That was eight years ago. Now, she clearly feels that it is her turn, and she made sure that she did not repeat the same mistakes that cost her the election last time. Observe her methods, which is to obtain a war chest of funds from major corporate backers, including everyone's favorite Wall Street firms, particularly Goldman Sachs. Somehow, she also managed to make sure that the Democratic party elites, the establishment base, would be on her side no matter what, even when polls had her struggling or outright losing to potential Republican opposition candidates, while Democratic rival Bernie Sanders did much better, and was not hampered by the crushing negative ratings that Hillary has. Make sure that all of the proper tools are used to ensure that the voters themselves cannot choose someone truly progressive policies made following Carter's victory in 1976, which the Democrats did not want to see repeated), so that you have not only delegates with election wins, but superdelegates who can decide things regardless of what voters demanded. Make sure that you enforce the party's closed primaries in numerous states. Finally, just to assure her victory, several poll stations were inexplicably closed, while many voters were taken off the list or downright turned back when they showed up on election day. Then, brag that you beat your closest rival, Bernie Sanders, by two million or so votes, conveniently keeping out all the rigging of the system that worked in your favor.
Yes, Hillary has done some shady stuff throughout her career, and particularly in this election. Despite being the overwhelming favorite and presumed Democratic nominee since well before she ever officially announced her bid for the White House this time around, she still cannot manage to pin down the nomination that continually eludes her.
Somehow, she and her supports, which of course include the Democratic establishment, cannot seem to understand why such practices made to ensure that their candidate is the candidate just are not winning her any friends. In fact, they are increasing the issues with distrust and unfavorable ratings. Before this election cycle, when I saw an anti-Hillary bumper sticker, I kind of rolled my eyes and assumed that the driver was likely some right wing nut job. Now, I know a ton of people who would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances, including the very dim prospect of a Trump presidency, and these people are far from being right wing nut jobs. That is the effect that the actions of Hillary and the establishment Democrats have had.
The more of her I see, the less I like her. There she is, dismissively waving off her own exaggerated reports of being under sniper fire in Bosnia, saying it was late at night, she was tired, and she misspoke. Her husband essentially says the same thing. Yet, there are videos of her saying it repeatedly, slightly different versions of the same fabricated story.
Now, if you watched those videos, you will have heard President Clinton saying something that reminds me quite a bit of President Ronald Reagan dismissively asking if people remember what they had for breakfast yesterday, as Clinton suggested that people might not remember a story all that well late at night, when you are tired. True, but most people, tired or not, would not necessarily fabricate whole parts of the story, particularly implying military action and threat when there is none. Also, as the first video shows, Hillary Clinton stated this same story not once, but several times, and often bright and early in the morning. Since the implication of having gone under sniper fire is self-serving, as it makes her sound so committed to peace negotiations and a willingness to stare danger in the face (not to mention an awareness of what real danger is), then this cannot be described as anything less than a blatant lie, especially cooked up to promote her political credentials. Also, frankly, let us call a spade a spade: it shows stupidity, shortsightedness, or arrogance (or perhaps all three) on her part in telling a story that she must have known reporters could easily check up on to verify whether it was true or false. They did, and now it has come back to haunt her, although he dismissive explanation of fatigue is clearly an effort to minimize how big of a deal it is, and thus, she obviously hopes, should soften the blow. But she is lying to benefit her political career, and there is no other way around it. She, like her husband, are professional liars, and they were just caught this time around.
Whether she was a liar before she met her husband, and whether or not they helped each other in the craft of lying, or which one helped the other more, there is no doubt that they are both ethically challenged, and cannot tell a full truth without at least a little embellishment, if they feel that it will benefit them. After all, how can one person proudly proclaim to have her politics rooted in conservatism, to the point that she was proudly a "Goldwater girl," while also claiming she is a moderate to a lot of whoops and cheers, yet also still proclaim to be the "real progressive" in the Democratic field running for president? That's a lot of conflicting political ideology there, and what it shows, to me, is that she is willing to say whatever she feels she need to cater to whatever audience she hopes her message of the moment will appeal to. If you don't like what you saw Hillary Clinton saying in a speech on the news this evening, just wait until the next day, or shortly after that, because chances are, she will say something at some point that you cannot disagree with. The only problem is which of her words to believe, and what her policies will actually be. Given that she likely will not bite the hand that feeds, you can bet a corporate friendly agenda is what will win out in the end with her. If there is one thing that she has always been predictable about, it would be that, and indeed, that would be the most self-serving thing that she could do, as a politician and in her post-presidency.
She has not been straightforward about a whole host of other things, as well. That includes her support of trade deals that have been detrimental to the conditions and stability of working Americans. She supported NAFTA, and she helped to craft TTP, even if now, she has backed up from that, and says she would not support it in it's present form. For that matter, she did not own up to the mistake that was her disastrous vote for the war in Iraq. And her ties to for-profit prison and for-profit healthcare are an impediment to real progress in those areas, rather than an asset, as she maintains her "insider" status and superior experience would be. Also, she had strong ties to defense contractors who get rich from war, so can we really expect the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency to be a peaceful one? I think not.
Now, don't get me wrong. I would love to see a woman as president, and would cast my vote for the right woman in a heartbeat. If Elizabeth Warren were running, she would have my full support. There are other women who have a lesser profile, but would be better choices for president than Hillary, including Jill Stein, who is also running for president this year. Hillary technically has more experience, but it is not the right kind of experience. It is the type of experience that assures basically more of the same, politics as usual. It is the kind of experience that is wrong for America, and I never understood how Hillary's supporters feel so strongly towards her, or how they truly believe that anyone, or at least any man, who does not support her is automatically sexist. Such nonsense. I do not support her for the same reason that I did not support Sarah Palin: because she is a cruel joke on the American people, and indeed on the world, in her own right. She, like Palin, would essentially continue much of the same nonsense that has long plagued this country. Things would continue to get worse, not better, and that would be for men as well as women in general. What difference does it make, then, if we had a token woman serving as president, giving the speeches that focused on what Americans want to hear, rather than what they need to hear? What difference would it make if the same speeches that we have heard from Reagan on down through two Bushes, one Clinton, and President Obama would then be passed down to Hillary? What this country needs is real change, and Hillary most certainly does not represent that.
This woman lies! Yes, we all knew that before, but she has lied - repeatedly - by embellishing a story that appears to enhance her own qualifications. This is the one major thing that she has in common with her husband - a casual approach to the truth, according to one of the pundits on Tim Russert's show, and that is as apt a way of describing it as any. They will say and do anything to get elected. Clearly, their standard of ethics are not much higher when it comes to where their funding comes from, for that matter. Increasingly, it seems that they are willing to go to any lengths and discredit and engage in character assassination in order to receive the nomination. They just cannot help themselves, drawn to the spotlight they are.
Al Gore still won’t support Hillary Clinton By Bob Fredericks May 23, 2016: