Wednesday, February 03, 2016

To The "Hillary-Haters" - Are You Really That Gullible ?

We've been hearing a lot of lies about Hillary Clinton for many years now from the right-wingers. Sadly though, many of those same lies are now being spread by Democrats (and other progressives). Why?

For the same reason many Republican try to smear her -- they think that smearing her will help their own candidate (Bernie Sanders). Frankly, I'm getting sick of this -- and I think those (on the left or right) who are calling Clinton "dishonest" are either being dishonest themselves, or they are incredibly gullible.

And I'm not alone in that belief. I post below the words of Milt Shook, on his own blog ( The whole post is well worth reading, but I post only the section regarding Clinton's "dishonesty".

...let’s talk about the concept that Clinton is “dishonest,” or that she’s hiding something. A lot of people say this, but my only answer when I hear/read it is, how is this possible?

Never has a political couple been as closely scrutinized as the Clintons. None. It’s not even a close call. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been subjected to more pointless investigations by right wing hit squads than anyone in history, and they have a single blow job to show for it. Hundreds of investigations, countless “special prosecutors” and endless congressional hearings, and they have found nothing substantial to pin on either one of them.

Starting with Richard Mellon Scaife’s Arkansas Project, they have been targeted repeatedly for everything. And make no mistake; both of them were targeted; him because he was one of the most skilled and charismatic politicians around and her because she wasn’t the “dutiful wife”  and First Lady of both Arkansas and the United States. She refused to stand behind Bill at every turn wearing a scarf and an apron and make token appearances at church bake sales. If you are old enough, surely you remember the scrutiny of the Rose Law Firm. Well, Hillary worked for them, not Bill.

Since they have been in public life, the Clintons have had well-funded and incredibly focused political enemies who have never backed away from smearing the hell out of them. You may scoff at the notion of a vast right wing conspiracy, but make no mistake; making up shit about Bill and Hillary and propagating it all over the media is a cottage industry like to other. Perhaps you’ve heard of David Brock, who created Media Matters for America. Well, one reason he’s become such a stickler for the truth is because, in a previous career, he was a smear merchant for Scaife and the VRWC, who was paid well to smear Hillary until he realized it was all bullshit and that she wasn’t as horrible as advertised. Read his book, “Blinded by the Right,” if you don’t believe me.  There was no Rose Billing Scandal, really. There really was no Whitewater scandal; the investigation turned up nothing. “Travelgate” was thoroughly investigated and no “there” was ever found. Vince Foster committed suicide, he wasn’t murdered by anyone. Benghazi was a tragedy and the result of terrible oversight, but it was hardly a crime. And the whole email thing? Yay! They finally found some “top secret” information in some emails, although the reality is, it wasn’t “top secret” when she was Secretary of State; it became so later. So nothing there, either.

Like I said, hundreds of investigations and thousands of investigators have squandered at least $1 billion over the past three decades and they have found two things; the infamous blow job and “Filegate,” in which someone on Hillary’s staff had files he shouldn’t have had. Other than that, the most-vetted couple in US history is clean as a whistle.

And how do I know this? Well, if there was anything else to the Clintons, do you think for a moment that the VRWC that’s been dogging them for so long would hesitate to make it public? Why do you think their have to make shit up so often? If Hillary is so “dishonest,” how has she been able to hide everything in the age of the Internet and with a billion dollars directed at finding a way to stop her, even before this election cycle? How did she get through the 2008 election cycle intact. Yeah, she lost, but it wasn’t exactly a landslide.

Here’s the deal, folks…

We have three excellent candidates on the Democratic side. All three of them could win in the general election and they would make great choices for president. When you denigrate any one of the three of them, you actually denigrate the Democratic Party and you degrade its chances in November, especially down-ticket. And when, in your zeal for Bernie, you attack Hillary Clinton as “dishonest,” well, you’re screwing yourself because anyone who bothers to look can see that she’s the most heavily-vetted candidate in history and they’ve pinned nothing on her. You’ll be tagged as a liar and you’ll make Bernie look bad at the same time you damage the Democratic brand.

If you truly believe Hillary Clinton is dishonest and deceptive, then you are among the most gullible person on the planet. You have fallen for the Fox Right Wing Smear Machine, and you should turn in your “political junkie” badge, post haste. If you believe the constant smears damage her in the general election, well, I hate to break it to you, but whoever wins will be smeared just as badly. Do you really think Bernie Sanders has nothing in his background that can be attacked? Put it this way; John Kerry was a Vietnam war hero and they managed to turn him into a screaming wussy who ran away from battle every chance he got. You think a lifelong “socialist” (gasp!) is untouchable?

Again, I ask, how gullible are you?


  1. There are way too many people with way to much "time and money" on their hands. Of course, Citizen's United allowed these idiots that very "time and money" on the right. But those on the left should stop and think for a change...

  2. I'm not being gullible. My opinion of Hillary goes back a long way. She may not do anything illegal but she does a lot of things that puts money in her pocket and that will help her get elected by Democrat delegates. Hillary sounds like she wants to help the minorities and the poor but she isn't helping them, she is creating slaves. She encourages dependence on the government with handouts - teaching people how to be helpless and to feel and be obligated to the government. She is incredibly smart, I agree. She finds ways to gain support from big corporations by providing them with illegal laborers who don't get paid enough to feed themselves. She sounds like she is helping and protecting illegal immigrants but she is helping corporations get cheap labor so they make all the profits. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that she has stock in those corporations as well as stock in every business that is producing new Energy products that will save us from Global Warming. If Hillary is involved you can bet that she is going to profit personally from what she is encouraging and supporting.
    We have millions of people who are paying student loans that the Clinton's encouraged and supported for the low income people. It sounded so philanthropical, didn't it? Help the poor get educated and get better jobs. A large percentage didn't understand the repercussions. They were vulnerable. But the government doesn't bail them out because their payments pay for the handouts that makes them appear to care for the American people. Instead they only Bail Out the ones that will put money directly in their pockets, the ones that will affect them financially.
    Gullible? You would like for me to be though, wouldn't you?

    1. Previous comment by me were in response to Vapor Lass' comment.

  3. Well, first of all, your grammar and spelling and capitalization are terrible, so that makes you immediately one of the less articulate and possibly less intelligent Americans. Second, no proof is provided in your statement, just a load of allegations and accusations and rambling. Slaves? Really? I need you to be through only because I can't read your gobbledygook any longer.


ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.