The Benghazi cover-up is falling apart and the left is desperate. They will do anything to protect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from any blame in the scandal. In this instance, Politico’s Roger Simon has fallen back on the tired sexism charge against Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for his comments about Clinton on ABC’s This Week:
“She had to have been in the loop some way, but we don’t know for sure,” McCain said. “What I do know is that her response before the Foreign Relations Committee — ‘Who cares?’ Remember when she said, ‘Well, who cares how this happened?’ in a rather emotional way?”
Simon thinks characterizing Clinton’s testimony as “emotional” is a sexist smear, even though it is an accurate description of the exchange. Anyone who watched the clip can see Clinton was emotional: she yelled, “What difference at this point does it make,” into the microphone and flailed her arms.
Simon then goes conspiracy theorist on his readers: “McCain is attempting to lay the groundwork that Clinton is too ‘emotional’ to be president because we all know women are often too emotional, aren’t they?”
No, Simon. That is not what he was saying. He was simply pointing out a fact. If Clinton does not want to be called emotional, she should keep her emotions in check and be honest about Benghazi.
Pointing out a woman had an emotional outburst is not sexist. This article reeks of desperation and panic. If this is the best defense Simon can mount for Clinton, it indicates the GOP is right about Benghazi. If not, Simon would have complained about something with substance.