Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“I’m with Her,” One Year Later
With the recent news about rampant sexual abuse in Hollywood, I was reminded of my unposted article on Hillary’s ironic campaign slogan. One year later, this piece is now more pertinent than ever.
After a viral video showed looped footage of potential POTUS and Bosnian sniper dodger Hillary Clinton collapsing at the 9/11 Memorial in New York, her campaign proved her unequivocal ability to lead the free world by demonstrating she can open an unsealed jar of kosher dills on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night enablerthon. Take that, conservatives and sexists! Hillary is woman, hear her Vlasic crunch!
Between ubiquitous Subaru and Pious Prius bumper stickers along with her sycophants screaming at those not as tolerant as them, we cannot escape three little words that The House of Sad came up with to grab her gender-centric voting block — “I’m With Her.” Congratulations Chappaqua, this may be the most accurate combination of nine letters ever to describe today’s Left.
I’m.
This is rampant clinical narcissism and the self-indulgent preference of one’s own feelings over facts. A limited worldview so obtuse, it can only be bested by the accumulated intellectualism found on a Jesse Waters spring break interview with soused coeds in Daytona.
There is no arguing emotion. If you disagree, you’re a hateful troglodyte. Or, as perfectly encapsulated at today’s University campus counseling sessions for the perpetually aggrieved, “Your rights end where my feelings begin.”
I’m is where the left lives. Its pietism toward the preposterous would be the stuff of constant mockery outside of the right-of-center forums if the Left didn’t own everything. The hypocrisy is rank.
The schizophrenic and fraudulent premise of I’m reminds us of the funhouse mirror scene in Man with a Golden Gun. Nothing is as it seems. Right is left, up is down. Selfish is selfless. Herve Villechaize is yuuuge.
I’m is self-love. And when you’re in love, at first you don’t see the bad in that special someone. Their egoistic, self-absorbed rhetoric is based in their insecure, wrongheaded yet dictatorial blathering on how peons should live.
- I’m perfectly able to make my life decisions and should be able to abort a baby after 20 weeks, yet I’m alive so I deserve government-funded healthcare.
- I’m holding disdain for organized religion, especially Christianity, but vigorously endorse religiosity of rising sea levels as it will impact where I’m living.
- I’m an advocate of minimum-wage increases although I’m an economic illiterate and have never made a payroll.
- I’m salving guilt over super-sizing diabetic value meals while digesting chunks of putrid industrial-caged animal flesh, but those second amendment rednecks shouldn’t be allowed to hunt their own food.
- I’m supporting illegal immigrants. It isn’t a national security issue. How dare those xenophobes who want to build a wall? They will surely inconvenience my illegal housekeepers, gardeners, and those picking my organic kale.
- I’m not rich. Those who are, cheated. I deserve mine.
With.
Instead of focusing on merit, the Left has constructed a dependent generational underclass that’s only learned option for reliable sustenance is the fully embracing safe harbor of government.
All policies enacted by the Left are to protect the Left’s power by increasing the number of society’s vulnerable who can then be bused into voting booths.
They have masterfully changed the political debate from brain-numb academic policy to raising suspicion over bigotry. If you are against a policy, you are against people. Racist! Sexist! Homophobe! Argument over.
Free markets? Too risky for you. Lower regulations? Corporations will abuse and poison you. School choice? Sorry parents, teachers’ unions know what’s best for your children.
The Life of Julia, the 2012 Obama campaign push to women (a major Democratic voting bloc) idealized government dispensing goodies to Julia, a fictional woman, at each stage of her life, literally cradle to grave. From government cheese in kindergarten, to mandated contraception and Obamacare, then to Medicare, Obama policies gave women opportunity due to his generous dispensation of other people’s money.
Sexist Romney and his binders full of women will reverse the 19th amendment and put you all back in chains.
Women cannot have a fair shot without government. The odds are against you. You may be smart, but white men will not let you climb the ladder. They certainly won’t give up the keys to the executive bathroom.
Only the generosity of politicians can help you. Men will leave you. Stay with government. The government will stay with you.
Her.
This is the culmination of 50 years of identity politics. We must elect her because of gender. We must break the glass ceiling! It’s “her” turn! A Hillary presidency will be the pinnacle triumph of the feminist movement.
Yet, Hillary’s support due to her gender is contradictory; a blatantly sexist response to perceived sexism. Anyone who questions the gravitas and controversy of this candidate beyond her biology is a misogynist. They actually managed to take her 50 years of public service experience and reduced it down to genitalia.
Vagina, good. Penis, bad. Orange penis, evil.
During Hillary’s first run in 2008, we heard crickets when right-of-center types questioned the double standard of how feminists could abet the Clintons.
Because her political affiliation was correct (Republican women aren’t real women) the media never went more than two levels deep prodding these questions. Power brokers all provided cover for Bill’s unquestionable infidelities and alleged sexual abuse of women. We see this cover not only in DC but with their more handsome counterparts, the Hollywood liberal elites.
Who championed Bill Clinton more than Tinseltown after he was impeached for obstruction of justice culminating from sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?
Hillary took a page from Hollywood who not only remain(ed) silent about abusive behavior by their own powerful men but tacitly endorse(d) it. “Hotel meetings” can lead to opportunity and privilege. That’s the price of admission to gain access to the right parties and the best people. To assure entry, you must go down darkened passages for your swag bag of fame, fortune, and power.
Don’t ask, don’t tell is the rule and those who don’t break it may just end up holding an award at the Dolby Theater.
No decent person allows their wives, daughter, sons, or girlfriends to endure being used as chattel for the mere potential of working. Yet, Hollywood allows the abuse, enables the abusers, and financially supports like-minded politicians.
Liberal intelligentsia ignores Hollywood duplicity and cliched victims of the noir-humored “casting couch.” Actors, directors, casting agents, and producers all turn a blind eye. (Sorry you delicate children, I forgot to add “executive” in front of “producer.”)
Sexually abused women, young girls, and boys are necessary roadkill. Abuse is even considered an opportunity which may provide their own Norma Desmond closeup.
They will say “Hillary Clinton isn’t personally responsible for her husband’s misdeeds or those of her supporters in La La Land. She didn’t rape Juanita Broaddrick in that Arkansas hotel. She didn’t assault Paula Jones, Eileen Wellstone, Kathleen Willey, and others.”
True, but her husband did. He was impeached and lost his law license. She worked hard to protect him all while accepting contributions from her supporters in Hollywood who do likewise with their own victims. No one knew? “Everybody knew.”
It was her husband, not Donald Trump who admitted to inserting a stogie in his much younger intern in the Oval Office. Monica may have been of legal age and thought she was in love, as younger girls often do with their powerful abuser. Those doe eyes, looking up at the man she dreams of, who also happens to be the President of the United States. She was repeatedly accosted in the most powerful office in the solar system. The ultimate abuse of power.
Hillary worked feverishly to discredit Monica and every other woman who had the temerity to put a spike strip down on the road to her mountaintop. Those aren’t real women, daughters, mothers, or sisters anyway, just “bimbo eruptions.”
In a choice between standing up for all women or grasping at her own power, she chose herself and stood by her (serial sex abuser) man. She said “it’s my turn.” Quid pro quo. After all, we know from the Clinton Foundation that Hillary does pay-for-play very well.
But where were those feminists? Her supporters disgraced themselves. Dunham, Steinem, Streisand, Boxer, Cher, and those charming ladies who host “The View” also traded their integrity for power. They dreamt of state dinners, big interviews, prestige and Page 6 coverage. They didn’t say squat. Like Hillary, they were complicit in his abuse.
If Meryl Streep’s daughter at 22 was sexually assaulted by POTUS 42 and the First Lady protected him, what would Sophie have chosen?
The Clinton sex abuse scandals would have been the immediate downfall of any candidate with an “R,” and rightly so. The politicians, media, and movie stars would ensure a tsunami of outrage. Yet, only in today’s Washington/Hollywood liberal corridors can abuse by their own last for decades without a peep.
For three measly words, they betrayed everything they stood for.
Published in General
It’s all OK if you have the right political views, until it isn’t. Now, finally, it isn’t OK. Unless you’re Muslim. Then it’s OK right, or am I racist if I think it’s not OK. Oh I’m confused. Not sexually. Much. Hold me Dave.
Ha! Watching the Left eating their own reminds me of Shel Silverstein’s Hungry Mungry.
@docjay might be able to prescribe something for that. Just sayin’.
So much in this piece I don’t know where to start…
Leave it to Killary to come up with the most narcissistic campaign slogan (& of course book title).
great synchronicity with Romney & Trapper Keepers… it was on Oct 17, 2012 he made that humourous gaffe (unless you’re a *feminist* who takes umbrage with any minor infraction).
but most of all… kudos to you on the continued use of the Oxford comma … :-)))
An oldie but goodie:
Just some cover up mascara and less Vitamin A. Now if it was chrome plated I might know a gal…
My first thought when Hillary’s people announced the “I’m With Her” slogan was it sounded too much like “I’m With Stupid”, and I rejoiced.
When Trump came out with “Make America Great Again,” I thought that is was ironic that the so-called narcissist mentioned the entire county in his slogan while Hillary just mentioned herself. My next idea was that the ideal t-shirt would be and “I’m with stupid” t-shirt with Hillary’s ‘H’ with an arrow replacing the regular arrow.
She should have at least had a t-shirt labeled ‘Her’ with the Hillary ‘H’ arrow pointing up.
It’s too bad Bill never wore an “I’m With Her” t-shirt on the campaign trail. Because if he did, we’d have lots of great pictures of Bill standing next to young beautiful women with the “I’m With Her” arrow pointing at them.
I’m sure such images can be made,I mean found.
I confess I had to look up “bohica”.
Now having done so, I regret having only one “like” to give.
Twofer….
But she can shimmy….
Thanks for finding that, Kozak!
Dave Sussman,
Great, thought provoking post.
An untitled poem at one of your links (It’s by Scott Rosenberg and is about the years he worked with Harvey Weinstein.) has me wondering if people like H.R.C. don’t sometimes summon some creative talent to silence the victims of the bullies and/or predators who are important to them. I want to quote a few lines of Rosenberg’s poem, and point something out about them, to show why I would be wondering.
“(and, it should be noted: there were many who actually succumbed to his bulky
charms. Willingly. Which surely must have only impelled him to cast his fetid net
even wider).”
In these lines of pseudo-Victorian sensibility, you notice that this Bard of Hollywood shifts the blame—the blame for impelling Weinstein’s increased or wider “fetid net” casting—away from everybody’s silence (especially, then, away from the silence of the powerful) and onto the….um…. succumbing-around…..of the many who have not been named. You also notice the weird emphasis on “Willingly”.
What would be the effect of these lines on anyone who was having—or who could be alleged to have been having—a casual sexual involvement with Harvey Weinstein, prior to a meeting with him in which he turned intimidating or much worse?
I would think the lines would have a very quieting effect on that person for this reason: she wouldn’t be worried people wouldn’t believe her. She be worried about being seen as just another rank fish in that “fetid net” once they did.