Friday, March 04, 2016

Everyone Except Hillary is Racist and Sexist

If a state doesn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, it’s racist.

That’s the label that poor New Hampshire, the state just too white to appreciate the virtues of a white woman with dyed blonde hair who occasionally puts on a bad fake southern accent and switches from loving the Yankees to hating them, was stuck with after turning her down.

Sensing trouble up the road in Nevada, Clintonworld tried to accuse Nevada, a state with a sizable Latino population, of also being too white for Hillary. Then once Nevada voted the right way, its was suddenly just right enough.

Ex-Salon boss Joan Walsh suggested that Hillary Clinton was losing white voters because of second-hand racism from her time working for Obama. She’s losing men because they’re sexist and she’s losing women because, according to Gloria Steinem, they’re going ”where the boys are”. It won’t be long before the handful of black people who vote for Bernie Sanders are accused of “acting white”.

Hillary Clinton has turned into Tonya Harding; an obnoxious criminal who can’t stop making excuses, while towing around Bill Clinton as her Jeff Gillooly to kneecap her opponents with awkward attacks. After trying and failing to run on experience, the only thing she’s running on now is identity politics. And her campaign has tapped into the most repugnant and obnoxious politically correct smears.

If you don’t vote for Hillary Clinton, you’re a racist. If you’re a woman who doesn’t vote for her, you’re going to hell. If you ask her about her illegal email server or her speaking fees, you’re sexist.

Senator Shaheen, a Clinton proxy, claimed that questions about the huge pile of speaking fees paid to the Clintons by special interests and even foreign governments were sexist because, “How many men who are running for president have been asked about the speaking fees they’ve taken?”

The Clintons pulled in $153 million in speaking fees. Nobody in this election is anywhere close.

If criticizing Hillary Clinton for taking millions of dollars from special interests is sexist, there is no such thing as a legitimate non-sexist criticism of her. And that’s the whole ridiculously cynical idea.

Any and every criticism of Hillary Clinton is racist or sexist. Clinton supporters now shout sexism or racism first and ask questions later. Salon’s Amanda Marcotte accused a female Hillary Clinton supporter of being a “male Clinton hater” who has “issues with women” because of an unflattering painting. That type of casual smear has become the engine of a desperate and paranoid political identity campaign.

Hillary Clinton wanted to run on experience, but by her second primary her campaign was frantically rolling out a victimhood narrative about mean Bernie Bros who, according to accused rapist Bill Clinton, had been really mean to Joan Walsh by pointing out that her daughter works for the Clintons. According to Walsh, accusing her daughter of getting the job based on family connections is “stunningly sexist”. Someone might want to tell former NBC correspondent Chelsea Clinton who was being paid $600,000 a year to interview the GEICO gecko for reasons having nothing to do with her last name.

Some might want to argue that Bill Clinton sexually assaulting vulnerable women was “stunningly sexist” or that Hillary Clinton accusing a 12-year-old girl who was raped and beaten into a coma of being a liar was “stunningly sexist”. But to the privileged leftist elite, accusing them of getting their kids jobs working for their political allies or asking about their special interest speaking fees is “stunningly sexist”.

Interfering with Hillary Clinton’s sense of political entitlement is also “stunning sexist” since her political career is based on little more than nepotism. Chelsea made a mere $600K on her NBC gig. Hillary Clinton got paid more than that for three Wall Street speeches. She’s running for the highest office in the country based on an undistinguished career in the Senate, a disastrous term in the State Department and her last name. Without that last name, she could never have moved to New York and gotten a Senate seat for the asking or become the presumptive presidential candidate in two elections.

What was truly “stunningly sexist” was the rash of privileged progressives mocking Senator Joni Ernst for speaking about growing up so poor that she had to wear bags over her feet and then going on to become a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard, while pretending that Hillary Clinton marrying well is a feminist accomplishment that everyone must respect or be charged with sexism.

Tom Harkin endorsed Hillary Clinton in exchange for a “stunningly sexist” job for his daughter. Meanwhile he mocked Ernst as Taylor Swift. That was actual real life sexism. Hillary and her backers keep claiming that she is the victim of a double standard. But she is really the beneficiary of one.

The reduction of the Clinton campaign to claims of victimhood is once again evidence of that. Hillary Clinton has cried sexism in every competitive election she has ever been in despite having a track record of destroying the lives of other women. And the media continues to promote her baseless claims of victimhood allowing her campaign to claim that any criticism of her subjects her to a double standard.

Hillary Clinton has managed to create a double standard for double standards.

Noticing, as Bob Woodward did, that there is “something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating” is sexist. Accused pedophile Lena Dunham contends that calling Hillary Clinton “inaccessible” is sexist. Someone should have told that to the reporters that the Clinton campaign lassoed off behind its moving rope line.

You can’t criticize Hillary Clinton’s speaking style or her speaking fees. She lost New Hampshire because it’s racist. Any other states she loses, is racist too.

According to Hillary Clinton, she can’t be a member of the establishment, despite being a member of the establishment, because she is “a woman running to be the first woman president”. (As opposed to a man or a cleverly disguised robot running to be the first woman president.) That debate response captured the fundamental cynicism of Hillary’s establishment campaign wrapping its wealth and power in the rags and chains of victimhood. And it’s a cynicism that pervades the left whose billionaires are always funding populist campaigns against the 1 percent and someone else’s wealth.

