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