suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

HILLARY CLINTON’S “DON’T VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE I’M NOT A WOMAN” CAMPAIGN

320wde_Chasm-of-Unbelievability-Pt3 Did you know that Hillary Clinton is “a woman”? You’ve heard her say she’s “a woman” if you’ve listened to any one of her speeches. She’s quick to then change the subject, to redirect audience attention, but when sensing a possible loss of contact, she’ll then quickly repeat that she’s “a woman” with perhaps also a laugh or a look around and talk about Eleanor Roosevelt and the ether of intuition, however vaguely (refer here to her referencing “skin as tough as a rhinocerous” [a rhinocerous is a horned animal] combined in one quick series of images — Eleanor Roosevelt, woman, women, rhinocerous -&- tough skin — you get the epitome of a passive-aggressive if not homosexual emphasis by subliminal suggestion, least of all a gender emphasis on woman-not-woman, form-not-following-function or perhaps, a change of function despite the form; Hillary knows what she’s talking about here, she’s engaging in suggestive fantasy, she’s leading the listener to her other territory but by a gratuitous, if even perverse, context).

Didn’t notice she was a woman? You’re not listening, you’re not reading, she says she’s a woman with every appearance. She changes the subject in the very same breath, though, just as magicians do manually to deflect your attention away from the magic trick underway, and she uses the “I’m a woman” followed by the more forcefully said “but” term as to make the best magician proud.

What happens is the audience quickly pivots with her change of voice or head bop or hand wave and is far too gullible in eagerness to deny — with her — that she just said what she just said, that she just led the elephant into the room and has quickly laughed with everyone that it really isn’t there. But it is. And then she uses the elephant to move the chairs in the room around — that very elephant that the audience knows is there but avoids looking at, the big, invisible “women’s” elephant.

So, if you criticize Hillary Clinton for engaging in her “women’s” politics, you’ll be the bad visionary who sees the elephant and admits it’s there, while Hillary and the unseeing can * tsk * tsk * you to rid you from their midst (but you’d better leave the elephant where you found her).

I wouldn’t go so far in explicit language as have Tucker Carlson and Eugene Robinson in this exchange from MSNBC, but I agree with their take on this Clinton gender-not-gender politic; and, I’m a woman, obviously, but I don’t find “women’s” politics to be appealing — I never understand exactly what is IMPLIED by “women’s” vote or politics nor do those who engage in the use of it explain specifically what they imply by the term and suggestion of organization — but remember, Hillary Clinton makes it an issue as to her candidacy (she’s a woman, woman vote for her, woman as President, women’s vote) and she does so consistently, so, since she’s made this an issue, it’s reasonable to analyze why and what it means:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: All these women in their 90s come to my events. And they come and they wait. Sometimes they’re in walkers. Sometimes they’re in wheelchairs, like a daughter or granddaughter bring them. And then when I’m going around shaking hands, they will say something like, I’m 95 years old and I was born before women could vote. I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That was Hillary Clinton talking to women, the women who host ABC’s “The View” and the millions of American women presumably who watch that show. According to polls, Mrs. Clinton has widespread appeal to female voters. If you talk to her campaign, it’s women who are going to carry her to the nomination and eventually the White House.

A memo from chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn says that 94 percent of women under the age of 35 said they are more likely to vote next November if a woman, Hillary, is on the ballot. Can that be? How much would it matter were it true? Here to tell us the “Washington Post’s” Eugene Robinson and the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, Cliff may.

Gene, this is an amazing statistic; 94 percent of women say they would be more likely to vote if a woman were on the ballot. I think of all the times I voted for people because were male. the ballot comes up, he’s a dude. I think I’ll vote for him. We’ve got some more genitalia, he’s getting my vote.

ROBINSON: Look, you didn’t have a choice all those times you were voting, right? You didn’t have choice of genitalia.

CARLSON: I do. I always vote the man.

ROBINSON: It’s a — when firsts happen they are significant. They say something about the society and how far it’s come and where it is. And, you know, not just that figure in that poll, but if you look at all the polls, really, that show her amazing strength among women, and you look at a state like South Carolina, my home state, where both in my paper, the Post and in “New York Times,” over the weekend there were stories about black women and how in a sense conflicted–

CARLSON: That’s interesting —

ROBINSON: — they feel about Obama versus Hillary Clinton. Part of that — not all of that, certainly, but part of it is, he’s African American. She’s a woman.

CARLSON: Part of it is loyalty to the Clintons, as specifically the Clintons, don’t you think. It’s not just the female.

ROBINSON: Absolutely.

MAY: Because if gender solidarity trumps all other interests I think that’s kind of sad. I don’t think racial or religious solidarity should trump all others either.

CARLSON: Do you think that people who are voting on the basis of gender solidarity ought to be allowed to vote in a perfect world? Of course they shouldn’t be allowed to vote on those grounds. That’s moronic. I’m sorry, I get bounced off the air for saying it. But it’s true.

ROBINSON: It doesn’t trump all other characteristics. There are a lot of women who are going to vote for Republicans in November because they’re conservative.

CARLSON: I’m merely saying the obvious, that you shouldn’t vote for her because she’s a woman. Here is what the Clinton campaign says: “Hillary isn’t running as a woman.” As Hillary says, she’s not running as a woman candidate. The only reason to vote for her is that you believe she’s the most qualified to be president.

That’s actually completely false considering the Hillary campaign — I get their e-mails — relentlessly pushes the glass ceiling argument. You should vote her because she’s a woman. They say that all the time. She just said that on “The View.” That’s their rationale.

MAY: At least call her a vaginal American.

(…)

CARLSON: I talked to two women today who I love and admire, who — I work in their proximity and they both said, I’m embarrassed that women would vote just on the basis of her gender or that would influence their vote.

