Patterico's Pontifications

1/4/2016

Hillary Clinton, Noted Champion Of Women, Shuts Down Rape Survivor At Town Hall Q&A Event

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:25 am



[guest post by Dana]

Yesterday at a townhall in Derry, New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton continued to lead the Democrats and their war on women by shutting down former Democrat and rape survivor, Rep. Katherine Prudhomme-O’Brien (R). The representative confronted Clinton about Bill Clinton’s abuse of women and the candidate’s own subsequent war on women. Instead of meeting Prudhomme-O’Brien head-on about accusations of hypocrisy, the leading Democratic candidate made a stunning disavowal of her claims as a champion of all women by bitch-slapping the rape survivor questioning her:

The Washington Post amusingly comes to Clinton’s defense, first by providing the media narrative dismissing Prudhomme-O’Brien as nothing more than a “heckler”, as well as making no effort to follow up on the representative’s questions about Clinton’s hypocrisy like you would expect hope professional journalists would:

Prudhomme-O’Brien has for years followed the former first lady, peppering her with questions about allegations of past sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton. The state lawmaker’s outbursts startled an otherwise friendly and even-tempered town hall audience. It is unclear whether Clinton was able to hear her comments.

Well, considering Prudhomme-O’Brien was shouting from the third row directly in front of Clinton, if Clinton didn’t hear her, then I would suggest this grandmother has experienced some severe hearing loss. (Which begs the question, how could she even answer that 3:00 am phone call if she can’t hear it??) Moreover, if Prudhomme-O’Brien was already known to Clinton for having dogged the candidate about her war on women, it stands to reason that Clinton would shut down any effort made by Prudhomme-O’Brien to confront her, and it really wouldn’t matter if she heard her questions or not. After all, forewarned is forearmed. It has become apparent that the woman who believes she deserves the presidency has no intention of either letting up on her war against women, nor answering any questions about her obvious hypocrisy. And it doesn’t matter if those making inquiry are the very survivors of sexual assault that she claims to care about. Disturbing, yet expected, Clinton continues to reveal that she does not believe all sexual assault survivors are equal.

Interestingly, it’s not just Hillary Clinton waging the war against women. Notice the women around Prudhomme-O’Brien booing her efforts to get the candidate to explain herself on one of her signature campaign issues.

Note to Democratic women: It is weak and timid of you to not champion anyone who demands accountability from any candidate seeking to become your president. Time to lean in, little girls, and stop showing your frilly fearful underpants and clutching your pearls because an assertive woman demands answers from your candidate. This is what true equality looks like. When you boo an assertive woman for demanding answers and simultaneously treat Hillary Clinton with kid gloves, you make it very clear you are absolutely nothing about equal treatment and equality of the genders, but rather see yourselves, and all women, as the gentler sex and expect to be treated as such. Shame on you, and shame on your candidate for trying to silence even one woman. After all, it was Hillary Clinton herself who smugly explained to fellow Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders:

It’s just when women talk, some people think we’re shouting.”

Prudhomme-O’Brien cited Clinton’s own claim made last month on the campaign trail (and tweeted the previous month) as the basis for her effort to get Clinton to explain herself: “Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault, don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.”

Prudhomme-O’Brien later pressed her point to reporters:

I asked her how in the world she can say that Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey are lying when she has no idea who Juanita Broaddrick is,” O’Brien said. “She told me this summer she doesn’t know who she is and doesn’t want to know who she is. How can she assess that they are lying, which she told someone last month?”

Instead of Prudhomme-O’Brien being congratulated by the media, Democratic voters, and especially female voters for demanding that a presidential candidate address accusations of hypocrisy and double standards, Prudhomme-O’Brien instead found herself doxxed by a female reporter from NBC.

It remains to be seen whether Clinton takes a private meeting with Prudhomme-O’Brien and any other women who protest and disrupt her campaign stops as they demand answers for her double-standards and hypocrisy. After all, she was willing to do exactly that with Black Lives Matter members after they disrupted her campaign forums demanding answers. Wouldn’t equality demand she do that in this case too? Because certainly all women’s lives matter, right?

The bottom line is that the Democratic war on women continues unabated, and leading the way is the very pioneer of the movement, Democratic front-runner for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, who has for decades enabled her husband’s abuse of women and attacked and impugned the reputations of his accusers. The very woman who wants us to believe that if elected, she will be the champion of all Americans.

–Dana

39 Responses to “Hillary Clinton, Noted Champion Of Women, Shuts Down Rape Survivor At Town Hall Q&A Event”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Bill spoke and women rolled their eyes. Cosby’s wife isn’t standing by her man, perhaps Hillary needs to grow a pair and get a clue?

