With that infamous wild and crazed
Charles Manson look in her eyes, Hillary Clinton basked in her “glory” at the
Brooklyn Navy Yard following her primary victory in New Jersey, which allowed
her to clinch the number of delegates needed for a majority to secure the
Democratic nomination. Of course, a few of us may recall at this time in 2008
that Clinton, far from conceding defeat, caused some to question her
psychological state when she suggested it was not “over,” because “something”
could happen; remember Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination, she asked. What was
she trying to infer? That Barack Obama might be assassinated, allowing her to
be the nominee? Naturally the media didn’t take it as seriously as it deserved,
but we may still fairly ask what was going on in her diseased mind. And that
wasn’t the first time she made bizarre comments under pressure; it seemed then
and it seems now that she is only comfortable when she has her prepackaged lies
ready for delivery.
Although Bernie Sanders gave Clinton
a run for her megalomania, since most super delegates had made up their minds
for Clinton before they even bothered to find out who Sanders was (note the
huge Internet traffic to fill the information hole left by the pro-Clinton
media following their first debates), in hindsight he had no chance. The super delegates
gave her what in the eyes of many voters was such an insurmountable early lead
that gave an air of inevitability.
That “inevitability” was fed by
many factors. The media and the Democratic leadership did everything it could
to deny Sanders’ a fighting chance; that they mostly failed is indicated by the
fact that Clinton’s so called “broad support” was largely illusory. In ten
Southern states won by Clinton by huge primary margins that Obama lost in the 2012
presidential election, Clinton won 525 pledged delegates to Sanders’ 253; this
would be the difference between the two in pledged delegates in the end. These
results came early in the primary season; in those Red Republican states the
vast majority of Democratic voters are black, who voted primarily on the “good
will” held for Bill Clinton, and ignored the 180 degree difference in civil
rights activism and racial justice between
both Clintons and Sanders.
Then there was the media’s
deliberate indifference to Hillary Clinton’s career of corruption, lies and
scandal; more than her husband, she supervised the law-breaking behind the
scenes, mainly because she was a “natural” at it. And finally—and most
importantly, as the headlines are telling us—there was “history” made: nominating
a female at any and all cost. But the truth of the matter is this was one of
the media’s most successful stage-managed programs in history. That the media
could literally enable one of the most corrupt and unethical candidates ever to
run for president as its chosen favorite and persuade the gullible to vote for
her is the real “history” being made.
The Clinton campaign is
supposedly sending out “feelers” to the Sanders campaign, but it is my hope
that Sanders does not sacrifice his principles in the name of “unity,” because that
would give Clinton undeserved credibility. Clinton only believes in one thing:
satisfying her own massive megalomania. For me, I absolutely refuse to vote for
either Clinton or Trump; this is not a selection of the lesser of two evils.
They both represent an “evil” choice in their own way—Trump is a bigoted,
unprincipled blowhard who excites the worst impulses in his supporters, and
Clinton is a corrupt, pathological liar who absolutely cannot be trusted.
As an aside, the novelty mints
tin that I mentioned previously with the “Hillary for Peppermint” caption
features Clinton with an expression of smug, barely suppressed laughter; what is she
laughing at—“provincials” like you for voting for her?
No comments:
Post a Comment