Note to Reader: This is the first in a series of columns that are a condensed version of a book I am writing on Hillary Clinton and her campaign, that I have agreed to publish in a serialized form for MadisonsCPC.
Hillary the Monarch in Waiting
I had intended to write a book about Hillary Rodham Clinton even before the recent revelations about her reckless use of a private server and a personal email account to conduct State Department business. The disturbing details and implications of this event spurred me to put 4 other books I had in various stages of completion, on the side burner, and this penetrating examination of Hillary Clinton on full boil.
The process of writing this book has been to me, quite strange in the sense that unlike most other candidates for public office and the campaigns they run, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is a constantly moving object. It is not singularly unique in that respect, but unique in the magnitude of kinesis it produces in the Aristotelian sense. Much of it is attributable to the nature of the individual at the center of it and her deep connection to the gravitational center of American politics.
Hillary Clinton to many is an icon of the ‘post-feminist era’ although her public persona is not post-feminist. To be more accurate, Clinton is a distorted and ersatz echo of the Suffragette movement. She positions herself as the modern mantle-bearer of the legendary crusaders for women’s rights. Nothing she does that would objectively dispel that image, has the slightest effect on the true believers.
To others, Ms. Clinton is a bête noire – a person so transparently corrupt, malicious, and magnetically attracted to power, that she will seek to attain it at all costs, without regard to ethics, morals, or the restraint of the rule of law. Because of this, the scandals she has generated have a quality of perpetual motion to them. And as a consequence, this is a book that will, in a sense, never really be completed or up to date. The minute I edit the final draft and hit publish, another lurid aspect of the national nightmare that is the Clinton political industrial complex will spill out in the manner of hazardous waste onto the information superhighway.
“Hillary’s Critics are Unfair”
The most common objection by the ‘Clintonistas’ to any critical look at Hillary Clinton individually, or Bill and Hillary corporately, is that such examinations are unfair partisan attacks. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the words of the candidate herself. “We’re back into the political season and, therefore, we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks and I’m ready for that. I know that that comes, unfortunately, with the territory.”
This is a victim statement – part of Hillary Clinton’s stock in trade. Here, we see that Ms. Clinton claims that raising issues about her behavior in the public arena are violations of the rule book that applies to her and only to her. Legitimate questions that any other political figure would be subject to, are in Hillary’s case, unnecessary “distractions.”
The psychological motif that Clinton and her supporters want to push, sound like this. Poor Hillary Clinton, having to subject herself to the unreasonable criticism that comes with campaigning, but brave Hillary will bear the burden because she wants to be your “champion”.
But the above was not the only such manipulative statement. There’s also this Hillary quote … “a well-organized and well-financed attempt to undermine my husband and by extension myself, by people who have a different political agenda or have another personal and financial reason for attacking us.”
It might be mistaken for paranoia, absent the obvious cynicism. And of course who can forget this nugget of Hillary Gold from Bill’s first presidential run, “This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”
Then there is the objection on the grounds of gender. With Hillary, if you question her behavior, you are attacking women generally, because Hillary represents the best interests of women politically. Her supporters say so and she says so.
That’s not feminism, that’s gender exploitation.
And does Hillary represent the best interests of women? Certainly not the women, who by no fault of their own, happen to get in the path of her ambition. Hillary Clinton will torch women and the truth as necessary, and no better example of this is her tactics when launching a counter-offensive against reports of her husband’s sexual behavior. Hillary’s approach is to, in her words, “Go after specific things about the story – dates and times. Attack the motives and details.” Her contrivances have given birth to an entire universe of parasites in the media who make it an industry to defend the indefensible. David Brock comes to mind in this regard.
Another preposterous defense for unresolved issues surrounding Hillary Clinton, is the rejoinder, “that’s old news.” The rationalization for this tactic is that Hillary, her campaign, her chattering surrogates and her cult followers assume that if she somehow manages to politically survive an explosive revelation of corruption, that the effective shelf life of the misdeed or dereliction is 48 hours max.
There is also the assertion that examining Hillary’s actions is inadmissible because it is inherently politically charged. Therefore, if you bring this book up to a certain segment of the demographic, you will hear something like, “I don’t pay any attention to Hillary Clinton’s critics. It’s just Republicans and conservatives. She’s constantly being accused of all sorts of things that aren’t true and it’s all political.”
Longtime Clinton operative James Carville puts a voice to the typical sentiment, “All of this is spaghetti journalism; throw some spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks,” he insists. “It’s always something that ends up with nothing.”
This mentality is evident no matter which side of the partisan divide one happens to be standing on – Democrat or Republican. If you have a dog in the hunt, everyone who questions your dog is just biased against him or her and harbors an underlying motive for the scrutiny.
The companion piece to that is, “So she made a mistake here and there, other people have done the same thing.” It would seem that the deficient logic of excusing Hillary Clinton’s corruption by pointing out that she’s simply taking a handoff of the baton in a race to the bottom, would be evident to her zealots – but it is not. In their separate reality, it is perfectly logical.
Note to Reader: In Chapter One, Part Two, we’ll discuss why a critical evaluation of Hillary Clinton, has little to do with whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an independent voter but has everything to do with the substance of her record as both an elected official and her term as Secretary of State.