Jump to content

A Requiem for Hillary Clinton.


Recommended Posts

Poor Hillary Clinton.  She just can't win for losing.  She's really catching it from the haters responding to what as been leaked from her soon to be released  book in which she offers her explanation and theories as to why she lost the election.  Naturally, her detractors accuse her of blaming everyone but herself, but she reportedly does devote space to describing where she went wrong. In one chapter she  takes Bernie Sanders to task for making her campaign harder,  likening him to a father who promises his children a pony and when his wife questions where they will get a pony or how they will pay for it and where will they house it, he accuses her of not liking ponies.    She pretty much accused him of putting her in a Catch-22 position from which she could never recover.  She also said that she really believes her sex worked against her because many of both sexes just weren't ready for a women president. 


I think Hillary is destined to go down in history as a tragic figure.  And i also think she should just retire from politics because she will be a disruptive force in the Democratic party which needs to re-invent itself.  Below is an interesting perspective of her long political career, a blog essay by Larry Womak which  appeared in Huffington Post in September of 2016, two months before the election. Is it biased? i dont know.  But it does "out" her haters for their sloppy vetting of her. 



Why Is Clinton disliked?

Why the hate for Hillary?

Why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much?

Is it because of partisanship?

Or a hard-fought primary?

Maybe, NBC once suggested, it’s because “she’s not a train wreck.”

Funny how the answers seem to be everything but the obvious.

We go on endlessly about how “untrustworthy” she is, while fact checkers rank her as the second-most honest prominent politician in the country. (And her opponent as by far the least.)

We say that she has trouble with transparency, while her opponent refuses to release his taxes and the current administration sets records for secrecy.

We decry her ties to corporations and the financial industry, while supporting a walking tax shelter or mourning the exit of a president whose re-election was funded by a record-shattering Wall Street haul.

We list so very many explanations, all of them complete bullshit.

In truth, the Hillary haters seem to resent her more than disagree with her. They demand to be humored and catered to. They hold her to wildly different standards than her male counterparts. They regard her with an unprecedented degree of suspicion. Above all, they really, really want to see her punished. And an aggressive male presence—even if dangerously incompetent—seems to comfort a great many of them.

Everyone but them knows damn well why.

Bad news for the haters: History is decidedly unafraid of “the woman card.” It doesn’t care how many people will stand on tables today and swear they’d feel the same if she were a man. It will see us for what we are—a sick society, driven by misogyny and pathetically struggling to come to terms with the fact that women do not exist solely to nurture.

If that answer isn’t as nuanced as the average thinkpiece, that’s because we, as a people, are not. No matter how many branches have formed, they all emerged from the same seed, planted way back when Bill Clinton first ran for governor. She wouldn’t be so suspicious of the press, or so measured in her presentation, or so any one of a thousand other things, if she had been born a man.

The lengths we go to in order to rationalize this all will be seen, in retrospect, as extraordinary.

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.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:

I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.

Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server and didn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade byCharity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, like so many of his online “supporters,” is a goddamnRussian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.

Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.

Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton “a bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after he voted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama andBernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s

family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

We deserve the shame that we will bear.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the end of the day people simply wanted profound changes in the way the government worked because people felt it was failing them.  They thought Obama could do this, and now think that 45 can will do it.  


Between a profit driven mainstream media and social media and all of the influence money plays in our political process, we are all terribly misinformed. Anything Obama did that was great can go completely unknown to much of the country.  Anything terrible that 45 did can be whitewashed and appear innocuous or turned into lies manufactured by the liberal media. 


Hillary was doomed from jump.  Whether the reasons where valid or fair was irrelevant.  The environment was what it was.  Hillary was a Clinton and that probably hurt her more than her gender.  Hillary was perceived as more or less a continuation of Obama, which too many people felt was not a good thing.


Meanwhile 45 and his Russian conspirators were utilizing Facebook to influence public opinion, while American journalists were asleep at the wheel, failing to investigate the nature of social media, but instead serving as broadcasters and validators of 45's stupid tweets.


Becoming president is not based upon merit.  I think this is abundantly obvious today. A first term Senator can become elected and even someone without being elected to any office can win.


