The once great and currently sanctimonious Washington Post had to eat a little crow today. After cheerfully endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, not surprising at all given its performance until now, it today has produced an editorial castigating its chosen one for the wrongs found by the IG at the State Department in his report on security and the private email server. WaPo called its editorial “Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules.”
What can I say? Haven’t the Bernie supporters been saying something similar about Clinton and her shadow, DWS, for almost a year now? If she disregards rules in one setting, it’s plausible to assume that it is part of her regular functioning and not a strange aberration that occurred only when she became SoS.
Remember, Clinton was the one who continued to participate in the 2008 Florida and Michigan primaries, even after they’d been penalized by the then DNC chair, Howard Dean, for failing to set their primaries at a date and time consistent with the rules of the Democratic Party. Dean had announced that any delegates picked as a result of these untimely primaries would not be seated at the convention. Even now you will hear Hillary-bots claiming that Obama only won because two states were not allowed to participate fully in the convention (they were ultimately allowed to seat one half of their delegations).
That’s right. Hillary broke the rules in 2008, and now her supporters are saying that she was cheated because she wasn’t allowed the delegates she won in uncontested, illegal primaries. Wow. The funny thing is that the same folks are now arguing that “there’s no there there” with regard to the emails. When even WaPo is disappointed in the chosen one, what makes these Hillary-bots tick? Why is Hillary given such a clean pass by these fans?
They are clearly the heirs to the PUMAs of 2008, a group I didn’t understand then and understand less now. They have anointed her as the first woman president without doubt, but why? Are they holdovers from those who thought Bill Clinton was blameless in his affairs of the ’90s and earlier?
I was told by an acquaintance last week that Hillary was the “most impressive, educated and experienced person” to be running this or any recent year.He touted her excellence as a senator and a Secretary of State, obviously expecting me to agree. When I did not, he told me that I was going to be responsible for the election of Donald Trump. This is the way most online conversations go with Hillary-bots. There is an assertion that she is wonderfully qualified, and not to vote for her is as crazy and ill-informed as it can be. Not one of these supporters can reveal her great deeds as a senator or SoS.
Her years as a senator boil down to one major point. She voted for the Iraq war and continued to support the arguments about WMD after virtually every democrat had moved away from the war. Why is this significant? As even the New York Times has reported, her hawkishness is ” bred in the bone — grounded in cold realism about human nature and what one aide calls ‘a textbook view of American exceptionalism.'” The article from April of this year is entitled “How Hillary Became a Hawk.” She was already showing these chops while she was a senator.
Her term as SoS had some good moments and some very bad moments. She was responsible for all of them. She and Obama tag-teamed the climate meeting in Copenhagen. That’s the good. The bad was her continually taking the hardest hard-line on every military issue that came up, finding herself agreeing with Gates, the Secretary of Defense, and opposed generally by the president and the vice president. But really her “bad stuff” was more about the funny goings-on with the Clinton Foundation and the large donations given to it by gulf countries who received substantial arms shipments from US producers under the auspices of the State Department.
Or even more interesting, and more devastating in the long run, is her sale of fracking and its technology all over the world as the bridge to a cleaner environment as we switch to renewable resources. With the benefit of evidence gained over the years, we can now say that fracking is the source of the greatest release of greenhouse gases currently occurring throughout the world. Fracking produces methane, a clear, odorless gas, The seals on the fracking wells are designed for a liquid, rather than gaseous, production. They cannot be sealed against accidental release of methane. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 because it is better at holding heat. Because of fracking, all the efforts of the last ten years to reduce CO2 emissions has been more than offset by the release of methane by this new industry. I’m not even talking about the earthquakes and the burning water from the tap. This is what Hillary sold to the rest of the world.
So now even WaPo and NYT are finding fault with the presumptive nominee. The IG’s report is the best we have until the FBI announces its results. All these massive holes are appearing in the shell of Hillary Clinton. How long with the superdelegates take to realize that a vote for Hillary is a vote for someone too flawed to win the presidency? Will even they balk at the thought that Chris Stevens’ itinerary and general movements were stored on that unsecured server?