    Colonel Haiku (c5bbac)

  3. Sitting here in theater waiting to watch Star Wars. Pray for me.

    Colonel Haiku (c5bbac)

  4. I pray for the people around you if you’re playing with your phone at a movie.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  5. If Prudhomme-O’Brien was stalking hillary all summer, then hillary and her team of advisors should have been prepared for how they would handle a direct question. I guess they figured the best way was to handle her like they handled all of wjc’s victims in the past. Shut them up, hustle them out, and then besmirch their character with the aid of the media. Worked in the past. If Prudhomme-O’Brien doesn’t have a blue dress there’s nothing to worry about.

    Jim (a9b7c7)

  6. Once more: If you think Trump is bad picture this POS as pres. This filthy, lying grifter should be in prison.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  7. Hillary Clinton’s method of handling Katherine Prudhomme-O’Brien is never to call on her to ask her a question, even if the forum is theoretically open to the entire public, and to call her “rude” if she does shout a question, and to also claim she didn’t hear the question.

    Earlier, when Katherine Prudhomme-O’Brien apparently did manage to ask a question, she claimed she didn’t know what she was talking about and wasn’t interested in finding out.

    Hillary has also implied, that the evidence was against those claiming to have been sexually abused by Bill Clinton.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/1583/video-clinton-asked-about-her-husbands-rapesexual-robert-kraychik

    At a campaign event in New Hampshire, a woman asked Hillary Clinton, “You say that all rape victims should be believed, but you say that about Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, and/or Paula Jones? Should we believe them, as well?”

    Clinton responded, “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

    Sammy Finkelman (67f658)

  8. but I think H!C is going to have a problem with this and other confrontations like it because it is it is being noticed and not simply ignored. This is bad publicity.

    seeRpea (b23784)

  9. re #5: did the Lewinsky story really turn on her mother keeping the dress?
    iirc, there were lots of media commentators (though not reporters) who were going after Clintons about Lewinsky when she was able to provide specific times of interaction.
    (yes, i am quite open to being wrong about that)

    seeRpea (b23784)

  10. yes, but recall the sliming campaign that sid vicious carried out against her, that hitchens called him on,

    narciso (732bc0)

  11. SeeRpea,

    I would agree with you. This isn’t going to go away no matter how much the MSM tries, and no matter how much Clinton tries. She’s backed into a corner: if she doesn’t answer questions, she looks defensive and like she’s running from it. If she does try to answer the questions, she’ll just dig a bigger hole. If women, especially, keep demanding answers and shoving this in her face, it’s going to cause damage.

    Dana (99c3b7)

  12. how about that, the gabmeister is at a loss for words,

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223072/

    narciso (732bc0)

  13. Hillary is much worse than Bill, and he’s bad enough. After Bill raped and abused these women Hillary trailed along after him and ignored their suffering, rubbed their noses in public repudiation of their abuse, and denied their cry for justice. Instead of a fair hearing they got public humiliation.

    Hillary is a monster, an evil monster with the sins of her many heartless intimidations ’round her neck and the blood of brave Americans on her hands. She’s the lying deceiver who told the parents of honorable Benghazi dead the attack resulted from Muslim outrage over a video tape, and now the two-faced perjurer denies ever saying that.

    This disgusting excuse for a humanbeing isn’t fit to breath free air. She belongs in prison, disgraced and ignored, waiting for the grim reaper and the eternal fires of her final judgment.

    ropelight (ad0b47)

  14. Dana, HRC has never been about feminism, progressivism, or anything else. She is about getting “hers,” after all the embarrassments her husband dealt her.

    She has things to prove. She needs to show she is too good enough.

    Brrrr.

    On the other hand, HRC doesn’t have good media sense at all.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/4/campaign-promise-hillary-clinton-vows-investigate-/

    But the MSM protects her…up to a point.

    Rank and file Democrats must be so proud. Oh, they won’t admit to it. But c’mon.

    Simon Jester (d1f95c)

  15. Jerry sandusky’s wife comes to mind when I think of bill’s wife.
    Enabling him to fly high on the kiddie flights with his bro’s.

    mg (31009b)

  16. I guess the alien cat is out the bag:

    http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–cSoyXpOp–/kmsyvmabvgbzbxretuld.jpg

    Also, anything to improve her electability?

    http://www.wwnstore.com/content/178802/hillarybaby.jpg

    It’s been known for a long, long time.

    Simon Jester (d1f95c)

  17. “This disgusting excuse for a humanbeing isn’t fit to breath free air. She belongs in prison, disgraced and ignored, waiting for the grim reaper and the eternal fires of her final judgment.”

    – ropelight

    You sound a tad overwrought.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  18. Leviticus,

    While the commenter may have engaged in passionate rhetoric, do you find it troubling that Hillary Clinton is campaigning on being a champion and advocate for women and yet spent decades enabling her husband’s predatory sexual behaviors as well as attacking women who accused him of such, as well her wanting to be your next president? Is there a threshold of hypocrisy that must be met before becomes justifiably “overwrought”?

