So, over the last few weeks, we’ve been finding out some stuff about the Clintons. We’ve found out that foreign countries and people with business before government donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. We found out that she and Bill are getting six-figure speaking fees to the tune of tens of millions, including from people with business before the government. We’ve found out that, as a Senator, she worked her influence for Corning in exchange for a campaign contribution. We’ve found out that, until it went to hell, she and her staff were flogging Libya as her big achievement that would vault her into the White House.
The response to all this from the media and her supporters has been a collective shrug. In fact, Vox wrote a bizarre article claiming that the problem is that the media are just mad because Hillary doesn’t “need” them (Vox apparently being under the impression that the candidates need the media as their publicity hacks, not that the media’s job to vet them and hold them accountable. That’s not surprising coming from the creator of Journolist.)
I’ve been trying to imagine what would make the media and the Left Wing turn on Clinton and … I really can’t come up with anything. She has strong ties to Wall Street. They don’t care. She opposes marijuana legalization, supports an aggressive foreign policy and cheers for NSA surveillance. They don’t care. The last Clinton Administration created Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Crime Bill that massively expanded police militarization and put hundreds of thousands in jail. They don’t care. Actually, they claim that this is unfair because she was just the First Lady. This is about ten seconds before they claim that her time as First Lady and her active role in her husband’s Administration counts as “experience”.
Watch this as a group of voters struggle to come up with any accomplishments they can credit to Mrs. Clinton:
What would it take for them to turn on Hillary? I don’t think there is anything. If video emerged tomorrow of Hillary Clinton strangling puppies with her bare hands, the response would be:
- A think-piece from Vox about how puppy strangling isn’t as bad as it seems.
- Rachel Maddow would do a bit about how Republicans have done much worse and “strangling” is an extreme word to make slowly euthanizing stray dogs sounds worse than it is.
- Comment boards would fill up with comments saying, “Another faux Republican scandal. PUPPYGHAZI!!!”
- Several pieces at Daily Kos about how this is really all Republicans’ fault for opposing subsidized birth control for dogs.
- Numerous outlets claiming the focus on puppies is sexist.
- A deep analysis at LGF “proving” that the video is a fake.
- A think piece from Salon claiming the dogs had it coming.
- A CNN report, to be retracted in December 2016, about how the Republican candidates all strangled kittens.
- A statement from Debbie Wasserman Schultz that Republicans wanted to “drag us back” to the era before spaying and neutering.
- Ultimately, a uniform consensus that the dog strangling doesn’t matter because Clinton is good on the most important issues (despite, at present, Clinton having no position on most of the important issues. Check out her website and see if you can find a section on policy).
Like so much that the Left believes in right now — “living wage”, single payer healthcare, gun control — Clinton’s ascendancy has become religion. She is going to be President no matter what the rest of us say. We had a black President. Now we’re going to have a woman. It’s her turn. End of story.
Boy … if the GOP gets their shit together and beats Clinton next year, it’s going to get really ugly.