Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Shielding Clinton's numerous defects with accusations of gender "bullying" only devolves her defenders down to her level of pathology

Can there be anything more frustrating than trying to engage in a substantive debate with a person whose principle line of “argument” is sarcasm, deception and talking loud? And can there be anything more hypocritical in this day and age to shield a presidential wannabe from her character and ethical weaknesses by accusing her opponent of gender “insensitive” gestures and tone? Poor pitiful Hillary Clinton, there on stage in Flint, Michigan, expectorating lie after lie, deception after deception, non-answer after non-answer—doing so in a “commanding” tone, according to her completely biased media supporters—with the debate moderator losing complete control of the proceedings to Clinton, pathetically “assuring” Bernie Sanders that he would have a chance to “respond” to Clinton’s mudslide of pathology. 

A day after the debate, Janell Ross of the Washington Post called Sanders “excuse me” moments when Clinton interrupted his answers, or wagging his finger when trying to make a point, “sexist” and “chauvinistic.” Doesn’t he “know” that media reporters are noting this “insensitive” behavior, and the “assumption” is that the general public is also “put-off” by this “bullying” of a woman?

No, Clinton is her own problem, and she discredits herself very well all by herself. In 1980, Bill Clinton lost his first re-election bid for governor of Arkansas, partly because polling showed a deep voter antipathy toward his wife. This couldn’t have been helped by a 1979 local TV interview, meant as a “get to know Hillary” exchange. She was wearing huge eye glasses and hideous-looking knee-high boots (apparently because she was forced to wear a skirt for the appearance), and calling herself Hillary Rodham. She came off as aloof and arrogant, completely the opposite of her husband. She either had no clue how to connect with people—or more likely, felt put-upon as someone of “patrician” stature being forced to stoop to the level of the “plebians.” 

Her lack of the “common touch” with ordinary people has not improved since then; a New Hampshire news crew at a rare Clinton joint appearance at an Iowa campaign rally showed Bill still with the “touch,” easily engaging reporters, commenting on apple pie and how to grow championship-size pumpkins—while Hillary continued to shun reporters and their unscripted questions, was too patrician to comment on the pie and simply walked away disinterestedly from the pumpkins. What is there to like about this person? Why should we live in fear of what we say about her merely because she is a woman, when we can see and hear with our own two eyes and ears who she is?

Thus the problem with Ross’ assessment is that first it comes from a person who is yet another unabashed Clinton enthusiast, so her credibility is already in question. Secondly, Clinton has tried to play both sides of the fence, attempting to display “male” characteristics when things are going good, then reverting to poor defenseless female when things are going bad. Thirdly, Clinton’s gender is not a defense for her numerous character and ethical defects, which non-Hillary fanatics grew as frustrated to as Sanders did in the course of these debates. How is one supposed to respond to it without being accused of “bullying” a female? 

Thousands of comments on Ross’ piece showed that outside a smattering of diehard self-deceiving Clintonphiles, there was near universal disagreement with her assessment, an example of how out-of-touch the self-deceiving media is, of gender politics gone out-of-control, and an utter failure to find fault with Clinton on any point. When I pressed the Clinton fanatics to explain why a person with such a long history of corruption, perjury and scandal ought even be considered for the presidency, the responses (predictably) didn’t go much beyond name-calling, accusations of woman-hating and claims that her crimes are all a “GOP conspiracy,” despite the fact that pro-Clinton newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post were heavily involved in exposing these activities. In order to “cleanse” Clinton of her many flaws of character and principle, her supporters must follow her “example” and become pathological liars as well.

No comments:

Post a Comment