The liberal media, from The New York Times to the liberal blogs -- apart from Bernie Sanders enthusiasts -- are ecstatic that Hillary Clinton has finally shattered that penultimate glass ceiling and has only one more level to go before she captures the ultimate prize.
At the same time, there's some evidence that Clinton's anointment is a bittersweet pill. I mean, is this really the woman feminists want to represent them in this vaunted achievement? Do even Clinton's most ardent supporters regard her as an iconic figure anymore?
Besides the left's misguided focus on Clinton's gender, precisely what about Clinton is exciting to anyone other than political scientists fascinated by the establishment's prowess in engineering the requisite level of image fraud to place Clinton in this position?
The left's preoccupation with race, gender, income level and other pet causes necessarily compromises the nation's best interests. But that's nothing new, from its environmental activism to opposing voter identification laws.
You would think the electorate would be waking up to the dangerous seduction of identity politics as the presidency of the first black president of the United States approaches its long-awaited end. Americans might want to ask themselves whether it was really worth it. Did this obsession with skin color justify electing an untested, stunningly divisive ideologue to the highest office in the land? Wouldn't it have been wiser to elect someone not hellbent on fundamentally transforming America?
Some do seem to be coming out of their trance. Even The New York Times acknowledges the public's mixed feelings about Clinton. "When Hillary Clinton swept onto the stage at her victory rally Tuesday night," says the Times, "the thunderbolt of history struck many Americans, no matter their love or loathing for her."
Notice the concession that many loathe her. And it's not because she's a woman. She has richly earned the distrust and disrespect of the people through her public scandals and her sordid record of enabling her husband's misdeeds and terrorizing the women who sought to publicize them.
On the other hand, the Times describes Clinton's nomination as a "thunderbolt." But does anyone really feel thunderstruck by her managed ascension? It's more like a thud than it is a thunderbolt. Rather than giddiness, the public's reaction is probably closer to, "Can we just get this election over with already? If we're going to have a female president, why must it be her?"
Indeed, the Times reports that many Clinton admirers are "perplexed that the prospect of the first female president had not caused anything like the national soul-searching, cultural heat or political exhilaration produced by Barack Obama eight years ago."
One 71-year-old Chicago woman supporting Sanders captured this widespread sentiment. "I think it's wonderful" that a woman has been nominated, she said. "I just wish it was a different woman."
Well, maybe people are catching on to the empty promises of identity politics. Or perhaps they are suffering from Clinton fatigue or just don't much like Hillary.
But when you stress identity politics, you may encounter other problems, as well, such as competition among identity groups. The Times reveals that one professional black woman opined that it is a far greater milestone for the nation to elect a black president than a female president. Some black women adopted a Twitter hashtag reflecting that sentiment: "GirlIGuessImWithHer." A white male said he believes that African-Americans have suffered more persecution than women and so Obama's achievement is far more historic than Clinton's would be.
Then again, we have former Rep. Patricia Schroeder bitterly hanging on to her gender focus. She said, "To me, the White House is still the ultimate treehouse with a big sign on it that says, 'No Girls Allowed.' If we could pull down that sign, it would make such a difference."
Really? How many truly believe that opposition to Clinton is significantly based on her gender rather than her character, her dearth of winsomeness and her boundless opportunism? The Times apparently does, as its story's headline is "Historic Import of Hillary Clinton's Victory Is One More Source of Division." Nonsense. If Clinton's gender is a source of division, it is only with other liberal identity groups, not the nation as a whole.
I pray that the majority eventually awakens to the pitfalls of liberals treating the ship of state as their latest social experiment laboratory; otherwise, we'll elect another disastrous president -- one who everyone knows is a self-promoting, scandal-ridden shrew whose self-revealed intention is to double down on Obama's catastrophic policies.
The office of the presidency, especially in these perilous times and when the position has become so much more powerful because of lawless executive overreach, deserves more respect than to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. We should elect the person best qualified and likeliest to save America from the ravages of Obama's presidency, irrespective of gender or skin color.
Besides, seeing as liberals now maintain that gender and race are matters of individual choice and personal identification instead of biology, isn't it hypocritical of them to make such a fuss over the possible election of a person to the presidency just because she was born a female?