If there is one thing that makes this election different than past elections, it is in the sheer volume of bullshit being flung about. There are times when I feel like I’m in the monkey cage at the zoo. Of course, I will get to Trump; he’s practically a steaming pile of bullshit, so that will take a while. I figure three months ought to do it.
On the other hand, the bullshit being thrown about the other major candidate in this race is even more troubling. I wish I was able to say I don’t know why so many people peddle such bullshit about Hillary Clinton, but I know very well why it happens. A lot of extremely powerful people have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to destroy her and her husband, one of the only two competent presidents we’ve had since 1981. They have peddled lie after lie and they have done so with a single aim; to take them out of the politics.
Has it worked? You tell me. She is the odds-on favorite to become the second Clinton to be elected president so, on the one hand, it hasn’t worked out at all for the bullshitters. However, a lot of people, including many otherwise intelligent self-described progressives, still propagate the bullshit, to the point that it lives on, long after most of it was debunked. The most stunning part of all of this is the sheer number of “progressives” who used to defend her now using the bullshit to smear her.
Just yesterday, someone suggested to me that, because a number of Reagan Republicans plan to vote for Hillary Clinton this year, that should suggest that she’s not really a progressive. I’m sorry, but given that Donald Trump is running on the Republican side, it’s almost pathological to suggest that Republicans are supporting her because she’s “practically a Republican.” Might it be because, as much as they hate her, they love their country more? Donald Trump is neither competent nor qualified. If you think something as stupid as that, then you’d also have to believe that, if Trump was mimicking Bernie Sanders or spouting a full-on progressive line, all “real progressive” would vote for him.
I’m sorry, but that’s just too creepy for words.
Some of you are buying into what is being called “Cartoon Hillary” by those of us who value the truth above everything because you are too gullible to be taken seriously. It really is that simple. Face it; the only reason any progressive could ever be against Hillary Clinton is because they’re childishly clinging to the absurd notion that, to be pro-Bernie or pro-“Revolution,” you have to be anti-Hillary. This is the same bullshit that gave us two terms of Dubya; the idea that, in order to vote for Ralph Nader, you had to be anti-Gore or anti-Kerry. Again, we’re talking pathology here.
It’s mind-boggling how many people say Hillary is corrupt. It’s absurd. That’s a “Cartoon Hillary” that doesn’t even resemble the real person. Not only is there zero evidence that she is corrupt, but there is a pile of evidence demonstrating that she is not corrupt. Yes, I know, some progressives think that the mere fact that she has a lot of money makes her corrupt, but again, that’s pathology. Ted Kennedy was one of the richest people in Congress and it was never held against him. I know a lot of rich liberals, and there isn’t one of them I consider less liberal because they have a lot of money. I don’t see these same people complaining about Susan Sarandon, and she’s not exactly middle class and, frankly, she sounds more corrupt sometimes than Hillary ever dreamed of being. They claim Clinton is cozy with “Wall Street,” whatever that means, but there is no evidence. During the primaries, she got more money from the financial services sector than any other Democrat, but she got far less than at least 3-4 Republican candidates for president. Like all other Democrats, her largest contributors are labor unions and trial lawyers, not “Wall Street.” And it’s not proof, anyway; President Obama set records for “Wall Street” contributions among Democrats and he’s never shown himself to be under their control. In fact, his record is quite the opposite. I’d also point out that none other than Bernie Sanders, when he was asked to give examples showing that Clinton was corrupted by Wall Street, tried, but ultimately came up empty. (Source) That’s because there is nothing. Think about it; if Real Hillary was as corrupt as Cartoon Hillary, there is no way she wouldn’t have been destroyed by the right wing machine that has been after the Clintons for decades.
How many Republican-led and right wing financed investigations into this woman have to clear her before everyone gets it? Whitewater, travelgate, filegate and every other “-gate” one can think of and all of them have completely cleared her. It’s only a matter of time before they figure out a way to blame her for Watergate. Not only has she been cleared nine times for her role in Benghazi, but it has been proven that she did not approve a uranium deal with Russia as a thank you for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Even none other than Fox News blew this stream of bullshit out of the water, when the author of Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer, the source of this lie, was called out by Chris Wallace on the air for having no evidence that Hillary was involved in any way. (Source)
And that’s another thing; there is not one donation to the Clinton Foundation that isn’t as transparent as possible. The only reason you know so much about who’s donated is because everything is open and above board. They have been audited repeatedly and found to be one of the most open and transparent charities anywhere. Very little of the money even goes to administration and overhead, relative to other charities. Charity Watch gives them an “A”. (Source) And, once again, if there was anything untoward, why would anyone think the far right would not put the Clintons in jail by now.
