Back in 1994, Hillary Clinton attributed her success in trading cattle futures — she turned $1000 in to $100,000 in less than 10 months during the late 1970s — to “reading the Wall Street Journal.” Her supporters believed her, even though (1) Clinton unaccountably stopped trading even though she was apparently brilliant at it because she couldn’t handle the stress, (2) it was the single most profitable investment the Clintons had ever made up to that point, and (3) the WSJ had not actually published any articles on cattle futures during the relevant period. Her story was both mathematically and actually unbelievable (one in 31 trillion according to one academic paper).
Nevertheless, Clinton’s claim that her cattle profits were the result of her own brilliance pales in comparison to this morning’s claim:
The sexism is less virulent now than it was in 2008, she said, but still she encounters people on rope lines who tell her, “ ‘I really admire you, I really like you, I just don’t know if I can vote for a woman to be president.’ I mean, they come to my events and then they say that to me.”
Sorry, with the greatest imagination we still cannot believe that in 2016 anybody has the balls — and the implication is that balls are involved here — to go to a Clinton campaign event, get close enough to make a comment, and use that moment to say that their big hangup is that Hillary is a woman. A fortiori we do not believe that this has happened more than once. And if you do not share our hard-won skepticism, consider that nobody has ever captured one of these outrages on video, which fact we know because if somebody had done, it would have been social media gold for the Clinton campaign and its social justice warrior camp followers. Liar, liar, pants on fire, not that you will ever hear that from the putative “editors” of New York Magazine.
Can you believe that this is the person we have to vote for to avoid president Trump?