    Dana (86e864)

  19. well what part of that is overwrought, her corruption, her abetting of Russian and Salafi adventurism,

    narciso (732bc0)

  20. The reason I ask, Leviticus, is because this has been a situations that I’ve watched unfold for decades with virtually no demand by certain groups to hold Hillary accountable. As a woman, particularly, this galls me to no end given her claims of advocacy for me. And all the while, she viciously attacks any woman who accuses her husband of sexual assault. I don’t like to see the woman who wants to become my president essentially get on her knees before the man accused to keep him comfortable and protected while she plays the vicious nutty, slutty bitches card on his accusers. The disconnect is stunning.

    Dana (86e864)

  21. “do you find it troubling that Hillary Clinton is campaigning on being a champion and advocate for women and yet spent decades enabling her husband’s predatory sexual behaviors as well as attacking women who accused him of such, as well her wanting to be your next president?”

    – Dana

    Most definitely. The coverup and facilitation of sexual abuse and the protection of its perpetrators is nearly as bad as the abuse itself. It’s true of the Catholic Church and its true of Hillary Clinton – why should we trust people who would (blatantly, repeatedly) lie to us to lead us? We should not.

    But often times the coverup is the aggregate result of human indecision and human error, which is why ropelight’s language struck me as overwrought.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  22. Enabling your spouse to engage in criminal sexual acts seems to be just fine with liberals.

    mg (31009b)

  23. But often times the coverup is the aggregate result of human indecision and human error, which is why ropelight’s language struck me as overwrought.

    Well, human error infers a mistake, as opposed to a willful, deliberate decision being made to enact a cover-up. Thus, it alleviates responsibility for the individual as well as the collective that go along with it.

    And I would suggest there was absolutely no indecision involved – with either Bill Clinton or his enabler wife, nor those who helped them in their complicity and deviousness.

    Everybody who has gone along with this sickness has gotten something out of it. Everything from power at the highest levels to accessibility to the couple at the media level. What do you think the average voter gets from their aiding and abetting (another way to put their refusal to hold them accountable) in this coverup?

    Dana (86e864)

  24. I would consider gay priests as criminal liberals.

    mg (31009b)

  25. Don’t be a fascist, Hoagie. The movie hadn’t started, not even the trailers. We were early for a change.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  26. Enabling sexual abusers is also true of many leftwingers. It really doesn’t seem to bother them, especially if politics are involved. Getting and holding onto power trumps all.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  27. Dana, I have long felt that this political descent began with WJC. I keep thinking, would the world be different if he hadn’t gotten elected with less than 50% of the vote? It’s always been the brazenness of the lying. Christopher Hitchens put it best, except that he was wrong: there are always people left for the Clintons to lie to…or should I say, people on the Left?

    Simon Jester (d1f95c)

  28. “BILL’S FEMALE ‘FANCLUB’ BACKFIRES: As Hillary Clinton’s husband hits stump for the first time the women on stage behind him scowl, grimace and look like they’d rather be ANYWHERE else.”

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223089/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. HRC has never been about feminism, progressivism, or anything else. She is about getting “hers,” after all the embarrassments her husband dealt her.

    She has things to prove. She needs to show she is too good enough.

    Simon Jester,

    I agree. She has always, first and foremost, been about herself and that she *deserves* the presidency. The causes have just provided a cover and a platform to push herself onto the electorate, who made her the quasi-celebrity she is. But without WJC winning two elections, none of this would have happened with her. Without his charms, political savvy, unique ability to bullshit, and wanton dishonesty and smooth lying skills, she would just be another Democrat desperate for power.

    And now aliens.

    Good God.

    Dana (86e864)

  30. How funny my comments aren’t showing up in sidebar now, and I just had to release one of my own comments from moderation! There’s a ghost in the machine.

    Dana (86e864)

  31. bout time someone told them whiny rape survivors to zip it

    happyfeet (831175)

  32. i got moderatered too Dana on the thread about the bundy’s but it wasn’t a very incisive comment honestly

    happyfeet (831175)

  33. In the Hildebeests world sluts, bimbos, whores and Republicans should just STFU.

    Comanche Voter (1d5c8b)

  34. Sorry for cut and paste, but it’s good – I think – to see it all in one place…

    “When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents. Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

    She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

    She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to theappointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for ‘lying under oath’ to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath. After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?

    Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

    But to her loyal fans (supporters) – I guess in her own words “what difference does it make.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  35. And even that is just most of the stuff we know about.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  36. “Bill Clinton was fined $90,000 and forced to surrender his law license for lying under oath and obstruction of justice during Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against him. He eventually paid her $850,000 to settle the lawsuit.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  37. Since when have there been any professional journalists at the Washington Post?

    Bar Sinister (c62a89)

  38. This seemed like a nice summary perspective:
    http://www.city-journal.org/2016/eon0104hs.html

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  39. Which begs the question, how could she even answer that 3:00 am phone call if she can’t hear it??

    No, it invites the question. To beg a question is to phrase a statement in a manner that assumes the truth of its unproven premise. For instance, “When will the Republican Party stop its openly racist attacks on Obama?” assumes that the Republican Party makes such attacks.

    Rich Rostrom (d2c6fd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6461 secs.