Daily Beast says Clinton must go

Dear God, Hillary Clinton. Please, Just Go.

No one benefits from her latest venture back onto the political scene.

Liz Mair

10.18.18 5:20 AM ET

OPINION

Hannah Peters/GettyWe’re three weeks out from the 2018 midterm election, and Hillary Clinton is popping up again like a Halloween ghoul who keeps rising from the grave to terrorize the American public; only this time accompanied by the increasingly #MeToo burdened uber-villain, Bubba.

The Clintons, it seems, can’t seem to call it quits, even if it means leaving members of their own party cringing and many more voters ready to “headdesk” themselves into a coma.

This time, it’s happening courtesy of a pay-through-the-nose-to-see-them rehab tour. Because if there’s one thing America hasn’t had enough of over recent decades, it’s efforts by the Clintons to recast themselves as normal, likeable people, as they cash checks and play the victim.

Previous editions of this show have included Hillary’s two Senate runs and two presidential runs, which, depending on one’s perspective, were either an attempt to show independence from her husband or to be compensated for his myriad screw ups.

But despite the last run ending with a loss to Donald Freaking Trump, the most flawed candidate Republicans could conceivably have run in 2016, it appears that nothing will get Hillary out of our political debate once and for all.

Hillary remains caught up in the delusion that the only reason she lost in 2016 was because of Russian interference. She does not seem to have fully processed the fact that she lost the electoral college, the only vote that counts.  She touts the fact that she got nearly three million more votes than Trump while conveniently leaving out that her tally of the vote still fell well below 50 percent.

Both of the major party nominees in 2016 were so unlikable, flawed and—let’s be candid—unethical that lots of us just couldn’t pull the lever for her even if we couldn’t stand Trump. According to a studyfrom American National Election Studies, the words most associated by voters with Hillary in 2016 were “experienced liar.” Is it logical that she’d want to rehab her image, given all this? Perhaps. Is it possible? No. Do we need to watch her try? Definitely, definitely, definitely not.

Hillary’s continual pursuit of limelight and headlines ensures that the image of the Democratic Party remains an outdated, outmoded, and frankly despicable for far too many voters. This comes at a time when leading Democrats are attempting to focus voters’ attention on the future—2020, and beating Trump—and jostling for the role as the new party leader.

It also undercuts Democrats’ positioning as the only party that really cares about #MeToo and that will fight for survivors, a contrast Dems are only too keen to spotlight in the wake of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and ongoing allegations about President Trump’s treatment of women.  Only sheer partisan convenience could allow someone to insist that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is credible while downplaying the numerous allegations of mistreatment (and worse) made by women against Bill Clinton.

For the Democratic Party, about the best that can come of this latest Clinton revival is that no matter how unpalatable any of its leading lights—Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Cory Booker, or others—are individually, they’ll look like downright appealing the longer Hillary hangs about.

But her doing so does not signal that the Democratic Party is actually living in the present, and focused on beating Trump. Rather, it suggests the party wants to turn American politics into the new edition of Groundhog Day—only with no Bill Murray or actual groundhog. Isn’t it time to let the Democratic Party move on from its Clintonite past, and to give someone else a go?

One of the reasons Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been so refreshing isn’t just because the more Democratic Socialist-driven, modern Democratic Party—which is populated to a greater degree by younger voters—wants a younger, more progressive avatar to embrace. It’s also because even Republicans are starting to get weary of bashing the Clintons now; though some of us will undertake it still as a public service.

Clinton is like the target you’ve already shot dead-on so many times the paper has gone to shreds. There are few more column inches to be written, but even Fox News personalities have begun to act a little bored when they dive into Hillary-focused narratives these days.

All of which suggests that for Republicans, too, it’s time to move on—to fresh fights, with fresh adversaries. We want the newest bad guy, not the evildoer from the biggest show in the freaking 1990s. Maybe in 2020 that will be Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, or Booker, or any one of the other 20-some people that might potentially run for president on the Democratic side. But it’s a dead certainty that it isn’t the lady we’ve seen inveighing against the right wing for stealing things she seems to think she or her husband are inherently entitled to for decades now.

It’s time for Hillary and Bill to get off the stage and quit seeking the public adoration they’re clearly never going to get to the massive degree they crave it. Be content, like so many other party elders who turned out not to be winners, in working behind the scenes to help to deliver wins for other, better, up-and-coming, appealing voices.

Yes, others have stuck around past their primes. Mitt Romney, a candidate with a similar resume of high profile presidential losses, is now running for Senate. But his circumstances are different. He was asked to run for the seat that he will soon occupy by its current occupant and he’s maintained strong ties to Utah. Even then, his continuing presence on the political stage irks a ton of Americans who wish he too would go away quietly.

So, Hillary, ditch the rehab tour. Dispense with TV appearances. Recognize that whether it’s lauded or not, you did make some kind of a difference (yes, even Hillary did a couple of things right in her various terms in public office), and be content to leave it there.

Zombie movies for Halloween are fun. But whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or neither, there’s only so much zombie politics you can take. That’s what the Clintons essentially offer now—a brain-devouring, egocentric version of Democrat-ism lurching and festering onward, seemingly endlessly.

Demand an End to Liberal Privilege

PJ MEDIA

Demand an End to Liberal Privilege

 

BY SARAH HOYT OCTOBER 20, 2018

CHAT 91 COMMENTS

First of all, before I start this, let me say I disagree with most of the usages of the word “privilege.”

The left refers to people of “privileged background” for instance, when what they really mean is “rich” or, these days, “middle class and with parents who insisted on education.”

I suppose this makes some sense in the context of a leftist world view, but it makes no sense in reality.

You see, privilege means “private law.” In terms of the past, noblemen were privileged because the law either didn’t apply to them (at all) or they had special laws that applied to them. For instance, in many jurisdictions, noblemen were exempt from the capital penalty. In most “clergy” were exempt from the death penalty. And the benefit of clergy would be given to anyone who could read and write. That was privilege. Private law. “The laws don’t apply to us, and you can’t make us obey them” if you prefer.

So in terms of left-Marxist world view, it makes sense to think that anyone who has more has somehow cheated the existing laws. Or to believe that anyone who has better outcomes than someone else is taking advantage of a “private law,” that is, cheating.

The problem is that this only makes sense if you buy into the leftist world view, in which every human being is a widget, or if you prefer a game piece, with exactly the same qualities as any other game piece.

In actuality, humans can get rich without cheating anyone and outcomes of anything vary a lot depending on the qualities of the human beings involved and, yes, on their level of effort too.

Which brings us to real privilege: the de-facto exertion of a private law.

For instance, take the Kavanaugh hearings when all the liberals were assuring us that we didn’t need to presume innocence until guilt was proven. Did you notice that not only didn’t any of them revise their opinion of the sexual scandals of Bill Clinton – against whom guilt was overwhelmingly proven – but they were also adamant that the same principles they were trying to apply to Kavanaugh didn’t apply to Keith Ellison?

This makes absolutely no sense. If you “believe all women” (and btw, that too is privilege. Where is the “believe all men?”) why not believe Ellison’s battered girlfriend, who has the hospital visit to prove it, or Juanita Broderick before you believe Christine Ford?

The liberals handwavium explanation amounted to a lot of handwavium and what my grandmother used to call “trying to remove the butt from the path of the syringe.” I.e. “it’s a job interview” or “she is credible” or whatever were not so much arguments for believing one person and not believing the other as attempts to make you look elsewhere and forget to argue.

You see, they know the principle but can’t say it aloud – some of them not even to themselves – because that would cause them to admit that they are chock-full of privilege, which their theories force them to view as a sin.

In fact, all their claims of other people’s privilege are to excuse their own establishment of a private law for themselves.

For instance, how many discussions have you seen in which some white man is told to stop talking because he’s full of “white privilege” and should “educate himself.”

And yet, I can honestly say that in my decades in this country and in association with white men (husband, friends) I’ve never seen any of them have recourse to private law that excuses their crimes or gives them an easier time in surviving. In fact, and contra one of my colleagues in science fiction, who claimed that being a white male in America is “life on the easiest setting,” white people in the US (and white men in particular) get fewer opportunities at scholarships, fewer set-asides in either positions in education or employment, and preference in promotion, and in general a rougher path through life, regardless of background. (Of course, those who come from greater wealth have an easier time relatively, and sufficient wealth makes up for all other conditions. That’s just part of being human.)

Then there is the time my son was told he was privileged because we had lots of books in the house and encouraged reading. That particular teacher must have been having a flash back to that “benefit of clergy.” Or something.

And yet, there is one glaring form of privilege in the United States today.

In fact, I think that’s what my colleague was confused about. You see, he’s a vocal liberal, and I think that’s why he’s experienced a meteoric rise through the field, despite a … passable talent and an absolute refusal to work harder or reach higher than strictly needed.

The same could be said about other liberals in the public eye, male and female and of every race: for instance, can anyone imagine a Republican of any race of sex having the meteoric rise Barrack Obama experienced, from Freshman Senator to President?

Did anyone see Sonya Sotomayor, a woman stupid enough to think that being Latina confers special wisdom, being questioned about her obvious racism and sexism? Does anyone think a Republican nominee of any race – remember Clarence Thomas? – would get as easy a ride into the Supreme Court of the United States?

Has anyone noticed that when there’s any reason to call on a speaker to explain a public disaster or event, outside explicitly conservative venues, the “expert” called upon is always leftist?

I’ve been jaw-dropped on more than one occasion to see a freshman colleague of mine called to comment on say space developments when this person might have written one or two books and none of them concerned with space. But, you know, it’s liberal privilege.

Liberal privilege ranges from quite literal private law — anyone see a Republican who left a girl to die in his car go on to become the Lion of Senate? — To an easing of the way, a magic carpet ride to the top for good little boys and girls who express the right (left) position.

Being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.

And you know why as well as they do: for near on a hundred years, they’ve had control of the bureaucracy, as well as of those fields that shape the narrative, including the news, entertainment, and literature.

Their crimes are excused, while crimes are invented in the account of everyone who opposes them.

All of which would be galling enough without the newest wrinkle.

It started a long time before the Kavanaugh hearings. For a long time, they’ve been trying to deny anyone to the right of Lenin the rights secured to us by the Constitution of the United States. Their attacks on the Second Amendment are legendary, but latel,y they’ve been trying to extend the fight. For instance, we’ve seen them not only declare that certain words should be crimes, but working through those companies they control to prevent the free speech of those they don’t like or consider dangerous (often the same thing.)

And in Kavanaugh’s hearing, they tried to deny that anyone they oppose can have the right to due process and the presumption of innocence.

It’s not just that the left wants their own private law. It’s that the rights they’re arrogating for themselves under that de-facto law are the rights all of us are entitled to.

We are not peasants. We will not get in line. And we will continue to demand equality under the law. It’s the least we’re entitled to as Americans: an end to liberal privilege.