The Politics of a Parasite

Try as I might, I have not been able to scratch away the insufferable itch of Hillary Clinton from my ever repulsed political mind. It seems there is always something new to be outraged by whenever any of the news sources that come up on my phone reports about her. I have written, re-written, and written more in an attempt to expunge the knowledge of her parasitic being from my head. It has been a complete and utter failure by any account. I have scratched away enough to know that it is not her policy positions. I do not think that any person who is not suffering from a bout of amnesia can fault Clinton for the policies that she has, or more rather it would frivolous to waste the energy. The positions she takes now are no indication of the ones she will be changing to should she win the primary against Sanders. She’s been working her whole life for equality, except for those times she was working against it. The Clinton crime bill in 1994 that disproportionately affected the black community, DOMA, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which were the two largest obstacles in advancing marriage equality, provide just a couple of examples. Then of course there is the other policies which have had a drastic effect on the country that she seems to feel can take whatever side she feels is most politically advantageous at the time. NAFTA was a great deal until she decided it was better to oppose it when running against Barrack Obama. Of the Transatlantic Pacific Partnership she believed, “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field”. That was until she opposed it in running against Sanders’ platform of reinvesting in American labor and the middle class. These however, are not what fuels the itch. While her switching sides on an issue is annoying, it is not especially grievous in American politics. If anything, I am more annoyed by how poorly she does it while still expecting to get away with it. Perhaps it is the legal issues that she has faced throughout her political career. While I do not think that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a criminal offense by the State Department, there is a part of it which does touch a nerve. It was revealed in her current legal issue over the use of her personal e-mail server while being Secretary of State. In a message to her daughter Chelsea, Clinton stated that, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow. Let's try again later.” (Italics are mine) “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.” (Italics are mine) The second quote is from a speech she gave the next morning. One will notice that there is no mention of it being planned or perpetuated by “an Al-Queda-like group”, that instead she focuses on the line of it being a protest to material on the internet. An email released by the House Benghazi Committee from a State Department’s Public Affairs Officer gives record of a phone conversation between Clinton and the then Prime Minister of Egypt. In the course of the call, Clinton reveals that “(w)e know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” Yet with that in mind, she said this as part of a State Department event: “Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” (Italics are mine) It can quite clearly be seen at this point that then Secretary Clinton outright lied to the American public. While this in and of itself is not against the law, as many will note that every politician does it at some point, it is an insight that Clinton appears to have no issue in blatantly lying even when an issue is of public interest. Then again, there is an out for the Clinton faithful, after all she was simply following the party line set by the administration. In essence she was being a team player, one should not fault her for the poor PR decisions of the Obama administration. Perhaps, but the ease at which she was able to compartmentalize these two storylines is reason for anyone to give pause about putting her in the Oval Office. As I said though, this can be overcome as the mere nature of politics. Policies can change, new administrations can change tact when it comes to informing the public which it is supposed to be beholden to. What a person cannot change is their character, it is in the fabric of their being. Character is something that seems to be missing from Clinton, particularly when it comes to how she treats her fellow human beings. Starting from a more recent example from this campaign, one might want to take notice of the way in which she treated a young women from Black Lives Matter who protested a fundraising event in South Carolina. The young women interrupted her prepared speech by unfurling a banner which read “We must bring them to heel”, words taken from a speech that Clinton made in support of her husband’s crime bill. Once Clinton saw the banner the young women asked her to apologize for calling disenfranchised youth (read black) “super predators” and the crime bill she supported. After a slight back and forth, Clinton asked to be able to answer the question to which the young women obliged. At that point Clinton addresses the crowd by beginning to talk about how the first speech she gave back in April was about criminal justice reform, attempting to address the topic without addressing the question. Not satisfied with the direction that Clinton was taking, the young women interrupted by repeating her previous request for an explanation and apology for the way in which she addressed crime during her husband’s administration. At this point Clinton dismisses the protester and she is led away by security, continuing to ask her questions. As a final send off, Clinton answers an inaudible question by sarcastically answering “I don’t know, I’ve never been asked that before” before turning to the crowd