You’ve probably already heard about Hillary Clinton’s “super volunteers” who are sending warning letters to reporters about using language they deem to be “coded sexism.”  This “HRC Super Volunteers” group apparently began back in 2007 as a Facebook group devoted to ending sexist reporting on Clinton.  Apparently, they are still active and waging war against sexist language regarding Clinton.  The Washington Post reports:

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for a very long time, which means much has been written about her — including quite a few adjectives. But some of these adjectives are now off-limits.

That’s according to the Clinton “Super Volunteers,” who have promised to track the media’s use of words they believe to be sexist code words.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So these words are now off the table: “polarizing,” “calculating,” “disingenuous,” “insincere,” “ambitious,” “inevitable,” “entitled,” “over-confident,” “secretive,” “will do anything to win,” “represents the past,” and “out of touch.”

Katherine Timph, writing at the National Review, observes:

Good thing they warned me. Otherwise I at some point might have called her “insincere” or “disingenuous” — because she, you know, is. Just earlier this week she vowed she was beginning a new, open relationship with the media during a speech and then refused to take questions after it. Oh, and while we’re at it: Using your private e-mail for official government business and pretending it was a matter of “convenience” seems pretty damn deceitful.

But I guess we can’t call her what she is, and the reason we can’t is that she’s a woman. You see how ridiculous it is to consider this a feminist point of view, right?
Of course it’s ridiculous.  In fact, it’s just as ridiculous as establishing a whole new set of rules for political debate and patriotic dissent because the sitting president is Barack Obama.  Having spent the last six years being bullied and accused of “racism” for simply disagreeing with Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America, I, for one, do not relish the idea of four more years (or eight!) suffering the same disingenuous attacks (only this time it would be “sexism”) simply for having a different viewpoint.

Like the ludicrous “ban bossy” campaign, the idea is to silence and shame legitimate opposition to Hillary Clinton’s policy ideas by policing language for secret “codes,” thus shifting the attention from the reasonable point of debate to an ancillary, unrelated ad hominem attack.  The effect is to insulate the person from any and all opposition, clearing the path for the abuses and lawlessness we see from Obama with increasing frequency.