By Selwyn Duke

So Hillary Clinton has won Pennsylvania, which means the media will have something to talk about for the next week at least.  Really, though, this is much ado about nothing; I mean, for approximately the last couple of months, her chances of winning the nomination have been between slim and none, and slim just . . . well, you know the rest (yes, I know it’s clichéd)

The bottom line is that, barring some unprecedented return to sanity, Clinton will not be able to overcome Obama’s delegate lead.  Math — even new liberal math — isn’t on her side.  (I should mention that when I say "return to sanity" I mean that, henceforth, people would only participate in the Democrat primary for the purposes of giving Clinton a grand stage on which she could be ignominiously defeated.) 

The only other possibility is that the Clintons could steal the nomination through super-delegate arm twisting, but I don’t really see this as realistic.  Just as there is no honor among thieves, there’s none among leftists.  When the Clintons were the liberals’ best hope, the former were the cat’s meow.  But now that liberals don’t need them anymore because they have a more socialistic fair-haired boy, they have cast Bill and Hill to the winds.

Isn’t it fascinating, by the way, how they’ve turned on the Clintons like a hot potato?  The couple who they defended in the face of never-ending scandals, who they lied, connived and sacrificed reputation for, is now in disfavor with them simply because they have a new success object. 

And the vitriol is striking — and irrational.  Clinton is a white woman and Obama a multiracial man, but beneath the skin they’re carbon copies of each other.  Really, who is kidding who?  They don’t have ideologies — rather, they share an ideology — so their policies would be virtually identical.  This will only escape an irrational liberal because, by definition, such a person is governed by emotion. 

Also note that the fickleness exhibited here isn’t just limited to this situation but is typical of liberals (when I say liberals, I speak of true leftists, not those more traditional in nature who vote Democrat not realizing how far left their candidates are).  Liberals — and this is a function of their godlessness — do not love others; they do not even have genuine affection for them.  Instead, they are like nations: They do not have friends; they have interests.  Other people are valuable insofar as they have utility to liberals, but once these objects are no longer needed, they are kicked to the curb with extreme prejudice — as the Clintons have been.

Anyway, since there are no decent viable choices in this election (although I will have to hold my nose and vote for the old soldier), I can only take pleasure in one inescapable fact.  That is, no matter who prevails, the loser will be someone who deserves to lose.

Now, if only they could all lose.

                           Protected by Copyright