When she writes something like this about Hillary, and it appears in a widely read newspaper, one that is highly respected, and her column is thereafter syndicated throughout the nation, and reverberated on the Internet, she gains a wide hearing. If Hillary is to be taken down, she must be taken down by other females. When men do it, the Clintons simply deploy their surrogates to slander the truth teller. Of course they try the same thing against female critics, but that raises problems for them and it is not nearly as effective. The Clinton war room can dismiss Rush Limbaugh as a hatemonger and sell that lie but it cannot effectively smear Peggy Noonan that way.
It is just possible that the tide is turning against Bitch Clinton. I consider the reaction to her performance in the last debate to be fascinating because she has done the same thing countless times before and generated no such reaction. Why now? Are the stories about the Chinese money laundering having effect? Often the media are motivated to attack a public figure for reasons which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the attack. Could it be that even the media are beginning to understand the implications for America of the Clinton presidency? Could it be these rumors of lesbian connection are generating the same reaction and for the same reason? Are the drive-by media worried that this rumor will be confirmed only after Hillary is nominated, or worse, as an October surprise before the election? Do the media really want to get rid of her now and clear the decks for Obama in time to save the election for a Democrat? Are the media finding some vestigial righteousness and trying to destroy Hillary because she is a lesbian but they are too politically correct to admit it?
Before one dismisses this soap opera analysis out of hand, it is well to consider that when the Hillary put on her pink suit and damned the vast right wing conspiracy, there was another dynamic at work. We men reacted to the ill logic of the conspiracy charge but the women of America were empathizing with Hillary as the martyred spouse. They were watching a different soap opera.
Hillary cannot be a martyr, she cannot be the figure of the wronged woman, if she's a lesbian in a marriage of convenience with Slick. The whole dynamic changes, it will not be Hillary who was betrayed but the women of America who were betrayed by Hillary. They must either reject Hillary or except their own gullibility and foolishness.
As a foaming at the mouth, flopping on the floor conservative, I am unmoved by Peggy Noonan's conclusion that the problem with Hillary is, "policy." We conservatives have known about Hillary's policy deficiencies from the beginning. Why the Epiphany now? Why should middle America, the women of America who will decide this next election, only now after this debate conclude that Hillary is on the wrong side of "policy"?
Are we reading and airy -fairy proxy for the lesbian charge?
