I am quite frankly astonished to observe the degree of mythology that has grown up around both Bill and Hillary Clinton. To give you an idea of what is floating about, here is a list to various claims that have all been robustly fact-checked on Snopes and discovered to be completely and utterly false …
- The Clintons are charging rent to the Secret Service agents assigned to protect them.
- New York Senator Hillary Clinton refused to meet with a delegation of Gold Star mothers.
- Hillary Clinton helped free two Black Panthers accused of torturing and murdering Alex Rackley.
- Democrats and the Clinton administration received more campaign contributions from Enron and were more accommodating of Enron’s lobbying efforts than Republicans and the Bush administration.
- The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.
- Bill Clinton has been quietly doing away with those who oppose him.
- Distant relative of Hillary Clinton (or Al Gore) was a horse thief or train robber.
- Native Americans dubbed Hillary Clinton “Walking Eagle.” (I’ve also seen this one for Trump and much as I might like it to be true, it is still false for him as well)
- While President, Bill Clinton ordered the firing of half of Colorado’s cattle guards.
- Marines surreptitiously failed to salute President Clinton throughout his eight years in office.
- Bill Clinton was the “first pardoned felon ever to serve as President of the U.S.”
- The pastor of the church attended by the Clintons was convicted of child molestation.
- Statement reproduces Hillary Clinton’s response when asked to identify her major accomplishments as Secretary of State.
- Jerry Zeifman fired 27-year-old Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation.
- Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler issued similar statements about putting the needs of society ahead of the needs of individuals.
- Photograph shows Hillary Clinton posing with Osama Bin Laden.
All of the above has one common attribute – none of it is true, not one word, and yet it circulates and so in effect emotionally manipulates people into thinking that there is something seriously wrong with them.
We have also had a considerable degree of blame-storming going on.
- We have elected officials openly lying about what she has supposedly said
- We have others who demand via twitter that she should be tried for treason and murder, then hung on the mall, and yet the evidence to backup such a claim is bullshit and complete fiction.
I’m really not kidding …
— Josh Charles (@MrJoshCharles) July 17, 2016
Now don’t misunderstand me. If there is a case for valid criticism then so be it, but the irony is indeed strong when those that claim most of this are themselves guilty of promoting political myth as fact.
The entire email saga is one big farce and quite frankly much ado about nothing. It has been a practise for many public officials to utilise personal email servers for public business, notable names such as both Colin Powell, a previous individual doing exactly the same job did exactly the same, and also Jeb Bush who also did exactly the same, and yet neither of them were targeted in the same way for doing so. Beyond all the media hype, what are the actual facts? You can find out easily enough, anybody can, it is all in the public domain.
The best that anybody could come up with after an extensive investigation is that she was “careless”, and that’s it, that is the entire scope of the fact-based conclusion.
Integrity and Honesty
She is promoted and grossly dishonest and it is claimed that she lies all the time, yet once again when you fact check, you find that right across the entire field of candidates she is the most honest and truthful one. That might for some be hard to grasp and so is dismissed.
Make a note of who is top of the list, and yet those that criticise her do not appear to be the least bothered about anybody else.
WTF is going on here?
Only yesterday we saw official speakers at the Republican convention encouraging the crowd to chant “Lock her up”, and so they were not only clearly quite oblivious to any ethical standards or behaviour, but they were also not really interested in facts or truth.
Why is she on the receiving end of so much vile fictitious abuse to a degree never seen before, what is going on here, what is different about her when compared to all other candidates?
Clearly Trump, the most dishonest candidate gets a completely free pass amongst his own for his gross dishonesty, and yet Hillary, the most honest candidate, is often perceived by many Democrats to be dishonest, so why is it like this?
The key to understanding it all is this – there exists a long-standing narrative that women lack what it takes to succeed in the male-dominated world of politics. In other words, this is a rather blatant gender bias, or to put out just one word that sums it all up – misogyny.
Trump is well-known for his misogynistic behaviour and so it is no surprise to find him pushing the “Crooked Hillary” message, but not because it is true, instead it is simply because he is a master of emotional manipulation, and knows that if he can keep this idea embedded within the minds of many voters then he is in with a chance.
Now that’s a truly scary thought – a racist misogynistic thug getting elected simply because many voters not only don’t give damn about what is actually true, but also because he manipulates them and panders to deeply felt fears and biases.
That however is probably not going to happen, because Trump is sufficiently obnoxious enough to inspire many to hold their nose and vote for what they perceive to be the second worst candidate simply to keep Trump out of office. What they would then discover over time is that they made, not just the right choice, but the best choice, because the truth is that she is not the second worst, and is instead the very best most honest and wholly capable candidate they could ever wish for.
One Last Thought
OK, clearly you now know my political leanings. I do however recognise that there is a vast diversity of thinking within this arena and so others may indeed find that they prefer other candidates. That is of course not just fine, but is to be anticipated and expected.
If indeed Hillary is not your favourite cup of tea, then the one plea I would make is that if you are going to criticise her behaviour and/or her policies, then please pause and check that you are not embracing political fiction as the basis for any of that criticism. Instead you should, if appropriate, criticise her for what she actually does and says, and not for what others falsely claim she said or did.
If you are rejecting Hillary because of a perception that she is dishonest, then be aware that you are in fact rejecting the most fundamentally honest candidate out there. Remember that this is a measurable fact and not simply an opinion or a belief. So if honesty is a truly important attribute that you look for in anybody seeking election, and you are rejecting Hillary, then who exactly are you supporting and why?