Over at PowerLine, Steven Hayward writes about the possibility of Hillary Clinton’s campaign melting down.
The Democratic establishment has cleared the field for Hillary, and she’s having trouble putting away Bernie Sanders! If she can’t handle Bernie Sanders, how will she match up with a Republican nominee?
Read the whole thing.
Hillary Clinton says that she’s not part of The Establishment.
I got burnt out on Bill Clinton’s sex life back in 1998 when we all still knew what the meaning of is is. Now that his wife is running for President, the Clinton family peccadilloes are moving front and center again.
I suppose there is a young cohort of new voters who don’t remember the “bimbo eruptions” of the ’90s, and they probably should be made aware of the Hillary’s enabling of her husband’s behavior. But how about we keep that as a sideshow?
There’s enough wrong with Hillary’s performance in the Senate and the State Department to disqualify her, and her participation in their family foundation raises further questions about her fitness to serve as President. Hillary deserves the opportunity to fail on her own.
After all, America deserves a President who knows what ISIS is.
I took a nap this evening and didn’t watch the debate. Did Hillary explain what them meaning of ISIS is?
Townhall has found an honest campaign ad for Hillary. You can see it here.
Vote for me because I’m [insert identity]!
Certainly, Hillary Clinton has said one reason to vote for her is that she’s a woman, and some on the left have committed the sin of questioning whether that is a good enough reason. As a result, we’re beginning to see some interesting pushback from feminists. Michelle Goldberg, a Sanders support by the way, has a piece over at Slate complaining about how men are explaining Hillary to her.
Of course, people of good faith are going to disagree about individual examples of sexism. What’s immensely frustrating, however, is to realize how many ostensibly enlightened men think that gender can ever be totally disaggregated from Clinton’s efforts to become the first female president. They seem to believe that their class politics exempt them from taking sexism seriously. They certainly don’t care about female leadership.
I guess this shouldn’t come as a surprise; as long as feminism has existed, left-wing men have dismissed it as a bourgeois triviality. Now we know how little things have changed.
Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, I, as an unenlightened male, will keep looking forward to the American equivalent of Margaret Thatcher arriving on our political scene.
Hillary Clinton’s Middle East policy will depend on what the meaning of ISIS is, but at this point, what difference does it make?