How Gullible Are You?

I know many people who will read this will hate it, but hey; when your job is to cut the crap, sometimes you piss people off. No one said this would be pretty.

I’ve talked about the silliness inherent in believing that you can have a “revolution” in a free country where most people seem concerned about which athletes are taking drugs and in the latest shenanigans of Kim/Kanye/Bieber. And I speak constantly of the ridiculousness of thinking the professional left knows anything about politics, when doing things their way has led to 40 years of increasingly right-leaning government. And I can’t believe how many times I have to dispel the notion that both major political parties are essentially the same.

I am so sick of gullible memes, I want to scream. Seriously, we can’t make political progress if our side harbors such a deep level of gullibility.

Gullible peanutsIn this column, I want to address this notion that Hillary Clinton is somehow a “dishonest corporatist Wall Street shill” or some other such gullible nonsense. The argument basically says that Clinton can’t be trusted because, somehow, she’ll turn the government over to “Wall Street” (whatever the hell that actually means) and let them run the government into the ground.

Let’s start with the obvious.

There is no such thing as “Wall Street.” I mean, Wall Street does exist, but it’s the name of a street in lower Manhattan and it is the home of pretty much nothing but investment firms. Not a whole lot in the way of corporate policy comes out of “Wall Street” and if it wasn’t for Republicans winning too many seats, they wouldn’t be making governmental policy, either. The same can be said of the word “corporatist.” A lot of individuals, including a great number or liberals, have created corporations, so what does that even mean, really?

In other words, when you call Hillary Clinton those names, it sounds suspiciously like Republicans calling President Obama a “Kenyan Marxist” or something equally stupid. But with this column, let’s talk about the concept that Clinton is “dishonest,” or that she’s hiding something. A lot of people say this, but my only answer when I hear/read it is, how is this possible?

Hillary HornsNever has a political couple been as closely scrutinized as the Clintons. None. It’s not even a close call. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been subjected to more pointless investigations by right wing hit squads than anyone in history, and they have a single blow job to show for it. Hundreds of investigations, countless “special prosecutors” and endless congressional hearings, and they have found nothing substantial to pin on either one of them.

Starting with Richard Mellon Scaife’s Arkansas Project, they have been targeted repeatedly for everything. And make no mistake; both of them were targeted; him because he was one of the most skilled and charismatic politicians around and her because she wasn’t the “dutiful wife”  and First Lady of both Arkansas and the United States. She refused to stand behind Bill at every turn wearing a scarf and an apron and make token appearances at church bake sales. If you are old enough, surely you remember the scrutiny of the Rose Law Firm. Well, Hillary worked for them, not Bill.

Since they have been in public life, the Clintons have had well-funded and incredibly focused political enemies who have never backed away from smearing the hell out of them. You may scoff at the notion of a vast right wing conspiracy, but make no mistake; making up shit about Bill and Hillary and propagating it all over the media is a cottage industry like to other. Perhaps you’ve heard of David Brock, who created Media Matters for America. Well, one reason he’s become such a stickler for the truth is because, in a previous career, he was a smear merchant for Scaife and the VRWC, who was paid well to smear Hillary until he realized it was all bullshit and that she wasn’t as horrible as advertised. Read his book, “Blinded by the Right,” if you don’t believe me.  There was no Rose Billing Scandal, really. There really was no Whitewater scandal; the investigation turned up nothing. “Travelgate” was thoroughly investigated and no “there” was ever found. Vince Foster committed suicide, he wasn’t murdered by anyone. Benghazi was a tragedy and the result of terrible oversight, but it was hardly a crime. And the whole email thing? Yay! They finally found some “top secret” information in some emails, although the reality is, it wasn’t “top secret” when she was Secretary of State; it became so later. So nothing there, either.

Like I said, hundreds of investigations and thousands of investigators have squandered at least $1 billion over the past three decades and they have found two things; the infamous blow job and “Filegate,” in which someone on Hillary’s staff had files he shouldn’t have had. Other than that, the most-vetted couple in US history is clean as a whistle.

And how do I know this? Well, if there was anything else to the Clintons, do you think for a moment that the VRWC that’s been dogging them for so long would hesitate to make it public? Why do you think their have to make shit up so often? If Hillary is so “dishonest,” how has she been able to hide everything in the age of the Internet and with a billion dollars directed at finding a way to stop her, even before this election cycle? How did she get through the 2008 election cycle intact. Yeah, she lost, but it wasn’t exactly a landslide.

Here’s the deal, folks…

Bernie hairWe have three excellent candidates on the Democratic side. All three of them could win in the general election and they would make great choices for president. When you denigrate any one of the three of them, you actually denigrate the Democratic Party and you degrade its chances in November, especially down-ticket. And when, in your zeal for Bernie, you attack Hillary Clinton as “dishonest,” well, you’re screwing yourself because anyone who bothers to look can see that she’s the most heavily-vetted candidate in history and they’ve pinned nothing on her. You’ll be tagged as a liar and you’ll make Bernie look bad at the same time you damage the Democratic brand.

If you truly believe Hillary Clinton is dishonest and deceptive, then you are among the most gullible people on the planet. You have fallen for the Fox Right Wing Smear Machine, and you should turn in your “political junkie” badge, post haste. If you believe the constant smears damage her in the general election, well, I hate to break it to you, but whoever wins will be smeared just as badly. Do you really think Bernie Sanders has nothing in his background that can be attacked? Put it this way; John Kerry was a Vietnam war hero and they managed to turn him into a screaming wussy who ran away from battle every chance he got. You think a lifelong “socialist” (gasp!) is untouchable?

Again, I ask, how gullible are you?


How Gullible Are You? — 11 Comments

  1. “”If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

    If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

    If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

    Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

    Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

    This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.

    My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world

    And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

    So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.”

  2. logicurles55, would you please provide the source of Hillary’s quotes on her vote? I need them to rebut more stupid claims. Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said on NPR during one of the recent primaries that Clinton was an “architect and advocate” to overthrow Saddum. Also, I just read (but haven’t factchecked) that Sanders voted for two bills, one in 1998, that were plans to oust Saddam.

  3. Re: “Hillary voted for the Iraq War” – I’m surprised that what this statement suggests doesn’t get more pushback from those who consider the issue reasonably. Although she DID cast a ‘yea’ vote for the Iraq Resolution, which authorized the PRESIDENT to use his judgment regarding the use of military force when dealing with Iraq, she did NOT “vote to go to war with Iraq”. Her own words regarding her vote: “My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose – all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world – A vote for is NOT a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, and we say to him: use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

  4. “Pointless investigations?” …such as getting to bottom of why Hillary and the Obama administration blamed the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi on a You Tube video that nobody had seen? Or the fact that the ambassador asks countless times for added security leading up to the anniversary of 9/11 and was denied by Hillary each and every time.
    How about Hillary under subpoena refused to turn over documents pertaining to emails she kept on an illegal, unsecured server leaving national secrets open to hacking especially at a time it was known that all of congress were being hit by software, stealing information from them.
    When she finally did turn them over, she had already erased 30,000 of the emails and then claimed were ones she sent to Slick Willy who by his own admission doesn’t use email.
    How about Hillary telling about how she landed in Bosnia and had to run with her head down dodging bullets as they were flying overhead?
    What about the fact that Hillary and Slick Willy take thousands of donations from the Saudi’s and other Middle East countries that discriminate, maim and murder women all the will telling us that she supports women’s rights.
    Hillary is not only “dishonest” she’s a habitual liar that will say and do whatever it takes to get elected.

    • And yet, she has done all of those things you claim and a right wing machine has been trying to take her out for 30 years and hasn’t been able to.

      You rote repetition of right wing bullshit actually makes my point. You’re really gullible.

    • I see… so SHE didn’t “force-feed” fracking to Eastern Europe at all. The State Department tried to sell it. That’s not the same as “force-feeding” it, which is the term you used. It seems I’m not the one using “dramatic language.”

      BTW, a lot of progressives voted for the Iraq War, too. And the fact that you don’t accept an apology demonstrates a lack of “integrity” on your part. Of course, you also think her being a Goldwater Girl when she was 16 has some sort of relevance in 2016, too, so that’s not surprising. Grow up.

      I’m not a fan of fracking, but suggesting that Bulgaria use American-made equipment to engage in it is not a disqualifier. I also don’t think Bernie’s support for a law that shields gun makers from liability is a disqualifier. In other words, you can find dirt on anyone, if you dig far enough. The fact that you think what Hillary did as a teenager in 1964 is relevant in 2016 is indicative that you’re exceptionally gullible.

      And passive-aggressive. You posted another comment to let me know you don’t want to “debate” anymore? We’re not debating. You proved my article correct, my gullible friend.

  5. Oh come on, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton was opposed to gay marriage before it came into vogue. Hillary Clinton was a republican in the 60’s. And Hillary Clinton tried to force feed fracking to Eastern Europe very recently. None of this is smear, just open record for the world to see. You can call us gullible if you like. Perhaps it is you who are turning a blind eye to reality. What you call gullibility, I call integrity. Get yourself some.

    • I have plenty. But let’s take these one by one:

      1. She’s apologized for her vote on the Iraq War.
      2. Most people were against gay marriage up until very recently, including President Obama, who has since led the way.
      3. Republican in the 60s? So? If you would bother to check most of the professional left, you would find that MOST were Republican for a much longer time. Should we dismiss every liberal pundit who was once a Republican because of credibility? Have you ever quoted Media Matters? Kos? Cenk? All were Republicans as late as the 80s and 90s.
      4. As for “force-feeding fracking to Eastern Europe,” how is THAT credible? How does a SOS or Senator do that, exactly.

      Yes, you are gullible and you have no concept of reality, apparently. Before you claim I have no integrity, you might want to check your own case first.

  6. Pingback: Republican Party attacks on Bernie Sanders | sachemspeaks

  7. MILT

    No matter how I try, I can’t get a single Rep*blican to understand what you are saying! I wrote a piece on my own blog that basically said that any local journalist with a ridiculously small operating budget could dig up enough dirt on most of us to ruin our lives!

    Yet Bill and Hillary Clinton have been investigated almost non-stop for 20+ years and they have found nothing! Compared to most of us, they are bloody Saints!

    Without fail, every Rep*blican responds with some variation on They Are the Greatest Liars in History crap and the conversation goes nowhere.

    For some reason, this lack of reasoning has infected more than a few Bernie Sanders supporters. Every time I hear one of them call Hillary a “conservative,” I point out that during her eight years in the Senate she had one of the most liberal voting records of any Dem, so what does that make the other Dems?

    It’s all emotional for these folks and logic and facts don’t cut through that crap!


    PS: My aforementioned article is “another fishing expedition without a bite” at