[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]When it comes to discussing women in politics, there are distinctly two different set of standards: those for conservative women and those for liberal women.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]In keeping with this standard, the Washington Post recently detailed how the big ol’ meanies of the Republican Party have picked on Hillary Clinton so much that she has become a “damsel in distress,” a feeble woman in need of rescuing.
Meanwhile, the left still maintains that misogyny is around every corner and every slight imaginable is a result of this inherent rightwing sexism that is central to the GOP party line.
In, perhaps, the most off-base article to ever make the cut for the once-tenacious newspaper, Richard Cohen writes,
The idea is not for any Republican to win — it is for Hillary Clinton to lose. To that end, Karl Rove’s super PAC, American Crossroads, has been trying out various anti-Clinton TV spots, spending not a cent discussing the issues but millions and millions attacking her character. In ways Rove may not have intended, he’s having an effect. I want to defend Clinton.
Take the spot attacking her for Benghazi. According to the New York Times reporter who was invited to view the focus group assembled to see the spots, this one has at least one detractor. “I felt like it was a really low blow, even for dirty politics, to put the pictures of the people who were killed in Benghazi,” she said.
For starters, the character of a political candidate is fair game. Hillary has not only crafted a reputation for low character on her own, she is one half of the notoriously-shady Clinton regime that sullied the integrity of the presidency. To invite more disgrace without first considering her character is irresponsible.
Further, it is no “low blow” to highlight the consequences of her inaction in Benghazi. Fact: Hillary was Secretary of State during the attack. Fact: she refused repeated requests for increased security in the rapidly-destabilizing country. Fact: neither she nor Obama scrambled to get aid to the consulate. Fact: the narrative she, Susan Rice and Obama crafted in the immediate aftermath was and is demonstrably false.
Fact: the blood of these patriots is on her hands. At best, her negligence and inaction created the opportunity for such bloodshed. If pictures of her handiwork offend, that is too bad.
After discussing the “dead broke” comment and her deletion of emails, Cohen still gallantly defends Hillary, writing,
“Look. I have my problems with Hillary Clinton, which I have explicated in other columns, blogs and errant thoughts. She’s too defensive and often too packaged. She and Bill do have a tropism for scandal, and they sometimes hang with the wrong people — starting with Whitewater and Jim McDougal. But the incessant attacks on her, the parsing of every sentence, the jumping on her characteristic but harmless overstatements like “dead broke,” brings out the Sir Lancelot (or is it Galahad?) in me. She might not be a damsel in distress, but her enemies are making her into one.”
What is hilariously and unintentionally ironic about the whole article is that in this age of faux-enlightenment, where any and all references to female public figures is heavily scrutinized for even the vaguest whiff of something that can be contorted to be sexist, Cohen goes on at length about how Mrs. Clinton needs to be rescued from the big, bad bullies of the GOP who dare to attack her character.
Of course, another piece of unintentional comedy is the notion that anybody in the media or the GOP, has called Hillary out for even a fraction of her misdeeds and crimes.
This is just a glimpse into the media hell that will follow for the next year-and-a-half; liberals will continue to circle the wagon around the poor female candidate to shield her from the brutish bullies while, simultaneously, insisting that those who take issue with Clinton’s lack of leadership, charisma or common decency are out-and-out sexists.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]