francoHFW
Diamond Member
Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton | Huffington Post
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 administrationās 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 didnāt 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 anddidnāt use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. āMy God,ā people cry, āanyone else would be in jail!ā
Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity 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 itāspecifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunusāin 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 āsupporters,ā) 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 isnāt just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.
Back in the mid-90s, Clintonās persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, ā[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove theyāre not really liberal.ā 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 Obamaās 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 āfar right voting record,ā untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, āA bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I donāt know what they even are.ā Because if he doesnāt 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 canāt figure out which, maybe the problem is you.
Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after hevoted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldnāt 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 and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.
Itās 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 itās 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 brotherās family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephewās 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 nomineeācompetent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in historyāendured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.
We deserve the shame that we will bear.
The GOP propaganda machine, and the cowardly corporate media and politicians that allow this to pass are a disgrace.
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 administrationās 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 didnāt 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 anddidnāt use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. āMy God,ā people cry, āanyone else would be in jail!ā
Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity 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 itāspecifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunusāin 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 āsupporters,ā) 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 isnāt just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.
Back in the mid-90s, Clintonās persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, ā[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove theyāre not really liberal.ā 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 Obamaās 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 āfar right voting record,ā untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, āA bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I donāt know what they even are.ā Because if he doesnāt 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 canāt figure out which, maybe the problem is you.
Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after hevoted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldnāt 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 and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.
Itās 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 itās 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 brotherās family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephewās 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 nomineeācompetent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in historyāendured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.
We deserve the shame that we will bear.
The GOP propaganda machine, and the cowardly corporate media and politicians that allow this to pass are a disgrace.
