The explanation for this rant? She's a socialist.
Leftists look at programs like school vouchers and see only one thing: "The stupid people" (i.e. non-liberals) making life choices with their own money.
The leftist goal is to take away the economic power from as many people as they can--through taxation here--and thus that money is no longer the property of the silly individual who earned it, but "community" (i.e. the "people's congress" i.e. the elite Decision Makers's) money. YOU (single) do not get to decide what to do with that money, because you might make a "selfish" decision, one based on self-interest. (Aka self-reliance.) WE (plural) should get to decide what to do with that money, because we are all connected, what you do affects me, and him, and that one over there.
HRC lists several school choices--Catholic, Jewish, secular, White Supremacist, Jihadi--and instead of her "multicultural/everyone gets everything" approach, she makes a JUDGMENT that of course we can all agree with--namely, that some choices are repugnant to us, and we don't want OUR (plural) tax money going to fund THAT; but someone is free to send their kids to those schools on their own dime.
So in the guise of keeping YOUR/OUR (singular/plural) money out of the hands of white racists and jihadists, we can hide under the WE of the state/the collective--if one person in that collective finds that school racist, ZAP, no money for them.
The solution is clear.
If you are an individualist dedicated to individual liberty, you support cutting taxes so the individual has enough money to make his or her own educational choices. Doesn't matter if he sends his kid to a racist school, because it's HIS money, and we don't have to support the school, so we are thus cut out of the controlling structure. He gets to be a racist ass, but that's his choice, we are free to spend our money where we wish, and HE has no say over it.
If you are a socialist, you prevent that individual from having control of his own life choices, because OBVIOUSLY this is a poor life choice. So you tax him, and deny the use of vouchers, so he can't touch that money that was taken from him and put into OUR community funds. Mrs. Clinton and you have done nothing to earn that money, but now you have control over that money.
And with control of one's earnings comes control of one's life.
And that's what HRC wants.
Being a socialist explains why she is anti-voucher, generally. It does not, IMO, fully explain her bizarre rant.
Question: Why do you suppose she chose those particular bogymen? Do you think they were arbitrary? Or did they serve a purpose?
Very well stated!