Democrats waging war on women again

[franksolich]

For the third time since 2016--although there was also 2008 to consider--my gallantry for the fairer sex is being challenged, and just as in all these other cases, I never particularly liked the ladies I am compelled to defend.

The first was Hillary Clinton in 2008, clearly the most deserving candidate for the Democrats, given all the yeoman work she'd done for the party and its candidates since her husband first ran for governor of Arkansas.

But because Democrats hate women, they selected a multi-colored man who'd done little or no work on behalf of his party and its candidate (although admittedly due to his youth as compared with her middle-agedness).

Think of how much better off we'd be, had she been at the helm of state instead of this juvenile caricature and his ugly wife.

And then in 2016, she finally did get the well-deserved nomination, but only after bitter intra-part strife, as many Democrats preferred a senile old sourassed sourpuss over a much younger, more aesthetic woman.

And she got not nearly the enthusiasm for her campaign that Democrat male candidates had enjoyed, for which one can quite reasonably blame her loss to Donald Trump.

And then in 2018, Dianne Feinstein, who had labored for decades, for generations, on behalf of Democrat candidates was nearly defeated in the primary by some much-younger Hispanic guy who was not known for helping fellow Democrats.

Fortunately the August Lady made it, but it was a wasting battle she shouldn't have had to fight.

And now Democrats want to get rid of the vice-president Kamala Harris simply because she's unpopular.

Being popular is not a requirement for a vice-president.

Some might bring up the name of Spiro Agnew, who held the office under Nixon until resigning in 1973.

Agnew was not forced to resign because he was unpopular; he resigned because he'd been caught being naughty when governor of Maryland.

Alas! poor Kamala!  Used and abused by an anti-women Democrat party, she's now to be consigned to the dustheap.  When will the Democrats give up their war on women?

[BannedFromDU]

For the third time since 2016--although there was also 2008 to consider--my gallantry for the fairer sex is being challenged, and just as in all these other cases, I never particularly liked the ladies I am compelled to defend.

The first was Hillary Clinton in 2008, clearly the most deserving candidate for the Democrats, given all the yeoman work she'd done for the party and its candidates since her husband first ran for governor of Arkansas.

But because Democrats hate women, they selected a multi-colored man who'd done little or no work on behalf of his party and its candidate (although admittedly due to his youth as compared with her middle-agedness).

Think of how much better off we'd be, had she been at the helm of state instead of this juvenile caricature and his ugly wife.

And then in 2016, she finally did get the well-deserved nomination, but only after bitter intra-part strife, as many Democrats preferred a senile old sourassed sourpuss over a much younger, more aesthetic woman.

And she got not nearly the enthusiasm for her campaign that Democrat male candidates had enjoyed, for which one can quite reasonably blame her loss to Donald Trump.

And then in 2018, Dianne Feinstein, who had labored for decades, for generations, on behalf of Democrat candidates was nearly defeated in the primary by some much-younger Hispanic guy who was not known for helping fellow Democrats.

Fortunately the August Lady made it, but it was a wasting battle she shouldn't have had to fight.

And now Democrats want to get rid of the vice-president Kamala Harris simply because she's unpopular.

Being popular is not a requirement for a vice-president.

Some might bring up the name of Spiro Agnew, who held the office under Nixon until resigning in 1973.

Agnew was not forced to resign because he was unpopular; he resigned because he'd been caught being naughty when governor of Maryland.

Alas! poor Kamala!  Used and abused by an anti-women Democrat party, she's now to be consigned to the dustheap.  When will the Democrats give up their war on women?

     The Democrats' relationship with women can be summarized neatly by a phrase often used in cheap motels:

     "Your money's on the dresser. Clean yourself up and get out."

[SVPete]

...  Used and abused by an anti-women Democrat party, she's now to be consigned to the dustheap.

Aging very-used trollops become suitable for lot lizard usage.

[DLR Pyro]

And now Democrats want to get rid of the vice-president Kamala Harris simply because she's unpopular.

Does anyone think the left will learn the lesson that selecting someone for a highly visible position merely based on their gender, race, or sexual orientation is not a good strategy moving forward? 

Or will they remain so focused on achieving a "first" (first albino lgbt, first non binary quadrapalegic...) in who they select for a position that having the actual qualifications to do the job are not a primary factor?

[FlaGator]

Battered wife syndrome. "He only abuses me because he loves me"

[Aristotelian]

The left can't cope with real women, particularly not real female leaders.

[FunkyZero]

Does anyone think the left will learn the lesson that selecting someone for a highly visible position merely based on their gender, race, or sexual orientation is not a good strategy moving forward? 

Or will they remain so focused on achieving a "first" (first albino lgbt, first non binary quadrapalegic...) in who they select for a position that having the actual qualifications to do the job are not a primary factor?

I don't think I have ever seen the left learn a lesson, ever. They seem immune to the concept