Bernie Sanders actually won more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, taking almost 80 percent of the primary vote in Idaho and Utah. Of course, Clinton won in the semi-fascist state of Arizona, but that is no surprise since the “middle” is somewhere around 8 of 10 on the left-to-right political scale there.
Now let’s talk about another reason why Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be president, besides being egotistical, corrupt, unethical and a serial perjurer etc., etc., etc. We’ve been told by Clinton’s media supporters, who seem to be about 90 percent of mainstream media, that her “personality” is “commanding” and…well, that just about sums it up. More recent “evidence” of her “personality” are stories concerning some of her released emails, obviously cherry-picked by Clinton’s media supporters. These communications supposedly reveal someone who is “generous” and “witty”—or perhaps “ironic” or “sarcastic”—but this may merely be appreciation for a sycophant or disciple. Why would Clinton illegally delete 30,000 “personal” emails unless they exposed a different personality?
This is definitely not Hillary Clinton in reality, whose every word before the public is scripted. People may or may not take the reports of Larry Nichols seriously, but who in the pro-Clinton media takes anything anyone says that is less than groveling about the Clintons seriously? Nichols was initially one of those Clinton associates known for their pledges of allegiance to them, and he claims to have served as a “go-to” enabler for the Clintons during their tenure in Arkansas beginning with Bill’s first run for governor. He claims that it was a moral and ethical “challenge” to know the Clintons even remotely intimately. He described Hillary in his first meeting with her as someone who showed absolute contempt for “common” people, with “filthy hair” you could smell ten feet away, hairy armpits and legs, wearing a “sack dress,” flip-flops and a tag that read “a proud member of United States Communist Party”—at what was supposed to be a “formal” meeting to meet rural voters at a fundraiser at a restaurant buffet.
Nichols claimed that he approached Hillary and advised that her appearance would not go down well with these people, and she responded by yelling to Bill (who was nowhere to be seen, but there had been complaints by several waitresses that he had been “hitting” on them), to get this “son-of-a-bitch” out of her face; Nichols also claimed that he had never heard a woman used the “f-word” before in that part of the country until he heard Hillary use it in the course of this exchange. Word began spreading that Bill was in the women’s restroom with another waitress; the audience was stunned into silence, but this didn’t deter Hillary, who yelled for him even louder twice more before the shocked people until she was persuaded to leave. Then Bill reemerged to speak to the audience, and Nichols recalled marveling how Bill could win over people with his charm despite everything, reducing them to a giggling mass.
Fast forward to the first Clinton presidency. Unnamed Secret Service personal assigned to her describe her as “rude,” “angry,” “nasty” and having a “vicious temper,” believing that being assigned to her amounted to “punishment.” No one was allowed to speak to her, or then be “cussed out,” and it was claimed that members of her support detail would hide behind drapes or duck into offices if word spread that she was in area.
Former Washington Post reporter Ronald Kessler also spoke of this recently. “She would blow up with them. She wouldn’t talk to them. And yet she claims to be a champion of the little people. I think it goes back to her character, it shows an arrogance, an imperiousness, an unstable personality when you feel you have to put down other people who are less powerful than you. I think it’s very important” for people to know this before they pull the lever for her. This is in contrast to the Obamas, who are said to be “well-liked” by their support detail.
Clinton’s absolute contempt for anyone but herself couldn’t have been more plain to see than her comments concerning the Benghazi tragedy. Besides her outrageous “who cares how they died” statement during the congressional hearings, there was her comment to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, one of the few in the media with “audacity” to challenge Clinton. During the interview she talked of “celebrating” after the hearings with an alcohol-drenched party afterwards. Maddow inquired what her mother would have thought about all of this: “At the end of it, she would have — you know, breathed a big sigh of relief, because she — she was someone who lived a really tough life, and she knows that everybody gets knocked down in life, and the question is whether you get back up, or whether you allow yourself to be — you know, not only knocked down, but knocked out.”
This was another perjured statement, since her mother was a part of upper-echelon of the Republican lifestyle, but more to the point this shows a person who thinks of no one but herself, not even of the dead on her watch. Once more we see someone who is so egotistical and megalomaniacal that she (and the media) can’t see what other people see. And this is someone who has done nothing but ride the coattails of a “popular” former president who happens to be her husband, and given a "consolation" prize by another president. Someone who benefited from being the wife of a governor and president who acquired sycophantic “enablers” and hangers-on who helped her—before she discarded them when the inevitable problem of illegalities emerged—to attain the kind of undeserved position and wealth usually reserved for swindlers and fraudsters. In this case, course, the victims are the American people.