Why do so many good people hate Hillary? And by `good’ I mean basically leftist, do-gooder, liberal, and so on.
There are two reasons. The first is the obvious, and maybe the predominant one, that they fall victim to the anti-Clinton bias and propaganda that has blanketed the mainstream mass media (leading the charge are the NYTimes and WaPost) since the early `90s. The media do this, of course, because its owners want Republicans to win Presidential elections (these things matter to the very wealthy); ganging up on and demonizing the Democratic Party when it is in power and on the party’s presidential frontrunner helps to get this done. The most extraordinary recent example of press bias is the October 30 Dem debate, but the entire characterization of the Hillary Clinton campaign has been aggressively biased.
As I noted, making it particularly hard for good liberals to fend off the anti-Clinton propaganda is that it has been led by the New York Times and Washington Post. These are publications that good, liberal, but still wannabe sorta mainstream politico people read and generally trust (despite all the criminal warmongering Iraq crap, thinking it just an isolated incident?).
But I won’t discuss this first reason much or those two newspapers, since you can go to The Daily Howler and every day get well informed about them and the major TV media, and all the intrigues, examples, and sleaze. And you can learn there how media `liberals’ are clueless megaphones or worse for the mainstream’s well-grooved pro-Republican and anti-anything-slightly-more-liberal bullshit.
The second reason is more original, I think. . . .
The first part of this second reason is that most good leftists hate Bill Clinton. We hate him because we hoped, back in ’92, that maybe he would be our Manchurian Candidate, our secret liberal we could insert into the White House after 12 years of tragic right-wing reaction. Yeah, even though he was triangulating like hell on the campaign trail, we hoped that secretly he was still that 1970s liberal hippy bearded dude like in that ol’ law school pic of him and Hill. A lot of hopes rode on that pic!
And he dashed them. Bill straight out lied about NAFTA, of course, but then (probably) deliberately boondoggled his health care reform promise, ended welfare cuz any good Reaganite Dem knows they’re all cheats anyway, did nothing about global warming but a lot for SUVs, and finally topped it off with the 1996 monstrously massive media consolidation bill.
The big puffy asshole, the only Dem elected since the Reagan Revolution, dashed our dreams! Cuz the only hope liberalism has had in this corporate bought-out political system (since, say, the early `80s) is of a Manchurian Candidate, a SECRET AGENT LEFTIST inserted into the top of the criminal corporate political power structure who’ll just bring the whole fugged up system DOWN! YEA-A-A-A-A-A-HHHHHH!
(Excuse the digression but) Obama’s never ‘betrayed us’. So, we CAN BELIEVE, or at least hope audaciously, that the no religion getting high on the beaches of Oahu high school kid has just gotta be our Manchurian Candidate. He’s not really that corporatized upper-middle-class looks-great-in-a-suit image he puts out, he’s not that `excesses of the 60s’ crack; no, he’s GOTTA be our dope-smoking Obama on the Beach, the latest and greatest maybe just maybe Manchurian Candidate ever!
But then here comes the second part of my second reason, the sexist part (but aided by a great deal of typically groundless mainstream media conspiratorial speculation). My question is, why can’t poor Hillary be our Manchurian Candidate too? Put differently, why does this concept have only one true believer, the estimable Arthur Gilroy? Why does only the great AG remember her in that ol’ law school pic of her and Bill, couple of obvious dope smokers (!), she in her long stringy hair and those Janis Joplin glasses?
Well, that’s obvious, say the cluelessly media-addled or sexist Booman for example, she’s an appendage of Bill. It’s `obvious’ Bill and Hillary are the same `do anything to win’ `political machine’ (echoing the MSM scripts that hamper distinguishing B and H as separate human beings). This sexism is accepted as gospel despite their separate political records, careers and accomplishments, and despite numerous cases famous and obscure of wives being very different politically from their hubbies (most famous, I suppose, is Eleanor Roosevelt compared to FDR).
Wake up, people, you can dream your bullshit Manchurian Candidate dream about maybe just maybe Obama OR maybe just maybe Hillary. Just stop being sexist and media-addled and then even in your dreams HillBama are the same!
But in the end the reality continues to be that it doesn’t matter which asshole gets elected. We’re screwed as long as profits-uber-alles money owns the candidates, the media, and the political process.
Piss on the kcufing vote.
