is in a category of of its own.

So she said something that is probably over the top.

Much better than taking matters into her own hands and wanting very much to cause harm to the disgusting terrorist teaparty motherfuckers.

Much better that she express her APPROPRIATE hate for these VILE PIECES OF SHIT with words.

That doesn't mean I have to think it is right, or okay.

decency.

The people we are dealing with are the worst imaginable people you could deal with other than an ISIS type but then at least it is acknowledged that they are enemies to be treated like enemies.

GOP treats us like we are an infection in their world.

When are we going to get that?

The degree of power, self-actualization, control, strength, dignity, stamina, toughness, mental acuity, dominance of a situation, that was demonstrated by Hillary Clinton during that hearing was absolutely remarkable. It was stunning.

I cannot see any way that a comparison can be made to the hideous situation of rape, where one looses access to all of one's powers and is dominated by another person against one's will.

To compare that scene with rape, or even attempted rape, is to take away from the amazing sustained action that Ms. Clinton performed yesterday. This was a woman in her full power, bringing that power to bear in the world drawing on a lifetime of action and experience, in an arena where her enemies were giving no quarter.

It was not an attempted rape, it was a battle, one in which she freely engaged, and which she won.

Before that thread was even posted I’d remarked that the “hearing” was dredging up memories of an assault that left me with five broken teeth and two black eyes. All of the authority (aka power) belonged to the Republicans on the committee, and they did not flinch from wielding it in clenched words if not clenched fists.

So.

It was an honest comment and appropriate IMHO. The anger I felt was about watching a coordinated effort to humiliate, over-power, dehumanize, and destroy Hillary Clinton.
I hope people realize that their despicable behavior has been directed at Cecile Richardson and Hillary Clinton in just a few weeks. No one is talking about their horrible behavior so it appears to be acceptable.

What they are doing to the women who come before them is an attempt to get the same results of a physical rape.

If they had been able to dominate, and it was a classic male/female dominance paradigm, the comparison would have been crude, and possibly insulting to SA survivors, but more apt. IMO, a rape analogy is only apt when obvious power and dominance is involved, with one side taking advantage of male/white/Cis/hetero/ privilege and patriarchy. Always patriarchy--which is probably why the poster used the analogy. Our entire political structure is based on patriarchy, and the rising female powers have to operate inside it, Hillary has a lot of experience with it, and she, not they, dominated

So they were unable to gain dominance, indeed if they had, it would have been a serious blow to her campaign, not because the allegations are true, but because she would be seen as weak, "female" with all the common sexist bullshit she gets tossed at her "cold" "shrill" "manipulative" "whore"

In fact a more interesting observation to me, is how much of the oft denied or unacknowledged visceral dislike of Hillary comes from her strong political survivors position and obvious power as a female gendered politician. I know that is not a popular topic at DU--thank goodness for feminist blogs.

I love your mind.

Thanks for your response.