Feminists are supposed to love Hillary Clinton, because this is their time and something about a glass ceiling. But calling her “soulless” and “corrupt?”
I mean, she totally is. I’m just surprised it’s being said. Now Paglia is a leftist. Big time. But she’s pretty honest about modern feminism here…
Feminist Camille Paglia ripped modern feminism, Lena Dunham, and “soulless” Hillary Clinton in a recent interview published by Spiked.
“People don’t lay a glove on her,” she said. “The woman has never succeeded in any job, she’s created chaos after chaos, including now all of North Africa spilling its refugees into Europe, and it’s due to Hillary for taking out Gaddafi and not thinking about what would happen afterward.”
“I think she’s absolutely soulless,” she said. “I think she’s incompetent.”
And before leftists start blasting her for being a sellout, she also says that Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein are more more qualified to be President. To add insult to pantsuits, she also says she’ll vote Green Party if she has to. Let’s not act like Paglia is going to be attending any Donald Trump rallies anytime soon.
As stated earlier, yeah, she’s a leftist. Yeah, she’s radical. But what does it say about Hillary Clinton if this noted feminist thinks Nancy Pelosi, world’s most notorious loon, is more qualified to be president than Hillary Clinton (read OOPS: Hillary Clinton Promises to Put Working Class People Out of Work…)?
I know I’ve said this before, but while everyone is focused on the Trump vs. Cruz campaigns, there’s rumblings in the Democrat party about Hillary. She’s not a fait accompli. She is not renowned or worshipped simply because she’s the Democrat candidate equipped with female reproductive parts. Or at least rumored to have. Even leftist feminists like Susan Sarandon is against Hillary Clinton. As is Sarah Silverman.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton should change her campaign tagline a bit: Hillary 2016, Vote Me Or Else…