News & Politics

Constantly Defending Hillary with Charges of Sexism Is Actually Sexist

Constantly Defending Hillary with Charges of Sexism Is Actually Sexist
(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

According to her ardent supporters (all 17 of them), Hillary Clinton is a powerful, accomplished woman whose résumé is so overwhelming that she deserves to be the next president of the United States. Those who question this, however, are more often than not accused of being sexist. Not because anything sexist was actually said, you see, it’s merely a lazy, catch-all defense designed to create a fog around the flaws of a generally unlikable candidate:

Here we are sixteen years into the new century, on the (long overdue, many would say) verge of electing a woman to the most powerful office on Earth, and we’re not supposed to be too inquisitive about her bona fides because the Leftist powers that be are focused solely on checking off another “Historic First” box.

Mrs. Clinton should be subjected to the same scrutiny that every male candidate is but, more often than not, those in her corner want a separate rule book for her because, you know, she’s a girl.

How insane has it become? A United States senator said it’s sexist to question Hillary’s health.

We never do that with male candidates, do we?

What seems lost on the Clinton faithful is that shouting “Sexism!” in an unceasing, cacophonous frenzy every day is, in fact, quite sexist. This isn’t golf, where the tees can be moved closer for the women to handicap the game. We’re talking about someone who wants to be commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world. She either hits from the championship tees or our enemies laugh us into submission.

I am in no way saying that there aren’t people in the United States who think Hillary shouldn’t be president simply because she’s a woman. Still, it’s 2016 and people who pretend nothing’s changed in the last fifty years are simply disingenuous. Noting that she has a creepy smile isn’t the same as saying she should shut up and make sandwiches for the menfolk. Actually, commenting on the way a candidate looks is as American as the apple pie no one is telling Mrs. Clinton to bake.

Labeling virtually every criticism of Mrs. Clinton as “sexist” is reminiscent of the last eight years regarding President Obama and race, especially at the beginning of his term. It was not only racist to question the legislative soundness and economics of Obamacare, it was racist to even call it Obamacare. That was until President Obama started calling it that.

MSNBC never cleared up whether he was a racist for doing so.

To say that leveling the same charge in every situation dilutes that charge when it genuinely is applicable is an understatement. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” on steroids. It is difficult to recognize real sexism when you have writers claiming that people talking over each other in a political debate gives women “Real PTSD.”

Maybe she should get out and meet more American women.

As we’re dealing with leftists here, there is no shortage of “feminist” males (yeah, I’m still unclear on the concept) shrilly shouting “Sexist!” from one coastal media bubble or another. Here’s one who is oh-so-concerned that commenting on Mrs. Clinton’s voice is out of line.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Jeb Bush, sexism victim.

Why nitpick for things to call sexist? Let’s really get this bad mama jama going and just say that sexism is her real opponent here.

While not an optimist by nature, I occasionally feel some in the morning in the glorious time between the first cup of coffee and the first glance at the news on my phone or computer. On the days when the optimism bug really bites me, I often hope that somewhere out there on America’s progressive left, someone is waking up with a scintilla of embarrassment.

That never lasts long.

Most of you know I have college-age daughter. We raised her to be a strong, confident, and independent young woman. Nowhere in that equation is a built-in excuse to hide behind when things get tough or uncomfortable. Excuses like that are weak, and one would assume that self-proclaimed feminists wouldn’t aspire to that.

As we are all aware, most grievances in the Social Justice Warrior Pantheon of Whine are designed to do one thing: shut down debate. It’s certainly easier for the Team Hillary people to bark “Sexism!” like seals at Sea World than it is to address her glaring lack of real accomplishments as secretary of State, her ever-changing email scandal, or her frequent bizarre interludes on the campaign trail. Just vote for her and shut up already, especially if you’re female.

It’s not surprising that deflection and obfuscation are the key components to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. She was, after all, the one who really turned this into an art form in the ’90s, beginning with the infamous “vast right-wing conspiracy” nonsense she made up to cover for her husband’s inability to keep his pants on in front of women who weren’t her. The “VRWC” morphed into “Republican attacks” and has now reached its minimalist apex as a single word, “sexist.” It’s all rather Hemingway-esque.

By the way, if you bring up any of that now it’s, well…yeah.

None of that, however, projects strength. Reducing every campaign conflict to its gender components diminishes Hillary Clinton and the sad (or hilarious, depending on your mood that day) thing about it is that none of her supporters grasp this. Through their blind efforts, it’s nigh on impossible to see Hillary as a former active first lady, a former senator, or a former secretary of State.

All they do is yammer on about the fact that she’s a woman.

That’s kind of sexist, don’t you think?