Little girls running like mad while discussing their “va-ja-jays” and abortion? It sounds like a freaky Bill Clinton dream. And then Bill Clinton himself appears, which is pretty much exactly what you’d expect in a Bill Clinton dream.
The online videos posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton PAC are so bizarre, they’re like episodes of a trippy Sid and Marty Kroft kiddie show from the 1970s as rewritten by Nancy Pelosi.
Girls dash through the streets calling out, “Five reasons girls support Hillary running for president.” One is, “In the U.S.A., having a va-jay-jay shouldn’t mean less pay!” Another is, “To beat back Republican attacks on women’s reproductive rights.”
The fifth reason is the weirdest: Hillary’s experience (supposedly) “will impress,” but Bill, “as first lady, will rock the dress.” The dress is red, because we don’t want to think about what Bill used to do to a blue dress.
Cue a shot of a hairy-legged guy in a dress, wearing a giant Bill Clinton head. An ad featuring a nutty, leering, Mardi Gras version of Bill Clinton in close proximity to undefended young females is not great for the Clinton brand. But the ad needed him because whoever made it genuinely couldn’t think of five reasons to vote Hillary. To get there, they had to throw in a goofy one.
Should we vote Hillary because it’ll mean we get to see Bill in a dress? We never even get to see Hillary in a dress. Thank heaven for that.
Consider the vacuousness of the “Vote for her, she’s not a dude” argument. Electing Hillary president wouldn’t prove that a woman “can be” president any more than her defeat would prove that a woman “can’t be” president. It would be cray-cray to just vote for va-jay-jay on Election Day.
This campaign is all about changing the subject to a noun everybody likes (women) from a noun (Hillary) that makes a lot of people wonder whether deleted communications records and payoffs from corrupt Mideast dictatorships are the kind of thing we want on the résumé of our president.
It certainly isn’t about equal pay. How does that work, exactly? A woman sits down in the Oval Office and poof, your paycheck gets a bump?
Presidents have been signing equal-pay acts since 1963. There was the much-ballyhooed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act of 2009, the Fair Pay Task Force of 2010, the Equal Pay App challenge (whatever that was) of 2012 and last year’s equal-pay executive order.
So Democrats are implicitly arguing that (a) all of these laws, orders and, um, apps have failed, and (b) that we, therefore, need to elect more Democrats to finally ensure equal pay for women.
Hillary’s campaign isn’t about jobs for women. It’s about one woman who wants one job. I’m old enough to remember when people actually argued that voting for Barack Obama would reduce racial tensions in this country. How’d that work out?