Hillary Clinton: Some Are More Equal Than Others

hillary clinton

A common retort during the 2016 election regarding it being Hillary Clinton’s “turn” to be president because she’s a woman went along the lines of, “I have no problem with a woman president, but does it have to be THAT woman?!” Advocacy for Hillary’s election amounted to a typical, and increasingly annoying “It’s The Current Year” argument. “Ready for Hillary” didn’t just mean the country actually wanted Hillary to be president; it meant that America was finally exhibiting gender equality by the supposed imminent shattering of the glass ceiling.

This seems like a pretty high bar to clear. For America to prove that it is not a nation founded on bigotry and slavery, non-straight, -white, -male, -Christians need to be elected president, and to be the first person elected who fits some or all of that criteria firmly establishes a space in history books. This notion, when applied to race and Barack Obama was successful, as blacks had endured centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, and wide-spread poverty. Indeed, many Americans felt good about the election of President Obama; some form of transcendence had been attained.

Yes, there have been some cultural mores and norms in America that had worked against female autonomy, and there may even still exist some mainly benign repressive attitudes and practices, but none endorsed and codified by our government since the success of Suffrage. Women fought long and hard for equal treatment under the law, and they enjoy it now.

If Hillary had been elected president, women as a whole would not have been better off. Plenty of glass ceilings have been shattering over the past century, at home and abroad (pun intended); the presidential glass ceiling is just the last one. No real precedent would have been set if she, or any white woman, became president. The only person who would feel empowered would be Hillary, as her personal ambition and egomania would finally be slaked. Would social justice warriors and feminists really finally breathe a sigh of relief and a warm satisfaction if Hillary had been elected? Rich white women have not been systemically oppressed; they’ve had it pretty goddamn good in this country.


Failing to make history as the first female president, Hillary and her ghost-writer(s) are attempting to rewrite it. What Happened is Hillary’s effort to show how she was made a victim by Trump and Vladimir Putin collaborating to subvert her personification of the moral arc of history.

Would Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, leftists, etc., really feel warm and fuzzy if a rich, white, straight woman, whose corruption knows no bounds, moved back into the White House? Who is more to blame for Hillary’s general election loss: Trump and his sexist coterie, and the machinations of Putin and Russia…or the almost half of Democrat primary voters who cast their ballots for wild-eyed Bernie Sanders? The primaries were the first indicator of resistance to Hillary’s anointing.

Inevitably, if the argument SJWs are making for why Hillary should be president is because it would counteract some sexism unique to and inherent in America (a fallacy I could write a series of articles debunking), then the only acceptable explanation for her electoral loss is, you guessed it, sexism.

However, the voting patterns do not bear this theory out. Here’s a breakdown of voting results based on sex, race, and education level attained. This article states:

So, what exactly happened? Women did vote overwhelmingly to elect Clinton, but it was white women who helped hand Trump the presidency, according to Edison national election poll. Overall, 54% of women voted for Clinton, much higher than the 42% of women who voted for Trump. But when the women’s vote is divided by race, it becomes clear that black women actually largely drove the so-called gender gap against Trump.

The majority of non-college educated white women (64%) voted for Trump, while 35% backed Clinton. This figure is far higher than non-college educated black women, of which only 3% voted for Trump, and non-college educated Hispanic women, of which 25% voted for Trump. Black, Hispanic and other non-white women backed Clinton in far greater numbers.

These numbers are not so much indicative of voting preferences based on the sex and/or ethnicity of the candidates as they are reflective of the ideological composition of American voters (here’s an extensive polling report by Pew Research Center that breaks down the American population by sex, ethnicity and social classes). Are the 42% of women who voted Trump sexist against women? The notion is immediately risible.


Hillary has (ghost)[co-]written eight books. Most of them were published during or within a year of running for public office. That’s eight opportunities to “introduce” herself, and convey a blueprint of her ideological/governing principles, to the electorate. She’s been a household name in America for 25 years, and longer for Arkansas residents. Her ambition is not just apparent; it should be obvious to anyone who isn’t on the autism spectrum.

What Happened, like Bernie with his jackass Medicare-for-all proposal, is designed solely to keep her in the public eye. They crave the spotlight, because they need it for the other things they crave: personal aggrandizement and power and influence. Do you think she’s just going to sit around in 2019-2020, content to bake cookies for her grandkid(s), watching her husband flirt with the maid, rather than run for office again?

Two weeks ago I critiqued an article by Ta-Nehisi Coates wherein he argued that Trump was “America’s first white president,” since every action by the Trump campaign and Administration is motivated by reversing everything President Obama, our first black president (Ackchyually, America’s first biracial president, but why bother being 100% factually accurate?), did. My critique of Coates was of a piece of a larger critique of identity politics, and I commented that SJWs and their MSM accomplices “can not help but conflate the deliberate and malicious with the coincidental and casual.”

To no one does this apply more effectively than Hillary Clinton and her supporters.


And that’s the way it is, as far as you know.


Image/Meme: “Don” @ www.knowyourmeme.com

The following two tabs change content below.
Dillon Eliassen is a former Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. Dillon works in the sales department of a privately owned small company. He holds a BA in Journalism & Creative Writing from Lyndon State College, and needs only to complete his thesis for his Master’s of English from Montclair State University (something which his accomplished and beautiful wife, Alice, is continually pestering him about). He is the author of The Apathetic, available at Amazon.com. He is a self-described Thoreauvian Minarchist.