From the diaries…

The level at which many liberals excuse Hillary Clinton’s actions is already exhausting, and she has yet to formally announce a 2016 presidential candidacy. This has been apparent for quite some time, but especially so in recent days with “emailgate.” For them, to be Hillary Rodham Clinton is to be untouchable – a privilege that has only increased from her time as First Lady through the current post-Secretary of State years.

Recently Rachel Maddow lamented the media’s hubbub around Mrs. Clinton:

“The media noise and static and nonsense around her is so loud, it’s very hard to have effective reporting that people might actually care about, about what she’d be like as a national leader.”

Many of us in ‘the hinterlands’ (Maddow’s term) do care about the reporting on Hillary Clinton, but not in the way liberals do. In their minds, Hillary’s history of victimhood and service to the country should provide reprieve from harsh analysis. For us, however, giving her a pass again confirms something: that the Clintons’ time on the national stage since the early 1990s has transitioned from a probationary period to one where we should treat their past actions and present defenses with kid gloves. Some even dismiss Hillary’s serious email offenses as a fake scandal. They would rather question the standards of journalists than, say, the former Cabinet member at the center of the controversy.

In addition to her political history, Hillary has another advantage: her gender. Last month the Washington Post wondered if running against the female Hillary had the men running scared. Since the presidential race column has been filled by President Obama, naturally the gender column would be next in line. Prominent old white men in the Democratic party (of whom there are more than they’d like to admit), surely don’t relish being the one who turns back the progress clock. Reaction to Hillary’s email drama set off speculation at this week’s press conference when a male reporter asked:

“If you were a man today, would all this fuss be made?”

Hillary smiled and announced she would “leave that to others to answer.” She seemed glad for the planted question. Once again, gender was directly tied to her actions, a perfect bookend to a day filled with discussions on equality at the United Nations. How tidy.

As the crowd in the political theater gasps as almost candidate Scott Walker admits that no, he does not know if President Obama loves America, a decades-long pass for Hillary – one that includes serious offenses – remains. It isn’t because she’s a terribly effective, noteworthy, or resolute leader. It’s because the seemingly ironclad, secretive power couple known as the Clintons have established themselves to be ruthless and above the law. We won’t get the full details of whichever story we’re after, and we should expect more of that same treatment in the future. They’re apologetic only when necessary, and relay only the smallest morsel, realizing they’ve placated just enough viewers. I’m sure Hillary enjoys presenting herself as just another one of us, especially to women. She’s a wife, mother, grandmother, and sends emails discussing such suburban normalcy as yoga or planning her daughter’s wedding. Except, she’s far removed from those she has governed or seeks to govern over.

In the same segment Maddow fussed over the media nonsense surrounding Hillary, she also exclaimed:

“Nobody has lived the life that she has, nobody is treated the way she has.”

To most people, this would mean Mrs. Clinton should be held to the same scrutiny as any other person, political figure or not. To a significant number of liberals, media and non-media alike, this clearly means the opposite. Accept the rehearsed narrative. After all, she’s Hillary.