After the release of the admittedly extremely unfortunate “off-the-cuff” comments made by Donald Trump of a sexual nature made in 2005, the Clinton News Network went into full attack mode, continuing to make no pretense of its extreme partisan support of Hillary Clinton ever since she first announced her intention to run in 2015. CNN replayed the “offensive” comments, warning viewers of their “graphic” nature. Well, sure Trump’s words were “inappropriate,” but it was the typical bathroom braggadocio of a “celebrity”: I listened to it and thought “That’s it?” Were the people he was talking to offended? No, they were laughing, because he knew that he wasn’t serious. CNN made it seem far worse than it actually was, using terms like “incredibly vulgar.” Vulgar, yes. “Incredibly” vulgar?, I’ve heard worse—way worse. Trump’s campaign in “meltdown” mode? Only by CNN’s reckoning, in an obvious effort for a news story to raise ratings. That "meltdown" might happen after Sunday's debate, but for now, let's just call things what they are.
CNN went on to air Trump’s commentary on the Howard Stern show; this is a “story”? Everyone knows that what is said on the Stern show is meant to be over-the-top, that guests are supposed to play along with his banter; it is supposed to “shock” and not necessarily be equated with actual behavior—except to CNN and its hypocritically self-righteous “objective journalists.” I suspect that many voters will see the lengths that Clinton and her media supporters are willing to go to win. Isn’t the media itself “lewd” and crude in the way it wallows in stories of a sexual nature, even when only words are involved?
Since the outbreak of outrage from the pro-Clinton media and the “abandonment” of Republican lawmakers who never supported him anyways, Trump “owned” to his rhetorical error; after all, unlike Bill Clinton, he has never been accused of rape or sexual assault. I wonder to what extent people who support Trump will see this as a desperate effort by Clinton and her media supporters to win at any cost. We saw this in 2008, when (let’s not quibble about this) Clinton tried to save her candidacy by having her operatives release the Rev. Wright audio in order to alienate white voters, and naturally the Clinton News Network ran with it night and day for weeks, until it was no longer a “story,” and failed to have the desired beneficial effect. Of course, that didn’t stop Clinton from making racially-offensive suggestions directly, as she did before an audience of white voters in western Pennsylvania. Clinton has been known for sewer-level tricks. Yet what of herself? She along with her husband not only have not “owned” to any of their endless moral and ethical lapses that have broken actual laws, but have repeatedly lied or blamed others.
CNN commentators can’t understand why Trump supporters are standing with him despite “everything.” Yet how can Clinton supporters justify their own support for a candidate who has a 40-year record of unethical behavior, corruption and perjury? How can such a person be considered “presidential” material? If the media is going to bring-up Trump’s tax records from 1995 and these admittedly inappropriate for a person running for president sex comments (even if mostly braggadocio) from 11 years, then why are they defensive about Bill Clinton’s indiscretions, defending themselves by claiming that he is not on the “ticket”? It was Hillary the lawyer who advised him to use the “it” word.
CNN further adds to the impression of partisanship by the airing of show called “We Will Rise,” about educating women in countries where they are “oppressed.” I work with women like this, particularly African (whether Muslim or Christian), and they are not “uneducated,” and they are not “wallflowers” and have no “self-esteem” issues; in fact they are more “bullying” and self-confident than their male counterparts. And the reality is that in countries where education is at a premium, males are only marginally more availed to education. Yet the gender advocates don’t want you to know about this. Only other women concern them; they only want to lift one end of the boat, but this won’t do anything but sink the boat; it’s all about self-serving politics. Obviously, this program is meant to be pro-Clinton propaganda.
The CNN commentators repeatedly bring up “history” and “history in the making,” and this is clearly its agenda, to insure Trump’s defeat and Clinton’s victory. CNN was never this partisan about the “history-making” of a black president being elected—until after the fact. CNN went on to prove that it didn’t want to make an “issue” of Barack Obama’s race in places like the South, even failing to note the “coincidence” of his election and the rise of the so-called “Tea Party” movement, which was clearly racially-motivated.
Being a Bernie Sanders supporter from the very beginning, I have no liking of Trump or his bigoted supporters. But neither do I support Clinton, who to me is the most corrupt, unethical and untruthful candidate for president in this country’s history (the real “history” being made). The media claims that Clinton’s history of corruption and lying doesn’t matter; but don’t believe it. It does. And let’s try a little “perspective” here: Trump has only been a politician for a year; he’s felt no need to conceal. Clinton, on the other hand, has spent her whole life concealing, and she has a great deal to conceal, and she has the perjury game down to a science.