A headline at New York Magazine, for a piece by Rebecca Traister, who does not use the word "Hillary-ed."
What does it mean to "get Hillary-ed"?
I guess it could mean a lot of things, but from the article, the idea seems to be to portray her "as hypocritical and untrustworthy" (because of her personal wealth), and to stress her emotionality. Some right-wing radio guy called her “frazzled” and “triggered,” which Traister calls "highly gendered language." And Warren is portrayed as taking a "doggedly pragmatic paths to advancement" — being one of the "hand-in-the-air Tracy Flicks of the world" that Americans instinctively loathe. The "right wing," we're told, "regards ambitious women as threatening and ugly," while the "left" sees them as "compromised and emblematic of reviled Establishment mores."
However right or wrong any of that is about how opponents attack female candidates and voters react to those attacks and how "highly gendered" it is, there's still the question whether we want to see "Hillary" become a verb. We've seen proper names become verbs. We know what "to Bork" means, because we know what happened to Bork. But what happened to Hillary? She's got a whole tome trying to say or avoid saying what happened. It's called "What Happened." What the hell happened? Sorry, that does not have the makings of a new verb.
Does Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg know what happened? Charlie Rose tried to get her to say: "Do you think sexism played a role in that campaign?" A role. Obviously, it had some role.
So it's unsurprising that she said "I have no doubt that it did." The audience claps and whoops though she's just said essentially nothing.
Rose is sharp enough to know he got essentially nothing and redid his question: "Do you think it was decisive?"
Ginsburg cagily said, "There are so many things that might have been decisive" and "But that was a major, major factor." The first statement absolves her of all responsibility, and the second statement gives those who want a quote a tasty nugget to enjoy.
But Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not know what happened, because no one can really know. It's infinitely complex. Going forward, we need to predict what might happen and try to influence what happens. If we care about getting good candidates and figuring out whom to trust with political power, let's not screw up the discourse with the grotesque verb "to Hillary." Women candidates deserve better than that. We all deserve better than that.
If you care about a female candidate, you're not helping her by encouraging people to think of her as being like Hillary, even if you believe that some attacks on Hillary were unfairly sexist.
September 28, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
113 comments:
Rose should have followed up with: "Was sexism a major factor in Obama's defeat of Hillary in 2008?"
I don't remember Tracy Flick claiming to be Native American to advance her career. Was there a sequel? Also, Flick fucked her teacher to get ahead.
Is Warren a candidate for something?
"getting Hillary-ed"
They are starting to eat their own with the hope the new light-giver can piss brighter rainbows, and fart bigger unicorns.
Being a woman got Hillary more votes than it lost her. That's probably what Ginsburg means.
Of course sexism had a role in the election
All those women saying "vote for Hillary because she's a woman, and you are won" were and are grotesquely sexist
"Did sexism play a role in the 2016 election?" Is there the slightest bit of evidence on this question? Was there ever a poll that asked people if they voted against Clinton specifically because she was a woman? Not easy to do that kind of poll, but still: is there any evidence on this at all?
"Do you think sexism played a role in that campaign?"
Do we know voters cast their ballots specifically because they wanted a woman to be president?
Hell yes.
I would estimate many more than voted against her based on her gender.
It's just as sexist.
At least Hillary did not claim to be an Indian to get an affirmative action job.
So, there's that.
That dumb anchor didn't know that Ginsberg's husband was dead.
God she looks old and decrepit. Bring on Trump Supreme Court Appointment Number 2! She looks like she could stroke out at any second.
I thought we already had a verb for what happened to Hillary. Schlonged. And Fauxcahontas can get schlonged, too.
Getting "Hillaried" is what happened to the Secret Service personnel and Military personnel that got within 100 yards of that mendacious, crooked Witch.
Warren is OK. She is just ambitious for wealth, like all of the ambitious pols are.
The 2020 election cycle is going to be a fight. You've been Warrened.
Warren is nothing like Hillary.
Hillary got her position and power by sleeping with a powerful and politically talented man, then defending his serial rape of a long series of women.
Warren got hers by faking membership in an "oppressed" minority to steal a spot in the 1% from a real native American, and holding forth on the evils of her own class.
Kate said...
I thought we already had a verb for what happened to Hillary. Schlonged. And Fauxcahontas can get schlonged, too.
9/28/17, 10:43 AM
Beat me to it.
You know was Hillaryed?
Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey to name a few.
Fuck Hillary. And that shriveled shrew Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
At least Hillary did not claim to be an Indian to get an affirmative action job.
No, she played the woman card to turn the Presidency into one.
"Obviously, it had some role." It did. Albright et al. tried to shame women in voting for a woman. Special place in hell and all that. Good thing most Americans don't believe in that stuff anymore.
Sexist prog politics failed. But they'll double down. Identity politics is all they got.
The "right wing," we're told, "regards ambitious women as threatening and ugly,"
From deep in the Memory Hole, Sarah Palin sys hi.
I guess everyone now needs a victim card..........
... to turn the Presidency into [an affirmative action job.]
Obama did that.
Women on the Left: Hillary-ed.
Women on the Right: Palin-ed.
I am Laslo.
Remind me who first appointed a woman to the Supreme Court?
I don't think hillaryed is going to make it as a verb like borked did, (I mean Bork actually got borked) but I'm sure there is a verb out there somewhere for her. Bill could probably come up with a couple.
"The "right wing," we're told, "regards ambitious women as threatening and ugly," "
As usual, a liberal projects their own side's biases onto their opponents.
I never heard any "right winger" say that Margaret Thatcher was "threatening and ugly." A LOT of lefties did. And don't even get me started on how the left treated Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann; "threatening and ugly" barely scratch the surface of what the left said about them.
Ask Warren HOW she plans to do something and she thinks it's a greeting.
Aside from the fakery (Indian and wealth), she's a strange bird. A far lefty with the moral certainty and mannerisms of the Church Lady.
I suppose she thinks calling her a bird is sexist, though I think Bernie's a strange bird too.
The Curse of Hillary strikes another victim.
I guess it's racist to point out that a woman who would fit right in in Copenhagen abused affirmative action too.
And her bankruptcy paper? Well we all know that "math is hard."
Did sexism play a role in Hillary's defeat?
"So it's unsurprising that she said "I have no doubt that it did." The audience claps and whoops though she's just said essentially nothing."
Help me understand the definition of "sexism."
I construe it narrowly.
Example: I agree with Ms. Clinton on her views on abortion, gay rights, higher taxes on the rich, and I think the "e-mail" scandal is phony. But, I'm not voting for her, because I don't think women are ready to be President.
To me, this would be sexist. You generally agree with the candidate's position, but you don't like her for some vague reason.
As to Hillary, I disagreed with her positions on taxes, abortion, gay rights, foreign policy, and other items, and thought she was a power-mad, crooked sleazebag, with a sleazebag husband.
So, I don't think sexism played a role. I would readily vote for a female candidate, if I agreed with her positions and thought she had good character.
The attempt to make Hillary a verb is Hillary-ed by Althouse.
From now on, the Democrats can only run minorities. They can't win with white males anymore unless they are an incumbent, or gay, or trans or something that makes them a minority.
Why?
Because Democrats must be victims. They have no choice. You couldn't be critical of Obama unless you were a racist. Obama is the light bringer. He is perfect in every way. The only way to understand disagreement with Obama is to understand it comes from racism.
The same goes for Hillary. Hillary had a gazillion times more smarts than Trump. Everyone knows that. She is more experienced. Smarter. More everything. And she has all the right positions. She is both Left and Right. The only possible explanation for not voting for her is sexism.
And the same must be true of whomever the next Democrat candidate is.
It isn't about ideas. Democrats have all the right ideas.
You only disagree with them because you are a racist, or sexist, or homophobe, etc.
"Remind me who first appointed a woman to the Supreme Court?"
Nixon wanted to after Carswell and Haynesworth but he couldn't find a good candidate.
You are sexist and racist because the best defense is a good offense.
