Keep Criticizing Hillary Clinton

There has never been a politician like Hillary Clinton. Since 1992, she has been First Lady of the United States, Senator from New York, Secretary of State, and the first female major-party Presidential Nominee. Whether you like her or not, denying that she is one of the most well-versed politicians of all-time is an indefensible claim.

Yet over the last three decades or so, nobody has faced more criticism than Hillary. That's not to say that all of her critiques have not been warranted—some of them have. I myself have been a critic of hers throughout the years. But others (see: Pizzagate, 9/11, Charlottesville, and more) have been little more than—to steal a term from the current President—fake news. But time after time, Mrs. Clinton has come out on the other side of these attacks, whether they were true or not.

But there's something that those three particular examples have in common, and that is that they have all come about within the time-frame of the last Presidential election (the one where Hillary Clinton received nearly three million more real votes than her opponent). In the scope of a political campaign, these types of attacks are not uncommon; although usually they are more about the character and the politics of a particular candidate, and not about whether or not one of them was running a secret underground sex ring. In this last Presidential election, there were an unusual amount of fake stories making their way into the limelight, and nearly all of them were aimed at negatively impacting the Clinton campaign. These stories mainly came from far-right wing outlets, and likely also came from Russia.

*It should be noted that this is the real "fake news." Just because you don't like a story from CNN or the New York Times doesn't mean it isn't true, or that said outlet should be framed negatively. The work that is done by these places is top-notch, and the journalists are some of the best in the world. They wouldn't risk their reputation or their careers by creating fake stories for partisan purposes. Don't forget, the New York Times originally broke the Hillary Clinton e-mail story, which some people love so much.*

Fake news aside, some of us actually thought that this negativity would stop once Hillary Clinton returned to life as a private citizen. After all, she isn't going to run for office again. Why continue to focus on somebody who is no longer a potential opponent?

Nevertheless, it hasn't stopped.

I have been racking my brain, trying to figure out why exactly Hillary Clinton isn't allowed to just go away? Why is her name still at the tip of the tongue of so many people? Where does all of this hatred for her come from?

This is a unique situation because after the 2012 election, then-President Obama wasn't still obsessed with Mitt Romney. After the 2004 election, then-President Bush wasn't still enamored with John Kerry. Why is Hillary Clinton the exception to this rule?

But then I begin to think that perhaps it's a good thing that so much time and energy is still being spent on her.

You see, the more time people spend attacking Hillary Clinton, the less time they spend attacking other Democrats.

Hillary Clinton has been the boogeyman for many people over the years. And the fact of the matter is, there is no other Democrat who can create as much vitriol as Hillary Clinton did over the last 30 years. Think about it—the only thing that they have against Elizabeth Warren is the whole Native American thing, which in and of itself isn’t a scandal. Then there’s somebody like Cory Booker. What could they use against him? The fact that he’s not married? Sure that might play well to the Evangelicals, but that’s not as much of a disqualifier as it might have been a couple of decades ago. Al Franken? He used to be on Saturday Night Live, but that’s nothing, especially when you stop to think about who is in the White House. Kamala Harris? She took money from Steven Mnuchin once, and then dropped a case against him when she was Attorney General of California, and that might hurt her a bit, but again it’s not a major scandal.

There is no Democrat who has anything like Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal, or her Benghazi scandal, or an unfaithful husband, or anything of that nature that was turned into something much bigger than it originally should have been.

There are some people out there who just can’t get over the fact that Hillary Clinton is not going to run for President again. When you spend decades attacking a politician from every possible angle that you can, you tend to not think about what happens after they leave the spotlight. This is what is happening with Hillary Clinton and her detractors. The only thing that they have ever known is that Hillary Clinton is akin to the devil. They might think poorly of other Democrats, but to them Hillary Clinton was always the worst—she was the rotten apple that they never wanted to pick from the tree. Now that the apple has fallen from the tree, what is there to do other than stand around and berate it for falling from the tree in the first place?

So, keep criticizing Hillary Clinton. You know why? Because she can take it. But also, because it takes the attention away from other viable Democrats. That’s not to say that there’s anything wrong with any of them, but that hasn’t stopped people from making things up before. I’m sure that Hillary Clinton would gladly continue to be the punching bag if it bettered the chances of seeing blue in the White House again soon.