Via the Free Beacon, it’s a fair question. Even some reporters from outside conservative media ended up wondering yesterday why Clinton rhetorical stink bomb didn’t send more people running for cover.

I'm a little surprised that Clinton comparing GOP candidates to "terrorists" today isn't getting more attention.

— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) August 27, 2015

@MeghanMcCain still amazed people aren't making a bigger deal out of it

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) August 28, 2015

The simplest explanation is undoubtedly the correct one: When you’re a Democrat and a woman who also happens to represent the best chance of abortion warriors to control the White House for four more years, you simply can’t be too nasty to social conservatives on matters of “choice.” She could run ads photoshopping Marco Rubio into one of those ISIS death-porn videos and the most you’d get out of the wider media is, “Some might consider that offensive.” Interestingly, though, even in conservative media, this hasn’t registered as a truly major story. Our own post on it yesterday drew far fewer comments than the average post on Trump does. Why is that? I think we may have we reached a point where this sort of reeking sleaze is so par for the course in Democratic “war on women” rhetoric that even Republicans don’t get too exercised about it. It’s just something Democrats say, like how every Republican policy, foreign and domestic, can best be understood as part of an unspoken racist plot. It’s a pretty sweet deal to be able to casually compare your opponents to ISIS and have virtually no one, many of those same opponents included, bat an eye.

If we’re going to insist on making terrorist comparisons, though, Kevin Williamson has a question: Isn’t the outfit that’s actually beheading people a better analog to ISIS?

On the one hand, we have people using the techniques that made 60 Minutes famous to expose what is, after all, only reality — the reality behind a contentious public debate too often characterized by a refusal to deal with the facts. We have activists and politicians who want to use that reporting to reform the law and public practices, and maybe to influence the nation’s morals, too, in the hopes that Americans’ attenuated moral instincts have not been extinguished entirely. Some terrorists.

On the other hand, we have knife-wielding killers slicing through the faces of newborn children — children with beating hearts — to get at the prize behind as the green-eyeshades types in accounting demand “More brains!” like they’re in some old zombie movie. But it isn’t a movie: It is real life, and real death. More livers, too — 50 more a week, as one lip-smacking ghoul dreamed of retailing.

Herself is horrified by one of these. That she is horrified by the wrong one is no surprise to anybody who is familiar with the career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, for whom the phrase “the banality of evil” is far better tailored than her pantsuits.

Two clips for you here, one of Scarborough and the other of Rubio on Hugh Hewitt’s show yesterday marveling at what a candidate as desperate as Hillary will resort to. To the extent that some in the wider media are surprised that her terrorist comments didn’t get more play, I think that’s the reason why. The point of this demagoguery was so obviously a clumsy ploy to try to distract from her own political troubles that they feel obliged to punish her for the clumsiness at least, if not the actual insult.