Yes, Washington Post, Trump did say "she's the devil." And yes, Washington Post, he was talking about Hillary. So you're technically correct. But did Trump actually say she was Lucifer, the prince of all perdition?
Er . . . let's look at the video:
In case you haven't been paying attention to much of anything for, say, your entire life, "made a deal with the devil" is a pretty common expression to describe coming to an agreement with someone you don't like for some sort of utilitarian purpose. That's basically what Trump is saying Bernie Sanders did when he decided to go ahead and endorse her after months of making the case she was unfit for the presidency.
Of course, so is Bernie, which would help explain why he ultimately made said deal.
So what does the Washington Post do here? They call out three words from the video and make that the headline - a move clearly designed to make you think Trump had claimed Hillary and Satan are one and the same.
This actually speaks to a unique problem anyone would have if running for office against Hillary Clinton. She is, in fact, awful, horrible, rotten to the core, corrupt, dishonest, darkened with deceit and abjectly evil. She may be the worst human being who has ever sought the presidency. Now, the statement I just made is 100 percent true, but it sounds insane and over the top. That's the problem facing any Hillary opponent: She's so bad, that if you accurately describe her, you sound nuts. And her defenders in the media will turn the stridency of your criticisms into the story, rather than what should be the story, which is how awful Hillary is.
So as a Hillary opponent, you have to decide: Do you go all out and tell the truth about her, such that voters will be exposed to all the horrors of this woman and will be duly warned against electing her? Or do you take it down a notch so as not to sound like you're out of your mind in attacking your opponent?
Although Trump did not literally call Hillary Satan in the video above, he seems for the most part to have chosen the former strategy of going all the way in telling it like it is with Hillary. That is one positive to having nominated him. I think most of the other Republican contenders would have chosen a watered-down, political strategist-approved line of attack designed to land modest blows while avoiding news media criticism.
That's the strategy that usually gives us Democrat presidents. You limit the effectiveness of your attacks and the media rips you anyway, just because you're a Republican. And you lose.
The Washington Post is deep in the tank for Hillary anyway, notwithstanding yesterday's rare criticism by their "fact checker" Glenn Kessler, which Rob told you about. And they hate Trump with the passion of a thousand white hot suns. So no matter what Trump says about Hillary, he's not going to please the Post. Might as well just tell it like it is. The media have sold a lot of people on the idea that Trump is the reckless, dangerous choice and that Hillary is the sensible, safe choice. Anyone who believes that doesn't understand the nature of Hillary Clinton at all. And if Trump doesn't tell them about it, who will?
Yes, Washington Post, Trump did say "she's the devil." And yes, Washington Post, he was talking about Hillary. So you're technically correct. But did Trump actually say she was Lucifer, the prince of all perdition?
Er . . . let's look at the video:
