It's another day and so that means the Hillary Clinton camp has issued another campaign video to impress upon voters just how special it would be to have her as president of the United States and its representative to the world.
But in one of the newest ads, it may be Muslims who find the most comfort in her leadership. As the pulsing music sets a determined tone, statements of confidence in Clinton's ability to lead the world are overlaid by some very important people, including President Obama, a Navy SEAL, and other political leaders.
Images of Clinton meeting with the heads of other nations file in; particularly Muslim nations. The video is paced just so that when former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says, "She is one person who can bring a tremendous amount of experience to the job of being a world leader," Clinton strategically appears in a traditional Muslim hijab.
Panetta's comment is flanked by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who says, "I don't think I have ever met someone more prepared to be president."
There are no other world religions represented in the ad, and she only appears in the garb of one. And what does wearing a hijab say about a future female president, especially one who proclaims to be a proud feminist?
Daniel Greenfield at our sister site, Front Page Mag, does an excellent job of explaining:
[I]n odd contrast to touting Hillary's feminism and strength, is this shot of her wearing a Hijab; an Islamic garment of submission.
Not only has the Hijab consistently been a source of Muslim violence against women, both in punishing women who don't wear it and punishing women who take it off, but its origins lie in an Islamic commandment distinguishing Muslim women, who couldn't be raped, from non-Muslim slave women captured by Mohammed's rampaging gang.
In her commercial, Hillary Clinton, by wearing the Hijab, is advertising that she is the property of a man and therefore "not to be molested". Of course since Islamic law doesn't recognize the marriages of non-Muslim peoples it is at war with, enabling Jihadis to sexually assault even married non-Muslim women, as the Islamic prophet Mohammed allowed his Muslim followers to do, it's also a meaningless gesture.
Is it really a feminist gesture to voluntarily accept the Islamic distinction between women who can be assaulted and women who can't?
Either way it's certainly a step back for a female politician who wants to be seen as a leader and a fighter for women.
View the campaign ad below:
