Maureen Dowd, "When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism": Murder, She Wrote?

Tweet

"There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!"

- Madeleine Albright, speaking on behalf of Hillary Clinton's candidacy

Can you imagine a male candidate for president, Democrat or Republican, applauding and laughing raucously when endorsed by another man, who declares to the crowd, "There’s a special place in hell for men who don’t help each other!" I can't. Such a mistake would be fatal. But then I also couldn't imagine two PBS "NewsHour" journalists, Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff, moderators of the Democratic debate on  Thursday, failing to ask Hillary a single question about the State Department subpoena served upon the Clinton Foundation. Was this "feminism" or "sexism" at work, or just journalistic ineptitude?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "My Undiplomatic Moment," Madeleine Albright yesterday attempted to explain away her controversial "special place in hell" comment supporting Hillary's candidacy. Albright wrote:

"However, I do want to explain why I so firmly believe that, even today, women have an obligation to help one another. In a society where women often feel pressured to tear one another down, our saving grace lies in our willingness to lift one another up. And while young women may not want to hear anything more from this aging feminist, I feel it is important to speak to women coming of age at a time when a viable female presidential candidate, once inconceivable, is a reality."

Maureen Dowd, however, will have none of this. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism," Dowd writes:

"The interesting thing about the spectacle of older women trying to shame younger ones on behalf of Hillary is that Hillary and Bill killed the integrity of institutional feminism back in the ’90s — with the help of Albright and Steinem.

Instead of just admitting that he had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and taking his lumps, Bill lied and hid behind the skirts of his wife and female cabinet members, who had to go out before the cameras and vouch for his veracity, even when it was apparent he was lying.

Seeing Albright, the first female secretary of state, give cover to President Clinton was a low point in women’s rights."

Ouch!

Any discussion of Hillary and feminism, however, would not be complete without mentioning the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation by Saudi Arabia, a country which whips and imprisons gang rape victims.

And then there is also that small matter involving Hillary's tweet on November 22, 2015:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

Which was followed by Juanita Broaddrick's tweet on January 6, 2016:

"I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away."

With a little luck, all of this talk about Hillary's candidacy will be rendered moot when the FBI weighs in with a recommendation concerning the use of her home server for sending and receiving top secret government communications (including emails exchanged with President Obama, who claims he never knew that his secretary of state was using a private server). Further afield, my guess is that if Hillary is forced to withdraw from the race: a) no one will ever again pay her anything approaching $500,000 for a speech (although maybe she could make a paid guest appearance on "The Biggest Loser"), and b) her marriage to Bill (of convenience or inconvenience) will end within a year.

By the way, it is fast becoming apparent that Elizabeth Warren was wise not to endorse Hillary. Two days ago, in a Boston Globe article entitled "Why Elizabeth Warren can’t endorse Hillary Clinton," Eric Fehrnstrom wrote:

"Stumping for Hillary Clinton before the Tuesday vote, Madeline Albright delivered her now-famous 'special place in hell' warning to women who don’t help other women. If the Clinton campaign was sending a not-too-subtle message to Senator Warren, they’re going to have to wait a long time, maybe until hell freezes over."

Hell, however, could freeze over if Hillary - a narcissist, not a feminist - runs against Donald Trump, also blindly enamored of himself, in November, which is not so far off.

Stay tuned . . .

David Brooks, "The Depravity Factor"

Bless you, David Brooks!

I am usually critical of almost everything that finds its way onto the op-ed page of The New York Times; however, Brooks's "The Depravity Factor" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) was a startling exception.

Brooks tells us that there won’t be peace so long as depraved regimes, such as Syria and Libya, and depraved organizations, such as Hamas, are "part of the picture." He tells us "to focus on the nature of regimes, not only the boundaries between them." And he concludes that the "Arab reform process," rather than negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, "is the peace process."

Brooks begins:

"By now you have probably heard about Hamza Ali al-Khateeb. He was the 13-year-old Syrian boy who tagged along at an antigovernment protest in the town of Saida on April 29. He was arrested that day, and the police returned his mutilated body to his family a month later. While in custody, he had apparently been burned, beaten, lacerated and given electroshocks. His jaw and kneecaps were shattered. He was shot in both arms. When his father saw the state of Hamza’s body, he passed out."

