Cult of Outrage: Hillary Clinton Attacked on Left for Comments on Ferguson
If the Cult of Outrage has a high priest, Marc Lamont Hill just might be it. He is an academic and professor and CNN/HuffPo Live contributor who is often brought in to discuss whatever the current societal outrage might be. He’s a more educated Al Sharpton, ready to insert himself into whatever story or controversy may be unfolding and when he does he’s already mad.
However, with the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting of unarmed, black teenager Michael Brown, much of the country for once shared in Hill’s cause l’indignation. However, social justice attack dog that he is, Hill has recently released a series of statements on Twitter, criticizing Hillary Clinton for, as Mediaite.com put it, “finally [breaking] her silence” about Ferguson.
While, like Hill, most people who neither hold public office nor have announced any intention to seek it would simply make a statement about anything on Twitter or something like that. However, when Clinton spoke about Ferguson at some sort of public appearance it was reported as breaking news on CNN. Of course, for sometimes CNN contributor Hill, he was disgusted by her statement.
In a series of tweets, aggregated by Mediaite.com also, Hill derided Clinton for not publicly coming out against the shooting of black men and police brutality sooner, claiming they were “cynically timed” and that she “waited until the political stakes were much lower.” Showing that he’s not all dour and serious he even tweeted: Hillary Clinton offers a statement on Michael Brown and Ferguson. 19 days later. Next she’ll offer her thoughts on Rodney King and Vietnam.” See? It’s funny because those other two things happened decades ago! LOL!
Hill exemplifies the ultimate weakness of the passionate left: their willingness to batter and harangue their political figures in ways far more effective than the right could ever dream up. He claimed that Clinton’s comments reflected political calculation, yet when she’s not even a candidate and literally hours of cable news programming are devoted to her for seemingly no reason, how can anyone blame her for that?
Also, how would it not have been politically unseemly if currently-private-citizen Clinton had scrambled to the nearest camera during the most violent nights of unrest in order to comment on a story that has nothing to do with her? Would Hill have been satisfied with her “genuine feeling” had she torn at the clothes on her breast lamenting for the people of Ferguson?
Hillary Clinton is already damaged goods as a candidate for 2016. The Obama campaign-that-was provided the clear roadmap to beating her in the primaries. The spectre of Benghazi hangs over her head. Some media scum-buckets are dredging up her husband’s sex scandals and even poor Monica Lewinisky, who has spent the past 20 years in virtual exile.
With those enemies, who needs friends like Marc Lamont Hill?