I like Ann and admire her, as readers here know. She’s quirky and smart; she’s either political moderate or apolitical; she tries very hard to stay objective; she’s an iconoclast and a contrarian, and best of all, she agrees with me about 75% of the time. Thus it pains me no end to designate her an Ethics Dunce, but I have no choice. She posted this:
“‘I’m not suggesting it’s entirely your fault, but, let’s be frank, 99 percent of it is,’ read one passage from the chapter entitled ‘Seriously, What Were You Thinking?’ in which the former candidate conceded missteps she had made over the course of her campaign while also clarifying that none of them should have produced the final election outcome, which she characterized as ‘squarely on you fucking people.'”
This headline is New Clinton Memoir: “We All Made Mistakes But You Made Most Of Them.” Is that really so inherently hilarious and nonsensical that Althouse can be certain no readers with a functioning brain will believe it? Is it harder to believe she would write this in her book than say, during last year’s campaign, “I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State.”? Or remember when Hillary was asked about the stunned responses of viewers when she said, in her first debate with Bernie Sanders, that the reason she was getting getting millions in widespread Wall Street firm support, that “So, I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.” ?
During that same debate, CBS passed a tweet along from a fellow head-explodee.. “And Secretary Clinton, one of the tweets we saw said this,” said CBS’s tweet-mistress Nancy Cordes. “I’ve never seen a candidate invoke 9/11 to justify millions of Wall Street donations until now.” The idea being, yes, you were a champion of the community after 9/11, but what does that have to do with taking big donations?”
Hillary answered—“Well, I’m sorry that whoever tweeted that had that impression.” HAD THAT IMPRESSION??? That’s what she had literally just said! How hard is to believe that a woman who would claim, on live, coast-to-caost TV, that a voter is mistaken to interpret as what she just said as what she just said, wouldn’t also write in her post-election botch memoir that “We all made mistakes but you made most of them”?
Then there was the time—several times, actually—that the wife of the man who was repeatedly accused of sexual assault by women who she subsequently worked to discredit stated, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” That she would say this is more ridiculous than anything in the Onion piece, including
“Indeed, fake news and Russian meddling played a part, and I’ve acknowledged I wasn’t the perfect candidate, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the majority of the blame—all but the tiniest sliver—lies with you, the idiot voters. You really blew it, dumbasses. Bravo!”
I love ya, Ann, but where the delusions of Hillary Clinton are concerned, like the tweets of President Trump, the things professors at major institutions of higher learning say, and the complete abdication of competence, objectivity and professionalism by the news media, satire is impossible because hyperbole is impossible. Virtually anything is believable: that’s why fake news is so effective, and hoax news is so insidious. We’re supposed to able to believe what we read on your website.
Cut it the hell out.