Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Hillary Clinton: her part in her downfall (book review of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton annotated by Joe Lauria)

Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the US Presidential election was the result of the fundamental political and character flaws set out in painstaking detail in Hillary Clinton’s own words in How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, annotated and introduced by Joe Lauria.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

1,365 Views

The single biggest mystery of the 2016 election is why anyone was surprised that Hillary Clinton lost.

Even from faraway London it was obvious to me that she was a terrible candidate who the American people didn’t like and didn’t trust but who the US political elite – which in this context also means the US media – was trying to force on the American people against their wishes.

Unsurprisingly this provoked a reaction, which is why Hillary Clinton lost.

There is no reason to introduce meddling by Russia or the ham fisted and misunderstood interventions of James Comey to explain this.

A book – How I Lost By Hillary Clinton – with a foreword by Julian Assange and introduced and annotated by Joe Lauria (a contributor to The Duran) sets this all out in a way that makes it all perfectly clear.

What makes this book so compelling – and in my opinion what makes it the single best and most interesting book that has so far appeared about the 2016 election – is that explains the phenomenon of Hillary Clinton in her own words.  What Joe Lauria has done is provide selections of things actually said by Hillary Clinton and her associates which make it completely obvious why the American people don’t trust or like her.

The Hillary Clinton who emerges from the pages of this book is a fascinating person.

Firstly it should be said that Hillary Clinton undoubtedly does possess to a very high degree many of the qualities required by a successful politician.  She is tough, extremely clever, and worldly.  However this goes along with being cynical, money oriented to an extreme, and to being manipulative with an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

The single quality which however comes out most strongly of all is however the extraordinary extent of Hillary Clinton’s self-identification as a member of the US elite, and her political identification with the causes of that US elite, especially the financial elite concentrated on Wall Street, and the foreign policy and security elite of the US government in Langley and Foggy Bottom, which she appears to see as her key political constituencies.

The result is that though Hillary Clinton pitches herself as a progressive politician I struggle to find anything in the book which marks her out as genuinely progressive.

On the two central issues which most concern most Americans – the overwhelming power of the US’s financial services industry with the distorting effect this is having on the US economy and on US society, and the US’s hyper-aggressive post-Cold War foreign policy, which has resulted in working class Americans being forced into fighting foreign wars of no fundamental concern or interest to the US – she straightforwardly supports the elite view and the status quo.

Moreover what is even more troubling is that reading Hillary Clinton’s words I for one get the strong impression of someone who holds to these positions not out of any deep sense of conviction but because she thinks that is where power in the US lies, and she wants to align herself with it.

Perhaps in some part of Hillary Clinton’s past there was a person who was a genuine progressive who had the belief that if she played along with the elite they would let her do some progressive things for the actual benefit of the mass of Americans.  If that person ever existed she does so no longer as Hillary Clinton today has come straightforwardly not only to identify with the elite but to claim to be one of them.

This attitude goes hand in hand with strong habits of secrecy and duplicity.

The two of course go together.  It is understandable that Hillary Clinton does not want the great mass of Americans to know what she says in confidential highly paid speeches to the her wealthy friends – the bankers of Goldman Sachs – or what the Clinton Foundation gets up to.

As to the latter, as Joe Lauria says it is difficult to put a finger on any actual wrongdoing involving it, but in a sense the mere fact that immense sums of money are being paid into it by all sorts of wealthy and powerful people from around the world speaks for itself.

Whilst on the subject of the Clinton Foundation I would add that the media’s indifference to its activities – of which voluminous public records exist – contrasts strangely with the media’s obsessive interest in Donald Trump’s businesses and his supposed financial dependence on the Russians for which no evidence exists.

Some politicians have the sort of outgoing confident personality and charm that would enable them to pull of the trick of having a double persona of a progressive populist and of being a self-identifying elitist at one and the same time.  Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s husband, is a case in point.

Hillary Clinton however is emphatically not such a person.  Though the book shows that she does have a sense of humour, it comes across as confiding, of the sort which makes jokes to be shared between friends.  About herself Hillary Clinton far from being confident comes across instead as prickly and defensive.

This leads into one of Hillary Clinton’s most unpleasant characteristics, her habit of blaming everyone but herself when things go wrong.

The result is that she is emphatically not a graceful or a good loser.  One of the revelations of the book is that she only conceded to Donald Trump on election night when President Obama told her to do so.

