I was surprised by the extreme hostility of the op-ed about Hillary Clinton's use of the term "women's card" ("Hillary's "women card" doesn't make a winning hand," May 11) by Rachel Marsden.
I expected to see language criticizing Ms. Clinton's use of the term, and there was plenty of that (repetitious, tacky, manipulative, trite, unwarranted, gimmicky etc.). What I didn't expect was the writer's unexplained leap to a criticism of Ms. Clinton's diplomatic failures in Russia.
Another criticism unrelated to the supposed topic of the women's card was that Ms. Clinton had the opportunity of working on health care reform just because her husband was president. To me, the writer was not writing a coherent discussion of the women's card topic, she was simply playing the hostility card.
Liz Dunn, Parkville