Skip to main content

This 'Pro-Hillary' Group Banning 'Coded Sexism' Has To Be Fake, Right?

The group "HRC Super Volunteers" has created copious media buzz by warning New York Times reporter Amy Chozick off of "coded sexist language," but where is the evidence that this is a real group at all?

The humorless feminazis who support Hillary Clinton's not-yet-announced 2016 bid for the presidency are out in force, and playing a six-deck shoe full of sexism cards. That's the clear takeaway from the hot story that's rocketing around the internet and the mainstream media, based on a series of tweets from New York Times reporter Amy Chozick. The group "HRC Super Volunteers," which has a Twitter account we'll get to in a moment, sent Chozick an email warning her, and the rest of her mainstream media colleagues, not to engage in coded sexism, and provided some examples:

Really, Hillary Super-fans? We can't say "ambitious?"

The story has been gleefully picked up on by every corner of the political media, with conservatives giving it the "goons" treatment, but even mainstream outlets like The Washington Postpicking it up, and even adding to the fire. From Aaron Blake:

So these words are now off the table: "polarizing," "calculating," "disingenuous," "insincere," "ambitious," "inevitable," "entitled," "over-confident," "secretive," "will do anything to win," "represents the past," and "out of touch."

Also apparently off the table: "tone deaf" -- at least according to a new Twitter account that appears to be from the group:

So now, these loons have their own Twitter account, and the poor brainwashed things are using that Chairman Hillary campaign poster as their avatar. Really, Rush Limbaugh himself could not have conjured a better exemplar of the conservative "political correctness run amok" premise. Look! They're even attacking the liberal New York Times! What's really weird, though, is that neither Chozick no the Post's Blake seem to smell even a whiff of rat droppings. Blake reports on the group's "apparent" Twitter feed, which didn't even send its first tweet until half an hour after Chozick's. That first tweet, by the way, pretty plainly references some pretty famous mischief-makers:

As Blake's commentary notes, the terms listed are just plausible enough to fit a credible premise, and lord knows, there might actually be an "HRC Super Volunteers" group that just happened to flash into existence to email just the New York Times, because, I mean, email's expensive, right? I aksed Chozick if she had any other evidence that they're a real group, but she has not responded.

Whether they're real or not is almost irrelevant, though, because the issue here is the universal willingness to not just believe in them, but to embrace them as representative of the Clinton faithful.

This is the dynamic that Hillary Clinton faces heading into 2016, because despite her tremendous popularity, she barely has a friend in the media world. While conservatives obviously still hate her, liberals are also so busy pining for Elizabeth Warren that they're happy to see Clinton get taken down a notch or two, and the mainstream press just loves the drama. They all love this story because it helps relieve them of responsibility for how they cover her. If everything is sexism, then nothing is sexism.

Whether it's a hoax or a genuine example of what the PUMAs are up to this year, the eagerness and credulity with which this story has been met says more about the media than it does about Hillary Clinton.

Update: This story has now made the species jump to TV news, as both MSNBC and Fox News (go figure?) bit down hard on the story Friday morning.