Hillary’s Purely Political Trans-Formation
In a quintessentially Clintonian flip-flop, the two-time presidential loser walks back her unconditional support of “transgender” people.
We report this news with mixed emotions and a heavy heart because we’re forced to admit that Hillary Clinton is, well, right.
In an interview Friday with the Financial Times, Clinton sounded the midterm electoral alarm for her fellow Democrats: “We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy [sic], and everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window,” she said. “Look, the most important thing is to win the next election. The alternative is so frightening that whatever does not help you win should not be a priority.”
Setting aside the hysterics about losing our
democracy republic and the “frightening” alternative of competent governance, she’s right about that last part, at least politically speaking. If it doesn’t help you win, it’s not a priority. And so, channeling her inner Al Davis, she told her fellow Democrats that the only thing that matters is winning. “Transgender” rights and defunding the cops are nobly woke causes and all, and tireless advocacy on their behalf will get you an invite to all the best Beltway bashes, but if said advocacy gets you get curb-stomped at the polls on November 8, none of that will matter. All that will matter is cleaning out your desks and turning over the gavels to those existential threats to “our democracy,” the Republicans.
This, though, is a flip-flop of the first order. In March of this year, she tweeted unequivocally, “We must stand up for trans people.” Indeed, Clinton, 74, has been an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights for years. As Fox News reports:
Clinton’s comments are a stark departure from what she once described as the “highest priority.” During her failed 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton repeatedly promised to work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, a still-stalled bill that would extend civil rights protections for transgender and other LGBTQ individuals. “We have to pass the Equality Act,” Clinton said in October 2015, adding, “You will be able to count on me to fight for you.”
Who knew that when Hillary said, “We need to say with one voice that transgender people are valued, they are loved, they are us, and they deserve to be treated that way,” which she publicly proclaimed to the Human Rights Campaign in October 2015, she only meant it conditionally?
Who knew that when she said, “Our fight for equality must continue to ensure transgender people are treated with equal rights and dignity,” which she boldly tweeted in January 2016, she only meant it if you can keep from getting clobbered electorally?
As we might expect, the backlash has been swift and severe. “It is amazing anyone asks Hillary Clinton anything at all these days,” tweeted one woman in a representative sample. “74 years old and simply one of the biggest losers in recent American political history. Emanating loser energy forever. What a legacy.”
Perhaps Hillary will say she was goaded into those remarks by her interviewer, Financial Times U.S. editor Edward Luce, who pointed out that Democrats appeared to be fixated on the “transgender debate” before asking, “What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist?” Luce was referring to the renowned author of the Harry Potter series, who’s taken heat from the trans crowd for having had the audacity to say that there are actually differences between the sexes. (Luce might also have mentioned the shameful and ridiculous spectacle of Penn swimmer
Will Lia Thomas competing against and thrashing our girls in the pool.)
On the other hand, maybe Hillary will fess up and take ownership for once in her life, instead of blaming her shortcomings on others. And maybe, while she’s at it, she’ll finally dispense with this whole “Russia collusion” lie and stop saying that the 2016 election was stolen from her by Donald Trump.
We can dream, can’t we?
Start a conversation using these share links: