Monday, July 25, 2016

Clinton supporters might think that the WikiLeaks revelations are just a "minor" detail, but Sanders' supporters have a right to think otherwise

With the opening of the Democratic Convention, raise your hands if you are “shocked” by the revelations by the latest WikiLeaks that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee were doing exactly what Bernie Sanders and his supporters charged that they had been doing from the start: employing every underhanded ploy in their power to undercut Sanders’ candidacy to insure that its “presumptive” choice, Hillary Clinton, was the eventual nominee. Unfortunately the “revelations” came far too late to make any difference in the primary outcome, and despite Wasserman Schultz announced intention to resign as chairperson of the DNC after the convention, there is little to suggest that the bad blood between the Clinton camp and Sanders diehards will be “healed” by the time it is over. Naturally, Sanders’ supporters are already being smeared for making “personal attacks” on Clinton, mainly by the hypocritical feminist and gender-obsessed crowd; but Clinton is who she has always been: corrupt, unethical and prone to lying. These are not “personal” attacks; they are the simple truth.

The released emails show that Clinton’s web of corruption ensnared most of the Democratic establishment. Wasserman Schultz and her flunkies were congenitally opposed to any “threat” to Clinton, attempting at every opportunity to steer media coverage of Sanders’ candidacy into negative territory, and persuade it to steer clear of Clinton’s long history of corruption.  Let’s not tip-toe through the tulips on this one; this was a gender engagement from first-to-last, and absolutely nothing was going to stop, this time. Barack Obama wasn’t supposed to rain on Clinton’s parade in 2008; but the DNC might have been charged with racism if it did the same thing it did against Sanders, and it just wouldn’t do to alienate the Democrats most “reliable” voters if it had been exposed that it had. This time, no one was going to prevent “history” from being made, even if the candidate happened to be the least qualified ethically, morally and even substantively. 

The email leaks proved that there were attempts to smear Sanders on various fronts, such as on his religion; A plan was floated to suggest that he was an atheist—as if the Clintons had any use for religion personally.  There were attempts to smear his “political” credibility, as if he hadn’t been battling for progressive principles for more than half a century; we need not mention what Hillary has been “battling” for. Oh, you need reminding? For her personal megalomania, and her mania for riches. Far from being an objective spectator, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC fought the Sanders campaign tooth-and-nail (or was it kick and scratch?) to deny it any leverage on Clintons’ email and fundraising scandals, in fact working with the Clinton campaign to devise “talking points” to deny, obfuscate and intimate “sexism,” which the media naturally bought hook, line and sinker. 

There was more. The emails revealed that Wasserman Schultz and the DNC—who claimed to be “neutral,” just like the Obama Justice Department—refused to grant interviews to journalists they regarded as “Bernie Bros”—meaning those critical of the Clintons’ (and the DNC’s) corrupt practices. Some reporters allowed their stories to be “pre-screened” by the DNC in order to edit out anything that might be damaging to Clinton and helpful to Sanders. The DNC apparently also had “spies” within the Sanders camp to provide “inside” information” about what Sanders was up to that might damage Clinton. There were also deliberate efforts to avoid any media interviews that included Wasserman Schultz and Sanders, in the belief that she would “lose” any confrontation between the two. So it wasn’t a “fair” fight from the start, and it is clear that Clinton benefitted from a rigged system, beginning with nearly all “super delegates” attempting to steal the nomination from any Clinton challenger (the DNC refused a challenge to the super delegate system yesterday). 

The dirty deed done, Clinton’s choice for running mate only illuminates her personal faults. She picked a “boring” running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, because she likes “boring”—or at least not “flashy,” a euphemism for not overshadowing her.  She didn’t want to share her “history” with a female running mate (she is too egotistical for that), and so she chose a male with a vanilla personality who would not be a “challenge” to her lack of real substance, charisma—or for that matter, ethics. 

The media, of course, continues to downplay the Nixon-like dirty tricks campaign played by Clinton and the DNC, even having the absolute mendacity to claim to not “understand” Sanders supporters’ legitimate outrage at the now proven effort to undercut any effort to reveal the truth about Clinton and her corrupt and unethical nature—and thus her unfitness for the highest office in the land. Her unfitness was further proven by the fact that almost immediately after Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign as DNC chair for her ethically-challenged dealings whose sole purpose was to insure “history” was made in 2016, Clinton “hired” her as her “honorary chair” of her “50-state” election “program.” Besides revealing that women are just as crooked as men, and that for a woman to win the nomination unfair and foul means had to be employed, this also was a continuation of what has been made clear time and time again over the past 40 years, that the Clintons “reward” loyal behavior—that is to say, to do all their dirty work, or fall on the sword for them.

No comments:

Post a Comment