Then there is the email controversy, ginned up entirely for right wing consumption, but happily devoured by far too many on our side of the aisle. First of all, very few emails were classified at all, there is no clear consensus on when they were classified, and there has been no discussion about the people who received them. FBI Director James Comey, who at first called her depart “careless” in his initial news conference, actually walked that back the very next day. During congressional hearings, Comey was asked whether the emails were properly marked and the answer was basically that they were not. That means anyone would infer that the emails were not classified and would treat them as such, which means that she never lied about them. Not that it matters anyway, since there was obviously no intent to commit espionage or something equally heinous, as required by the statutes covering this sort of thing. No one gets thrown in jail for mistakenly disclosing classified information. Ask Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz, who disclosed some pretty secure information during Benghazi hearings and weren’t hauled off in chains.
Again, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has accused her of everything you can imagine, including murder. There are actually websites with lists of people the Clintons had murdered. I wish I was kidding. Yet, no charges, no trial and no threats of jail. Nothing.
Just as obnoxious as those, however, are the asinine claims that Cartoon Hillary is practically a Republican, or “Republican Lite.” I have discussed this before, but to call Hillary anything resembling a Republican, you have to ignore the last 50 years of Republican history and you most certainly must ignore what the word “Republican” means right now. There is no “Republican Lite” right now. The GOP has been leaking like a sieve for 30 years now, and the only hardcore Republicans now are batshit crazy.
There is also not all that much “conservative” about Hillary Clinton, at least by the definition in existence in the past 30-40 years. To say she has anything in common with Republicans, you’d have to go back to the 1940s or 1950s. When she was in the Senate, she voted the same as Bernie Sanders about 93 percent of the time and she was always rated among the most liberal Senators, right behind or near Sanders. Of course, these same people don’t seem to be too able to judge very well, anyway. They also say Obama isn’t a “true progressive,” even though he was rated the most liberal member of the Senate in 2007. Of course, you should always take those surveys with a huge block of salt, since it depends on who is doing the judging. For instance, last year, the Cato Institute “reasoned” that Bernie Sanders wasn’t very liberal at all because their gauge was solely the amount of spending he voted for. (Source)
This leads us back to a theme I have been pushing for some time now. Our side needs to stop defining the word “progressive” so narrowly that no one be one. We live in a democratic system, which means we need to expand our audience if we’re to get anything done. Hillary Clinton is pro-choice and has supported that forever. She is a feminist and has supported feminism forever. She is in favor of social justice and has actually been fighting for it for a very long time. (Does 1969 go back far enough?) (Source) And no, folks, she did not happily defend a rapist (she was ordered by the court and even tried to get out of it but was refused) and she didn’t giggle at his sentence. (Source) She has even advocated against the very effects of the crime bill that her husband sent through at a very different time in our history. And she was a pioneer on health insurance reform. Yes, it failed, but the Children’s Health Insurance Program didn’t.
And what about the number one most important issue in this election. We have an opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court in a way that allows us to shake off the effects of the ReaganBush courts that we have been saddled with for a couple of decades. Do you really think Hillary Clinton will nominate right-wing Justices? Based on what? Even if you’re insulting enough to think she’ll do everything the same as her husband did, Bill Clinton placed the Notorious RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) and the very reliable Stephen Breyer on the court. She has also suggested that she is amenable to the idea of putting Barack Obama on the court. What in Hillary Clinton’s background even suggests that she would nominate someone like Scalia or Alito?
Everything negative you hear about Hillary Clinton is pretty much based on complete bullshit. Stop passing on that bullshit and tell the truth. Your hatred of Hillary Clinton is not based on anything she has done, it’s based on your gullibility and your need to believe whatever makes her look bad because you think that rationalizes your support for… whatever you actually believe. Frankly, I think people who lie about Hillary Clinton actually believe in nothing, and just like to complain.
And a lot of liberals and progressives are just plain sick of hearing it. I promise you.