To make a robust and due intellectual making an example of Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton as per any feminism and all feminism of a judicial parity for civil discourse there are elements of modernity of her as at a political vessel of at least the past twenty years of things that have proceeded yet without yet being sufficiently deconstructed as if possibly actually “progressive” and if prudent of a yet (moral) “workability.”

What we’ld be behoven and prudent to put to ourselves if to be objective and intellectual to a predicating of the many issues of Mrs. Clinton, however, is now how to separate the women from the women and the women from too yet past invisible hands in guidance and posturing of women - at least.  We need to make examples for a case study of real issues of these past years at political attempts to be more equal in a progressive feminism without yet making a specific example with actually more confusing subjective viscerals embedded.

Men and women - for boys & girls, at least - must now see their times as times to learn how to talk about women - to talk about women as about Mrs. Clinton, however, and too as women: as grandmothers as single, married, and even widowed; as mothers as working girls as single or coupled as coupled in and/or out of marriage union; as mothers young and mothers old; as women as single in traditional and liberated purviews of their rights and decisions; as women yet as girls still looking for answers and workable examples from the women before them - however familial.

It is more that we are not now of a WAR ON WOMEN yet of a new enlightenment supposed as passing from a dark ages about women and to artfully duty called to CELEBRATING  women - celebrating women with specific case detail of an objectivity as prefaced to prudent budge it consecrated.  Men and women alike - especially for the extant Mrs. Clinton @ #Politics - need now to objectify women so we can talk about women without talking about women.

And, it seems we’ld be prudent if to not naively to waiting for Mrs. Clinton to offer her vessel to facilitate a float for the intellectual objectifying for a reasoned robust critical establishment — seems we’ld be prudent to not wait for Mrs. Clinton to offer a leading - to surrender herself objectively to be made a fully deconstructed example of of her “woman.”

How I have pinned a relativity to my past of feminisms yet in a masculine progressive and suggested such was fundamental and instrumental to much for women, and so with recent essay HAIL MARY! - FEMINISMS? @ http://CitizenRosebud.com, we are here yet to also budge an objective case from such that is rightly discussable better if removed of specific subjectives and to a case study of the situational and issuant extant so to objectify women so we can talk enabled about feminism as about women without it about women.

I propose we can quickly dispense with Senator Elizabeth Warren in such talk of women as progressing.  I propose Senator Elizabeth Warren to a too puzzling and of entangled economics nonsense for these purposed of getting to a bottoms up review and deconstruction of modern women. Any discussion of Sen. Warren here would be too much like speaking to a consideration that an imprisoned guilty of a crime is the most electable for the best expert in their area of criminality ‘economics’ but for being so publicly known seemingly in a contradictory.  For she is a good Harvard fellow, like, of an expertise in bankruptcy inequities some it is to confused to proffer a discourse regarding how the reality is that she is of the Democrat Group Think economics that did more to create more work for her speciality as them most responsible for causing the economic & housing crashes specifically.

Yet before we rush at an objectify bottoms up deconstruction of Mrs. Clintons as woman we should sparingly account for some women under woman Clinton as post FLOAR Mrs. Clinton but so beautifully in the richness of controversy of Mrs. Clinton of FLOTUS equality era.  A introduction of Senator Warren would too confuse a case study of woman of Mrs. Clinton for it political too that Warren hasn’t yet ratted on the Clintons for many economics causal to say this “jobless recovery”!  To budge an expedient comprehension of the flaws of feminism we better isolate the woman of Mrs. Clinton since firstly FLOTUS;  to budge such we need to objectify women as unique from Mrs. Clinton but yet of an enabling as if prototypes not off the line in a uniformity to such accountability in a causality too taggable as of Mrs. Clinton’s woman.

It is beautiful the bounty of the vessel Clinton as woman for if to objectivisms by objectifying the problematic still the quantity of her effectings provide a vast and much left wing richness in contrariness to fill out any case study of the feminisms and women of the Union constituted by the People’s Order & it’s amendments at least of the Bill of Rights.  It is beautiful in an objective scientific how full a tree of Clintons’ of women can be even when separated from specific truths and unique guilt otherwise embedded inconveniently if too of a too subjective deconstruction.

So to follow on from the queued up of “HAIL MARY! - FEMINISMS?” at http://CitRB.com and with this as “HOW TO BUDGE IT?” we should gird ourselves to not war on women but to posture to celebrate and yet in a richness objective accounting of women and the feminisms of the past twenty plus years.  To proceed about a deconstruction and review of women, and objectively, we can intellectualize towards a readiness to discuss women not as the women of specific faults but as women of situationals of a thought progress in a workable progressive while yet inventive and as if women so were more as prototypes than of the line of a uniformity already well figured and measured.

How to budge it - though?  How do we deconstruct the vessel woman of the vessel Clinton at least to affect an objective parity between women and women, and women and men?  How do we account for the culpability of women, as of a flawed from association with Mrs. Clinton, and so if and when of a naivete, and ignorance, yet of the real culpability of Mrs.Clinton, however?

I know I can separate the professional woman of my sister as a woman of these feminisms and objectify her and her story as a case of feminism of the issues and experiments of the times, and, know that I nor thee need to make an example of a specific woman yet as it be prudent to take the lead with the known and unknown culpability of Mrs. Clinton, and specifically fully as of the woman and feminisms since William Jefferson Clinton first brought her to that co-holding of the office of the President as the holding by one of them does by the election of one of them bring the other by election so to a also holding of the office.

I for my years of feminisms in a masculine do have enough water under me to discourse here on feminism and of women of my sister’s professional working girl “woman” to nudge and budge this so far and considerately to the said beautiful possible in an attempt scientific to talk about women now without talking about women, specifically - at least about women in a subjective.

What is already broached - of a breached - is some that I can historically relate a albeit late accounting of my own years effective in a voluntary feminism in my masculine as of years of pro-active and reactive affirmative action not limited to sex - to the sexes.  I can further this issuance if we met out a case study objectivity by comparative analogous renditions of years I can relate to as having been in positive efforts so, and too then as if of a control variable for contrast of a proofing from the negative as of negatives of women - but not just women - when the positive is considerable for the negative effective - as so it establishable as considerable much for an invisible past hand can be seen if years are compared as like since when Mrs. Clinton keyed HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT and my striking since.