The white left, Warren's base, will be left out of the racial spoils systemthat they are working so hard to create.
Ginsburg cagily said, "There are so many things that might have been decisive" and "But that was a major, major factor."
Without sexism Hillary wouldn't have won the primary so I have to agree it was a major factor.
Warren is too much like Hillary, is the takeaway.
BS. When a decent female candidate runs she will have a decent chance to win. Fauxahontas is not a decent candidate.
Wasn't one lesson from the reversed sex play of the debate that TRUMP was the one who suffered from gender expectations?
From the post title, I thought this was going to be about how Hillary keeps other women from running, and she put a roadblock in front of Warren.
There's lots of qualified and ambitious women out there, but Hillary wanted to be first and everyone is willing to sacrifice women for Hillary's ego.
It's what Hillary has done for decades.
To my mind being Hilary-ed means getting a full pass on criminal investigation
Please, keep saying sexism. Can you imagine the first 100% Oprah designed victim president? Help! I've been oppressed all the way to the White House!!! Now, who shall we bomb first?! Oh, executions?! Sure, we can do those first. We're victims... we're allowed.
The audience claps and whoops though she's just said essentially nothing.
I've noticed that leftists whoop a lot whenever a left-wing talking point is uttered.
For the contest, I offered a traditional vanilla shake with a little bit of dog shit in it, but it was Hillary'ed by the judges.
Warren, despite being an inveterate liar and hypocrite, hasn't had anyone killed that we know of and isn't married to a rapist. So she has that going for her.
The foregoing arguments (against "Hillary-ed" entering the lexicon) are IMHO strong. But a stronger one yet is simply euphony or the lack of it. "Bork" is one syllable with a strong finish. It echoes "fuck," which is persistent both for its semantic punch and for its mouth-feel. If words were wine, "fuck" and "Bork" would be Barolos.
Compare with "Hih-la-ree-(duh)." A long weak string of nothing, trailing off into some loser of a past participle.
I just don't see it ever taking hold. It stands for nothing and it has no music.
Interview with Supreme Court Justice turns into "The Jerry Springer Show."
""Do you think sexism played a role in that campaign?" A role. Obviously, it had some role."
Oh, so? Why "obviously"? Are you saying that "sexism", whatever that is, is so common that no evidence need be offered, we can simply assume that it "played a role" in every human transaction?
"even if you believe that some attacks on Hillary were unfairly sexist."
Ah. So sexism played a role, but not necessarily "unfair" sexism. I suppose that "fair sexism" is the sexism of the fairer sex, right? Which does, indeed, appear to have played a role in the election.
Warren per Legal Insurrection is prepping for a 2020 Presidential Run. A wiki on her that Legal Insurrection set up on her:
Elizabeth Warren Wiki
Elizabeth Warren would be 70 in 2020, and does not do unscripted well. There seems to be a concerted effort on playing the women electoral angle, and I am not sure if this is just the effect of Hillary's book tour, or laying a foundation for a Warren run. The test will be if it persists past December with the end of Hillary's book tour. Or do the Democrats believe this will help them in the mid terms, by trying to portray all Republicans as anti Women.
Blogger Bay Area Guy said..."To me, this would be sexist. You generally agree with the candidate's position, but you don't like her for some vague reason.
As to Hillary, I disagreed with her positions on taxes, abortion, gay rights, foreign policy, and other items, and thought she was a power-mad, crooked sleazebag, with a sleazebag husband.
So, I don't think sexism played a role. I would readily vote for a female candidate, if I agreed with her positions and thought she had good character."
I find the charge that Hillary lost because of sexism insulting.
This whole American kabuki about women in politics is bizarre.
I am tempted to dismiss the whole thing as pure propaganda, except that there are a large number of women who really do believe it. How they hold on to such a strange emotional response is hard to explain. Maybe it is the result of decades of propaganda?
Anyway, around the world women are regularly elected heads of state, without a fuss. The Philippines has had two, both backed by the most conservative elements of local politics, and that is an enormously more conservative society than Americas. Spain and France havent yet had one, but that is simply a matter of chance, and a female head of state would not evoke the American feminist religiosity.