Whoever has a lot of money and is willing to say things that make of feel good (whether they are true or not) has a great chance.  Hillary had the money, but maybe not the willingness to just say anything to make people feel good.  She had too much integrity to win.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they went after Clinton because they didn't like Hilary. Her problem is that she is smart and opinionated. And is seen as cold. Which is unacceptable to a large number of men and women. 


I am suspicious of people who start foundations. Foundations are a clever form of estate management. Bill Gates can't sell his shares in Microsoft without negatively effecting the stock price. The perception is the company is tanking. And he's trying to get out. By setting up a charity you don't have that problem . And you can use the funds for investment. I believe both Gates and Zuckerberg married lawyers. So usually the funds make a lot more more than they donate. 


I look at the financials. The Clinton foundation has a catering arm. Which is three times more profitable than the average catering firm. Which means either their cost are a lot lower or they charge a lot more than their competitors. Also they spend more on travel expenses than program spending. Due to security they either fly First Class or they charter a plane. 


So its always good to follow the money. 


The Clinton's were broke when the left the Whitehouse. Collectively they have made upwards of $85 million. For speeches. Hilary's are private and no copies of the transcripts are available. 


Trump is what he has always been a self obsessed misogynist racist spoiled rich kid, with no interest other than self promotion, making money and finding etays to make someone else bear the risk. He doesn't pay his contractors. Apparently those two young girls who sang at his inauguration are sueing him for non payment. 


His foundation was used as his personal piggy bank. He purchsed a six foot painting of himself. 

Eric had a foundation that used his father's Golf course. At first there was no fee. And then the charges were significantly more than other Golf clubs would charge.

He is our PT Barnum and i believe we are watching a Greek Tragedy.

The overseas donations due to the hurricanes ,   were less than previous years even from our allies. 


Trump is the President that Business people and disgruntled disenfranchised people want in office. He was voted in to make America great by returning to its preregulation,pre civil women gay and handicap rights, pre voting rights. Only White Male land owners could vote . 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument has always been that Hillary wasn't a saint but, then, America isn't heaven.  She was, first and foremost, qualified by virtue of being very knowledgeable about global and domestic issues and she knew how to be selectively ruthless; a formidable bitch.   Plus,  her future Supreme Court choices would not undo all of the judicial rulings that were so hard-fought-for to bring about a modicum of equity and justice for women and marginalized minorities, - decisions that are now in danger of being rescinded and replaced with conservative dogma that will transform this " democracy/ republic" into a "fascistic theocracy".  


Many are saying, and i agree, that Trump is not the real danger; it's his supporters who are the menace.  And it seems to me that more and more of the common people  are falling under his sway as a backlash to how they think the liberal media is bashing him, and -  as we all know, everybody hates the media and its facts that Republicans call "fake news".  


This push-back is what evolved with Joel Osteen, the con man leader of the mega church who closed its door to flood victims in Houston. The Internet bashed and ridiculed him so badly that the Christian community started coming to his defense, and this included many blacks who felt that he was being picked on, reminding everyone that this multi-millionaire who lives like a king, is, after all, just human and should not be judged so harshly.  There are all kinds of variations of the Stockholm Syndrome at play out there, not to mention the grip of cognitive dissonance. This is a nation at odds with itself.    


...Grooming my bearskin cloak  here in my cave, getting ready because - winter is coming...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilary used to care about kids, and women's issues. However I don't see much of that left in her. 


I thought Trump was the better choice because of his ham fisted obvious way if doing things.


Hilary is savvy and clever. 


She is a scorpion. He is a Gemini. They seem like their aigb types. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think Hillary's  continued, unwavering support of Planned Parenthood and all of the women's services this includes does not qualify her for being supportive of women and children issues?  


i can't believe you would bypass someone who, in being qualified, was savvy and clever,  in favor of  someone who was incompetent and ham-fisted and obvious in being this!  SMH   But you are not alone.  Bullies actually command a lot of admiration among certain types who scorn what they perceive as being wimpy.   But there's no excuse for ineptness. 


If anonymity allows them to not be held accountable for their true motivations and actions , i don't think Americans are people with a lot of scruples.  


l  confess that i am a lot more sarcastic and critical on the internet than i am in person, mainly because i don't want to get my ass kicked.  The things i say and write when squabbling with people on Facebook discussions boards are really scathing.  So  although i don't consider myself unscrupulous, i will admit to being over zealous in my iconoclastic existentialism.  i am, who i am.



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...