clinton feels - perhaps deservedly - towards those who would support her political ambitions.
Cuomo then shared his name for such a strategy.
“That’s it, just a straight gender-play?” asked Cuomo, seemingly surprised at the shallowness of Granholm’s attempt to appeal to young women on the basis of Clinton’s chromosomal arrangement.
“No, no. Not at all. But you’re asking me about women and why young women are not supporting an older woman for this…” Granholm replied stammeringly.
“Oh, so you think it’s a young-old thing?” interjected Cuomo.
“I do think there’s a generational thing. I do think that there’s a generational thing,” replied Granholm, answering the question in the affirmative.
“But then why are they for Bernie?” interjected Cuomo, again.
A flustered Granholm then artfully shifted towards presenting Sanders as having “revolutionary” appeal to young women, stating that Clinton supported the same policies but was more pragmatic in her strategy for their implementation. Suggesting that surreptitiousness is a political asset in much the same way as Jonathan Gruber praised a "lack of transparency" as a "huge political advantage," Granholm implied that Clinton's cultivated persona as less radical than her openly socialist opponent increased her electability.
In other words, as Rush Limbaugh phrases it, "Democrats must lie to win."
Continuing to test new narratives in the friendly waters of CNN, Granholm then asserted that Clinton was more bipartisan than Sanders, and “could get things done.” While possibly true, one wonders how she squares this newfound bipartisanship when regularly claiming to be victimized by a Republican-driven “vast right-wing conspiracy” that she regards as an enemy.
Watch the entire interview below.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.