If you want to get a sense of how shockingly delicate the American left is these days, take a look at the reaction writer T.A. Frank received for his hilarious article excoriating the rise of Chelsea Clinton in Vanity Fair.

It is – objectively speaking – one of the funniest, snarkiest and most sardonic articles I’ve read in some time. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, it’s just funny.

Here are some great lines:

TRENDING: Cartoon Exposes Truth About Black Lives Matter Movement Democrats and the Media Try to Hide

Here are Chelsea’s thoughts on returning to red meat in her diet: “I’m a big believer in listening to my body’s cravings.” On her time in the “fiercely meritocratic” workplace of Wall Street: “I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.” On her precocity: “They told me that my father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the newspaper.” Take that, Click, Clack, Moo.

Or this section, which had me laughing out loud:

What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word, is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping. Take the introduction to It’s Your World (Get Informed! Get Inspired! Get Going!). It’s harmless, you think. “My mom wouldn’t let me have sugary cereal growing up (more on that later),” writes Chelsea, “so I improvised, adding far more honey than likely would have been in any honeyed cereals.” That’s the oatmeal—and then comes the toenail: I wrote a letter to President Reagan when I was five to voice my opposition to his visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany, because Nazis were buried there. I didn’t think an American president should honor a group of soldiers that included Nazis. President Reagan still went, but at least I had tried in my own small way. Ah, yes, that reminds me of when I was four and I wrote to Senator John Warner about grain tariffs, arguing that trade barriers unfairly decreased consumer choice.

Here’s the icing on the cake:

The crude conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton craved adoration and Hillary Clinton craved power. But Chelsea Clinton seems to have a more crippling want: fashionability—of the sort embraced by philanthropic high society. So you tell The New York Times that your dream dinner party would include James Baldwin, Shakespeare, Franz Kafka, Albert Camus, Jane Jacobs, and Jane Austen, and discussion would be about how “people and communities can evolve to be more inclusive, more kind, have a greater and broader sense of solidarity, while still respecting individual liberties; what provokes or blocks those changes; and what stories might resonate today to encourage us toward kindness, respect, and mutual dignity.” You almost have to bow down before someone who could host Shakespeare for dinner and make the agenda wind up sounding like a brochure for the Altria Group. At least Kafka would be on hand to capture the joy of the evening.

The rest of the article is that funny and I highly recommend you read it.

Unless you’re a liberal, of course. And do not read it if you’re a fan of the Clintons. As Frank writes:

To find fault with the former First Daughter is to invite the wrath of thousands. Love of Chelsea correlates closely with love of Hillary, toward whom her fans have long felt an odd protectiveness, as if she were a stroke survivor regaining the power of speech rather than one of the most influential people in the world. That goes even more for Chelsea, who is often treated less like an independent 37-year-old multi-millionaire and more like the 12-year-old who still deserves to be left alone.

And here comes the wrath. The leftist, hyperventilating, wrath:

@tafrank I can't believe you get paid for this shit — Matt Helgeson (@MattHelgeson) April 21, 2017

@tafrank This article is terrible and reads more like a misogynist's guide to crippling insecurity and internalized sexism than a political treatment — Andrew Sisco (@TownshipRebels) April 21, 2017

@tafrank @VFHIVE it's not that you criticized her, it's that your arguments are steeped in misogyny. @VanityFair this is poor writing. — SuMagoo (@su_magoo) April 22, 2017

Oh yes … the left’s old fallback position. Name-calling. Frank is a misogynist, dontchya know?

@tafrank Written by a clueless, privileged white dude. What a shock. Last thing we need is more white male supremacist status quo Clinton hating crap — #JailTreasonTrump (@HillaryWasRight) April 22, 2017

@tafrank This is bullshit. Pure bullshit, written by a man of course. — D.B.Anderson (@DBAnderson1) April 21, 2017

Their rage is so … awesome.



