Columnists

How does Clinton fare up north in Canada? Comments on the Globe & Mail story went south.

Let me set this up for you: nearly every day, the Canadian liberals’ multi-faceted media division (which includes the mammoth state-owned CBC) reports on the latest Donald Trump news (or more accurately, it seems to me they watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC then report to Canadians what Maddow said, changing her “about” to “aboat”). Or they publish any number of opinions by publicly-funded university professors or other such left-wing or far-left pundits who are reliably anti-Trump, anti-conservative, anti-industry, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, and/or possibly anti-American.

They do this with almost comic regularity and comic negativity. They seem to have no idea how irrational and biased they come across, or they are so arrogant they just don’t care anymore. This is a media with an agenda, and as in America, they have dropped almost all pretence by now.

Stories on Hillary Clinton are fewer in number, I think possibly because she is about exactly nothing other than Obama Part Deux, and he’s hard to write about positively; and because she has said exactly nothing of any value whatsoever (again not unlike Obama). Nonetheless any reports about her are written to warm the heart of every liberal-leftist — just as do their random articles about any new government regulations being considered for one enviro cause or another, or talk of new government regulations banning families from disposing of their old clothes (seriously), or the multitude of opinion pieces about the need to raise taxes on the evil corporations/investors/the ___ industry/the rich, and of spending more on “environmental justice,” or bringing in still more refugees from Syria.

Last night Clinton was on Kimmel, and the media loves this. It’s like reporting on a warm liberal tongue bath, rife with unanswered anti-Trump rhetoric and the sheeple clapping wildly at any insult to any conservative thought. So even though utterly nothing of any consequence whatsoever was discussed or said, the liberals’ Globe & Mail division had to write it up in a huge 800-word article, which was featured on their website’s front page with a photo as the major feature of the day, right above another featured article headlined “The pitiable pivots of Trump” (written by a public university professor).

If you saw her appearance, though, you’d immediately muse that they had a pitiable task. She came off as phony as she actually is, and like the broken anti-Trump record that she is, and as the pathologically partisan life-long political hack that she is (so… “authentic!”).

Surely, you’d think, the writer would have to acknowledge this. But no (harshest word used: “rote”). Instead, he pitiably pivoted, and fretted about whether she was enjoying it or not (because that’s what we care about):

“…it was hard to believe she was enjoying herself that much at all”.

Incapable of typing out negative words about their Hillary (here’s some: “cringeworthy,” or “a total phony partisan blowhard”), opinion writer Adam Radwanski chose a different tack. He forgave Hillary because… nobody could come off as good as Barack Obama in these situations. In fact that’s what the editors headlined the article: “Hillary Clinton’s appearance with Jimmy Kimmel highlights a difference between her and Obama”. And after all, insofar as rising to His standards,

“it is completely unreasonable to expect her to do so.”

Completely unreasonable!

Then nearly the whole remainder of the article was about Obama, and how he always had a good time (because that’s what we care about):

Barack Obama rarely has to pretend to be having a good time when he’s dabbling in modern showbiz, because it clearly comes naturally to him. Blessed with (or having honed, at some point) a dry comic timing to go with his massive charisma…

So that’s massively remarkable. They defend her despite herself, and help Barack Obama build a bit of his fanciful Barack Obama legacy, all for the edification of what they must see as the pitiable Canadian dumbassery.

Maybe some of the pitiable could help Adam Radwanski and the Globe & Mail with some of the words they just couldn’t think of, or get themselves to type. Here are few of the first reader comments on their own article (presumably) from Canadians (ordered by ranking):

  • rone81 6 hours ago
    She is so old school and political she will never connect. Very uncomfortable to watch as you know it is a sham. She comes across as a ganny instead of someone fresh and trustworthy.
    13 replies+18
  • Grekoff 5 hours ago
    She’s more wooden than John Kerry…the kind of politician who wears starched briefs. Could she just send Bill instead?
    2 replies+12
  • aka Shawn Bull 3 hours ago
    All I see is a dishonest politician
    1 reply+8
  • Anonymous
    This comment has been deleted
    1 reply
  • When I’m 64 6 hours ago
    She’s a liar. And she is crooked and she’s soooo……boring !
    +8
  • NotJustAnotherCEO1 4 hours ago
    Did Jimmy ask Hillary about the for-profit Laureate Education – a global operator of for-profit colleges? You know the one that generated over $4 billion in revenues last year. The private university where Bill’s best bud is CEO? The private for-profit conglomerate that paid Bill Clinton as its “Honorary Chancellor” a total of $17 and a half million dollars over it’s first five years and over $1 million in 2015? Talk about rackets.
    +7
  • jen1404 2 hours ago
    MAYBE she is not AS sick as some say, but she is definitely SICKENING!
    4 replies+6
  • Mike5 6 hours ago
    Clinton is phony, staged and out for herself and her foundation along with Bill. She is beholden to the big corporations since they fund her .
    Too bad Trump is such an incompetent, they need anything but Clinton down there.
    3 replies+6
  • Original Bovine Scatologist 3 hours ago
    Perhaps the US Treasury could put her on the $3 bill.
    +5
  • The Last Truthbender 5 hours ago
    as phony as her husband
    think Bill Clinton without the cigar
    1 reply+5
  • 50 comments of Ray 3 hours ago
    She’s about as charismatic as Angela Merkel.
    Who would you rather have running the country, Merkel, or Trump?
    You shouldn’t have to think about that one.
    +4
  • stono 3 hours ago
    she has the charisma of nixon, but much lower on the ethics scale then nixon.
    1 reply+4
  • Duke Charles Martel 4 hours ago
    Did she answer why the Crown Prince of Bahrain had to donate $32M to the Clinton Foundation to get a meeting with her while she was Secretary of State?
    2 replies+4
  • Muskoka18 6 hours ago
    Hillary has been reinventing and redefining herself so much, and for so many years, that I frankly don’t believe she even recognizes herself in the mirror anymore. All that matters to her is where the winds are blowing. Recently she called herself the “granddaughter of a factory worker” which is an inherently meaningless statement but for some reason her spin handlers think will appeal to blue-collar workers. Yeah right.

 

Please spread this stuff around!<br />Share on Facebook
Facebook
0Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Pin on Pinterest
Pinterest
0Share on Reddit
Reddit
0Email this to someone
email

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen

, , , , ,

Comments are closed.