Well, that sure didn’t take long.
What a difference a day makes.
Hillary Clinton made headlines Monday when she told a local New York news channel that she would not runfor president in 2020.
“I’m not running, but I’m going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe,” the former presidential nominee told News 12 Westchester. She insisted that she would remain relevant and has no plans of “going anywhere.”
But late Tuesday, Maggie Haberman, a political reporter for the New York Times, tweeted that she spoke with a person close to the former secretary of state. The unnamed source said Clinton was not trying to “be emphatic and close the door on running” with the comment and was apparently “surprised” at the reaction.
“The person also says [Clinton] is extremely unlikely to run, but that she remains bothered that she’s expected to close the door on it when, say, John Kerry isn’t. She has told her team she is waiting at least to see the Mueller report,” Haberman tweeted.
Yeah, I can see that mattering to her quite a lot. For one thing, if the Koup Klux Klowns can’t pull something at least resembling a win out of the flaming dumpster against all odds, then what hope does she have? Plus, there’s still the small related matter of her, Obama’s, and their Deep State unindicted co-conspirators’ sedition possibly being brought fully to light as an unintended consequence of the Mueller shitshow, and of something resembling justice being visited upon at least some of them in consequence. She’ll definitely want to weigh the odds of being manacled and frogmarched off of a campaign-stop stage to begin a long term of Rockin’ Orange in her 2020 deliberations.
I’m sure Trump would greatly enjoy whipping her doddering, gin-soaked ass a second time—he’s Tweeted to that effect, I believe—and should I manage to not croak or go senile by then, I’ll get a lot of laughs out of making further sport of the shambolic old trainwreck myself. But seriously, folks: isn’t about time for the Clintons to just go away?
How can you tell she’s lying update! Hey, didn’t a bunch of people lecture the hell out of Trump that it was critically crucially vitally crucially critical that he unequivocally pledge to accept the results of the election, no matter how fraudulent or rigged it may have been, at a debate somewhere? Or did I just dream it?
“I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act, and I will tell you, it makes a really big difference. And it doesn’t just make a difference in Alabama and Georgia; it made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40 [thousand] and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.”
— Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, at the annual “Bloody Sunday” commemorative service, Selma, Ala., March 3, 2019
“Just think about it: Between 2012, the prior presidential election where we still had the Voting Rights Act, and 2016, when my name was on the ballot, there were fewer voters registered in Georgia than there had been those prior four years.”
Astoundingly, the WaPo’s Fact Checker checked, and the fact is every word of that was a lie. Including “and” and “the.”
Wisconsin was not one of the states covered by Section 4 (the only part of the VRA that was struck down—M) when the court ruled in 2013, so, right off the bat, Clinton’s claim that this “made a difference in Wisconsin” is unfounded. Georgia was covered by Section 4, but Clinton’s claim that total voter registration declined in that state from 2012 to 2016 is false; it increased.
At the high end of the scale, the UW-Madison study estimates that 23,252 voters were “deterred” by the voter ID requirement. That’s just a hair above Trump’s 22,748 margin in the state. Mayer and DeCrescenzo did not ask survey respondents whom they would have voted for because their research was funded by the office of the Dane County clerk. In any case, Clinton said 40,000, not 23,000.
Where does Clinton get the 80,000 figure for the high end of her estimate?
She made it up, natch. Because that’s what she does. Because she’s an inveterate, congenital liar. At this point, she’s probably gotten herself on the outside of enough high-proof popskull over the years that she doesn’t even know whether her statements are true or not; she needs them to be true, they make her feel better, so they’re true to her. Ed Morrissey points out another problem with Her Herness’s increasingly pathetic, self-serving rationalizations:
But what about the “best studies” that showed voter-ID deterring up to 80,000 Wisconsin voters? That claim was based on a study done in two counties with a sample of fewer than 300 voters. The study’s authors warned readers not to extrapolate their findings statewide, but that fell on deaf ears. It also ignores an inconvenient fact for Hillary, which is that she didn’t generate much enthusiasm among African-American voters anywhere, in states with or without voter-ID laws.
Nor was this phenomenon limited to black voters. Four months ago, I noted in a column at The Week that Donald Trump didn’t win the blue-wall states as much as Hillary lost them. This wasn’t a voter-ID issue — it was a candidate-ID issue.
Oh, voters ID’d her all right—as a vile, powermad, dishonest, narcissistic hack with nothing but contempt for the “little people” she fraudulently claims to care so very deeply about. Despite the orchestrated “outrage” over it, Trump was no more than perfectly honest and accurate when he said she was “such a nasty woman.” Ace blasts away at another problem, with another set of loathsome phonies:
And yet a certain breed of “True Conservative” still thinks this creature was an upstanding and honest candidate for President who should have been elected rather than the Drumpfenkonig.
If you’re feeling as if you might need a shower after getting all grubby from this immersion in sleaze, well, I sympathize. But I gotta also say I’m happy that Hillary!™ has apparently decided to ditch those boring, unflattering Soviet-style pantsuits and tunics of hers in favor of an attractive new look for Failed Campaign 2020 that better suits her personality and style, as you can see from this pic of Her Herness on a recent likker-store run:
That’s the stuff, Hills! Nice dress, and I’m digging the gauntlets too. You never looked better, like real Presidential material. No, really—you go, girl.