Our Mainstream Media Love Affair with Hillary Clinton!

Thursday, February 25th, 2016

Published 2 years ago -

I think it started in 1992 with her line about not standing by her man, an allusion to that notoriously blasphemous song “Stand by Your Man” by that America-hating country singer Tammy Wynette. Because everyone knows that attacking the most popular country song ever recorded, and, by association, the singer who recorded it, is the best way to get the media to love you. And not since Princess Diana has an entire population been so in love with one woman, a woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Except maybe Jane Fonda. No one loves Hanoi Jane more than the mainstream press, except maybe Vietnam Vets and the Growing Old Ungracefully Club.

Clinton’s Tammy Wynette reference was in response to allegations that her husband, Bill, another American Idol all the way to Impeachment, had dalliances with other women. While it may have gotten Bubba into a few swipes, and a 72.3 million dollar taxpayer-funded Mission for Monica, Hillary remained unscathed. Not since Jackie has a First Lady’s elegance—frumpy pantsuits, Walgreens headbands, a voice that MSNBC’s Chris Matthews compared to “fingernails on a blackboard”—so ensconced the American public into a new era of Unrequited Lady Love.

Except Madonna. Lady Madonna as I believe she is commonly referred to by the Mainstream Media. Both have wooed the press as profusely as the press has wooed them.

Even as the Whitewater investigations were just getting started, which I think were before Filegate and Travelgate—Bill’s Hair-Gate goes in there somewhere—and Vince Foster Was Killed By Them-Gate…it’s a tad difficult to keep track, it was clear the columnists, the talking heads (not the band, but I’m sure they share the love affair too), and especially the Mainstream Media (and don’t even get me started on those smaller Internet publications, which I think Hillary, not Al Gore, must have invented) just loved the Little Girl from Little Rock. And who could blame them? She has charm in (C)itizens (U)nited (N)ot (T)imid Spades.

Never mind that she pimped out her daughter, Chelsea (thanks, MSNBC’s David Shuster); and started the Obama Birther movement (thanks CNN’s Don Lemon), which must be true because even Donald Trump believes it, and Trump is only believable if he disbelieves Hillary; and that NPR quoted Jeb Bush Adviser Michael Hayden to say that Hill’s emails were “stupid and dangerous,” and that she’s a lesbian (she probably started that rumor herself to distract from Oprah and Gail’s undue attention)— the media’s love affair with Hillary is unprecedented.

Except for maybe Imelda Marcos. Because everyone loves a lady who loves her shoes.

I know they love her, because 72 percent of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s negative Hillary columns can’t be wrong. Dowd’s merely having fun at the world’s most-respected newspaper, figuratively pulling Hillary’s pigtails at recess. Like half of Democrats who say they don’t trust her, it’s all in fun. I didn’t trust my brother when he used to aim his BB gun at me, but I still love the bastard, and should I ever decide to lift that restraining order, I will tell him it was a mistake to press charges.

It’s been quite the ride for Hillary, indeed. Whether it was Tucker Carlson saying “When [Hillary Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs,” or Fox’s Michelle Malkin saying “[Hillary Clinton] looks 92 years old. If that’s the face of experience, it’s going to scare away a lot of those independent voters,” or “Over the Hill,” “nagging,” “shrill,” “harpy,” “she devil,” “men hear ‘Take out the garbage,'” those oh-so-cute airport Hillary Nutcrackers, or “How do we beat the bitch?” the line that made John McCain and the whole world laugh, with her, of course.

So I guess it was no surprise then, after Hillary screwed up royally at the first Democratic Debate, the Clinton-Controlled Mainstream Media chose to “ignore” the facts and claim she “won.” Unprepared and ignorant as always (she makes W.’s mispronouncing of countries seem Churchill-esque in comparison), Hillary once again used her immense nagging, shrill, over the Hill, pear-shaped charm to woo her Kool-Aid-drinking media friends. There were times when it looked like she was so desperate for an answer that she was going to turn to Jim Webb for speaking tips.

