Might there be more to the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton's dubious email practices while Secretary of State than we're being led to believe? Rush Limbaugh thinks so and he's not alone.
Limbaugh told his radio listeners yesterday that it is most curious that media outlets previously counted on as Greek choruses of praise for Clinton are going after her with a vengeance.
It's almost as if they want another Democrat to become the Democrats' nominee in 2016, one nearer and dearer. That other possible candidate is Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who far better epitomizes the party's milk-the-rich-or-else ethos.
What is happening, Limbaugh says, is nothing less than a "war on a woman" from those who complain most often about the mythical "war on women" waged by Republicans (audio) --
It's stunning -- the New York Times, the Associated Press, The New Republic, Politico -- it is unprecedented. I've never seen it. The drive-by media, the left-wing media, the state-controlled media is forming a firing squad aimed at Hillary Clinton over this.
Now, one of the things that it could possibly mean, and this goes against the grain of every ounce of conventional wisdom, what it could possibly mean is that they don't want her to run to begin with! They resent her being forced on them. They resent the idea that the presidency is hers again, just like it was in 2008, just because. If she weren't married to a guy named Bill Clinton, it is probably safe to say nobody would ever have heard of her. Now that may be a mean thing to say or it may sound like it's a mean thing to say, but as you know I'm the one who tried to rescue her campaign in 2008. So before you start throwing darts at me, just recall my efforts on Mrs. Clinton's behalf. And it may be necessary again, folks, it may be necessary to save her again.
Because when you've got the New York Times and the AP and Ron Fournier, the National Journal, when you've got The New Republic, when you've got Politico aiming at you over this email business, it is clear, it is abundantly clear that this woman presents a problem to them. There's a story already in the drive-bys here today, maybe Al Gore would throw his hat back in the ring if Mrs. Clinton bows out. That is a story, I think it's in the Politico. ...
Man, so let's try to put this in perspective -- what we're looking at here, ladies and gentlemen, is an actual war on a woman, and this war on a woman is being conducted by the mainstream media, the drive-by media, and who knows however many Democrats behind the scenes who are providing unsourced opinion, fact, whatever, to back up these new stories! The Left is engaged in a war on a woman. It ought to be despicable. It ought to be unacceptable.
Coincidence that this came to mind for Limbaugh three years to the week after he apologized for calling ardent free birth control proponent Sandra Fluke a "slut"? --
Let's try to keep in perspective what has happened here, and going back some years. First, they used a young, inexperienced, community organizing, chain-smoking man of color to kick Hillary to the curb in 2008. In 2008 it was a coronation, remember? In 2008 it was going to be hers to lose. In 2008 it was the Democrat party paying her back for all she had done, subordinating herself to her husband, subordinating herself to the party in order to maintain her husband and his political viability and keep him in office. So 2008 was the payback, the presidency was to be hers. And the first chance the Democrat party powers that be had to get rid of her they took it, in the name of Barack Hussein O ....
And now, just a few short years later, another presidential cycle year later, they are using every major media outlet in America to pile on this feeble, aging woman known as Hillary Clinton. Is nothing sacred to these misogynists? Have they no sense of decency? They're going to do it again?! They're going to pile on the woman again?! The Democrat party mounting another war on the same woman, again?!
I mean, come on, just because Hillary Clinton subverted government laws and government servers while working for the government, exposed herself to blackmail. It was obviously engaging in things that she didn't want anybody to know about or every to be able to find out about. What difference does that make? Just because Hillary Clinton set up her own private computer server, in her home, protected by the Secret Service-- what difference does that make? Just because Hillary took what looked to be millions of dollars of bribes from foreign governments for her and her daughter's and her husband's foundation -- what difference does it make? Just because Hillary left her ambassador unprotected in Benghazi, left for dead, even if she knew about it four minutes after it started -- what difference does it make now?!
Just because Hillary lied about a video saying that the video caused the terrorist attack that led to the death of the ambassador and watched a hapless nobody videomaker thrown into jail to take the blame for her lack of, what difference does that make now? We're talking 2016, the next Democrat president -- what does any of this matter now? In the normal ebb and flow of events, none of this would matter, the media would be trying to sweep all this stuff under the rug. The media would be telling us that none of this stuff matters. Just because her husband spent countless hours with a playboy pedophile flying all over the world. What difference does that make now? Just because Hillary ruined innocent women's lives to protect her husband who sexually assaulted those women -- what difference does that make now? ....
My point here, folks -- don't tell me all of this does not factor into the flood of bad press coming in about Hillary Diane Rodham. ... See, my point is, I don't think this is just about these emails. I don't think this is just about her private email server and the fact that she was subverting federal law and she's trying to skirt around the Federal Records Act. I don't think that everybody's up in arms over the fact that Hillary was trying to conduct business, government business, in private and keep forever hidden whatever she was doing. That alone is not enough, in my humble opinion, to warrant what has become another relentless war on a woman, the drive-by media, Democrat party apparatus piling on this aging woman, presumptive Democrat nominee again on the verge of her ascension to that throne. None of this should make any difference. It's a Clinton that we're talking about. None of this should matter.
Except for the lingering possibility of Elizabeth Warren becoming the nominee if Clinton is forced out. Warren, after all, shares with Clinton what Democrats consider the main prerequisite for any presidential candidate in 2016 -- neither is a man. Clinton's email scandal wouldn't be getting nearly as much attention if it was Senator Warren Elizabeth, with the very same politics, waiting in the wings.
