{Originally posted to the National Review website}
Hillary Clinton is perfect.
That, apparently, is the Left’s new line on their nominee. It was one thing to label her a corrupt old crone when she was running against newfangled 1930s near-octogenarian Bernie Sanders. It was another thing to sigh over her foibles when she led Donald Trump by double digits.
But in a close election, Democrats have decided to don the blinders: Hillary is a saint. And all who oppose her are angels of darkness.
When Hillary’s e-mail scandal first cropped up, the Left acknowledged Hillary’s dicey relationship with the truth, but praised rival Bernie Sanders for his gentlemanly unwillingness to exploit Hillary’s corruption for political gain. Then, when Sanders finally shuffled off into the political sunset, they shifted their narrative: Now, Hillary was being targeted over speculation and innuendo — but she had some of that coming, given her decision to set up a private e-mail server. When the FBI effectively closed its original investigation, they could point to FBI director James Comey’s supposed rectitude as evidence for their theory that Hillary had made a mistake, but she hadn’t done anything criminal.
Then, like a zombie rising from the dead, E-mailgate returned: twice as brutal, twice as ugly, and twice as unkillable.
It’s too late in the election cycle to ward off E-mailgate with some tut-tutting or a wave of the hand. This election is too close for Democrats to simply acknowledge Hillary’s corruption, then vote for her in order to stop Trump.
No, they must blind themselves to Hillary’s corruption utterly, and blind others to it as well. They must spray lye in the eyes of the public to protect Hillary’s lies. And so the Left have declared their new enemies: James Comey, and supposed sexism.
Parodic New York Times columnist Charles Blow led the way with a column titled “Emails, Genitalia and the FBI.” Blow now alleges that the election is rigged — sound familiar? — by nefarious forces beyond Hillary’s control. “This election isn’t in danger of being stolen by Hillary Clinton,” Blow says, “but in danger of being stolen from her.” And why, pray tell, would James Comey, Hillary’s heretofore savior, turn on her like a Judas? Because, writes Blow, “this is just the latest lifeline being thrown to a Republican candidate drowning in his own ineptitude.” Comey must be working for the Trumps. Or the Russians. Or somebody.
Senator Harry Reid (D., Nev.), a petrifying political cow dropping, has accused Comey, in full Joe McCarthy fashion, of the same malfeasance. “I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that [your] actions may violate the Hatch Act,” Reid wrote to Comey. “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government#…#[but] you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.” Reid is now approximately five minutes from brandishing a list of Communists before the cameras, calling for Comey’s resignation.
And Harry Reid isn’t the only one. Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake — a woman who once declared that she would let rioters destroy her city because it was imperative to give them “room” to express themselves — called Comey “reckless” and suggested that “he’s under pressure and he got shook.” Former attorney general Eric Holder, who is still under contempt of Congress, declared Comey’s actions absolutely deplorable.
Most hilarious, Professor Robin Lakoff of the University of California, Berkeley, labeled the entire enterprise sexist. “Emailgate is a bitch hunt,” she wrote at Time.com, “but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us. The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man?”
Lakoff apparently forgot that this re-investigation exists only began because a man, Anthony Weiner, is under FBI investigation; she apparently forgot that General David Petraeus was punished for similar crimes; she apparently neglects that 91 percent of all prison inmates are men, and that virtually every political scandal in history has targeted a man. But never mind that: Hillary must be shielded, and if her genitalia will serve the cause, so be it!
One of the most disappointing aspects of this election cycle has been the realization by some conservatives that many of our fellow conservatives want to be Democrats. They want to be Democrats not in terms of policy, although some Trump fans are indistinguishable from blue dog Democrats. They want to be Democrats in terms of politician-worship. Too many Republicans look at how Democrats rally around awful people ranging from Bill Clinton to Teddy Kennedy, and think, “How can we do that? If we just did that, we’d be able to elect more Republicans!”
There’s truth to that. Obviously, Democrats are willing to stand with their candidates, even after those candidates use their interns as humidors or their female friends as car anchors. But that’s what distinguishes Republicans from Democrats historically. And even when Republicans begin to act like Democrats — when we begin to excuse the worst excesses of our candidates in the name of victory — it doesn’t work all that well. Many Republicans still agonize over the foibles and evils of Trump. Many Republicans won’t vote for him. The same doesn’t hold true for Democrats, who may pretend at skepticism but fall into pure godworship the moment the chips are down.
Hillary Clinton isn’t a victim. She created a private server for her own benefit, and she’s been ensnared in her own paranoia and ambition. The fact that Democrats will cling to her sainthood despite that obvious truth demonstrates that Democrats cannot be trusted with power. To the extent that Republicans imitate Democrats, they can’t be trusted with power either.
Yes, at long last, the Left has pulled its anti-Trump card: Hillary has a vagina, and is being targeted for that supposedly debilitating condition.
The attempts to paint E-mailgate as sexism demonstrate the Left’s blindness to Hillary’s flaws. At least we acknowledge Trump’s faults in the GOP — or at least a major segment of us do. The Left’s attempts to pawn off all anti-Hillary scandals as effects of sexism (and Obama’s as effects of racism) are a basic avoidance maneuver.