This just doesn't happen anywhere else on earth.
Thats what it is I think, a very parochial (hah!) American religion.
Look, we all know that if Palin runs for POTUS in 2020, the same liberals now jabbering about "Sexism" would be back making "sexist" Anti-Palin remarks.
The whole point of all this is to convince stupid white women to vote for Female Democrats.
so, Rose says that Ginsberg is "one of his most favorite people".
good thing the MSM are completely impartial and objective, or that might cloud his reporting.
How they hold on to such a strange emotional response is hard to explain.
Perhaps. I don't try to explain it, merely acknowledge it and the fact that most women constantly act on and indulge their feelings and emotions and refuse to look at things from a rational viewpoint.
Some even go so far as to attempt to argue that emotion is a valid part of reason.
Repeal the 19th.
There seems to be a concerted effort on playing the women electoral angle
Leftwing women.
And they're prepping for Kamala Harris.
Well, I do think Warren is hypocritical and untrustworthy. She is, after all, a Democrat.
Gahrie: "And they're prepping for Kamala Harris." Indeed. She is a two-fer and young enough and smart enough to be a real threat.
Also, like most Democrats, she seems to be unencumbered by a conscience. So call it a triple threat. Seriously! Imagine a well-coached Obama type with T&A. Formidable.
Sounds like an artwork: Democrats That Cannot Touch Each Other
Others above have said this well - that the sexism wasn't in women voting for Trump, but that the Dems and Crooked Hillary expected them to vote for her simply because, at least at one time, and maybe presently, she had a vagina and a uterus, no matter how shriveled up it is now. Trump didn't expect men to vote for him because he was a man, but Clinton expected women to because she was a woman. That is sexism, and shows that she was the sexist candidate, basing much of her message on a sexist appeal.
Vince Fostered.
Obviously, it had some role.
If something is obviously true one should be able to cite an obvious example.
If I'm not mistaken the Democrats control sixteen state legislatures and governorship's. Maybe they can spot a clue in this. They also do not control the Congress and the White House (and to Trump of all people). This is also another clue. So far, they appear to be militantly and willfully clueless. They sure are making it hard for the GOPe in Congress to lose despite those Republican's desperate heroic efforts to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
You've been Warrened.
I think there already such a verb. A warren is a maze of interconnected burrows inhabited by rabbits. The word seems to a gerund derived from an Old French verb meaning to defend against. I've personally heard this used as a past participle, "We can't ride over this ground. It's warrened."
I do expect that the Dems will run a woman in 2020. Maybe Fauxhauntis Warren. Maybe Harris. Maybe even Crooked Hillary again. Don't think that it will work any better this time around, only because this sort of sexist demagoguery doesn't play as well in the states that they would have to carry as it does in the states that they will likely carry. And they will likely be facing a Presidential Trump waging a Rose Garden campaign. If I were advising Harris, I would advise sitting 2020 out in favor of Warren, and plan on running in 2024. She is young enough that if the Dems won in 2020 anyway, she would have plenty of other chances in the future. Not the case with Warren, given her age. She sat out 2016, in favor of Clinton, so has to be counted as the front runner, at least in the female candidates, for 2020.
Someone pointed out above that Harris is a twofer. So is Warren - fake Cherokee female. No more contrived than Trans. Despite not having the Ivy League law school background (until she managed to leverage her fake Indian heritage into an affirmative action slot teaching at Harvard), Warren is very likely the brighter of the two. Harris, in Congressional hearings recently, has shown herself to be an intellectual lightweight on the order of Al Franken. Franken has the excuse of being a professional comedian, and not an attorney. Harris is not only legally trained, but was the CA AG, which should have guaranteed that she could competently interrogate witnesses in those hearings. She can't, making her look foolish almost every time she opens her mouth in such. The other thing that Obama had, that she doesn't appear to have was the ability to keep his mouth shut and head down as a Senator. He was a cipher, able to project everyone's hopes onto himself. He could pull off being the Hope and Change candidate. She likely won't- there is just too much footage already out there showing her to be the leftist wacko from the land of fruits and nuts.
