By Scott Ross
Christ, but there are so many things I would rather write about this morning than that alcoholic gasbag Hillary Clinton! Her latest caper, however, is, in a long life of ugliness, one of the vilest stunts she, or anyone else since Joseph McCarthy, has pulled in public. While we await in vain the arrival of a modern-day Joseph Welch to say to her, “Have you no sense of decency, ma’am? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” (Senator Sanders? This is your moment to show a little backbone. Ah, but then why would you buck your own longstanding trend?) let us review for those enviable few who don’t know what I’m on about.
Last Thursday, on a previously obscure Apple podcast called Campaign HQ with David Plouffe, She Who Must Be Elected said, in words that may not live in infamy but will, I suspect, be recalled for quite some little time, the following to her host:
“I’m not making any predictions, but I think [the Russians have] got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up because she’s also a Russian asset.”
Setting aside the fact, which Clinton knows perfectly well, that Tulsi Gabbard has said repeatedly she would not run as a third-party candidate — more’s the pity — and that Stein is not (unlike, perhaps, Mrs. Clinton herself?) in any 2020 race, look at the tone of those remarks: Even without hearing Clinton utter them through her own Chardonnay-benumbed lips one can feel, to mix my genera, the bitchiness and the cattiness (and yes, those are precisely the words I mean) of her words, but more, the patented McCarthyite sneer inherent in that baseless and unsupported (indeed, insupportable) accusation. It is perhaps the clearest signal yet of Hillary Clinton’s essential anti-democratic code, although she has certainly given strong indications for years, in particular the last three in which she has, in craven and irresponsible fashion, attempted to fob (and in some quarters, succeeded in fobbing) all blame for her own, well-predicted, loss against Donald Trump for the Presidency onto another nation. Now, not content with fomenting a new Cold War and turning her mindless acolytes into the veriest pod-people of the mid-1950s, she has finally alit where we always knew she would: The top of the fetid dung-heap on which perch those who, from selfish and cynical motive and without evidence, compunction or conscience, accuse their fellow countrymen and women with, not merely sedition, but active treason. This is the logical end-point, aside from a war between two nuclear-armed nations, to which Clinton’s unfounded, dangerous and anachronistic Red-baiting has been aimed all along: Tarring American citizens with disloyalty.
Hillary Clinton has long known that the first rule of Machiavellian politics is deflection. Aware that she was uniquely vulnerable for the sale, while she was Secretary of State, of the Uranium One company to a Russian state corporation known as Rosatom, resulting in an $145 million windfall for the phony Clinton Foundation, and a cool half-million to Bill personally for a single speech in Moscow. This, Wikipedia now rushes to tell its users, is a conspiracy theory “promoted by right-wing media, politicians, and commentators.” Which might come as some news to the neoliberal New York Times, which ran a story on the controversy in 2015.
Thus, and with perhaps some assistance and prodding from a CIA terrified that Trump might actually win, Clinton immediately began insinuating that it was Trump, not she, who was in Russia’s pocket. This strategy reached its (previous) apotheosis immediately following the November 2016 Presidential election, when Team Clinton put out the ludicrous, and easily disproven, claim that Russia generally, and Vladimir Putin specifically, caused her well-predicted defeat, thus igniting an at-first only figurative new Cold War which has, frighteningly, mutated into the possibility of a hot war should the mercurial Trump be pushed far enough by the Clintons of this country on the one side and the permanent deep-state shadow-warriors on the other.
It was perhaps Plouffe himself, as the former manager of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign most credited with besting Clinton, who should be her natural enemy. But no, it is the most interesting of the current Democratic contenders who has engendered Hillary’s wrath, and for a fresher reason: Gabbard’s abandoning of her post as vice-chair of the DNC in protest at the Clinton-controlled organization’s cheating of Sanders, and Sanders’ supporters… which is more than the Senator himself ever did… and her subsequent endorsement of him. These are offenses which, for a Clinton, cannot be brooked. Thus in addition to keeping the flame of her self-generated “There’s a Russian under your bed!” hysteria aflame, and smearing once again a third-party candidate who, if “official” election figures are to be believed garnered less than 1% of the vote, Hillary also gets to hit back at someone else she presumably blames for her loss to a television game-show host. (There is, after all, a new source of blame at least once a week, and has been for the last three years. Everyone on earth, it seems, except the one person most to blame for it.)
