@blatham,
Except that she is a
whore when it comes to her political ambitions. That's not a term I like to throw around with abandon but if you remove it from its sexual context (near impossible which is why I don't use it very often when referring to women) it fits the junior Senator from NY. Define it as someone who is willing to trade their virtue for gain and it describes Gillibrand rather well. She's never taken a position that she isn't ready to toss aside at the drop of a hat if it advances her ambitions. Ask Al Franken if he thinks she's someone who is willing to exchange their virtue for gain.
Besides, Trump didn't all but call her a whore in the classic sense of the word. The editorial board of USA Today is throwing a convenient hissy fit. People on both sides of the aisle are forever condemning their opponents as politicians who will
do anything to get elected (or amass a campaign war chest which is pretty close to the exact same thing). How many times have presidents been accused of
wagging the dog when they approved military actions close to an election? Personally, I would think a lot more favorably of someone who sells his or her sexual favors to win an election than the sort of political
whore who would sell the lives of young American men and women to achieve the same gain.
It's nice to see that chivalry isn't dead among the editors of US Today and certain members of this forum, but give me a break. There's a lot worse dirty boxing going on in the American political octagon than making a comment like Trumps, even if it was intended to conjure up images of a hooker. If Gillibrand can't take it (and I'm quite sure she can) then it doesn't matter what she does in press rooms, bedrooms or on the floor of the Senate, she'll never grab that brass ring that clearly has her highly motivated to do
whatever it takes.
Oops did I just all but call her a whore? If you say that about a man it means he's ruthless, but say it about a woman and you must mean she's a slut for hire? This **** is really getting ridiculously out of hand. Switch the political affiliations of the players around a bit and you might fully expect to read or hear liberals slamming someone who came to the rescue of a Republican female for their antiquated, sexist view of the
special vulnerability of women vying for power in a man's world.
Its slathered on both sides to such an extent that it's becoming more and more pointless to engage in political debates about anything. There's rarely a real point of view being advanced, simply a political agenda that is little more than "gain power through any means possible and than wield it for as long as you can until the hypocritical thought and language police finally put you in a corner from which you can't extricate yourself.
But wait, I forgot that Democrats don't engage in this sort of nonsense. If they were to imply someone was a whore, a thief, a pervert or a traitor it would because either their targeted opponent really was some variety of miscreant of damned close enough to excuse it.