"Hillary-ed" = telling the unvarnished truth about a leftist woman.
That is sexism, and shows that she was the sexist candidate, basing much of her message on a sexist appeal.
It's obvious you haven't been a university student for a long time. Just as racism is by definition a characteristic only of white people, sexism is a characteristic only of the male of the species. In fact given the multiplicity of genders sexism is the defining characteristic of maleness.
I would pay to see a cat-fight between Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.
I mean, a political cat-fight, jeez.
I am not Laslo.
Its so convenient to place blame for all that ails you on "isms".
That will get you more Trump.
Keep calling anyone that disagrees with you politically a racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, Islamophobic deplorable, irredeemably so, and what do you think they'll do?
give you the finger, mutter "FOAD" under their breath, and keep voting Trump.
Why do I think that the Democrats will nominate a woman in 2020? Because they are the sexist party, just as they have always been the racist party, for better than 200 years now. The Blacks got their Black Presidency. It is the women's turn now. That is how that party works. Next after that is very likely a Hispanic President, unless the Republicans beat them to the punch there. The party has, for a very long time now, operated by divvying up the spoils based on the power of different factions in the party's ruling coalition. This was very obvious by the way that cabinet posts, and the associated fiefdoms, were divvied up by Obama. And can be seen whenever they control a big city political machine.
I caught part of the interview. (I hate my life.). She looked old and frail, but her face was surprisingly unlined. I was disappointed that Charley didn't ask her if she's had any work done. RBJ could help take the stigma out of these procedures if she would proudly announce her commitment to help American women overcome blephaptorosis........She seems like a very nice lady who has led a long and successful life and not just on a professional level. I can't understand, however, what would motivate a sane and honorable person to keep sitting on the bench at such an age.
"It's obvious you haven't been a university student for a long time. Just as racism is by definition a characteristic only of white people, sexism is a characteristic only of the male of the species. In fact given the multiplicity of genders sexism is the defining characteristic of maleness."
ThT really only works in deep blue portions of the country. Trump won, in part because that sort of nonsensical philosophy is seen as just that - nonsensical.
"I can't understand, however, what would motivate a sane and honorable person to keep sitting on the bench at such an age."
Power and political philosophy. With the election of Trump, she will likely be replaced by a relatively conservative Republican. Right now, the liberals on the Court have a chance at peeling off one of the more moderate Republican appointed Justices (esp Kennedy and maybe Roberts), and saving some of the progressive activism that she has worked for for so long. I expect a fairly sharp right turn with the Court the minute that she is replaced, since the right there will no longer have to cater to the moderate whims of esp Justice Kennedy (my guess is that the real reason that CJ Roberts appears so moderate is that he switches sides on big cases when losing is inevitable due to a Kennedy defection, in order to control the writing of the majority opinion, as is his prerogative as Chief Justice).
One plus of Trump is you're allowed to criticize him. Not the case with Obama and wouldn't have been the case with Hillary. Hello, SNL should be rejoicing...how tedious would that whit have been if she won?
Crude insults about (say) Sarah Palin: Perfectly fine.
Crude insults about Elizabeth Warren: Completely unacceptable.
And they will likely be facing a Presidential Trump waging a Rose Garden campaign. If I were advising Harris, I would advise sitting 2020 out in favor of Warren, and plan on running in 2024.
I agree. Harris is almost as nasty as Hillary, as shown by her hectoring at a Senate hearing. Plus she is too young at 52 to be a Democrats' candidate for anything. They like them well seasoned.
Everyone loves a victim! The way to success is to whine until other people give you respect.
"Warren is very likely the brighter of the two. Harris, in Congressional hearings recently, has shown herself to be an intellectual lightweight on the order of Al Franken. Franken has the excuse of being a professional comedian, and not an attorney. Harris is not only legally trained, but was the CA AG, which should have guaranteed that she could competently interrogate witnesses in those hearings. She can't, making her look foolish almost every time she opens her mouth in such."
