I know many are looking at the headline and thinking, "Susan had better be joking," but sadly, and shockingly, I am not. The highly cited (by other liberals) website Salon, a site that has attempted on many occasions to normalize pedophilia with articles such as "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster," (which they later deleted, but can still be found on archive.is) and others still on the site such as "Meet pedophiles who mean well," and "Our approach to pedophilia isn’t working," where they suggest pedophilia isn't a crime, it is a medical issue, is now attempting to make the case for why Hillary Clinton should run for president in 2020.
The problem for the writer Matthew Rozsa, is he bases his analysis on lies and deception after admitting that one of his reasons, which is why he "absolutely had to write this article for Thanksgiving weekend," is "Spite. Delicious, nutritious spite."
Before detailing his reasons and breaking down his deceptions, lies and omissions, a quick note on why it is important to keep track of what liberals are pushing and feeding their readers, because to date Hillary Clinton has not totally ruled out running for president again, and in fact has participated in interviews discussing "Earth 2," an alternate reality where she is President, so it behooves us to keep an eye on the enemy so to speak, because we know she is reading and watching, and these liberal websites are encouraging her to run again.
Note at around the 1:15 minute mark when they are trying to end the interview, where Clinton wants one more question because she "likes being on Earth 2."
The writer of the Salon article offers reasons why he thinks Clinton should automatically be the Democratic nominee in 2020.
The writer starts off by claiming that Hillary Clinton is "the one person we know we can trust more than anyone," to take on Putin, because in the writer's reality "no candidate can be better described as Russia's nemesis than Clinton."
No one better mention the newly revealed information about Uranium One, showing that "Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," as reported by The Hill, because according to Rozsa, that is a "bogus scandal," and "anyone who believes Clinton did something wrong in the Uranium One deal lacks credibility on all matters political."
The deception there is one of omission. Rather than providing the details that have been uncovered about Clinton's involvement, the number of investigative congressional committees now demanding answers, nor the possible DOJ investigations being looked at in regards to Uranium One, the writer simply claims any logical questions that are asked, automatically disqualifies a person from having an opinion.
PEOPLE 'HATE' HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE THEY ARE 'SEXIST!'
His second reason, listed under the header of "Hillary Clinton being elected president (at last) would monumentally piss off misogynistic trolls, and what's not to like about that?," admits that he "can't think of a single political figure in recent American history who has been hated as deeply, or for as long, as Hillary Clinton," before claiming it all comes down to sexism, asserting that no other reason makes sense. He totally ignores the long list of documented Hillary Clinton scandals throughout the decades, as well as ignoring the amount of women that refused to vote for Hillary in 2016.
In that same category the writer determines that if Clinton isn't the candidate for 2020, then it absolutely "needs to be a woman," to "offset the symbolic gut-punch of the first female candidate getting cheated by an overt misogynist."
Category three actually segues from the writers claim that Clinton was "cheated," a popular liberal chant due to the fact that Donald Trump won the electoral college vote, the only result that is constitutionally relevant, while Hillary Clinton received 3 million more in popular vote, the majority of which came from one state, California.
Let us not forget that, for all of the smack talk about how poorly Clinton ran her campaign, she bested Trump by nearly 3 million votes. This was no razor-thin margin of victory, but a decisive expression of the American public's preference.....
( Red denotes counties that went to Trump; blue to Clinton)
Hillary Clinton won California alone by a significantly larger margin than she won the popular vote, so no, Hillary's margin of popular vote was not a "decisive expression of the American public's preference," Trump's being elected as President was, as the map above, which the Salon writer avoided using, was the "decisive expression."
That is why American runs on the electoral college voting system, to block a minority of densely populated states from having the ability to determine the outcome of presidential elections, basically allowing the minority of states to dictate to the majority of states.
The last reason given by the Salon writer is that in his mindset, "We can expect her to be a good president," asserting that "the worst thing that can be said about a potential 2020 Clinton candidacy, especially in America's current cultural and political climate, is that her husband still hasn't answered for the numerous sexual abuse accusations against him."
Make no mistake, it is not just one liberal website like Salon that is pushing a "Hillary 2020" campaign as we see even liberal rags like Washington Post running with articles like "Hillary 2020? Trump better hope not," which claims that "Hillary Clinton would be well-positioned to win in a rematch." (Archive.is link here) Politico was "predicting" another Hillary run as far back as February 2017. There are Facebook pages titled "Hillary Clinton for president 2020," with over 85,000 likes and over 84,000 followers.