If there was ever a media pairing for the ages, it is Hillary Clinton and Rolling Stone, which has endorsed her for president. When you think about it, of course Clinton's values are reflected in the decidedly left-leaning media outlet. These two were made for each other, especially given the last few years.
Hillary Clinton is a woman who has consistently managed to lie, backtrack, and be on the wrong side of countless issues throughout her career. One of the biggest lies of her tenure as Secretary of State was the lie that the Benghazi attack was the result of a YouTube video sparking protests. She stuck by that story for months. Then, it eventually comes out that, well, that wasn't the case at all.
You know who else told a massive lie and stood by it until there was irrefutable proof it actually didn't happen? Rolling Stone, when it published the article on the University of Virginia rape case that never was. And, much like Hillary for Bill, the magazine stood by the guilty party until the very end.
"Hillary Clinton has an impressive command of policy, the details, trade-offs and how it gets done. It's easy to blame billionaires for everything, but quite another to know what to do about it," said the publisher in an editorial. I'd like to know exactly what policy, details, and trade-offs they are talking about, because all Clinton's mentioned on the campaign trail are the same tired talking points we've been getting for seven years now.
Hillary's qualifications to be president are the exact same as Rolling Stone's qualifications to be a music magazine: They don't exist, and they never have existed. Why should we believe they exist? No one can prove it at all.
This is every bit the mindless media devotion to an old, tired dynasty that should be completely removed from politics in this election cycle... but won't be, because we as a party still seem bound and determined to nominate for ourselves a man who has spent thousands supporting her political efforts.