Viral “All-Caps” Hillary Support Piece Is a 7 Layer Dip of Bullshit

You can read the original piece we’re about to blow up here: An All-Caps Explosion of Feelings Regarding the Liberal Backlash Against Hillary Clinton. Or you can trust I’m going to give you an honest interpretation in the coming paragraphs, because that’s how real writers work.

You wouldn't be tracking her political donations if she was a man! Except for Bill, you know.

You wouldn’t be tracking her political donations if she was a man! Except for Bill, you know.

Let’s come proper to this discussion, because there are absolutely people on our side (Bernie’s side, socialism’s side, sanity’s side, whichever) that are fully wrong about one aspect of this manufactured “ugly liberal rivalry.” People who want to vote for Hillary on the basis of her vagina alone really do have a legitimate argument. I know, right? This point can’t be emphasized enough, it isn’t sexism to vote for Hillary fully because she’s a lady. It’s a fucking good reason.

The POTUS is more than just a legislator – – shit, not even much of that, as evidenced by 7 years of Obama failing to live up up to the progressive ideals we elected him for. The president is emblematic of the values and ideals the nation wants to project domestically and to the rest of the world, and in that Obama has been the raddest, blackest motherfucker we could have hoped for, and I wouldn’t take my votes back for anything. His election, we are fully aware, hasn’t ended racism, but we elected a black dude as the face of our country and the (ostensibly) most powerful position in the Free World TM. #BlackLivesMatter vs #BlueLivesMatter might seem like a sweaty, bloody bare-knuckle drag out, but it’s a conversation that wouldn’t be happening without Obama’s slim black cheeks in that over-sized leather office chair in the Oval.  You wouldn’t call black people voting for Obama for that reason racist; and -isms don’t exist for the oppressed minority, it’s merely an understandable bias toward people likely to speak for them. So let’s dispel with the idea that it’s a bad thing to vote for Hillary simply because she’s a woman – – she can do for women what Obama did for the black community, and for people like us who want equal pay for equal work, and for this Planned Parenthood Inquisition to end once and for all, check, check, check, right down the feminist checklist to which we all subscribe.

Let’s get this out of the way, though, because it’s going to become a theme: It also isn’t sexism to criticize Hillary for the leader she just won’t be, and NOT vote for her for those reasons. How do I know? Two words: Elizabeth Warren. “But Elizabeth Warren,” is pretty much the answer to every complaint issued in the viral “caps-lock” piece we’re about to discuss. Fully, what? 90% of Bernie’s supporters hadn’t heard of him before the primary race and were begging – pleading, nay, supplicating – Liz to run for president in 2016. She should have, and she would have (forgive me) manhandled Hillary in this race in a way Bernie can only pound his pud to in the dead of night. Elizabeth Warren took Hillary’s votes, not Bernie.

This isn't pointing out hypocrisy, this is hate, you see.

This isn’t pointing out hypocrisy, this is hate, you see.

Sexism would be to not hold Hillary to any standards because you want desperately to vote for a woman for President – – as, by the way, most progressives do want. Courtney Enlow, author of the All-Caps piece, has to know this, because – – and I don’t know her, but I’ll bet the house on this – – Courtney Enlow doesn’t have a “Poor Carly Fiorina” article in the chamber. If that seems unfair because Leftist Webster’s correctly defines a Carly Fiorina as a gender traitor that runs on the power from a corporate generator of doubled-down lies and bottom-line capitalist greed, that’s fine. But similar things are true of Hillary, and hollering every excuse you can muster for her while not applying the same ideas to Carly just implies party loyalty, that no female the Democrats could possibly run would have the insurmountable flaws of a Fiorina.

Excuses like what? Let’s snap into this Slim Jim.

“YOU LIKE BERNIE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T PLAY THE GAME, BUT FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, FOR A WOMAN, SHE HAS HAD NO OTHER CHOICE.”

But Elizabeth Warren.

“AND MOST OF YOU LIKE HER POLICIES AND PLANS TOO BECAUSE A) THEY’RE BASICALLY FUCKING OBAMA AND B) THEY’RE NOT THAT FUCKING DIFFERENT THAN FUCKING BERNIE.”

