Failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton can’t get over the fact that she’s a failed 2016 presidential candidate, and she makes little effort to hide her bitterness about it.
Clinton now spends a good deal of her time appearing on stages and in front of cameras pointing fingers at various groups or individuals who may be at fault for her failure to achieve the White House. One of her favorite punching bags is women, specifically of the white variety.
As you may recall, Clinton lashed out at white women as a whole while in India, saying that the only reason she didn’t win is because white women voted the way their husbands did, because white women have no mind of their own under the auspices of their patriarchal husbands. Needless to say, the declaration didn’t go over well with America, who struck back at Hillary.
It wasn’t just the women she insulted and the right returning fire either, it was her own party. The pure bile she vomits up about America pulls too much of the curtain back on the Democratic party and exposes their true thoughts about you and their entitled feelings toward power. The Democrats are now openly wishing Clinton would shut up, and gracefully back herself into the nearest shadow.
You’d think that this would be Clinton’s clue to close up shop and spend the rest of her days on a charitable pet project. Alas, this is the dark timeline, and Clinton has no such intentions of crawling out of the hole she’s made for herself. In fact, she’s nevertheless persisting.
Clinton took to Facebook where she decided to remark on the comment and offered what I’m sure she thought was an explanation, but was really her doubling down on her claim.
I also mentioned something in passing that’s gotten a lot of negative attention: that there is anecdotal evidence and some research to suggest that women are unfortunately more swayed by men than the other way around. As much as I hate the possibility, and hate saying it, it’s not that crazy when you think about our ongoing struggle to reach gender balance – even within the same household. I did not realize how hard it would hit many who heard it. I was out there having a conversation, and this was one piece of a larger point about how Democrats need to do better with white women, because I know in my heart that Democrats have much more to offer them. Do I believe that some women look at a powerful woman and question whether she can lead, maybe voting for the man their husband is voting for instead? It may not be universally true or easy to hear, but yes, it’s a dynamic still at play in our society.
To sum it up, Clinton believes that the patriarchy still thrives in the home, and thus women bow to the voting habits of the man, and that the Democratic party needs to step it up in order to defeat patriarchy in the home.
What is Clinton’s solution for the Democratic party here? To divide the man and woman within the home? To insert herself and her politics into other people’s marriages? Did it occur to Clinton and the “smash the patriarchy” left that men and women may agree with one another from the start, or that through communication and reason the married couple reaches an agreement they find themselves on the same page politically and vote accordingly?
Clinton is, once again, exposing her entitled feelings to power, and treating American women as a voting bloc she can stick her flag in and claim for the glory of the Clinton/DNC empire. She’s claiming ownership of women while hilariously saying that women need to free themselves from the bonds of their husbands and vote for her. Only by falling in lockstep with what the DNC and Clinton want will women prove that they have “free will.”
Does she not see the irony here? Women may have voted for Trump for a lot of different reasons, and many of them may not have involved their husband’s voting habits in the least. Clinton is proclaiming that women should have voted for her because she’s a woman too, and they just should have. Which one of those sounds more individualistic to you?
But then she continues by trying to explain away her attack on flyover America, and her love of blue areas.
My first instinct was to defend Americans and explain how Donald Trump could have been elected. I said that places doing better economically typically lean Democratic, and places where there is less optimism about the future lean Republican. That doesn’t mean the coasts versus the heartland, it doesn’t even mean entire states. In fact, it more often captures the divisions between more dynamic urban areas and less prosperous small towns within states.
Clinton’s either ignorant here or lying through her teeth. It’s Clinton, so it’s hard to know. Either way, allow me to correct her assertion.
If people are less hopeful about red states and Republican areas, then why are Americans fleeing Democrat controlled blue states and coming to the greener grasses of red America by the hundreds of thousands? Whoever told Clinton that it’s just working out better in the blue should be fired immediately.
Blue states come with higher taxes, superfluous laws, and continuous incursions of our rights. Businesses move there by the boatload after they find it too difficult to function within the borders of blue states. Texas is so business friendly that major corporations are putting their HQ’s there by the boatload, bringing jobs and consumers with them.
Democrats create economic fallout, and Republicans tend to make it easier to make money, and dish out said money. Major corporations are taking advantage of the tax cuts put in place by the GOP. New jobs are being created by the thousands, raises are being dished out, bonuses left and right, as well as benefits to the workers, are on the rise.
Does this look like bad economics to Clinton? To the DNC? I dare them to openly ask someone benefiting from the tax cut or red state policies whether or not they’d like to come back to their highly taxed economic jailhouse.
If I was the Democrats, I’d be doing everything in my power to see to it that Clinton discontinues speaking out on her lost election. This is not a good look for either of them.