Coastal Liberals’ Unspoken Agreement on Hillary

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

The Providence Journal editorial board’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton today was nothing if not unsurprising.  The entire newspaper has been unambiguously and inexcusably devoted to her election.  It would have been a stunning show of independence for the opinion pages to offer even a tepid endorsement of the media’s Democrat candidate.  And so, they write, “we enthusiastically endorse Democrat Hillary Clinton for president” (emphasis added).

Of course they do.  They have to.  If a newspaper in deep blue Rhode Island (which went for Bernie Sanders, remember) had so much as expressed reservations, it might have drawn national attention and ensured snide comments over wine glasses across the state.

However, those restrictions didn’t prevent the editorialists from surprising in one way.  How can intelligent people write an endorsement of Hillary Clinton without at least mentioning that a sizable portion of the country believes (with justification) that the Democrats’ nominee would be headed toward the defendant’s table rather than the White House if the current Democrat administration, under Providence Journal endorsee Barack Obama, hadn’t corrupted the inaptly named Department of Justice and mockery-worthy Federal Bureau of non-Investigation?

One can even believe that such accusations are overwrought and still understand that their broad currency merits consideration when picking a president.  The Providence Journal even includes its faith that Clinton can work across the aisle to get things done as justification, yet spares no space for the perspective of us “deplorables.”

My operating theory is that the cocktail party set of coastal elites (and its aspirants) have a tacit reluctance to address such considerations, because when once a party goer mentions them — acknowledges this as a real problem — then they all must do so, and thereby abandon the tenuous deception that it doesn’t matter (that you and I don’t matter) and that Hillary Clinton isn’t already predictable to be an utter disaster, perhaps even outstripping that other predictable disaster they won’t acknowledge, Obama.



  • Paul Kelly

    They would’ve retained any self respect they had by not endorsing anyone. From what I’ve read, she isn’t even going to make any appearances until the debate.Probably crawled under a rock to shed her skin.

  • Justin Katz

    I don’t even necessarily blame them for endorsing her. It’s the lack of any reservations that stands out.

Quantcast