Hillary just won’t go away quietly
Interviews show her problem not gender but arrogance
Trump supporters often argue that The Donald was the only Republican candidate who could have beaten Hillary Clinton, and I am sometimes tempted to believe them.
Then Hillary gives another interview.
People who write books about themselves generally do so because they believe there are things about them that: a) we don’t know; and b) want to.
Who told Hillary Clinton she fell into either of those categories?
Hillary, we hardly knew ye? Uh … no. We knew you as well as any person in public life. We just didn’t
like you. #SorryNotSorry, as the kids say today.
Or as you know them, “18- to 29-year-old, lowturnout voters in the targeted demographic.” That’s all we’ve ever been to Hillary Clinton: Demographic data points on a campaign spreadsheet. We’re not her fellow citizens. We’re either in an approved, Democrat-voting, identitypolitics demo, or we’re “deplorables” and “irredeemables.” We’re suspect. Most of all, we’re unworthy.
CBS’ Jane Pauley asked Hillary about her “deplorables” comment, which many political pros believe was a key moment in cutting off rural, white voters who had previously voted for Obama. Did she regret this gaffe?
“Well, I thought Trump was behaving in a deplorable manner. I thought a lot of his appeals to voters were deplorable. I thought his behavior, as we saw on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, was deplorable. And there were a large number of people who didn’t care. It did not matter to them.”
Just to be clear: The “them” in Hillary’s statement that she finds so deplorable is “you,” Trump voters. Even after losing the election she’s still “us.”
E! Online has a story about Hillary’s new book
with the headline “Hillary’s Done Trying To Be Likeable.” Wait — that was her trying?
She’s been telling us she’s better than the rest of us nonstop since she first appeared on the national political stage 25 years ago
(“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas”— HRC, 1992). We were too dumb to choose our own health insurance so we needed Hillarycare. We listened to the wrong talk radio, so we were part of a “vast, rightwing conspiracy.” We didn’t vote for her — twice — so of course we’re sexists.
“This has to be said,” she writes. “Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election.” She also blames racism — a claim too stupid to be taken seriously coming from a woman who hoped to succeed a black president named Barack Hussein Obama who won two terms. But the sexism charge is interesting. It’s impossible to disprove, but I struggle to find many people who really believe it. Perhaps Americans who love women governors and senators have some deepseated distrust of a distaff POTUS. But I believe the sexism charge is bogus because Hillary Clinton wasn’t a “woman” candidate. She was “Hillary.” Her celebrity, her personality, her record are all so prominent that the fact she also happens to be a woman moves to the back page of the résumé.
Her problem isn’t gender, it’s arrogance. It’s the sense she constantly exudes that voting against her must be a personal failing because, after all, she’s “the most qualified candidate ever” — a line her campaign repeated nonstop. Why would voters even consider (to quote that great work of political philosophy, “Animal House”) the “unacceptable candidates?” The Pintos and Flounders of America’s Delta House of Deplorables?
Why did Hillary lose? Because she’s the Greg Marmalard of American politics.