Hillary Clinton's Disdain for Masculinity and the Feminazi

This was just go good to pass up! It is an interesting read. It does not play to well for Hillery being much of a diplomat or a comander and chief. Please comment as you see fit.

Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.

It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.

Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip.
sorce

The one thing I don't like about Hillary is how she is such a supporter of women's rights and equality, yet she stays with her cheating husband. This is quite degrading to women in itself isn't it? I can't understand why people voting for her do not see this! She is also a big flip-flopper on almost every political issue there is. I think she would be a very weak leader, and make weak decisions.

Hillary Clinton is an ambitious woman. She and her husband make an ambitious team. Establishment media sources have gone so far as to characterize their relationship as a marriage of convenience.

Chances are good that you know somebody in your home town that married for the sake of their ambition. As a matter of civics, we should disdain anyone who is so obviously hungry for power. It's a sign of poor character when a person can't help showing off their drive for political prestige.

I watched Hillary on the campaign trail in 1992, and it was clear to me then that she was the real brains of the operation. A lot of peole in my immediate circle said, "she wants to be President more than he does."

We should be clear about one thing. Anyone who fights their way to the White House wants it more than the rest of us do. You need to have unmatched ambition to get the highest office in the land. As Americans, all we ask for is that the candidate act with a small degree civic virtue, and some semblance of good manners.

I've been active as a writer/essayist since 2004. I'm not the only one who has been making a step-by-step case against Hillary. ATS and AP members from all political points of view have been saying much the same thing. On this one issue, there is a high degree of agreement.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know what comes next. As Mr.s Clinton rises to power, her party will hold super-majorities in the House and in the Senate by 2012. From the start, she will spin the failing Bush43 economy as something she can't stop "without your help." That's code for more taxes bigger government.

Look for her administration to get a lot of good press from the MSM when she reduces or even eliminates overseas troop deployments. Remember that she's got a lot of political debts to pay. Some of those debts will be paid off by allowing "her people" to get some of those Middle East defense contract goodies. Expect that to last 'til the end of her first term.

Our civic challenges won't be limited to another Clinton Presidency. Your privacy rights will be under assault in ways that Bush43 hasn't yet thought of. Your second ammendment rights will also be in jeopardy. Nobody should be surprised if the economy is allowed to get worse so that her regime can accomplish more of those "social reforms" that she will spend so much time talking about, after she takes the oath of office.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Justin Oldham]

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Justin
thanks a bunch for your well though out words. I had never really said marriage of convenience when it came to her before, although be it I do think that statement is correct. The marriage of convenience does explain what was talked about in the commentary that I quoted this thread on. Meaning it explains Bills affairs, and the reason Hillery stays with him. It is sad that this nations foreign policy may soon be headed up someone with so much disdain.

reply to post by MiKeB420


Not really. The whole point behind feminism is to put women on equal footing with men, with the right to make the same choices and decisions, rather than having them made for them. If Hillary wants to stay with Bill, that is entirely her choice to do so. Dumping him is hardly the only option.

Hell, maybe she's glad he goes somewhere else to get laid.

I see your source is the anti-feminist Camille Paglia. So much for objectivity. Hillary was active in politics since she was in high school. She met Bill Clinton in law school. Did it ever occur to anyone that he married her partly because he saw her as an asset to his career, not the other way around? These threads are so predictable. Any woman who runs for president would have to be a feminist, and all feminists hate men, right? Yadda yadda yadda.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Sestias]

If Hilary becomes president .....
will our missiles be shaped differently ???

Quietly minding their own business and reading a book doesn't sound like a feminist or a nazi to me, nor am I sure why reading at a football game is disrespectful.
Football players have thick skin. They can deal with half naked fat men yelling at them while they're trying to do their jobs, and they can deal with their fans leaving in the middle of their performance to get beer and nachos... I think they can handle someone reading a book.


Hillary strikes me as an unlikable person. That much I will admit. I see her that way because the phrase "near-messianic personal ambition" seems very appropriate to her. But thats politics for you. I could say the same thing of George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Richardson (Richardson is the worst offender in the whole field), Fred Thompson, and to a lesser degree Ron Paul and Barrack Obama... and that's just the list of people in whom I really saw that quality all at once. I'm sure the others possess it to some degree or another as well.

Obama pretty much came out and said it in his book, and he was right- running for office is an inherently arrogant exercise. You've got to be just a little bit of a self-aggrandizing jerk to think that your country needs you, wants you, or could even survive you. A normal person with a healthy dose of humility would probably say that its best that they aren't running for office (i'm guessing on that one though, because I'm a poli sci major and I'm one of those self-aggrandizing jerks).


I think Hillary gets unfairly singled out on this because she's a woman. I know some people will say I'm just playing the sexism card, but I'm not going to try and deny centuries upon centuries of social precedent.

Western civilization has put the fairer sex on a pedestal, and then stuck that pedestal in the back corner of the basement for hundreds of years.

Even those of us who respect women and don't think of ourselves as having any trace of misogyny in us have still learned the things we know from a culture that hasn't quite accepted women as equals yet.

I know this because I can see what that external quote in the first post is saying and I want to agree with it at first glance, but when I think critically, I realize that Bill Richardson is actually a bigger offender and yet he infuriates me less.


So I temper my dislike for Hillary. Do I want her to be my president. No. I think she's been dishonest, I think her ideas are inferior to those of Barrack Obama in some respects, I believe that her popularity is owed in some portion to the simplicity of the American electorate, and I think she's a polarizing figure who will strengthen the Republican party and create a stalemate between them and the Democrats, resulting in inaction at a time that desperately demands action.

But in all of that she is no worse than Ron Paul or Rudy Guilliani (incidentally, those are the names of men who don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Hillary Rodham would be a third such name, if not for having Clinton affixed). So if she is no worse than Ron Paul or Rudy Guilliani, I think it is only fair that I despise her no more than them, and react no differently in the event that she does become president.

So cut Hillary a little extra slack- not a lot necessarily- just a few feet more than you are initially inclined to, however much or little that might be.

Just thought I would throw in some jockularity here...



Her emotions are just like my kitchen sink faucet...

On or off depending on what the situation demands...

Semper

I have little doubt the emotions will be turned on and off to suite the situation. The uncertainty however is how the public will react to them. For the time being I will leave it at that because I don't really know.