Here is a link to the video that the boy's family placed on the Internet and to which Brooks refers. THE PICTURES OF THE DEAD BOY ARE GRAPHIC AND HORRIFYING, AND DO NOT VIEW THIS VIDEO, WHICH UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE SEEN BY CHILDREN, IF IT IS APT TO CAUSE YOU MENTAL DISTRESS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7flXwSv9aQ0

I would add that this is far from the only graphic evidence of the brutality of the Assad regime (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/assad-hillarys-reformer.html), and I have been calling upon the Obama administration to recall the U.S. ambassador to Syria for the past two months, but to no avail (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html). Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010, and Obama is reluctant to acknowledge his mistake (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html).

Brooks states:

"World leaders have tried sweet-talking Syria, calling Bashar al-Assad a friend (Nancy Pelosi) or a reformer (Hillary Clinton)."

But among Americans, Pelosi and Clinton are not the only ones who should be ashamed. Consider the conduct of Senator John Kerry, whose special relationship with Assad was scrutinized by The Boston Globe (http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-28/news/29483723_1_assad-senator-john-kerry-damascus):

"Kerry, a leading proponent of the Obama administration’s controversial attempt to improve relations with Syria, has publicly warned Assad not to kill his own people. But Kerry has not called for him to step down, as he did with embattled leaders in Egypt and Libya."

Kerry wants to be the next secretary of state?

And what about Jimmy Carter, who has often met with Assad and bragged that he has known the Syrian leader since he was a college student (see Peggy Shapiro's "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us": http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html).

Today, I am expecting a bloodbath in Syria when Syrians leave the mosques and confront Assad's security forces, which are being assisted by thugs from Hezbollah and counterinsurgency experts from Iran. As I have stated in the past, Assad's days are numbered, notwithstanding the indifference of the Obama administration to this human tragedy.

[To my "friends" from Assad's security apparatus in Damascus who regularly read this blog: Time to start packing your bags, boys.]

The New York Times: Obama in Retrospect "Naïve"

In a New York Times editorial entitled "President Assad's Crackdown" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/opinion/29fri1.html), the Gray Lady finally acknowledged that Obama had blundered in Syria and that his policy in retrospect "looks naïve", but not without peevishly alleging that Bush had done no better:

"President Obama came into office determined to engage Syria and nudge it away from Iran and toward political reform. Even after the violence began, Mr. Obama and his aides kept quietly nudging in hopes that Mr. Assad would make the right choice.

In retrospect, that looks naïve. Still, we have sympathy for Mr. Obama’s attempts. Years of threats from the George W. Bush administration only pushed Syria further into the arms of Iran — and did nothing to halt the repression or Syria’s support for Hezbollah."

Nothwithstanding his faux pas, The New York Times editorial board attempted to present Obama in a positive light and to observe what measures could still be taken by the president:

"The president’s patience has apparently run out. Last Friday — the bloodiest day of the uprising — he issued a statement condemning the violence and accusing Mr. Assad of seeking Iranian assistance in brutalizing his people. That is a start, but it is not nearly enough.

. . . .

What the United States and its allies can do (British, French and Italian leaders have also been critical) is rally international condemnation and tough sanctions. They can start with their own unilateral punishments — asset freezes and travel bans for Mr. Assad and his top supporters and a complete arms embargo."

There was no call by the editorial board for Assad's ouster, but why should this come as a surprise? Obama is also not calling for Assad's ouster. Nor is Hillary, who referred to this monster as a "reformer". Nor is Senator John Kerry, whose special relationship with Assad was recently scrutinized by The Boston Globe (http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-28/news/29483723_1_assad-senator-john-kerry-damascus):

"Kerry, a leading proponent of the Obama administration’s controversial attempt to improve relations with Syria, has publicly warned Assad not to kill his own people. But Kerry has not called for him to step down, as he did with embattled leaders in Egypt and Libya."

How charming of the man who wishes to be the next secretary of state.

But what about the sanctions sought by the editorial board of The New York Times? We are told by the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=218494):

"US President Barack Obama signed an executive order earlier on Friday imposing new sanctions against Syria's intelligence agency and two relatives of Assad in response to a crackdown on protests, senior US officials said.

Assad was not among those targeted for the sanctions, which will include asset freezes and bans on US business dealings, but he could be named later if violence by government forces against pro-democracy protesters continues, the officials said."

In short, Obama is still seeking to mollify Assad. Meanwhile, at least 62 more civilians were shot dead by Assad's security forces yesterday (see: http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=218480).

This is no longer "naiveté" on Obama's part. This is "immorality".