06 November 2016

Why People Dislike Hillary Clinton

One of the more curious things about this election cycle is the fact that a misogynistic and racist bully has managed to have a very tight race with a highly competent and bright person who is running on a historic ticket of being the first woman POTUS.

Every single punditry piece I came across lamented how lackluster and unlikeable and terrible the candidates were. The Clinton hatred was so palpable that as Atrios put it, it wiped out the "holy shit we're about to have our first woman president" narrative.

People I know, who are ordinarily quite intelligent and informed, kept telling me she was "corrupt and greedy" or "not very trustworthy" or "had shady dealings with shadowy characters" through her husband's foundation.

None could provide a single example other than "you know" and "email server" and "pay for play shenanigans."

The First Jewish President?

It occurred to me that if Bill Clinton was the first "Black President" Hillary Clinton should be called the first Jewish President.

Bill was given the moniker because he was relentlessly investigated during his tenure, as is the case with all black politicians.

In Hillary's case, the constant insinuations and wink, wink, nudge nudge accusations remind me of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, whereby Jews are behind a global conspiracy for world domination through the control of media and financial systems.

I am making the analogy because the mechanism is the same. The stupid Jewish world domination through media and finance myth is something most Gentiles believe to this day, in the same, "you know" and wink, wink, nudge, nudge manner.  (One of these days, I will write about how these myths were created.)

They have been repeated so many billion times that in their minds the charges became axiomatic.

The same is true for Hillary Clinton.

First there is a category of lies that I call the Blood Libel type. Really outrageous, logically impossible accusations people seem to believe without question. You know, the kind that stuck to a religion that shuns blood.

Hillary is said to have killed 46 people including, of course, Vince Foster. Did you know that she was having an affair with him and she had him murdered to cover that up?

She and Bill Clinton ran a drug ring in Arkansas and continued to operate from the White House.

Despite her affair with Foster, Hilary is a lesbian and Huma Abedin is her lover.

This last one has the advantage of explaining and excusing their respective husbands' dubious extramarital activities. That is how Trump put it in a now deleted Tweet.

But the whole thing is much more devious than you think.
In a recent film, Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party - the top-grossing documentary in the US this year - conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza even argues that Hillary Clinton encouraged her husband to sleep with other women. 
"She orchestrated all of this!" he says, in the film's narration. "She used his addiction to make him dependent upon her!"
When you believed this premise your only conclusion could be that she will do anything for power:
"It also reinforces the idea that she is so power-crazed that she's unmoved by normal human drives like love, loyalty and jealousy." 
The next step is to declare her non human and evil.
"She's a creep, she's a witch, she's turned over to evil," Jones said, referring to Clinton, in a special broadcast during the Democratic Party convention.
"Look at her face… All she needs is green skin."
Even if you do not believe the outlandish charges, after a while, you think that she must be a cold, calculating and ambitious bitc..er woman.

Clinton Crimes

Especially since she is constantly accused of more plausible-sounding crimes. Kinda like the idea that Hollywood is being controlled by Jews, even if all the major studios are owned by large conglomerates like Sony or Viacom or Fox.

The granddaddy of them is Whitewater, a failed and bankrupt investment scheme that became the most investigated political scandal in US history. Tellingly, when it failed to uncover any wrongdoing after eight years of intense digging, people simply assumed that Hillary was just too clever to leave any evidence behind.

Because she just could not be innocent.

The same holds true for recent claims. Benghazi was investigated by a Republican Congress and despite numerous attempts, they failed to connect her to Ambassador Stevens' death. But people still say Benghazi and roll their eyes and that is enough.

My friends are fixated about her email server thingy. Surely, they say, this must be illegal.

Well, it isn't.

In fact, State Department has no legal requirement to have an in-house mail server and all previous Secretaries did whatever they pleased. And she did it because she remembers how every single White House staffer was deposed during Bill's presidency and how every document they produced was subpoenaed.

In fact, what most people do not remember is this: There is and was such a legal requirement for the White House. And during W's administration, they simply disregarded that and had the RNC host White House emails. Yes, the Republican Party was handling White House emails and that was a violation of the Presidential Record Act of 1978.
Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”
Yes, imagine that.

More damningly, there were long periods during which Dick Cheney's office appeared to have no emails. They corresponded to the run-up to Iraq war and the US Attorney dismissal scandal. They deleted them all.