Harris has been called "smart" here and in other forums. My only impression of Harris is from watching her badger Mike Pompeo about freakin' climate change. It was not a favorable impression.
There will be a woman President soon. A female candidate starts with an advantage; lots of people want the symbolism. I hope the "first" moniker isn't wasted on an incompotent ideologue like the "first" black President was. The thought of either Warren or Harris fills me with dismay.
A first-order forcing. Just like CO2 is a first-order forcing of global warming, and anthropogenic CO2 is a a first-order forcing of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, right?
In this context, character matters and is a first-order criterion.
That said, would a male who exhibits prominent gender transition that is limited to mental characteristics (e.g. homosexual) rather than physical characteristics (e.g. medical corruption) qualify for the female chauvinist vote? In other political contexts, sex and gender are fungible ("=") or politically congruent.
I'm guessing "Hillary-ed" means criticizing any female State-shtupper. It's like "Swift Boating." It originally referred to people who had served in the Swift Boat usit with Magic Hat Kerry pointing out unfavorable stuff they remembered about him; then the term morphed into, "Criticizing any candidate* based on things in their history."
*Especially, I suspect, "liberal" candidates (and by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-shtuppers."
RBG looks incredibly old, thin and frail to me. I know nothing about her health other than that superficiality.
"Harris is not only legally trained, but was the CA AG, which should have guaranteed that she could competently interrogate witnesses in those hearings."
Harris got her training lying on her back, from Willie Brown.
I don't remember Tracy Flick claiming to be Native American to advance her career. Was there a sequel? Also, Flick fucked her teacher to get ahead.
I'll be in my bunk. As soon as rhhardin can lend me his DVD of Election.
Hmm, they might have spelled the name wrong.
William Chadwick
9/28/17, 2:12 PM
Yeah, my first thought went to Kerry and swift boating too. At first they claimed it was just people who didn't serve directly with Kerry until it was pointed out that the "Swift Boats against Kerry" included his entire chain of command. Then it morphed into people who didn't serve on the same boat as Kerry until it was pointed out that it included the one guy who served on that boat for the longest time.
The Dems really screwed up by nominating Kerry. They should have gone with Lieberman.
The Dems really screwed up by nominating Kerry. They should have gone with Lieberman.
Weren't they trying to drum Lieberman out of the party at that time? If not it was shortly thereafter.
She was Hillary'd?
Cut out the middle-verb:
She got Schlonged.
Kate, WisRich; bravo.
Great minds 'n all that...
Misogyny was not a big factor in my vote. I would cheerfully have voted for Sarah Palin. Hillary? Not so much.
It's simple. Hillary Clinton is a fucking monster who doesn't deserve to be around civilized people.
Sarah Palin was unavailable for comment.
"That was different Because Shut Up"
rcocean at 11:49 FTW!
Did anyone threaten to rape and hate ---- Hillary? Or is that kind if gendered language ok so long as the targets are Republican women?
Oprah in 2020! BWAHAHAHAHA! Grab some popcorn!
donald said...
It's simple. Hillary Clinton is a fucking monster who doesn't deserve to be around civilized people.
Truer words never recorded. What I cannot understand is the number of people I know who are otherwise decent people who believe she is a saint. I finally had more than I could take one day and said to one of them, " If you support Hillary you accept her lack of morals. I always thought you had higher standards. " No, neither he nor his wife have spoken to me since.
Reading "Shattered" right now. The entire Hillary! campaign was one hot mess. She had an attitude of entitlement and she repeatedly found it impossible to connect with the American electorate. She and the campaign never developed a unified message, no one could list any real accomplishments and people just didn't like or trust her. Her history of poor decision-making is legendary.
We Deplorables would vote in a heartbeat for a Golda Mier, a Margaret Thatcher, an Ann Armstrong, or, potentially, a Nikki Haley. Felonia von Pantsuit was not the right woman for the time or the job. The charge of sexism is the first refuge of a failed LibCong female.
Can Warren get Hillary-ed? I was not aware that her beloved hubby is a serial rapist that she has been covering for for years.