and starting “now back to the issues”. While some may see this particular protester’s tactics as out of line, it should be pointed out that both of the protesters from Black Lives Matters paid the $500 each to be at the event, in order to get a presidential candidate address the issue that mattered most to them. Clinton has run an entire campaign, and in some ways political career, about standing up as a strong politically active woman. As she has pointed out numerous times in this primary campaign, she would be making history if she were to become the first woman to become president. Yet when she was confronted by a politically active young woman asking her to defend her record and public statements, she dodged and dismissed. In no way did she encourage this protester to continue to be politically active, to continue to pursue those issues that are pertinent to her. For those who remember her run against Obama in 2008, they will remember the claim that she landed with 16 year old Chelsea under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996. The video of them landing on the tarmac on the date in question can be seen and for someone who claims to be under sniper fire, the fairly large greeting party acts extremely passive. The truth is that they were not under sniper fire, they were warmly welcomed despite being four years late to assist in stopping the onslaught they campaigned on addressing. Even if the story was true, what is she doing putting her 16 year old daughter in view of an active sniper? When I commented earlier about how poorly she constructs these lies, this is precisely what I mean. Even if she had been telling the truth about Bosnia it would have raised questions of character and judgement. While both of these incidents are alarming in their own right, they do not come close to the depths she is willing to go. At this point it seems prudent to remind readers of what she wrote on Twitter on November 22nd of 2015; “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”(Italics are mine) While this is a completely valid statement, anyone with some knowledge of Clinton history will know that this has only recently become her position. The way in which Clinton responded when confronted publicly by the accusations of “ol’ Bubba’s” extramarital activities which extended from making an unflattering blue dress absolutely repulsive to the rape of Juanita Broadderick, was to hire private investigators tasked with finding information to use as blackmail and intimidation. Publicly she painted every accuser who was brave enough to come forth as a stalking whore who was insane, termed as the “Nuts and Sluts” strategy. According to those who have dug into this matter and investigated it point to it being the brainchild of Hillary. Suppose she was not the plan’s mastermind, she still was a willing participant in the campaign of defamation and degradation. Christopher Hitchens, the late polemicist and prolific essayist, details these claims in No One Left to Lie to: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton. White House aide for both Bush Sr. and Clinton, Linda Tripp, has also spoken out on the behavior of the Clinton’s during his administration. There are others who have investigated and found similar conclusions on Hillary’s part in dealing with the “bimbo eruptions”. Her character is much closer to the heart of the itch. The type of person who preys on those crying out for help is not one that I want to see in the White House. It is infuriating to hear that she has Madeleine Albright and Lena Dunham talking about how great she would be for women, implying condemnation on those women who do not get on board and join the team. When I read that tweet for the first time it filled me with anger that she had the nerve to think that her past had been forgotten. There it is, the true crux of the parasitic itch which has stayed embedded in my brain since this election season has started. It is not the opportunist way of switching sides, it is not the poor policy positions, not even the utter lack of anything remotely constituting character; it is the way in which she insists on insulting my intelligence repeatedly and without fail. If she is not condescending the public on why she is the only one who can possibly move things forward, that anyone else is either living in a fairy land or a bully who preys on the weak, she is attempting to deflect any sort of criticism by claiming it as sexist that she be held to such a standard. From one question to the next she seems to expect her audience to forget what she has previously said or done, all while dodging any question that she finds politically inconvenient for her to answer. No, I will not be talked to in that manner. I will not be repeatedly told that whatever scandal she finds herself in is because of a right wing conspiracy or a sexist media that overly scrutinizes her and that it has nothing to do with the decisions that she has made. I will expect her to answer questions about her defending the crime bill that by almost all accounts poured gasoline on the fire of mass incarceration and disproportionately affected the black community while she repeatedly declares that she has fought for equality all her life. When she uses the line that she is a Democrat who gets things done, I will want her to defend those questionable things that she has done rather than dodge the question. I cannot bring myself to vote for her, even it she is running against golden narcissist Donald Trump. While he will not be getting my vote either, Clinton’s level of disrespect and arrogance towards voters removes her from the realm of being a lesser evil. Parasitic in nature, she has become a leech that my brain has tirelessly fought against with no amount of salt and sand being enough to detach the problem she is.