Still No Reports of “Hillary Fever” Outbreaks

  • by:
  • 08/21/2022

I gather from the increasing hysteria of the feminists that Democrats are beginning to rebel at having a loser of a presidential candidate being foist upon them, in the person of Hillary Clinton.

The same way the national tea party leaders are a thorn in the side of the Republican Party, constantly challenging incumbent Republicans with untested candidates who then go on to lose to Democrats (in Delaware, Indiana and Nevada, and nearly in Kentucky, Kansas and Mississippi), the feminists are a thorn in the side of the Democrats, saddling them with utter mediocrities like Hillary.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Patty Murray are, objectively, two of the least appealing human beings ever elected to any office. (That sentence still works even without the words "elected to any office.") But God help the Democrats if they tried to replace Schultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee or Murray as secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Slate magazine is even demanding that Murray be made Senate minority leader as a sop to the feminists. (I think they have a good point!)

Now, to satiate the feminists, the Democrats seem to be stuck with Hillary as their presidential nominee.

No one really likes Hillary. Ask Bill. Like Toni Morrison???s novels, most people just pretend to like Hillary just so liberals will leave them alone.

She's a bore. She has the warmth of an Arctic ice floe. She hates people, and they hate her. She makes children cry and puppies shy away from her. Nobody wants to watch her wallow around in those neon pantsuits for the next five years.

But no Democrat dares state the obvious.

Although her base of support is infinitesimally shallow, it is quite shrill. Feminists on TV are shocked that people are allowed to criticize Hillary in a way they were not allowed to criticize the angel Obama. Park Avenue matrons with their own fancy degrees from places like Smith and Wellesley rave about how smart Hillary is as a way of calling themselves smart.

All Democrats are required to pretend that Hillary is the most amazing, brilliant, accomplished woman who's ever lived - or be found guilty of a crime against feminism.

Hillary's main claim to fame is that she was married to the horny hick, and then stood by him when he was impeached for the most embarrassing sex scandal in history.

By feminist logic, that meant Hillary was owed the presidency. Quid pro 'ho.

But, then, the office THAT BELONGED TO HER was snatched away when Democrats dumped Hillary in 2008 for their new trophy wife, Barack Obama. We're growing apart, Hillary. Obama makes me feel alive! Can't you be happy for me?

So naturally, now feminists are madder than a wet hen. It's hard to imagine any ticket short of Hillary-plus-Elizabeth that will satisfy them this time around.

Hillary's long list of accomplishments consists of: (1) being cheated on as first lady; (2) being handed a Senate seat from a heavily Democratic state, where she accomplished nothing legislatively (other than her vote for the Iraq War, which I think was terrific!); and (3) being appointed secretary of state, whereupon she participated in one foreign policy disaster after another.

Everyone senses the enormous vacuum in the Democrats' presidential field, but no one is allowed to mention it. The absence of a weighty Democratic candidate is almost frightening to me, as a responsible American, the same way I once supported Hillary over Obama. (Hillary 2008: Half the irresponsibility, with all the fecklessness!)

Now there's blood in the water as more and more Democrats begin to wonder whether their party really has to nominate this dud. Aren't Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Patty Murray enough to placate the National Organization for Women?

The sharks are circling:

- There's the book about the Clinton Foundation's accepting enormous donations from foreign governments, while Hillary was secretary of state - which The New York Times and The Washington Post have exclusive deals to cover.

- There's the fact that the Clinton Foundation seems to have been little more than a personal cash cow for the Clintons and their friends, with $400 million out of $500 million going to pay "employees" of the foundation, plus another $25 million for employees' travel, and only $75 million, or 15 percent of the total haul, being used for anything vaguely related to "charity." The Clinton Foundation makes Al Sharpton's National Action Network almost look legit.

- There's the murder of our ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, on Hillary's watch, and her shrieking comment on the bloodbath to a Senate committee: "WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE!" (You???re about to find out, Hillary.)

- There's Hillary's email scandal, in which she violated the law by destroying public records in her custody (18 USC 2071) and demonstrated that the smartest woman in the world is not only arrogant and corrupt, but incredibly stupid.