All Criticism Of Hillary Is Sexist Or Something

We’ve seen this act back in 2008, where any criticism of Hillary was treated at sexism, even if it came from reliable leftist news sources. Well, it’s back with a bang. Or, is that a bark?

Anyhow

(The Hill) Women serving in the Senate say Hillary Clinton is being subjected to an unfair, sexist double standard on the campaign trail.

Criticisms of Clinton’s tone of voice have become prominent in recent weeks, stirring strong feelings among Senate Democratic women who say they too have had to battle the stereotype of the shrill female.

“She’s often judged by a double standard,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the dean of the Senate women.

“Many of we women feel that there’s a double standard. What’s being said about Hillary is what women have heard for centuries. You’re too loud, you’re too aggressive, you’re too pushy. Why do you want the vote?”

But, um, she is shrill. She is loud. She cackle’s. She laughs at inappropriate times. As for being too aggressive and pushy? I haven’t heard that one before.

Wanting the vote? It’s now sexist to ask why she wants people to vote for her? That’s a new one. And rather disturbing.

Female lawmakers were particularly galled by recent statements by Washington Post columnist Bob Woodward, one of the nation’s most respected journalists, characterizing Clinton’s tone as “screaming.”

“She shouts. There’s something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

She does shout. And, here’s something to consider, which will surely be deemed sexist: if women like Hillary, Mikulski, and the other mentioned in the story want to be treated equally, don’t want to be called delicate hothouse flowers, to say they are empowered, they need to be able to roll with the blows and suck it up, rather than devolving into whiners.

Of course, really, this is all about creating a situation where any criticism of Hillary is deemed to be sexist, because, let’s face it, she has a lot of issues, which will be right in your face if she wins the primary. Benghazi, her home-brew server and all the secret information contained on it. Her lack of successes while Secretary of State.

This is much like when any criticism of Obama was deemed to be racist. Voting “present” for almost half the votes while in the Illinois general assembly? Racist. Wearing mom jeans? Racist. Not allowing him to eat his waffle? Racist. And Hillary will be the nominee, no matter how much Democrats feel the Bern, because the game is rigged via the super-delegates.

Oh, and don’t forget, if you dare ask Hillary why she wants to be President, that’s sexist.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “All Criticism Of Hillary Is Sexist Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    All Criticism Of Hillary Is Sexist

    Clearly untrue. Only the sexist criticism of Secretary Clinton is sexist.

    Shrill, loud, shouty – all used to describe women. Clinton understand this the same way Obama understood what it means to be “not one of us”.

  2. david7134 says:

    Funny how Margaret Thatcher was looked upon with respect when she learned to control her voice, just like all the great orators through history.

  3. david7134 says:

    Of course Hillary is not near the class act that Thatcher was, nor as intelligent.

  4. Dana says:

    Would a white male with Mrs Clinton’s record ever be seriously considered for President?

    1 – She was elected to the Senate in 2000 because she was married to a popular President; Hillary Rodham would never have been considered for any office, because she had built no record.
    2 – She was appointed to become Secretary of State by her political opponent in the 2008 elections, and built a record in that office that could most charitably be described as pedestrian on the positive side, and disastrous on a couple of issues. To be fair, the President controlled foreign policy from the White House, leaving little for Mrs Clinton to build a positive record.
    3 – She has amassed a great deal of wealth by virtue of having married the right guy, and turns around and runs against the very people who have thrown money her way for being married to the right guy.
    4 – She is fundamentally dishonest. There was no reason whatsoever to go to the expense and extra effort of having her own e-mail server when the State Department provided her with all of that, for free, other than to try to retain control of her own records in violation of the law.

    If she were running for the Republican nomination, the media would have (figuratively) crucified her.

    Look at what happened to Carly Fiorina. Donald Trump made a couple of sexist attacks against her, and all of the other Republicans defended her against it. The other attacks on her were based not on sexism, but on her actual record as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, which was certainly fair game. In the end, Republican voters didn’t consider the sexist attacks, but whether they believed she was a good candidate. Unfortunately for her, their judgement wasn’t a positive one.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    How does Bill annoy Hillary while having sex?

    He phones her.

  6. Shrill, loud, shouty – all used to describe women.

    All used to describe lots of men, too. If women like Hillary want to play in the world of politics as such, then need to put on their big girl pants and stop playing the “owe, woe is me” card.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Dana typed:

    Would a white male with Mrs Clinton’s record ever be seriously considered for President?

    True, few former 2 term Senators from a huge state who have also been Secretary of State have run for President. So I guess ALL white males are less qualified.

    Can you name a white male 2 term Senator who was Secretary of State who has run? (Kerry became Sec of State after he lost the 2004 election.)

    This year, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Kasich, Bush … to name just six. I guess you could argue that Trump is an Orange-American and Roboto and Rafael are Hispanic. Mr. Trump is the likely Republican candidate and he’s “seriously considered”. Rafael Cruz is a Cuban-Canadian with 2 years of a Senate term and is “seriously considered”. Marco is a first term Senator and is “seriously considered”.

    In the past, Mitt Romney (1 term gov enacting healthcare subsidies and mandate, and tax increases), Ron Paul, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Pat Robertson, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, Gary Bauer, Pat Buchanan, Lyndon LaRouche etc. I’ll give most former governors a break.

    We get it. You don’t like Democrats, especially Secretary Clinton.

  8. Dana says:

    Jeff, there are very few positions which ‘qualify’ someone to become President; the most frequent previous position for Presidents is a gubernatorial seat. My personal choice in 2012 was Rick Perry, a governor for twelve years, while my choices in 2016 were Scott walker, a second-term governor, and Carly Fiorina, a former CEO.

    I’d agree: Senators Cruz and Rubio have far less real experience than I’d like to see, though Mr Cruz was also a state attorney general, an executive position. Jeb Bush was a two-term governor. The key with Lurleen Wallace Hillary Clinton is that her eight years in the Senate and four years as Secretary of State were twelve years of no real accomplishments and a couple of bad failures. If we throw in the health care task force she headed while First Lady, we see even more failure, producing a plan which was so bad that not one single part of it was passed by one single committee, in either House of a Congress controlled by Democrats.

    Hillary Rodham would have been a nobody, at best an ambulance-chasing attorney; Hillary Clinton is ‘somebody’ solely because she married the right guy.

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    She’s so cute when she barks and soooooo Presidential.

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    Someone’s been a naughty little bitch.

    Arf-arf-arf…

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/16/3037241/

  11. Hoss says:

    From somebody who thinks her best qualification for becoming president is because she has a vagina. Her and her defenders want her to be treated like a man, and when she is, she bitches she’s being treated differently because she’s a woman. Good old Shrillary’s bullshit never changes.

  12. Jeffery says:

    Conservatives think the best qualification for becoming president is a short, white penis.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9618 access attempts in the last 7 days.