ROBINSON: We’re talking about Democrats, first of all.

CARLSON: How would she be a different president because she’s a woman? Here is what I don’t understand. We need a woman. How is she going to be a different president because she’s a woman. I don’t get that.

ROBINSON: I don’t think she will be. But I think it will be significant if a woman is elected president of the United States, as it would be significant if an African American were elected president of the United States. For some people it was significant when a southerner is elected as opposed to northerner, when the first Catholic was elected president of the United States. It says something about the country.

MAY: Did Margaret Thatcher have more women voting for her than men? I wonder.

CARLSON: I suspect she had more men.

MAY: I suspect that is true.

CARLSON: She ran and governed as a man.

ROBINSON: Most of her election he she won pretty big. She probably did have.

MAY: She ran governed based on her views and her determination and her mettle. I think that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

ROBINSON: Talk to Margaret Thatcher about John Major and she thought he was kind of a woos. She leaned close and said, if only he were a man.

CARLSON: She was a tougher dude than he ever was, no doubt about it…

But there is just no.comparison between Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton.

Thatcher ran on character, not on gender. Hillary runs on gender and then hopes you won’t focus on character: her generalities are enough to challenge a seagull’s menu in a public park on any given Sunday. She says in her recent appearance on THE VIEW, “I try not to answer back anybody.”

And, on that THE VIEW appearance, additionally (“women’s” daytime “talk show” with a panel of women — I question the gender isolation and separatism of this program; and though I’m not fond of this program, finding it utterly unappealing even after the removal of Rosie O’Donnell, I’ve never found the venue of “women’s talk shows” to be worthwhile), Hillary tells everyone she’s a woman (again) and she’s asked questions “as a woman” about what “being a woman” “is like” “running for the Presidency” and then how she’ll manage things “afterward” as a woman in the Presidency interacting with other people in our world who perhaps won’t speak with or to “a woman” because she’s “a woman”…and it goes on and on into suggestive but consistently undefined, avoided specifics as to what they’re all talking about but they all assume they know what they all mean. I don’t follow.

Some comments from a Liberal-Clinton-supporter from another site (no link from me), in their attempts to disprove what Carlson and Robinson are saying, actually proves, instead, Hillary’s persistent reference of the “I’m a woman” coaching by Hillary in these quotes from her various speeches:

“I am obviously very proud to be a woman, but I’m not asking you to vote for me because I’m a woman, I’m asking you to vote for me because I believe I am the most qualified, experienced candidate.” — Hillary Clinton, February 2007

“I’m proud to be running to be the first woman president, but I’m not running because I’m a woman. I’m running because I think I’m the best qualified and experienced to hit the ground running and get the job done.” — Hillary Clinton, August 2007

“Obviously, as you can tell, I’m a woman and I’m a Mom but I’m running because I believe I’m the best qualified person to be president in January 2009.” — Hillary Clinton, January 2007

“I’m not running because I’m a woman, I’m running because I think I’m the best qualified and experienced person who can do the job.” — HIllary Clinton, August 2007

Did you get that? Hillary’s a woman, she says so, but she wants you to think of her as “not” a woman but she “is a woman” and she peristently, continually identifies herself as “a woman.”

320wde_HillaryClinton-NoCookiesEver The real and big issue of concern is Hillary Clinton’s use by denial that it’s being used the “I’m a woman” tactic for audience appeal, followed by her encouragement not to perceive her “as a woman but as” (a President, whatever) while she herself persists in this self-titling: she makes the “issue” of “I’m a woman” as foremost about her public personna then devotes a sort of magic trick machination in convincing others how and why they should deny referring to her as “a woman,” though she is, she’s told us so.

So, this is Hillary Clinton’s sleight-of-speech, her magic politics, the elephant that isn’t invisible because she says it isn’t so if anyone sees it, they can’t admit it’s there — but it’s a problem if you acknowledge that it’s there, over there in front and shuffling things around but don’t you dare tell it to stop, because, it’s not there. But it is: Hillary told us so, right before she told us it wasn’t there and only the elephant-seeing-but-deniers can talk about it.

It’s like some sort of subliminal advertising. In fact, it is. Subliminal advertising.

From THE SWAMP:

“…according to a Boston Globe story, Clinton’s staff is counting on women to push her over the top both in the primary elections and in the general election.

Not wanting to step on her women’s message of progress with a contradictory message reminiscent of past fundraising scandals, the Clinton campaign waited as late as possible today to release her finance report detailing the donors and amounts rounded up by accused swindler Norman Hsu…”

O N E C O M M E N T

  1. mcthorogood says:

    Editor’s Note: This site does not support Libertarian Ron Paul nor approve of the behavior by Liberals who are promoting Paul by way of Spamming sites and comments and poll pushing. However, the following comments by a Ron Pauler is being published here because it contains useful information about Hillary Clinton. This site does not vouch for the accuracy, however, of what follows:

    ——–BEGIN PAUL SPAM COMMENTS————————————-

    Oh my God!

    The U.S. election process is heating up, and the mud is spreading! Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. President, is being sued in the state of California in what may be the largest election fraud in U.S. history. All news of this case has been effectively censored in the U.S. mainstream media.

    Hillary may have violated the law by not reporting large contributions to her successful 2000 campaign for the New York Senate. Mr. Peter F. Paul claims that his contributions were omitted from the public reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, and Hillary denies all knowledge of these contributions. See the latest ruling in Paul vs. Clinton.

    Hillary even denies knowing Mr. Paul, who made the contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign. A video produced by the Equal Justice Foundation of America has been viewed more than 650,000 times. A case such as this would normally end any politician’s career in the United States.

    ——- END PAUL SPAM COMMENTS————————————-