Although the Clinton Camp, surprised by the unaccustomed push-back her Red-baiting if not technically slanderous remarks have generated, attempted to back-peddle Hillary’s statement, that was a horse that wouldn’t run, especially after her spokesman Nick Merrill confirmed the obvious: That Madame Secretary was indeed referring to Gabbard. (Who else could she have meant?) He also managed to double-down on the completely fabricated notion that the dread Russians are controlling American elections. Relates Colby Itkowitz in the Washington Post, “Merrill, in an interview Saturday, said Clinton was ‘not saying Americans are Russian spies but that Russia has found ways to take advantage and is not being held responsible by anyone in government.’”
Oh. Well. Thanks for the clarification, Nick. Clear as mud.
And as if Hillary’s own ugliness was not enough, Merrill then compounded it by the elliptical comment, “If the nesting doll fits…”
Thankfully, and unlike the gelatinous Sanders, Gabbard does not absorb such personal attacks without a response:
“Great!” [she Tweeted] “Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”
I wish Gabbard had eschewed that rather bizarre locution “cowardly hide,” but I otherwise applaud her not allowing Clinton to slander her sans a whimper of protest. Had Sanders himself not let her, and her thoroughly corrupt party’s Committee, get away with it in 2016 — had he done what hundreds of thousands of his supporters begged and petitioned him, and his own team of lawyers advised him, to and nailed them all for rigging the election in Clinton’s favor, they might have been chastened, if not actually charged, tried and convicted. As it is, he didn’t, and they are already doing it again. Had it been Gabbard whose victories in the primaries were turned into defeats by a DNC wholly owned and operated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, I think we can imagine the result.
What we are being shown, in broad relief, is why Hillary Clinton is the avatar of a narcissism so total it ignores the fate of millions. My friend Eliot M. Camarena may not have been the first to identify Clinton’s supporters, wittily, and based upon her own self-regarding logo, as “Withers,” but he nailed them early, and often, and continues to do so.* What does it say of a candidate for President when her campaign slogan indicates not that she supports and will work for Americans, but that they must be “With Her“? And what does it say of her supporters that they not only accept this symbolic slavery, but embrace it, weep over it, fight for it? (I don’t know of one who has actually killed or died for it, but give them time.) Hillary’s sickness — that is, her emotional and psychic as opposed to her physical illness, which God only knows what it is — spreads to her mindless idolaters. She at least has the excuse of an abusive mother. What’s theirs?
Itkowitz, in her Post story, makes sure to get in her own licks, defining Gabbard as “an unconventional Democrat, whose message of an isolationist foreign policy [emphasis mine]… has gained her fans among the far right… She has also gained a following with some white nationalists. A neo-Nazi website called Daily Stormer said it deserved credit for getting her the support necessary to qualify for the first two debates. But the main reason many Democrats, including Clinton, are wary of her is because she’s a favorite topic on Russian websites and social media [emphasis again, emphatically, mine.]” It is worth noting that David Weigel, the insignificant little pissant who a couple of years ago attempted to smear Jimmy Dore in the pages of what Eliot calls The Washington Bezos, “contributed to this story.”
To his credit, Andrew Yang immediately defended Gabbard. Madeline Albright, meanwhile, who when she isn’t opining that a half-million dead children is “worth it” is declaring there ought to be a “special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other” when what she of course really means is, “Any woman who doesn’t vote for Hillary is a traitor to the sex!,” has been conspicuously silent. Marianne Williamson, however, accused the Democrat establishment of, in a line aimed squarely at Albright, “smearing women it finds inconvenient.”
As anyone who knows me well can attest, I believe in Smedley Butler’s adage that war is a racket, that the various branches of the American military are its racketeers’ hired goons, and knows as well that I have never been one of those blubbering creeps who with tears in their eyes whimper, “Thank you for your service!” to every paid thug in a uniform. Further, while I agree with Gabbard on more than I disagree, I am cool to her precisely to the degree she carried on (in the 21st century, mind you) about “homosexual extremists” agitating for marriage equality. Nevertheless: Two fellow Americans, one a candidate I voted for and the other a major in the Hawaiian National Guard who served as medical personnel in one of our endless Middle Eastern wars, are being accused by one of the nation’s most prominent politicians of disloyalty to their country. I should like very much to see Clinton and Merill forced to prove their assertions in a court of law. I strongly suspect Gabbard and Stein would walk away the clear victors in that event.
If such a lawsuit will shut this increasingly dangerous harpy up, it cannot be filed soon enough to suit me.
* Having done this so often of late, I am slightly embarrassed to cite Eliot yet again in one of my blog essays, but there is no one with whom I enjoy discussing these matters more than he, and no one I know who is more perceptive, or funnier, about them.
Text copyright 2019 by Scott Ross