Hillary Clinton Has Completely Lost It, Delivers Awkward Grammy Performance at Historically Low Event


“Fire and Fury” author Michael Wolff got a ringing endorsement for his pile of fake news at this Sunday’s Grammys from none other than Hillary Clinton. If only people were actually watching.

Clinton was one of a roster of apparently “woke” celebs who read excerpts from the book during the awards show, which became the latest in a series of entertainment industry ceremonies dedicated to clearing a few hours of mostly uninterrupted anti-GOP propaganda over network airtime.

Her awkward appearance came at the end of the litany of individuals who read from “Fire and Fury,” and according to the Washington Examiner, it got one of the biggest rounds of applause of the night from the crowd at New York’s Madison Square Garden.

Take a look:

Liz Cheney Considering Third-Party Presidential Run to Stop Trump: 'Whatever It Takes'

Hillary read from the part of the book in which Wolff discusses Trump’s alleged fear of being poisoned. This was apparently supposed to count as funny; but it was really only evidence that the aging Clinton has truly lost it.

The only genuinely humorous part of the segment seemed to be DJ Khaled’s self-parody of his penchant for self-promotion, but maybe it was just me.

Or maybe it wasn’t, since the show as a whole hit record low numbers in viewership.

“The telecast, which ran a bloated three-and-a-half hours, was off by 24 percent from 2017 with adjusted numbers,” The Hollywood Reporter noted.

Did you watch the 2018 Grammys?

“With time zone adjustments taken into account, the telecast averaged 19.8 million viewers and a 5.9 rating among adults 18-49. The second stat marked a low for the show.

“Among total viewers, that number was down even more than overnight returns from Nielsen Media that it had a 12.7 rating among households.”

It wasn’t the least-watched show in terms of total viewership. That record was most recently achieved by the infamous 1995 show, which drew only 11.25 million viewers. That show was criticized for being profoundly out-of-touch; in a year where alternative rock and hip-hop were ascendent, the winner of Album of the Year was a nearly-septuagenarian Tony Bennett.

There was no such complaint that could have been made involving Sunday’s show. Not only were the marquee names out in force — Bruno Mars and Kendrick Lamar were the big winners — the show could hardly have been more “woke” in the colloquial sense. And, in 2018, there’s nothing the media thinks is hotter than being woke.

The problem is, Americans seem to disagree. Perhaps it’s because they just aren’t woke enough yet. Or perhaps it’s because they see through the obnoxious fakery that is wokeness.

American Confronts Adam Schiff at Airport, Tells Democrat He Ought to Be Ashamed of Himself

For instance, what could be hipper than now-septuagenarian Hillary Clinton reading from a book of ill-sourced innuendoes against the man who beat her during the 2016 election? Nearly anything, especially when you consider the fact that her awkward display of public wokeitude comes almost immediately on the heels of a New York Times report that indicates she shielded a staffer on her 2008 campaign who was accused of sexual harassment.

The article yet again highlighted the double standard when it comes to how Hillary Clinton’s behavior is judged, particularly in regards to women. And lest you think that Hillary had somehow managed to miraculously rehabilitate herself in the intervening week, she hadn’t. Here’s her desultory “apology”:

Ah yes, what could be more woke than the phrase “we deserve to be heard” in the year 2018? Unless that phrase involves Juanita Broaddrick or Paula Jones or any of the women who have accused her husband of sexual misconduct. If she thinks nobody noticed that discrepancy, she’s truly lost it.

This is why so many people mistrust the Hollywood-political complex on the left. And yet, there are so many sources that were willing to give the show a pass on the low ratings. The Hollywood Reporter noted the criticism of the political tenor of the show, but blamed the low ratings on another cause: “the 2018 Grammys were set up for a fall by the night’s big nominees,” they wrote. “Mars, Jay-Z and Kendrick Lamar just don’t guarantee the kind of appointment viewing that 2017 competitors Beyonce (sic) and Adele do.”

Really, now? Mars is arguably the third biggest pop star in the world after the aforementioned Beyoncé and Adele, and Jay-Z and Kendrick Lamar are considered the two top names in hip-hop in 2018. Enter into the equation that Lorde, Justin Bieber and Ed Sheeran also received nominations — as well as the appearance of one of the most famous individuals in the world in the person of Hillary Clinton — and it wasn’t like there was a paucity of recognizable names. Even the least-woke Tony Bennett listener in the audience almost certainly knew who every single major nominee on stage at Madison Square Garden was Sunday night.

For that matter, it’s not like the 2017 Grammys — another meretricious lib-fest — rated that high. That “competition” between Beyoncé and Adele garnered lower total viewership numbers than the 2011 Grammys did. For those of who who aren’t Grammy aficionados, 2011 was the year hipster favorites Arcade Fire became the first indie band to win Album of the Year.

I guess neither Bey nor Adele can compete with the sheer drawing power of Arcade Fire, a Canadian-Haitian band who kind of resemble a 20th century version of The Cure and whose biggest hits include nothing you would probably ever know.

Either way, I say stick with it, Grammys. Have Hillary Clinton awkwardly recite from whatever the biggest propaganda piece of that given year happens to be. It’s a great stunt. We can even pretend it’s a surprise every time she does it. Those of us that are left watching, that is.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on the 2018 Grammys.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , ,
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).
Morristown, New Jersey
Catholic University of America
Languages Spoken
English, Spanish
Topics of Expertise
American Politics, World Politics, Culture