She must really be good. I don't know the name of a single one of his conquests.
I'd rather get Hillaried than Palined or O'Donnelled. She who was so sexistly attacked she had to cut an ad assuring people she was not a witch.
If you care about a female candidate, you're not helping her by encouraging people to think of her as being like Hillary, even if you believe that some attacks on Hillary were unfairly sexist.
I agree with this.
Ginsburg cagily said, "There are so many things that might have been decisive" and "But that was a major, major factor."
Not a bigger factor than her phoniness, mendacity and constant need to present herself as a victim who sees the world exclusively through gender-colored glasses.
The charge of sexism is the first refuge of a failed LibCong female.
It's what she always does, and that's because she sucks so bad as a candidate. Perhaps she's as knowledgeably talented about policy as they say, but she's a shit politician. She really did think she could outsource the election to the National Human Resources Department. What a sucker. I'm glad she lost. Fuck Human Resources and fuck identity politics!
You KNOW Hillary is awful, stinking shit when even Ritmo has nothing nice to say.
Godwin convention.
There's no doubt that women of shallow character and malignant morals excuse Hillary's corruption.
Liars come in all genders; some wear Brioni, some wear pantsuits.
But I had a friend repeat something his father had told him about "three kinds of people in the world".
The first kind--the good and effective kind "make things happen". They lead, they serve, they are competent and get things done.
The second kind--the more passive types and probably the majority of the world "watch things happen". They are different than those who make things happen, but at least they participate and observe, and, maybe like Obama tend to show up and at least vote "present".
The third kind--the truly non self aware, non observant types. (Short hand for that is "clueless shmucks") say and do a different thing. They do nothing; They know nothing. But they tend to ask "What Happened".
The third type knows no gender. Indeed it could be represented by anyone of the more than 31 sexual identities or categories that supposedly exist.
Of course Trump--for good (sometimes) and for ill (oft times) is in the first category.
Obama, the oft times passive observer is in the second category.
And Hillary sure as heck is in the third category. She even wrote a book about it, entitled "What Happened".
I suppose those books are easy enough to write when you are lying on your back (Hillary actually can lie and does lie in all possible body positions) looking up at the transmission case of the Mack 18 wheeler that just ran over you.
Can you be sexist against men?
There is probably a swab test NCIS types could do to see how many women voted with their vaginas......
(Gawd, what a horrible expression).
FYI Liz Warren, she of calling Trump voters "a stew of racism" and telling "all blacks" to fear the police, has a legitimate opponent this cycle: Geoff Diehl.
www.Diehlforsenate.com
Much like Swift Boating, it will have two different meanings depending on the user's point of view. 1) The outing of a hypocrite with tales from the other men that were there or b) smearing of a hero (forget that what they brought forth was true).
Harridan's Ride
A Jeux de Fille coveting fame
Laid siege to the public domain.
On her broken-down nag
The 'orrid 'ole hag
Came a cropper obscene and profane.
How many people voted for Hillary because she is a woman? How many people voted against Hillary because is a woman? If the former is greater than the latter, then she lost in spite of sexism. If the latter is greater than the former, she lost because of sexism.
Or something like that.
Bruce,
Harris fucked her way into the CA AG position--why is it surprising she's not actually good at the job-related tasks?
damikesc,
"One plus of Trump is you're allowed to criticize him."
Indeed. How's that saying go, again? Ah yes: "Vote Republican--it's the only way to get the press to do their job!"
As a woman, I refuse to vote for any candidate for any office who requires the electorate to change who they are for her - even if that means requiring them to stop being sexist.
Political office is something you win. It is not something you earn or can claim to be entitled to. You win it by being the best candidate, and anyone who can't take the electorate just as they are and persuade them is not, by my definition, a good candidate. Some jobs are not compatible with affirmative action thinking, and anything requiring leadership ability is one of those jobs.
Warren just published an editorial decrying "right to work" laws in an attempt to push her bill banning such laws. Swinging to the extremes (on either side) isn't going to win you an election.
(And how the hell is the NLRB constitutional?)
Post a Comment