Are liberals eating their own? Ever since the #metoo campaign took off like a rocket ship for Mars, liberals have seemingly had difficulties showing an aligned front. And if the latest news is any indication of the state of liberalism, things aren’t getting any better anytime soon.
Lena Dunham is (or was) liberalism’s queen. The self-proclaimed unabashed feminist has largely influenced the liberal masses with her boisterous, opinionated and often rambling rhetoric. However, after seemingly protecting a writer for her hit HBO show, Girls, who was then accused of raping an underage girl, Dunham’s stock has fallen.
However, yesterday, Dunham, who even under the duress of extreme liberal-moralist hypocrisy, has hardly retreated to a dark corner. Back in 2016, Dunham was a staunch and impassioned supporter of the then Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Clinton lost the election in embarrassing fashion, Dunham spoke about her state of inconsolable depression. Dunham and Clinton were, as they say, two peas in a pod.
But it seems all is no longer well in the land of Hollywood and Democrats. Dunham, still freshly bruised from her social media lashing regarding the accused writer, is now slamming Hillary Clinton as an enabler. Yes, it would seem, Dunham’s reaction to being accused of being an enabler of rape is now accusing the former Secretary of State of the exact same thing.
According to The New York Times, Dunham claims to have told Hillary Clinton’s campaign that one of their premier donors, Harvey Weinstein, was a rapist.
“I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point,” Dunham claims she explained to Clinton’s campaign team. “I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fund-raisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault.”
Dunham specifically claims to have informed Adrienne Elrod, who was Clinton’s spokeswoman during the 2016 campaign, of Weinstein’s potentially damaging alignment with the campaign.
And it gets worse (for Clinton). During Clinton’s original failed Presidential campaign in 2008, a magazine editor named Tina Brown claims she reported the same narrative to the Clinton campaign. In an email to the New York Times, Brown wrote, “I was hearing that Harvey’s sleaziness with women had escalated since I left Talk in 2002 and she was unwise to be so closely associated with him.”
Clinton campaign officials claim they were never informed of anything regarding the Weinstein allegations.
If Dunham knew of Weinstein’s activities, as she states she did, why did she continue to work on a campaign that was being largely funded by the assailant? It would seem to me that this raises more questions regarding Dunham’s character than it answers.
Twitter immediately lashed out at Dunham’s extremely hypocritical unraveling.
It would seem that Dunham’s soapbox has broken, leaving her laying on the pavement desperate to find someone to sacrifice to regain her moralist position with the herd. However, the herd is indoctrinated to liberalism, not Dunham, something she missed along the way. They have no issue burning her at the stake, something she and many other liberals are learning in the harshest of ways now.