No, Nancy Reagan did not endorse Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton has a number of hills to climb and unflattering revelations about her character to overcome, but one of the most problematic things that she faces is that no one can seem to name even one accomplishment from her time at State or even from her time in the Senate. And by “no one” I don’t mean republicans, libertarians, or anyone lurking in the darkened corners of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I mean attendees of the Democratic National Convention:
The folks at Morning Joe can’t think of anything, either:
Without anything of any substance to run on, Clinton’s team has landed on her one achievement, her one accomplishment that matters most to Democrats: she’s a woman.
Millennials are apparently very impressed by Clinton’s amazing ability to . . . be a woman, a stunning and admirable skill that only 150 million or so other Americans have mastered:
How desperate are left-leaning “journalists” to find something, anything positive to say about Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be-announced candidacy and her clear intention to focus on her gender as her winning strategy? Apparently, so desperate that they will publish as fact a “story” from an Onion-like satire site. Mediaite reports:
The National Report made up a story about an upcoming History Channel series hosted by Ron Reagan Jr. in which his mother, Nancy Reagan, said that she backs Hillary Clinton in 2016. They “quote” her as saying this, “The time for a woman to serve as our President has come – really, now is the time – and I think the idea of having a former First Lady as the leader of the free world is really quite a marvelous notion. I want Hillary to win. Even though I admire two of the current potential Republican nominees, I have no interest in seeing either of them lead this country.”
Yes, that’s right. Nancy Reagan, widow of conservative powerhouse and beloved president, Ronald Reagan, supports Hillary Clinton for one reason and one reason only: she’s a woman. Nothing else matters to Nancy Reagan, not policy, not ideology, not politics, not scandals, not character, nothing is more important than Hillary Clinton’s gender. The left is so awash in its own mythology, so enamored of its own identity politics, and so sure of the Clinton gender angle that this clearly fantastical notion is not only believable to them but worth reporting as a news story.
Bloomberg Politics jumped on the “story,” even quoting one of its least believable, most laughable paragraphs:
Ron Reagan said that he sees his mother’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton as evidence of the public’s lack of knowledge about Mrs. Reagan.
“She wants people to know that the First Ladies are tight,” said Reagan fils. “They get together once a year to support each other. In fact, Hillary had no interest in running until both Laura and Barbara Bush cornered her at their get-together in May 2013 and talked her into at least thinking about it! So, in a sense, if Mrs. Clinton does run and win, you can blame the Bush family.”
Why was Bloomberg taken in by something that any conservative, even a moderate, would easily spot as satire? We can only guess, but my guess is that it has to do with their belief in the viability and bipartisan appeal of Clinton’s “I have lady parts” presidential campaign.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.