A) That’s the problem, liberals don’t like BASICALLY FUCKING OBAMA’s policies, they haven’t been liberal, they’ve been corporatist. Don’t speak for most of us, because you’re a thousand percent wrong about how we think. B) They are wildly, fundamentally fucking different from Bernie’s policies. Bill Clinton, 9-million-octane campaign-rhetoric-mode cranked confidently to 11, fully and devastatingly disagrees with Enlow, and one imagines he’s slightly closer to the campaign and it’s message than her. But, ever the intrepid and honest reporter, Enlow acknowledged that from Jump Street with her very first line:

“FIRST AND FUCKING FOREMOST, COOL, YOU LIKE BERNIE’S WISHES AND DREAMS APPROACH TO POLITICS. ‘FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE AND A GODDAMN PONY.'”

I’m confused. Does Hillary also want to give us ponies? Because Hillary’s policies are not that fucking different from fucking Bernie’s?

Enlow led with every Hillary apologist’s opening gambit, which happens to be how very different her policies are from Bernie’s, contradicting herself like her bladder was exploding with foot-shot. If that wasn’t the author’s intention, maybe don’t couch it in the same hyperbole Sean Hannity would use. “AND THE MOST MINDBLOWING PART? THIS ISN’T EVEN COMING FROM THE GOP!” I know you are, but what am I?

A pony? Really? Hillary is the “senisble and serious” one, which is code, not just for “establishment,” but corporate shill. Here’s a great article about why the argument isn’t working for Paul Krugman, and it’s definitely not going to work for a blogger throwing the prose equivalent of a hissy fit. People are tired of being told that basic human necessities and proven economic investments like higher education, things that have worked for every other developed Western economy for decades, are the equivalent of a little girl begging for a pony for her birthday. That’s Hillary’s line, and it can be yours too, but don’t come back at us and tell us we’re the ones launching personal attacks that are turning the Democratic Party into “an ugly snake eating itself.”

The banks are scared of one of the Democratic candidates, and give money to the other. But tell me how playing the game benefits - -

The banks are scared of one of the Democratic candidates, and give money to the other. But tell me how playing the game benefits – –

“YOU DON’T LIKE THAT SHE PLAYS THE GAME? THAT SHE HAS TIES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT? FOR ONE THING, THAT’S HOW SHIT FUCKING GETS DONE.”

No! It’s not, and that’s the point of this whole thing. We’ve tried that, remember? Obama played the game and we got the TPP, civilian drone massacres, a healthcare plan that benefited the insurance industry more than us, Guantanamo still open, cops with record numbers of murders, economic growth that benefited only the top 1% of the country, bankers that ruined (or ended) millions of lives getting bonuses instead of cavity searches – – that’s the shit that fucking gets done when you play the game. Bill Clinton invented the game with Tony Blair in their “3rd Way” faux-liberal centrist plan to hand the left over to corporate control, which saw the end of Glass-Steagall and the implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Those are the ‘liberal’ credentials Hillary is running on. The implication in the “All-Caps” piece is that Hillary is playing the game against her will, just keeping her head down trying to get something done, when really she herself is a full half of the Parker Brothers.

“BUT WHY DO WE HAVE TO HATE HER TO SHOW HOW MUCH WE LOVE HIM? SOCIALIST JESUS TAKE THE FUCKING WHEEL.”

Should Socialist Jesus take the wheel? I thought you were into Hillary. Jesus, you are a puzzle.

Enlow seems to genuinely believe this is the case, that people would not criticize Hillary if we didn’t have an objectively better candidate. But wait, then again, in the very next sentence she also says, “THIS BADASS, IMPORTANT WOMAN HAS BEEN DIMINSHED AND WRITTEN OFF AND HATED HER WHOLE CAREER, HER WHOLE EXISTENCE AS A PUBLIC FIGURE.” Is she hated because we love Bernie? Or her entire career? Because they have only been rivals for a few months. Knowing this person must be like knowing the Riddler during his heroin addiction. Where Enlow is from, people argue with themselves in public and call it a debate.

