Are you "sexist?"

According to the Clinton campaign, I certainly qualify as a raging sexist. You see, because I support the notion of intensively questioning the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the next president of the United States, the most powerful country on Earth -- I am sexist.

According to the Clinton campaign, if I supported that pressure, that level of inquiry of Barack Hussein Obama, I'd be racist. So I guess by that measure, I am racist.

But say a candidate is gay ... does this logically follow that I must be a homophobe? If the candidate was physically handicapped ... would my support of questioning be an example of prejudice against the "challenged?"

What is this poop?

Geraldine Ferraro (remember Walter Mondale, does this jog your memory?) came out and called what happened to Hil Liar-Clinton "sexist." Geraldine ran for Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away from being President ... and had no idea what the acronym "ICBM" actually stood for. So she must be in an excellent position to judge what is sexist and what is not. And not that it is relevant at all, but Geraldine's husband's business practices made Hil Liar's Rose Law Firm billing practices and investment opportunities look like Justice Department's handbook on fair dealings. Good judgment then, on the part of the then-DNC to support her as the running mate of Moondale. They could then turn the White House into a fiscal laundromat, that is, return it to the good old days of the LBJ administration.

Bill "the Impeached" Liar-Clinton (or Cliar?), likened the last Democratic campaign debate to a "Swiftboating." Bill, you gormless moron, Hil Liar was asked questions that she refused to answer. Swiftboating involves people making allegations about a candidate's integrity that, while unfair and maybe untrue, only serve to besmirch that candidate's reputation. Hil Liar did that all by herself by failing to respond to articulate and focused inquiry ... at least twice within as many minutes on the exact same subject.

Speaking of which, Hills, where DO you stand on driver licenses for illegal aliens? Yea, or nay? For or again'? Huh? Too difficult a concept?

Which brings us to the root of the matter: she is either too stupid to understand simple English, or too dishonest to come out with a position, preferring to stall and redirect. Since clearly the former is not the case, she exposed herself as -- wait for it -- too dishonest to take a stance by actually answering. "Don't mind the person behind the curtain." She depends on the electorate voting for her as who she appears to be, a carefully crafted media chimera. She is terrified that the electorate -- you and me -- might actually decide to listen and find out what she plans to do to our country if elected.

Not that you would be able to figure that out even if you did listen: during the debate Hil Liar stated that she could not foresee troops leaving Iraq before 2013, while three days later, at a speech she made at Wellesley College (an all-women institution and her alma mater), she declared that the first thing that she would do upon being elected is to "bring our troops home." Classic political ploy, tell the audience what they want to hear. But not only will this not work in today's information age, even with the complicity of the liberal media, it implies a breathtaking arrogance on her part: we are too stupid to notice. But hasn't the Clinton machine always operated on that basis? And sadly, they seem to have been correct.

Sexist ... that really gets my goat. An honest and fair analysis of the notion would render the exact opposite conclusion: to have failed to grill the front-runner would have been sexist precisely because she IS a woman. Can you not see that? If Obama had been the front-runner and the others had failed to grill him, it would have been racist. The implication in both cases is that they need protecting, that the candidates were in some fashion inferior to the white males.

Friends, we are considering the nomination of a candidate to run for election to the most powerful job on Earth, not some diversity-based preference or quota. Do you think that it would be intelligent to put less than the most qualified candidate into office? Would foreign leaders respect an affirmative action candidate more, or would they scorn the whole charade? Whom would Al Qaeda like to see in office? Predictably, the New York Times Liar ran an editorial by Gail "I-am-so-far-out-of-touch-that- I-can-see-the-Rings-of-Saturn" Collins wherein she lauded the toughness of Hil Liar for standing up to the pressure as all the white males piled on to her. "She is one tough woman." Uh, Earth to Sputnik Collins, this is not about her womanhood, it is not about the battle of the sexes, it is a political debate designed to help voters select the most suitable candidate for President.

But since Hil Liar and Sputnik are good friends and the New York Times the official house organ of the Cliar campaign, we can state with some certainty that they have in fact played the gender card. Nothing happens in the Cliar campaign machine that does not get the approval from the highest minions and apparatchiks (suitable phrase given the outright commie income redistribution policies of Hil Liar's past). Only Bill CLiar could step out and shoot his mouth off with impunity -- so maybe the Swiftboating allegation can be shrugged off. But maybe it will stick: we all know that a vote for Hil Liar Cliar is a vote for Bill Cliar to swam around the world as some sort of ex-officio Ambassador of Imperial Hil Liar (and whatever oral sex he might be able to secure for himself in the process).

Similarly, the use by Sputnik of the words "pile on" to describe something happening to a female by a group of males invokes a most sinister image, that of gang rape. And that is EXACTLY what Sputnik and her fellow satellites at the New York Liar wanted you to get out of that editorial. You energize the single female voter out there, the chip on the shoulder feminist who believes that her lot in life is all the fault of some vast male conspiracy, and hopefully for the Cliar campaign, the married women who tend to vote more conservatively. Make no mistake about it. The apparatchiks had it planned that way: if the Obamas and Edwards of this world had any chance of unseating Hil Liar as front runner, they had to come out swinging. "Fine," Hil Liar handlers said, "we can use that to our advantage too" -- because Americans and in particular the precise voters they are targeting for support are gullible and even lust for this type of accusation. They watched OJ, they watch Oprah and they believe that aliens visit the Earth regularly. Speaking of which, they left Rosie O'Donnell behind ... why? What did we Earthlings do to deserve that? I hear that she might even get a show on MSNBC. Huh? Is there an alien spaceship in orbit full of little people with big heads and almond shaped eyes eating popcorn and laughing their asses off at the American public? Probably. That might explain the whole thing.