"...Hillary is a Machiavellian conspirator and implacable liar, unworthy of society's trust." This description is what both right and left agree on when it comes to Hillary Clinton, according to Michael Arnovitz of Portland, Oregon. His Facebook post clearly lays out the process by which this viewpoint has been developed over the years. Authenticity of his facts and summations ring so many bells for me that I wish to pass them on to you.
First, "...the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given." Two sources who should know refute this claim of dishonesty: (1) Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most politicians (but not all) they have tracked over the years, and (2) Jill Abramson, former Executive Editor of New York Times states, "I'm not a favorite in Hillaryland...Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy."
Where, then, does the "birth of 'Hillary as a Liar' meme start?" Arnovitz takes us back to Whitewater and William Safire's essay about Hillary Clinton called, "Blizzard of Lies." A few examples created by Safire and listed by Arnovitz include Safire calling her a "'congenital' liar...[she] created 'web of deceit' with friends...she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, 'bamboozled' bank regulators," and so on. In the end, "...Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written". So what was the real reason Hillary was pilloried at the time? "She had refused to play the traditional First Lady role...and...she attempted to champion Universal Health coverage." [What many women of today are very sure of is that "uppity women" get no respect. Currently, Hillary Clinton, in my view, is the mother of all uppity women -- she has the audacity to think that she as a woman could become President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world! How dare she?! But I digress.]
Arnovitz goes on. Although"conservative propaganda and lies" are to blame, he feels the "main fuel that powers the anti-Hillary crowd is sexism...I've seen no other plausible explanation---this is the primary force that has generated and maintained most of the negative narratives about Hillary."
However, Arnovitz sees several serious impediments when making accusations of sexism:
(1) Almost no one will admit to it, either conservative or liberal...
(2) Overt sexism is significantly more likely to be tolerated in our society than overt racism...
(3) We have formed a sort of collective blindness to sexism that allows us to pretend that we are on top of the issue while simultaneously ignoring the many ways in which it actually permeates our society...
(4) Unlike men, women who make demands are still often seen as unfeminine and inappropriately aggressive, bordering on deviant...
To overcome these impediments, Arnovitz brings out the heavy-hitters: numbers, proof of the pudding as it were. Arnovitz describes a chart of Hillary's popularity over time. It has been put together by Nate Silver beginning with her time as First Lady in the White House in the early 90's.
- At that time, Hillary's polling starts out great
- When Hillary takes charge of Universal Health Care, her negatives skyrocket.
- During Whitewater investigations, her polling improves dramatically.
- When Hillary declares she will run for Senate in New York, her favorables plummet while her unfavorables rise sharply.
- Once she's elected, her numbers stabilize and even improve.
- About the same time Hillary withdraws from the 2008 Presidential race, her favorables take off again.
- Her polling stays way up (some think to a remarkable level) until...guess?
- She decides to run for President again. Where are her unfavorables now?
Arnovitz also analyzes issues people are currently using to disparage Hillary.
1. Honesty -- That's been addressed above. Additionally, it can be asked if she's any worse than other politicians. No worse than many; better than most. Trump has been known to be significantly less honest on the campaign trail. According to Politifact, Trump is the least honest candidate they have ever analyzed. Is Hillary being held to a higher standard than Trump?
2. Scandals -- "Are scandals still scandals if no one has done anything wrong?" asks Arnovitz. In fact, Hillary has always been cleared of any wrongdoing, he points out. There is such a thing as "negative effect on credibility," he goes on. "It's not so much the RESULT of scandals as it is the INTENT of those who create them." Examples: (a) Republicans spent 10 days and 140 hours investigating Clinton's use of White House Christmas Card List, and (b) Consider treatment Hillary gets due to her private email "scandal" compared to that of General David Petraeus and asks, "Why is Hillary Clinton being held to an obviously different standard than Petraeus?" Republicans fawn all over him after his illegal behavior but defame her when she has no illegal behavior.