She doesn't care until it helps her win.

She doesn’t care until it helps her win.

To the feeble-minded, criticism is hate. We hate Clinton, and by extension, Enlow (“For me, the backlash against Hillary Clinton feels very, very personal”), because we dare mention that Hillary can’t be tough on Wall St when her pockets are lined with their cash. We hate her because we calmly, caps-lock off, ask how her donors will feel when she’s made all these promises to us, but their diametrically opposed money says otherwise. We hate her when we point out that maintaining the status quo isn’t progress at all. We hate Hillary because she changes her views, not in order to progress, but for political expediency. It isn’t always forward momentum, either, which is how we know she’s pony-shitting us. In 2008, Hillary said single-payer healthcare was the best idea ever. In 2015, she said it was impossible in order to set herself apart from her major primary opponent. In 2016, she’s coming around to the idea again, because Bernie is kicking the shit out of her in the polls, at the moment. She doesn’t just change her mind once or twice, her mind is whatever will get her elected. And where she lands could end up betraying the middle class. Sorry if it is hateful we’re not rolling the dice on this one.

When she’s elected, which Hillary do we get, 2009 Hillary, or 2015? It clearly hurts Courtney Enlow’s ears to hear that Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to lead the free world so much as she desperately wants to be POTUS. “LET’S NOT PRETEND FOR A SECOND THAT THERE WOULD BE *THIS MANY* ISSUES WITH HILLARY IF SHE WAS A GODDAMN MAN.” Here is where an actual author with considered and researched opinions would enumerate the issues that would not be addressed had Hillary a penis. We all agree women face different and probably more difficult challenges, I’m just curious which ones come from the Bernie camp. Bernie’s very presence is dragging Hillary kicking and screaming to the left, which is where Enlow claims to be, but in a candidate that can’t maintain a political position for more than six years, there’s exactly zero guarantee she won’t snap right back to Rubio-In-a-Pantsuit for the general election and her inevitable, corporate-fucking presidency.

BASICALLY FUCKING THE SAME AS BASICALLY FUCKING BERNIE FUCKING OBAMA AND THEY HAD BUTT-FUCKING BABIES

BASICALLY FUCKING THE SAME AS BASICALLY FUCKING BERNIE FUCKING OBAMA AND THEY HAD BUTT-FUCKING BABIES!

“DO YOU THINK HILLARY COULD EVEN SAY THOSE WORDS WITHOUT FOX NEWS LITERALLY BURYING HER ALIVE IN TAMPONS AND CRUCIFIXES?”

Is… she faring well on Fox News as it is? Is she courting the Fox audience? That’s something the left would very much like to know. Is Bernie doing well on Fox news? I mean, he isn’t “literally” being buried alive in tampons and crucifixes, but then again nobody is; you see the problem with spray-and-pray hyperbole? Also: but Elizabeth Warren.

“I’M SICK OF HAVING TO APOLOGIZE FOR LIKING HER, FOR HAVING TO QUALIFY AND SEE YOUR SIDE AND RESPECT YOUR OPINION WHEN I FUCKING DON’T AND YOU FUCKING DON’T RIGHT BACK.”

That’s the ballgame right there. Enlow is sick of having to defend her political opinions, as if they have to have any reasonable basis in order to be considered legitimate. She wants to participate in the discussion, and have her opinion validated alongside opinions that are considered, researched, reconcilable, and understandable.

Enlow’s not honestly representing us, telling it like it is; she’s just projecting her selfishness onto anybody but herself. Actual progressives do respect each other’s political opinions – – it is literally the only ingredient that is essential to human progress, to hear and carefully consider all ideas, celebrate the good ones, and reject the bad ones. For instance, instead of dismissing your dumb rant from the first paragraph, I have carefully considered and dissected your opinion. That I find it lacking is probably evidence that I “fucking don’t right back.” “PROGRESS. IT’S FUCKING SWELL.” On this, we agree, Courtney. Hillary should get some.