The only sane viewers of that first “debate” were Bernie Sanders’ effusive supporters, who know a good conspiracy when they conjure one up. Hillary only appeared to be polished and capable in the debates, and it only felt like she won. In truth, it was just the opposite. Remember, never believe what you read or see, unless it’s from the same people who tell you to never believe what you read or see.

Those supporters were the first to catch on that CNN replaced its first online poll (that gave Sanders the lead) with a “scientific” version that gave it to Clinton—science is to be trusted in every regard unless it negatively affects the Bern.

Contrary to popular “opinion,” the “scientific” (there’s that word again) polls lied, and Bernie won by a landslide. We know it’s true because the fair and balanced Change.Org started a “CNN is Corrupt” petition because “we want you to know the undeniable truth: Senator Sanders won the debate last night.” Like CNN’s support of Clinton, Change.org is a huge Sanders supporter, but, unlike CNN and everyone else, they would never let that cloud their judgment. I know because they say so.

If you’re still not convinced Bernie won “by a landslide,” they backed it up with several extremely reliable online polls and focus groups, claiming CNN was turning into Fox and then posting a Fox News Poll that declared Sanders won (because Fox is never reliable unless they declare that Hillary did something bad), and the Drudge Report online poll (so accurate they declared Jim Webb in second place). Those initial polls were not based on Tom-Cruise-reputed pseudo science; they were created by telling people to go online and vote! Kind of like how “Dancing with the Stars” works but with no fox-trot category. And let’s face it: the Bern would beat Hillary in a Paso Doble matador number any day.

So why is she “ahead” now? She’s not. She’s losing. Badly. She rigged Iowa, and their coins, and she deliberately lost in New Hampshire so she could make the Nevada “win” a comeback story. Because, like all slimy politicians, she needs to pretend she’s come back from something. Since Hillary’s never accomplished anything that Sarah Palin couldn’t achieve, she’s taking similar, desperate, calculated measures, like running as a woman.

She’ll never beat the revolution, er, anti-establishment, er, “The Angry White Jewish Socialist Is the Only Man Who Can Beat Trump” long-term Sanders agenda that’s been consistent since the start. She won’t fare better when it consistently changes again. And you’re never going to find an accurate report on Hillary’s so-called front-runner status unless the report states otherwise.

Unfortunately, as we have learned after so many years of wonderful press, she owns everyone and everything: CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, NYT, DWTS, Maureen Dowd, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher (he totally egged on Gloria Steinem to say something stupid because only stupid people will vote for Hillary) the DNC, TWA, the IRA, HBO, the NRA—a brilliant coup on her part to frame Sanders as pro-gun—SNL, the Benghazi Committees—all eight of them—Hollywood, the cast of Downton Abbey, even Meryl Streep—who Hillary has endorsed as being the actress she’d like to see her play her in the movie (a pure political maneuver as everyone knows Republican Heather Locklear would be the smarter choice).

She owns every black man in the South except Killer Mike—his “uterus” comment was all the proof I need that she’s ready to run off to Planned Parenthood for an illegal abortion and subsequent lady parts trafficking. She owns that establishment icon Barbara Boxer, the establishment hookers in Las Vegas, and gay men over 30, because the homos just love their MILFS.

And now it appears she owns Barack Obama too. He “praised” his former Secretary of State in an article for “Politico,” a liberal site until it liberally liked Clinton. She must have promised the “President” access to the Oval Office—I’m sure he’d love to see it. Unless offered lots of perks, and maybe a real birth certificate, he’d never say nice things about his former Secretary of State and she’d never capitalize on the compliments. That’s just plain dirty.

But can you blame Obama for submitting? Sooner or later, as it’s been proven, everyone succumbs to Hillary’s dazzling spell. In the history of the world, we have never experienced such unrequited love for one woman.

Except maybe Marie Antoinette. The world was head over heels over that gal.

Get the book! The Satirist - America's Most Critical Book (Volume 1)

Online Ads


8 recommended
comments icon 0 comments
0 notes
bookmark icon

Write a comment...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar