Why People Zone Out on Hillary


Hillary Clinton -- the woman assumed to be the next Democratic Party presidential nominee and quite possibly the next president -- is evidently a big snooze.  According to Mediate, her interviews to promote her book on CNN and Fox had underwhelming numbers. In the case of Greta Van Susteren's show, she sent people fleeing midway. More importantly, her book itself is a sales disappointment and, I would wager, even more disappointing if you could ascertain how many who did buy it read actually past page 15.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was in single digits.

No, I haven't read it and don't intend to. Almost all books by contemporary politicians are intellectually vacuous, ghostwritten exercises in self-promotion or, as in the case of Barack Obama, a straight out pack of lies. Who would spend their valuable reading time on that with the thousands of great books, past and present, available?  I haven't even made my way through half of Dorothy Sayers.

Which leads me to the deeper reason the country is sleeping through Hillary's book and it's not just because it's hugely over long and therefore a totally un-green waste of paper and trees (although that's true).  Most people know she's basically dishonest, a prevaricator.  Even liberals, though they won't readily admit it, know this.  Who can forget her blaming her husband's compulsive philandering on the "great, right-wing conspiracy"?  If they only had such power. Or the dim-witted claims of being under fire when she hadn't been (at least Geraldo makes a show of ducking)  and, more recently, the banshee-cry of "What difference does it make?" concerning the deaths of our people in Benghazi?  The Benghazi lies are actually exponential. (I'm not even going to go back to Whitewater, the miracle quick killing on the stock market, the mysterious Rose Law Firm bill and all the rest.)

But is the cause of this lying ideological -- the ends even roughly justifying the means? In truth, I think not.  Years ago, as a college girl, she may have had an attraction for Saul Alinsky, but in the intervening time that has been overwhelmed and, for the most part, forgotten in a welter of blind, unremitting ambition of the financial and power sort. Hillary's not a socialist, not a Marxist, not a capitalist, not a libertarian, not anything.  There's nothing authentic about her, no there there. It's hard to know what Hillary believes anymore.  She's so disingenuous she probably fools herself.   No wonder she  got so upset when being questioned about her "evolving" position on gay marriage.  She undoubtedly was having trouble remembering what she had said when and why.  It's all situational.  No one can -- not even she -- remember what she did as secretary of State except fly around on planes.

So Hillary is a nowhere woman, trying to replace a nowhere man, which is saying something given Obama's recent poll numbers. And no one wants to pay attention to a nowhere woman who has been a serial liar. It's stupefying. The natural reaction of most people, even many who will support her anyway, is to tune out -- and they have.  We've zoned out on Hillary.  She's not even a subject of glamorous interest anymore.  Who cares whom she really sleeps with or how she relates to Bill?  It's all one big snooze, less important than the Kardashians and they, apparently, are on the way out.

But boring as she is, Hillary still very well might be POTUS.  And that will be a truly sad day for this country.  Imagine, if you will, Inaugural Day 2017 with Hillary Clinton being sworn in to the presidency.  A few time-warped pseudo-feminists will be excited because she's a woman.  (How sexist is that!)  But the rest of us, I submit, will be numb, even the Democrats who voted for her because most of them will have done it without much enthusiasm or, at best, because it helps them keep their government jobs.  After eight years of Obama, we get Hillary. Yikes!

(Artwork created using multiple Shutterstock.com images.)