Hillary Clinton is waging the most sexist campaign in the history of presidential contests by showing up, dumbing down, girling up, and pretending that her husband’s sexual indiscretions — past, potentially present and possibly future — just don’t matter.
But sex matters.
And sexual harassment — defined as relations between subordinates and the powerful people for whom they slave — matters, too.
Candidate Clinton infuriatingly plays the chick card, rejecting reality as she sprints to the finish line of the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, the cherry on top of a long and sordid career that was founded not on her talent as a deep thinker, stellar speaker or gifted public servant, but on her sterling credentials as a Grade-A doormat.
She seems to believe she deserves the White House — as she did a United States Senate seat and her perch as secretary of state — as payback for putting up with ex-President Bill, who turned her into the pathetic punch line in a long-running joke.
And while I’d enjoy seeing Bill neutered as First Man under the watchful eye of a possible Madam President, I must ask: Is this any way to run a country?
Hardly.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign boils down to three interchangeable platform planks:
1. Don’t vote for Republican front-runner Donald Trump — he’s on his third marriage! (And he hurt my feelings by saying I was “schlonged’’ in the 2008 presidential campaign, and took a “disgusting’’ pee break during the last debate).
2. Don’t think about voting for Democratic rival Bernie Sanders; he’s an anti-female bully who said he heard me “shouting’’ about gun control.
3. I’m a woman, suckers! You can’t touch this.
Clinton lately has entered into a phony cage match with Trump, changing the subject from issues of national and global import to whine about his clumsy takeoff on the word “schlong.’’ The Yiddishism seemed to convey that the candidate who lacks one was outfoxed by a decidedly male President Obama. Hillary has taken The Donald’s juvenile “schlonged’’ schtick dead-seriously.
“It’s not the first time he’s demonstrated a penchant for sexism,’’ she told The Des Moines Register.
Hillary is attacking Trump (and Sanders) essentially for failing to watch their tongues with a lady present, while deftly avoiding the elephant in the room: her scoundrel husband.
Trump’s relationship with his first wife may have overlapped with the woman who became his second wife — much to Hillary’s delight.
But rather than fall back, Trump has come out swinging, rightly saying on TV’s “Morning Joe’’ that it’s “open season’’ on Hillary’s hub.
Well, she started this.
The former prez, who has started campaigning for his wife, is “one of the great woman abusers of all time,’’ Trump said on CNN Monday.
“I think that Hillary is an enabler,’’ he added.
I was against Bill Clinton’s impeachment, a humiliating show trial charging the then-leader of the free world with lying about accepting the on-her-knees sexual favors of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. (He was acquitted by the Senate in 1999.)
But I believe that, as Bill Cosby’s wife, Camille, encouraged her hub’s carnal appetites by looking the other way as he strayed, Hillary is complicit in Bill’s philandering by attacking the targets of his wandering eye.
I find it reprehensible that the woman who has set herself up as the Woman’s Candidate for the nation’s highest office thinks nothing of trashing her own sisters in her zeal for power. She reputedly was the brains behind efforts to quell the “bimbo eruptions’’ that threatened to derail Bill’s first presidential campaign.
She once dubbed Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon,’’ a close pal wrote in her journal.
Hillary needs to start respecting women. She must stop defending her louse of a husband and quit tearing down her romantic rivals. It’s wrong. It’s selfish. It’s sexist.
Stop rush to judge just Cosby
Bill Cosby has been tried, convicted and cast out of polite society by the media and in the court of public opinion by folks convinced he drugged, sexually assaulted — or tried to — nearly 60 women who’ve come out of the woodwork to point fingers at him. But it’s his alleged victims I worry about.
Women have been so thoroughly infantilized by feminism, they can’t be trusted to know when they’ve given sexual consent.
Cosby is a hypocrite for serially cheating on his wife while acting as the black community’s moral authority.
But there’s a reason he was never charged with a crime until recently: Most, if not all, of his accusers appear to have had sexual contact with Cos willingly after taking drugs to get in the mood.
Now he’s charged with indecent sexual assault in a 2004 Pennsylvania case that Cosby already settled for money out of court.
Whether or not he’s convicted, the man is toast.
And so are the women.
Souring on sweets
Researchers from the University of Texas determined that mice eating a diet rich in sucrose — aka high-fructose corn syrup — were more likely than rodents on low-sugar diets to develop breast cancer.
This, after killjoys at an agency of the World Health Organization decreed that gulping down processed meats, including yummy bacon, is carcinogenic to humans, as much as tobacco and asbestos.
I guess those determined to live long, healthy lives shouldn’t eat or drink anything — especially if they’re small, fuzzy critters.
A crying shame
I’m crying, too.
President Obama this week tearfully announced executive orders aimed at stopping the kinds of mass shootings that killed 26 kids and adults at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School, and 14 others at a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif.
But the measures are doomed to failure.
They’ll only prevent suicides by blocking immediate access to weapons, according to an Associated Press review.
Members of Congress have refused to pass stricter gun-control laws favored by the president. Can the insane spate of murders be stopped?
I don’t know. But I’d like to see lawmakers try.
Hey, NY Times, what the buck?
This trend story should win a Pulitzer Prize for stupidity.
A New York Times scribe reported that investment bankers, lawyers and other high-income professionals are more likely these days to marry people engaged in similar careers, rather than secretaries (I thought they were called assistants) and their high-school sweethearts. Emergency!
Unions between social, educational and economic equals propagate dreaded “income inequality,’’ according to the Times.
Seriously. I guess potential spouses better get back in the kitchen, pregnant and barefoot, before landing cash cows. It’s only fair.