Latest News
home News, Politcs Those Thinking Hillary’s Nomination As Woman ‘Historic’ Are WRONG, They Need To See This

Those Thinking Hillary’s Nomination As Woman ‘Historic’ Are WRONG, They Need To See This

If you enjoyed this story, make sure you share it with others by clicking the icons below!

The sycophant media and Hillary Clinton supporters alike continue to fawn over the “first woman” candidate for president, but there’s just one problem with that – she’s not.

On Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton won enough delegates to be declared the presumptive nominee for the Democrat Party, and during her speech, she repeatedly touted how she made history as the first woman candidate to run for president. Ever since, she and the media have fawned over the “historic accomplishment” made this election season, and Hillary’s supporters have been eating up every second of it.

Some of Hillary’s remarks during her speech included:

“I’m going to take a moment later tonight and the days ahead to fully absorb the history we’ve made here.”

“Thanks to you, we’ve reached a milestone – the first time in our nation’s history that a woman will be a major party’s nominee for president of the United States.”

Also, if you go to, the following graphic appears on the first page of the website:

Hillary & Her Supporters Claim Nomination ‘Historic,’ But There’s A MAJOR Problem With That

So yes, she is undoubtedly trying to milk the “history” card for all it’s worth, which isn’t really surprising considering she’s been playing the woman card all along, but there’s just one problem with that – she’s not the first woman to ever receive a nomination for president. No, in fact, that honor belongs to a woman named Victoria Woodhull, who ran for president back in 1872 as an Equal Rights Party member.

Woodhull’s nomination came at a time when women were truly fighting for equal rights, and as an avid women’s rights advocate, she ran because of her opposition to only having men in government positions. On her ticket was another well-known name from the time, abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass, who was her vice president.

However, while Woodhull was able to become the first woman to ever run for president of the United States, she was arrested a few days before the election for an article she wrote about an alleged adulterous affair by a prominent minister from the time, and she ended up spending the next six months in jail, all of which seemed to be politically-motivated.

So while Hillary and her supporters continue to believe they’re making history, the fact of the matter is that history has already been made by someone else, and it was done at a time when women really were systematically oppressed. Sorry, but that’s a much greater accomplishment than Hillary, who’s spent years playing ball behind the scenes then was handed the nomination on a silver platter by a party determined to check off every “first” it possibly can, even if those filling the positions aren’t qualified to do so.

Also let’s not forget that the Democrats have spent the last six years convincing their supporters that the “evil Republicans” are actively trying to oppress women and strip them of their rights so they could pave the way for a female candidate. Plus, it’s not like Hillary had any real competition aside from a senile old socialist who’s heavy on promises but light on follow through, and she in no way faced the same challenges as Woodhull, who ran at a time when women weren’t even allowed to vote, much less run for president.

Yeah, they’re obviously trying to spin it and say that it’s the first time a woman has been nominated by a “major political party,” but is it really historic? Only in the sense that a Democrat with ovaries received the nod, but there’s really nothing remarkable about Hillary, her platform, or her campaign otherwise – she’s still the lying, cheating, and corrupt Hillary we’ve known for decades, and she’s repeating the same tired talking points and platitudes that have been repeatedly poll tested to excite her gullible base.

Hillary’s nothing more than a pandering puppet with zero values, morals, or principles of her own, who instead says what she believes people want to hear, so there’s really absolutely nothing “historic” about her nomination. History is made by people who are iconic in their own way because they blazed a new trail or took a stand on an important issue, not by someone whose merely leveraged themselves into a position and thinks they’re entitled to something as a result, and that’s exactly what Hillary did.

But while Hillary isn’t exactly making history as the first woman presidential candidate, she is making history in another regard – she’s the first presidential candidate to ever be under federal criminal investigation, and she’s the first candidate under investigation to ever be endorsed by a sitting president. Although those are probably two worst “firsts” that any party could have on its record, which says a lot about the Democrats.



You Might Also Like