Remember in 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama kicked off the calls for quota presidencies?
To be fair, he didn’t exactly start the calls, but he was the champion of the movement, and when he stood and declared that his name would be used against him, invoking the spectral “they” as the ones who would stand against him, solely because of his name, it was on.
It’s a liberal trick: Create victims, then use said victims as battering rams to push through their pet causes.
The fact that at the time, junior Senator Obama was barely known outside of Chicago, and was little more than a seat holder in the Senate, showing up just to vote “present,” in most cases wasn’t a good enough reason to reject him as a candidate, or as president.
The dastardly “they” were defeated. Twice.
We got the liberal, victim class president that the Democrats wanted, sans any real record of achievement and all was right with the world again (Please ignore the skyrocketing national debt, downgrade of national credit rating, advancing terrorism abroad and at home, and race relations set back 50 years).
Now, with the tensions at a peak, President Obama is going back to that same tactic, and declaring that “they” are back, and the only reason Hillary isn’t walking away with this election is –
Obama, speaking at an event in New York City on Sunday, suggested Americans are biased against “powerful women,” which is why Clinton isn’t running away with this election.
“There’s a reason why we haven’t had a woman president,” Obama said at the fundraiser for Clinton. “We as a society still grapple with what it means to see powerful women and it still troubles us in a lot of ways, unfairly.”
Just last week Nancy Pelosi, another powerful woman, said that third party candidate, Gary Johnson, was taking votes from Clinton.
Apparently, she hadn’t got the memo, yet.
We’re not blaming third party candidates, Nan. Sexism. Sexism is what we’re going with.
Obama added later: “This should not be a close election but it will be, and the reason it will be is not because of Hillary’s flaws.”
No. Not at all. The mountain of scandals, corruption that comes more natural than breathing to her, incompetence in her job… none of that is enough to turn people away from her. In liberal circles, those are actually job qualifications, not disqualifiers, so it must be something more insidious.
What our president is suggesting is that she is owed the presidency, just as he was owed the presidency in 2008, in order to right historical wrongs. He has spent the past 8 years fomenting civil unrest, based on race, class, and now begins the battle of the sexes, on a battlefield that was cleared long ago.
As a woman, and at the expense of costing me my vagina card: We don’t need a woman president to prove gender equality. We need a competent and ethical president, regardless of race, sex, or religious affiliation (not that we’ll get it, this year).
If Obama was so worried about gender equality, he should have just moved aside in 2008, but he didn’t.
Obama’s claim is further belied by a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, which found broad majorities of both men and women happy that the milestone of a woman nominated by a major party has occurred, they just wish it was someone other than Clinton.
Just not her.
That’s not a sexist society.
It’s a cynical game the Democrats have been playing with us, and the media will help them along. Unfortunately, we, the voters, are stuck between a very big rock and a hard, hard place.
Is it too soon to start looking at 2020?