Maybe Courtney’s problem is that the American election cycle is fucking endless, that we’ve had 3 years since we knew Hillary would be running, and we’ve been able to fully vet her out of consideration as a good candidate. Maybe the protracted dissonance and ultimate disagreement with Enlow’s personal feelings was just too much, and she lost the thread along the way. Either way, Courtney Enlow either only just started paying attention, or she isn’t really progressive. “AND IF YOU COME AT ME FOR EVEN ONE GODDAMN SECOND WITH A ‘YOU JUST LIKE HER BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN’ I WILL DESTROY YOU WHERE YOU STAND.” I wouldn’t come at her with that, even though I’ve articulated it would be totally cool, but I will come at her with, “You’re only defending her because she’s a woman.” That’s also fine, but it’s true. Earlier, Enlow screamed:

“BECAUSE WHAT I AM SEEING IS THE SAME THING WE SEE WITH OBAMA ONLY ON THE MORE LIBERAL END OF THE SPECTRUM–PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEVER CONSIDER THEMSELVES BIGOTS IN ANYWAY [sic] BUT JUST KNOW THERE IS *SOMETHING* THEY DON’T CARE FOR ABOUT THIS PERSON.”

I doubt this generation is more than 14% women.

I doubt this generation is more than 14% women.

It isn’t just *something* we don’t like about Hillary, the reasons are specific, damning, and multifarious, but how could Enlow possibly know? She started out from a position of plugged ears, she doesn’t respect anybody’s opinion if it isn’t her own. She’s throwing a tantrum in the candy isle of the blogosphere because, like a child that throws tantrums, she doesn’t understand why she can’t just have her way without considering others’ arguments against her getting two candy bars. “I LIKE HER!” I know, and I like ponies, apparently. We can only have one, so we’re going to rationally discuss it.

My guess is that nobody respects Enlow’s political opinions because there is clearly nothing to respect there, no relevant research or academic authority, so she thinks that’s how adults conduct themselves in political discussion, when really everybody just wants her (not women, her) to shut the hell up about things she hasn’t even begun to try and understand.

“THE DAY MY HUSBAND TOLD ME HE LIKED BERNIE, HE SAID, ‘I mean, how great is it to have a president who just doesn’t even care how his hair looks” AND I EXPLODED “DO YOU THINK THERE EXISTS A WORLD WHERE A WOMAN COULD EVEN CONSIDER THAT?'”

Best of luck in the divorce.

But that *something* Enlow refers to would only be relevant if Bernie wasn’t sweeping 80% of the 18-39 vote, and a decent amount of the rest of it. Because that means thousands of women would have to subscribe to that indefinable *something* that is mistrust or outright hatred of womanhood. The women that support Bernie support their positions with facts and figures, and ideologies that extend beyond their understandable desire (that most progressive men share) to see a woman in the Oval Office.  Oh, and – – #ButElizabethWarren.

Check it:

Make it stop.

Make it stop.

Swing and a miss! Like all other opinions expressed in Enlow’s article, this one is deliberately and shamelessly under-considered. That isn’t our line, actually, and considering Enlow has firmly expressed her refusal to understand the other side, to respect our reasoning even if we try to help her understand our positions, she’ll not have the benefit of having our actual line explained here. Because she doesn’t want to know, and I’m not her fucking teacher. Though she should get one, quick.

I repeat, Elizabeth Warren took Hillary’s votes, not Bernie. And she took them by showing what an actual advocate for women can be, not because she has a vagina, but because she lives the vagina, and realizes that there are a few issues that simultaneously supersede and are inclusive of women’s issues because they are communal. With the smallest amount of empathy and acknowledgement from the Bernie camp, #BlackLivesMatter and Killer Mike and Cornell West got on board with the concept that we can fight each of these battles piecemeal, or we can rip the overall cause of inequality and social contention out by the root. So you see, the Democratic party isn’t eating itself alive, by any stretch of the imagination. It is working in harmony better than ever before. It is having a healthy, robust, adult debate about the future of the party and the country, one in which Enlow has proved entirely incompetent to participate.