Hillary Clinton

Cancerous Clintons Can’t Catch A Break As Liberal NYT Tells Them To…

Those of us in the know have been well aware of the long, dark history of the Clinton Crime Family for some time, but it seems that, in 2018, even the unabashedly liberal New York Times can’t ignore the political dynasty’s multitude of sins.

Of course, we have Wikileaks and Donald Trump to thank for this.  During the 2016 election, Trump was unafraid of Hillary Clinton’s clandestine influence on the Swamp known as Washington D.C., boldly taking a stance of truth and consternation when confronted by the democratic diva during the debate schedule.  The eventual President was easily able to sway the American people into understanding the full scope of Clinton’s political chicanery, and a number of damning leaks from Julian Assange and crew cemented the sentiment among the voters.

In the end, Clinton was defeated in November, but refused to go away – even going so far as to write a memoir entitled What Happened, in which the former Secretary of State makes a number of excuses for the embarrassment of her loss.

Trending: Trump Drops His Strongest Language Yet Regarding Mueller Probe

Now, after well over a year of Clinton’s constant cacophony of blame and shame, even the New York Times is taking up arms against the intrusive former diplomat.

“But in the 2018 election campaign, Hillary and Bill Clinton have veered in sharply different directions. Mrs. Clinton appears determined to play at least a limited role in the midterms, bolstering longtime allies and raising money for Democrats in safely liberal areas. Her husband has been all but invisible.

And both have been far less conspicuous than in past election cycles, but for different reasons: Mrs. Clinton faces distrust on the left, where she is seen as an avatar of the Democratic establishment, and raw enmity on the right. Mr. Clinton has been largely sidelined amid new scrutiny of his past misconduct with women.”

It’s not often that you find such truthful reporting in the pages of The Times these days, given their penchant for skirting the line between “fake news” and “barnyard excrement”.

The paper then doubled down.

The story then declares that the couple “reeks of the past and [Democrats] fear that their unpopularity with conservative-leaning and independent voters could harm Democrats in close races.” Ouch. As evidence, the piece points out that while there is a Democratic primary election for a Republican-held House seat in Little Rock, Ark. — where the two were once from before they became New Yorkers — not a single one of the four candidates running “has reached out to seek the Clintons’ support.”

“I see the Clintons as a liability,” said Paul Spencer, a high school teacher running as a progressive in the Arkansas race. “They simply represent the old mind-set of a Democratic Party that is going to continue to lose elections.”

The Times says Hillary will play “at least a limited role in the midterms,” but not so for Bill. “Mrs. Clinton’s husband appears far less welcome on the trail, with his unpopularity among Republicans compounded by new skepticism on the left about his treatment of women and allegations of sexual assault.”

It’s incredible to watch such a large and liberal news organization find itself in the uncomfortable position of being unable to fake their way out of a corner.

 

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.