Vox Media is the hottest thing in Internet these days. Back in July, Vox.com, the media conglomerate’s open-source blog for rising high school seniors who spend their free periods in the library, announced a series of job openings, including “race and identity editor” and “staff writer, foreign.”
Vox Dot Com is a website comprised of smart thinkers asking tough questions and creating optimized data-driven content sponsored by some of America’s most noble corporations, such as Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs.
The website is part of Vox Media, which has attracted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of seed capital and investments from large media firms such as Comcast (Market cap: $140 billion) , the awful cable monopoly everyone hates and the parent company of NBCUniversal.
Vox has written an insightful explainer on why buying a certain brand of shoe doesn’t necessarily make you a good person. The piece also, perhaps unintentionally, explains a lot about the young liberal hipsters who read Vox.
Vox.com has quickly established itself as the go to source for definitive explanations of challenging topics such as Palestinian infrastructure and celebrity birthdays. In fact, the very existence of Vox.com, and its rise to prominence in the twilight of the Obama presidency, explains more about our commander-in-chief than its stable of boy geniuses could ever hope to with their “blags” and “card stacks.”
Even before Vox.com was a thing, Barack Obama was the Vox.com president. He always has been. Like the people who run Vox, Obama is an ideological liberal who insists on presenting himself as a disinterested wonk who is only interested in “what works.”
Vox founder Ezra Klein’s first byline for the site was a treatise on the dangers of ideology—specifically, how conservative ideology is endangering future generations by thwarting a massive government intervention to address climate change. In reality, Vox is staffed by ideological liberals, including several former employees of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
If Hillary Clinton wants the Democratic nomination in 2016 (and why wouldn’t she, given that basically everything she’s ever done since roughly 1975, when she agreed to defend a child rapist as a “favor” for an Arkansas prosecutor, has been calculated to maximize her political power and/or personal fortune?) it would seem to be hers for the taking.
No matter what. There is not a damn thing committed liberals—the ones whose primary consideration for choosing a president is something other than “That would be really cool because she’s a woman”—can do about it. Is there?