The press had better be careful what they say and write about secretive and polarizing Hillary Clinton. If they slip and use one or more of 13 words and phrases to describe the current Democrat Party presidential hopeful, they will be immediately ridiculed, in full-on Saul Alinsky mode, as being “sexist” faster than Barack Obama can use the race card.
A group of sycophantic, anti-free speech followers calling itself HRC Super Volunteers, described the 13 words, if they are used to describe the calculating and disingenuous Hillary Clinton, as somehow being “coded sexism.”
We are HRC Super Volunteers, We are Legion, We do not allow sexism, We do not forgive words like “polarizing” or “calculating” Expect us.
— HRC Super Volunteers (@HRCSuperVols) March 25, 2015
Among the words and phrases deemed as somehow being sexist by the group are ones often used to describe politicians of any race, sex, or political affiliation, such as secretive, “will do anything to win,” “represents the past,” “out of touch,” polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, entitled, etc., etc.
If the same words are used to describe Republicans Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, would they then be considered racist, or shall we just call such attacks “code racism?” Just trying to understand the logic here. Because I’m pretty sure two can play this (dumb) game.
The overly ambitious Hillary Clinton, who seemingly feels entitled to the presidency even though her supporters cannot articulate one accomplishment she’s achieved, “represents the past” anyway.
Recent polls indicate that Democrat voters are ready for a fresh face, and want someone who will roll back Obama’s destructive policies, something Hillary won’t be willing to do.
Would it be sexist to say that Hillary wouldn’t be anything more than just another corrupt lawyer without the benefit of riding on her husband’s presidential coattails?
Probably, but then again, what difference at this point does it make?