Thursday, May 22, 2008

Or Maybe They Want To Do Him,Too?

I've been reading and hearing many times lately about the fissure taking place within the feminist movement concerning Hillary's campaign, and how some femmes are pissed off at other femmes for not supporting her enough, or worse yet, accusations of gender treason hurled at those who openly support the vaginally-deficient Obama.
Seeing a cat-fight such as this, to put it plainly, warms my little black heart.

At first glance,these two are really not that far apart on any issues. Both are socialists who's main goal is to move the nation closer to the collectivist dreams of Karl Marx than the liberty ideals set forth in the nation's founding documents. But even NARAL has come out in favor of Obama, tilted in his direction, I'm sure, not just by his all-out support in favor of killing any baby in the womb, at any time, for any reason(a sacramental act by NARAL standards), but by his willingness to have them killed even after they are born (I think it was called the No Child Left Alive Act). Great guy, this Obama is, ain't he? At least he's consistent.

Hillary, to her misfortune, has never had the chance to cast a vote on this most extreme act of compassion, and therefore loses the NARAL nags' support.
(C'est la vie, Bitch.)

But there's even more reason than this for true defenders of the weaker sex to support Obama over Hillary. It's all based upon Hillary's much proclaimed, but never itemized, years of experience defending and fighting for women.
Anybody (who wants to) can remember the Clinton years, both in Arkansas and in the White House. With Bill catting around with any willing 'bimbo' (Hillary's word), combined with the numerous accusations of of rape, sexual assault, and chauvinistic boorishness (remember him saying he would 'do' the Andean mummy girl?).

All those years of experience were spent largely defending his sexual predations, making excuses for his 'mistakes', trashing the girls who became public, destroying the lives of those who stood up for themselves, and using threats and intimidation (dead pets,slashed tires, anonymous phone calls, IRS audits, to name a few) against any women who dared to speak.
The self-proclaimed defender of women was anything but that.

I realize, of course, that I'm likely giving the angelic shrews of NARAL and NOW way too much credit. They also turned their backs on Bill's victims, defended him heartily on the talking head shows and in print columns,(I recall one femme who's name escapes me, proclaiming her own desire to 'do' Bill personally) then threw all their weight behind Hillary's political career (til now) with full knowledge of just who/what she was in regards to protecting and defending real world women against real world sexual predators.

I think that they prefer Obama just because he gives a better speech.

7 comments:

Brian said...

I wouldn't presume to speak for feminists, but I think it's likely that most women recognize the simple fact that voting for Ms. Clinton simply because she's female is just as silly as voting against her for the same reason.

little-cicero said...

"the vaginally-deficient Obama."

That is nothing short of sexist libel, Gino. You know as well as I that Obama's vagina is in as prime working condition as Hilary's, if not more so.

Jade said...

Vaginally-deficient. I am *so* going to try to work that into a conversation this weekend.

:)

Excluding the victims of rape, sexual assault, and chauvinistic boorishness... and just concentrating on the women who "did" Bill because of their own twisted desires... *those* women, IMHO, broke chick law by messing with a married man. I can't say they necessarily deserved the backlash they might have gotten per se... but they couldn't really have been surprised by it.

Gino said...

interesting, per 'ckick law':
what does the law say when the married man openly plays around and the wife is wise to it, but chooses to avert her gaze?

Mark Heuring said...

This is a very old story, Gino - honor among thieves, or lack thereof.

Jade said...

Chick law: You mess with a married man in a closed relationship, don't be surprised by the consequences.

Even if Wife if wise to it and decides to avert her gaze there is still the possibility she will decide enough is enough, and you'll end up in her cross hairs.

kr said...

Gino, I agree wholeheartedly that NOW and NARAL were disgusting regarding Bill Clinton and his betrayal of his vows[/his vows to Hillary/(I assume he was married in a church) his vows to God and all of his most important friends and family who were present/his implied vow to the State].

Of course, I think NARAL is generally disgusting and NOW often so, since their primary media face is the pro-abortion face. But to so totally betray any semlance of "women should be respected"?

Let's count:
NARAL/NOW destroy any credibilty for ground-level women, Gore was his own "spoiler," Kerry only appealed to the higher-ups in the Dem party (duh), and Hillary is making herself and her party ridiculous ... all of which is a measure of how messed up the Republican party is, that it will probably lose the next GE to these people!