I haven't exactly been able to figure out what to do with the absurd story out of the mystical subcontinent of India, involving Hillary Clinton. The loser of the 2016 presidential campaign has not gone off quietly into the night, or even stayed in the woods. Rather, she is out there doing speeches.
The problem, of course, is that the speeches she is giving -- and make no mistake , she is being paid a bundle for whatever brilliance she is sharing with the world -- are focused not on making that world better, but on explaining why she is not president, and selling her book. Over and over.
Now that's kind of ironic. Part of the reason she is actually not president, and Donald Trump is, is that she was never able to explain to the voting American why she should be president, at least outside of the fact that at least at one time she had a uterus, and may still have one. So she loses because she can't figure out why she should be president, but now she is getting paid scads of money to say why she is not president.
It is not lost on us that the vitriol, which we thought might have peaked with the "deplorables" comment during the campaign, has now become a staple of her ... what do we call it, "post-stump speech"? For example, apparently we, who voted for someone else in 2016, "*don't want to see black people get their rights*" or "*see women getting jobs.*"
I'm not kidding; she actually said that, and we heard her clearly. Apparently, unlike her former boss, Barack Obama, who mandated that no one record his speech to a sports analytics conference a few weeks back, Hillary doesn't really care if we heard this speech. Of course, Hillary's speeches to, I don't know, Goldman Sachs for one, well, back then her words were so precious that she was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to say them, but no one could record those either.
I guess it is different now.
One would think that the most recent standard-bearer for a party would be regarded as its de facto leader, especially when there is absolutely no other person who has a better argument for being the leader of the Democrats. But she doesn't appear to be leading anything except the drumbeat to try to sell her book, which is about -- once again -- why she lost the 2016 campaign.
The thing is, whether she wants to be or not, she is at least one of the leaders of the Democrats. What she says is regarded that way, because she did run in 2016, and her husband was the president, and because the other people who could be the party leaders are as awful as she is.
So, her being a de facto leader, what she says is important. And when she says that we who did not vote for her "didn't want to see black people get rights", she is simply making a fool of herself, and more importantly, is corrupting the message of the Democrats. Because she is who she is, that message is coming across as "We Democrats think that you are stupid, that you are bigots, and that you hate anyone not like you."
I don't really think that is what they want people to think they believe about Republican voters; at least I hope they don't believe that. But their leader is saying that kind of thing, and they either have to reject that message publicly or embrace it, because it is out there. They cannot ignore it.
From an election standpoint, as much as Republican candidates will run on the people's fear of a corrupt moron like Nancy Pelosi becoming, God forbid, the Speaker of the House, they will also run on the characterization of their opponents as being in league with the bitter views of Hillary Clinton, the sorest of sore losers.
Personally, I think that is great for the 2018 campaign, and if it is good for keeping Democrats out of office, it is certainly good for the USA.
So keep talking, Hillary, keep blathering that offensive spew that people are bad, or bigoted, or ignorant, just because they didn't vote for you. Keep saying, incredibly, that women go into the voting booth so subservient to their husbands, or boyfriends, or bosses, that they didn't vote for Hillary "because they were told not to vote for her." Does she have a clue how that comes across? Does she know how she has just portrayed women, as so weak that they can't make a decision for themselves?
Keep it up, ma'am. It only helps the nation.
Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton
No comments:
Post a Comment