the content of their character

Some great post-debate observations about what political correctness hath wrought:

Obama is polite, and Hillary is rude.

But you can’t say that.

No, really. If you think about it in identity politics terms, you can’t say those things comfortably about either. Say Obama is polite, and you can be accused of implying that he’s a rare exception, that the others in his identity group are rude. Say Hillary is rude, and you’re “stereotyping women!” It’s bad enough that such nonsense is promoted in nearly every college in the country. I hate to see it working its way into the highest offices of the land.

So, at the risk of being a racist pig, I’ll say once again that Obama comes across as nice, while at the risk of being a sexist pig, I’ll say once again that Hillary comes across as rude.

At the rate things are going, it will be considered racist — and sexist — to judge individuals by the content of their character.

I too found Hillary

Shrill, braying, and grating.

There are people who like that in a leader, however. And for some of us—i.e,, the bichesbitches in the house—the idea of having a shrill, braying, and grating female in charge is a great revenge fantasy.

I do, however, agree that we should be able to call her “shrill” without being accused of sexism, and to call Obama “polite” without being accused of racism. At the very least.