3. Money -- Hillary has been denigrated for accepting $250,000 speaking fees. The truth? "There is a large, well-established and extremely lucrative industry for speaking and appearance fees." For appearances, Paris Hilton has been paid $750,000; Kylie Jenner, $100,000; and Vanilla Ice, $15,000. For speaking engagements, the MINIMUM paid by "All American Speakers" who represents Hillary and 135 other people is $200,000. If the fee drops to $50,000, over 1200 are represented. Many more are represented by other agencies. It is not unusual, then, for people to earn high speaker fees. What is unusual, Arnovitz points out, is for A WOMAN to earn this amount. Ever hear of Rudy Guiliani and speaking fees he earned in 2007? Like $700,000 a month; $40 million in the 5 years before his presidential run? Or Jeb Bush earning millions from paid speeches after leaving Governors office? Any complaints?
4. Wall Street -- The implication is that Hillary's highest paid speeches are provided to Wall Street. In fact, out of 100 speeches she's given since leaving the State Department, only 8 were done for Wall Street at $225,000 each. That doesn't break her highest paid speeches rate of $275,000 of which 3 were provided to Canada. Most of her speeches have been to organizations like Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, and even to American Camping Association... "Does Wall Street have influence over politicians?" Arnovitz asks. "Of course. It has enormous influence on everyone. But," he continues, "influence is not the issue. Whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption is the issue...There is an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander."
There's been a media frenzy over Hillary and her paid speeches. How does Donald compare? He has been paid $1.5 million on numerous occasions; has been a proud scam artist with "Trump University" as a prime example; regularly calls Hillary Clinton, "Crooked Hillary and gets away with it.
[These last paragraphs are copied word-for-word from Arnovitz's post. They speak directly to the issue at hand. No one could have said it any better.]
"What the actual f... is going on here? What's going on is what we all know, but mostly don't want to admit: presidential campaigns favor men, and the men who campaign in them are rewarded for those traits perceived as being 'manly' -- physical size, charisma, forceful personality, assertiveness, boldness and volume. Women who evince those same traits however are usually punished rather than rewarded, and a lot of the negativity aimed at Hillary over the years, especially when she is seeking office, has been due to these underlying biases. There is simply no question that Hillary has for years been on the business end of an unrelenting double standard. And her battle with societal sexism isn't going to stop because of her success anymore than Obama's battle with racism stopped once he was elected. These are generational issues, and we are who we are.
And, actually, this only makes her victory all the more amazing. And maybe it's OK if we pause for a moment from the accusations and paranoia and just acknowledge her enormous accomplishments. In the entire history of our nation, only 6 Presidents have also served as Secretary of State. Only 3 have served both as Secretary of State and in Congress. By any objective measure Hillary is not just the most qualified candidate this season, she's one of the most qualified people to ever seek the office. The New York Times in endorsing her stated that, 'voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in history.' [Arnovitz adds more quotes.]
Hillary is nobody's idea of perfect. Fine. But in my view if a man with her qualifications were running in the Democratic primary, Bernie would have been done before he even started. And if a man with her qualifications had been running for the Republicans, they'd be anointing him the next Reagan while trying to sneak his face onto Mount Rushmore.
Most of the people who hate Hillary when she's running for office end up liking her just fine once she's won. And I have every confidence that history will repeat itself again this November. As for myself, I have been watching Presidential elections since Nixon. And never in my life has there been an easier or more obvious choice than now. Trump is not merely a bad choice, he is (as manly leading Republicans have already admitted) a catastrophic choice, unfit in every possible way for the office of the Presidency. As such, I happily voted for Hillary in my primary. And I will proudly vote for her in November. Yes she will disappoint us all on occasion. Who doesn't? But I think she's also going to surprise a lot of people She will fear neither consensus when possible nor ass-kicking when necessary. She will safeguard us from the damage a right-wing Supreme Court would inflict on the nation. She will stand for the rights of women, LGBT Americans, and minorities. She will maintain critical global relationships, and she will react to dangerous situations with the temperament of a seasoned and experienced professional. And in a nation that didn't even allow women to vote until 1920, she will make history by shattering the very highest glass ceiling, and in doing so forever change the way a generation of young women view their place in our Republic.
She's going to be a fine President.
I'm with her."
As of June 12, 2016, the original Michael Arnovitz Facebook post had 6,143 shares. The original Facebook post is here: www.facebook.com/...
No comments:
Post a Comment