Hillary Clinton is the most powerful and the most admired woman in America who claims that everything is unfair and that everyone is prejudiced against her. The country is in the throes of the final term of a man who thinks the same way and abuses others with that self-serving justification. Hillary and Obama always have excuses for why they are the victims and everything is someone else’s fault. Can the country really afford eight more years of the same thing?


Leah said...

Thanks alot. I almost threw up over your last question... The thought of 8 years with this woman in a position to abuse more power over the American people is scary.
Heaven help us.

Brian Keene said...

you spelled it incorrectly:
it's Hilliary

Anonymous said...

This is why I think Cruz should choose Carly as a running mate. She can take swipes at Hilliary without being called a mean woman hating sexist. But my hope is that instead of campaigning, she will be facing a jude, preferably a woman, who will throw her --- in jail. Who wouldn't love to see that happen?

Barbar Cat said...

I have thought about that too, Anon...Carly Fiorina for a running mate - for the very reasons you mentioned. She'd be powerful against Hilliary...Michelle Malkin style.

Anonymous said...

When you start missing the target David, I will be at a loss for words. Absolutely spot on--identity politics is her central game.

Anonymous said...

Once words are hijacked and redefined, common sense defeated, nothing works to derail it. There is no strategy or defense against the shape-shifters who can alter the standards daily as the pinion of their strong offensive. Black conservatives are labeled Uncle Toms, female conservatives or den converts are vilified as anti-feminist. That under Bush we had the first woman (who was also black) Sec State got no applause from the dems. She was a Republican so her real credentials were unnoteworthy. Didn’t we have a female running mate in ’08? How’d that work out?

They are vipers with agenda and a self-righteous determination that they are RIGHT and the means, regardless how unethical, always justifies the end! How do you fight that?

Responder67 said...

Really excellent article. Perfectly describes the situation with her.

jdf said...

Except people don't hate Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. They hate her because she's an inveterate liar, a con-artist, a Jew hater, and crooked as a dog's hind leg. But above all, they hate her because when you distill it all down, she's a loathsome bitch.

Denise Cranson said...

Best article I have read on her campaign yet. Amusing, too. But why are you all spelling her name with that extra "i"?

Pray Hard said...

HRC & BHO, blaming all of their problems on someone else. They've learned well from their Muslam overlords.

Kay Lea said...

You forgot about the vast 'right-wing conspiracy' that has been against the Clinton's since their first White House go-round.

You know what's sexist? It's that if Hillary were a man, she would probably already be indicted for her email shenanigans.

CDG, Yerushalayim, Eretz Yisrael Shlemah said...

I think Anon 4/3/16 meant "...she will be facing a judge, preferably a woman...".

And, yes, I would love to see that happen.

Jerry said...

Hillary is a woman without one redeeming feminine quality. There are many words describing women;attractive,loving, caring,motherly,maternal,affectionate . You can't find one to fit Hillary.

Anonymous said...

That was like poetry!!!

Anonymous said...

Yes, this is all true, BUT the Left is laughing all the way to the bank. There is a method to their madness; they know exactly what they are doing. In a nutshell, their strategy works! That our president shares a name with Saddam Hussein not only was not an obstacle to his election, it helped it. If you did not elect him to office, you were a racist. And there was a meme out there in the MSM that if you did not vote for him again in 2012, you were a racist. Works like a charm every time. The Left is more conniving than the Right; that is something that Orwell was all too familiar with and that he expressed beautifully in Animal Farm and 1984. Over the years, liberalism has become more radically liberal while conservatism has become less conservative. The Left plots and schemes, controls language and discourse, and think in the long-term. What we don't normally hear (even by the conservative movement and the Right) is that the Left can enjoy this strategy of patient, gradual exploitation because the Left is controlled by the very rich. The Left is not a movement of the people; it is a movement of the super-wealthy--it is an oligarchy. Liberals promulgate their rhetoric of building a paradise on earth with equality for all, while it is really building a jail for subjugation for all but the few. (Think China, former U.S.S.R., Cuba, North Korea, etc.) Have you ever considered the seeming paradox that the likes of Facebook's Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet, et al., favor socialist ideas? It appears to be a contradiction for the super-wealthy to subscribe to socialist tenets and what seems like the destruction of personal enterprise and personal freedoms, but in reality socialism is not about the "equitable distribution of wealth"; rather, it is about control--control of the few over the many--an oligarchy. This is a very important concept that the Right is failing to express it properly. Until conservatives can explain to the Left (explain to the Left's useful idiots, anyway) that their values and best interests are served by less government and, in truth, conservative, Right-wing values, the Right will continue to suffer nothing but losses. We must point out to the liberals their own contradictions. We must use the language of the Left against the Left. It has always struck me as strange that our current young generation wants independence, autonomy and freedom, yet they overwhelmingly vote Left. We need to point out that that, as just one in a series of examples, that whenever the Left wins, they kill many, many citizens and create oppression in their country. We also need to teach that the most Right wing documents out there are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I could go on here, but, for sake of brevity, I will stop. Bottom line: The Left plans for the future and plants its seeds carefully. It is about time the conservative movement does the same.

King Western Man

Brian Keene said...

Denise Cranson
it is Hil liar y

and she's extra deceitful

Cletus Socrates said...

The bang your head against the wall aspect of this post is that it will reach few potential voters.

Post a Comment