And when Congress subpoenaed related emails the Bush White House and its Attorney General simply ignored their request and refused to submit them.

As for the media reaction to these clearly egregious breaches of law versus the Clinton email setup, well,
The media paid some attention to the Bush email chicanery but spent considerably less ink and airtime than has been devoted to Clinton’s digital communications in the past 18 months. According to the Boston social media analytics firm Crimson Hexagon, which ran a study for Newsweek, there have been 560,397 articles mentioning Clinton’s emails between March 2015 and September 1, 2016.
Do you know how much reporting was done on the Bush email scandals?
When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.
Half a million articles on a crime that does not exist. Almost nothing on an actual crime and its blatant cover-up.

Such is Hillary Clinton's fractious relation with the corporate media.

Okay, you might say, what about the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play shenanigans?

Hasn't the New York Times recently uncovered a major scandal involving a Foundation request to issue diplomatic passport to a Bill Clinton aide. The article has an ominous sounding title "Emails Raise New Questions About Clinton Foundation Ties to State Dept."

Wow! That is indeed terrible.

If it were true.

Read the article.

It turns out that the Foundation asked for a diplomatic passport for someone who was going to accompany former president Bill Clinton on a 2009 mission to free two American journalists detained in North Korea.

Remember this?

And you know the clincher? The state Department refused to issue that passport.

Look at the enormity of the scandal.

New and very troubling questions about Clinton Foundation ties to State Dept, indeed.

Why in the world the bastion of liberal media published an article that had no point other that the insinuation in the title?

Subliminal Presentations

Even though the Times piece is typical, to me, the worst cases are the very subtle ones.

Let me give you an example.

On 22 October BBC News ran a piece about Trump attacking Michelle Obama because of her ties to Clinton campaign.

The second paragraph read:
He also accused the first lady of attacking Hillary Clinton in 2007 by invoking a line she had said about fitness to run the White House. 
The Obama campaign had denied the line referred to Mrs Clinton. 
That doesn't sound good. Of course the Obama camp is going to deny it. Clearly there is a fire behind that smoke.

Right after that, there was this picture of Hillary Clinton in Ohio. Look at it.

Can you tell if this is a disdainful politician or a sick woman in pain? The two Republican narratives about her.

In paragraph 11 the article repeated the claim and the denial :
The New York businessman was referring to a remark Mrs Obama made in 2007 while campaigning for her husband, who was running against Mrs Clinton.
Mrs Obama said: "If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House". 
Some critics asked whether the comment had been aimed at Mrs Clinton's relationship with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Then further down, the article mentioned this:
"So, we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips," Mrs Obama continued in her 2007 speech. 
"That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime." 
In other words, they knew that the phrase had nothing to do with a swipe, as in the original talk the very next line was about the Obama family. Yet they repeated it twice and did not mention the fact that it could not have been about Hillary right away and waited until almost paragraph 20 to disclose it.

You think this was editorial oversight? I have news for you.

On 28 October, the same BBC News ran a new article about Hillary and Michelle. You know what it stated?
But the tensions of 2008 have long evaporated. Mrs Obama had taken what was widely perceived as an indirect swipe at Mrs Clinton then, telling voters: "If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."
This is how zombie lies about Hillary Clinton are perpetuated.

Next time you read that Clinton comes across as cold, calculating, bitchy or whatever, please remember that is not a question of "coming across" it is a matter of how she is being portrayed and presented by almost every media outlet and especially the liberal ones.

As for the reasons behind it, one of the best explanations for this highly peculiar phenomenon was provided by Susan Faludi.

Read the whole piece, it is worth it.

On Tuesday, for our sake, I hope Hillary wins because the Orange Man is a thin-skinned buffoon and he would destroy whatever is left of America's democracy.

But for her sake, I hope she loses because, if history is any indication, her presidency will be hellish for her.

Besides, people should be governed by the rulers they deserve.

Let the short-fingered vulgarian place his tiny hands on the nuclear button.


Google Hillary and lies and you will get a million links.

Did you know that Hillary Rodham Clinton was ranked by fact checkers the second most honest prominent politician in the country, with Obama being the top person?

Do you know who was the last by a country mile?

Next time somebody tells you how Clinton is not trustworthy send them the chart.

No comments:

Post a Comment