I don’t understand liberals who hate Hillary Clinton. She is authentic; she is naturally bad at running for office and that painfully shows through at almost all points. But maybe you would be bad at campaigning too if you had been subjected to over two decades of vicious and often contradictory political attacks.

We’ve forced Hillary Clinton to change her hair, her clothes, and her accent. We’ve criticized her for taking too prominent a role during the Bill Clinton administration, then questioned whether being First “Lady” qualified her to run for office. She’s been the most investigated politician since Richard Nixon, yet has never been found to have committed a crime. People have said she has all of the “Clinton baggage” but none of the “Clinton charisma,” which is odd because the “baggage” is her husband cheating on her and the “charisma” is what allows her philandering husband who perjured himself to be loved, while she’s gets called “untrustworthy.” We told her she was too uncompromising in the 1993 health care debate, and now tell her she comprises too much. She’s the most detail-oriented major party candidate since… Bobby Kennedy? But when she shows her substance, we call her “boring.” We call her a political robot, but when she tries to throw away a meaningless platitude at some old lady’s funeral, we lose our minds. We’ve questioned her toughness because she’s a woman, then when she proves she’s as tough as anybody, we “unsex” her and make jokes about her having big balls.

Clinton can’t say “the sky is blue” without Breitbart running a headline “Hillary Clinton Politicizes Sky, Denies Noble Whiteness Of Clouds.”