This inability to accept blame or take criticism goes had in hand with an unpleasant victim complex which draws heavily on the growing distance between herself – the self-identifying elitist – and the American people.

If the American people do not vote for her in Hillary Clinton’s mind it is because they are too stupid, too uneducated, too manipulated, and too prejudiced against her to do so.

During the election some of thos spilled out – as in her now notorious “deplorables” comment (quoted fully in the book) – and it was probably the single thing which more than anything other lost her the election.  By contrast Donald Trump, for all his gargantuan flaws, comes across as liking Americans and being at ease amongst them.

The book incidentally settles the mystery – at least for me – of why as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broke both protocol and the law by using a private server for her work emails.

Such a secretive and insecure personality would be scarcely likely to do anything else.  That would be so regardless of whether she did it in order to conceal activities involving the Clinton Foundation.

As to that, I know that is what many people believe.  There is no evidence for it.  However if it is what many people believe then because of her conduct Hillary Clinton has no one but herself to blame for it.

During the election the vast majority of the American people would not have been familiar with the details of the things which appear in Joe Lauria’s book.

However Hillary Clinton has been an important figure in US national life since her husband stood for and won the Presidency in 1992.  By the time of the election in 2016 the American people would have come to know her well.  The fact that by the time the election came round they had long since decided that they didn’t like her, in light of her personality which comes across so strongly in the book, is completely unsurprising.

This also makes it totally unsurprising that she lost the election.

Realistically Hillary Clinton’s best chance of winning the election would have been against a Republican opponent who was drawn from the elite like herself.  Against someone like Donald Trump – who played brilliantly on the fact that he was an outsider because he actually is one – she found herself in serious trouble.

If there is nothing at all surprising about the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the election, another puzzle of the 2016 election is why the Democratic Party nominated her as its candidate in the first place.

Even if Bernie Sanders was possibly perceived as too radical by some in the Democratic Party to be the party’s candidate in the election, there were surely other prominent Democrats – such as possibly Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden – who would have filled the role better of Democratic challenger better.  Indeed Biden is now said to be bitter that he did not stand, saying that if he had been the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency he would have won.

The answer to this puzzle also be found in Joe Lauria’s book: Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency because she inherited the mighty political machine created by her husband when he was President, and which has if anything continued to grow in strength since.

The US political system and the Democratic Party especially have always been exceptionally susceptible to manipulation by political machines (think of Tammany Hall or the Richard Daley machine in Chicago) but it is questionable if a political machine as mighty as the one Bill Clinton has created has ever existed before.  Like all political machines it brings together disparate groups – including Wall Street financiers, the Congressional black caucus, many of the leading voices in the LGBT community, prominent US intellectuals etc – but is ultimately cemented together by patronage.

The traces of this machine, and the ruthless way it imposed Hillary Clinton on the Democratic Party, are there throughout Joe Lauria’s book, as in the rigging of the Democratic primaries to freeze out Bernie Sanders, and the inside management of the media to bury stories deemed damaging to Hillary Clinton.

The mere fact that this political machine had settled on Hillary Clinton as its candidate was enough to deter other potential heavyweight Democratic challengers such as Joe Biden from standing, leaving it to Bernie Sanders to run against Hillary Clinton on his own.

The great problem is that this political machine is now become so powerful within the Democratic Party that to all intents and purposes it now is the Democratic Party.  In light of that the party’s dismal record in recent elections is completely unsurprising.  In that respect, as in so many others, Bill and Hillary Clinton cast a long shadow.

In my opinion the single most important individual in US politics over the last year continues to be Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump.

It is Hillary Clinton’s obsessions and frustrations – and the paranoid conspiracy thinking she has fostered – which continues to dominate US politics even as Hillary Clinton herself slips off the political stage.

Given that this is likely to remain the case for some time, Joe Lauria’s book is indispensable reading for anyone interested in understanding this phenomenon.

In that respect it could be the single most enlightening book about US politics today.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Every dirty Democrat trick shows in bid to oust Kavanaugh

American democracy truly is mob rule now, and the mob is stupid, with no one taking a moment to truly consider the situation.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The most amazing thing about what is ostensibly the last minute “Hail Mary” smear campaign by the left against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is how utterly transparently partisan it is. Let’s look at the list of tactics used thus far in this very dirty escapade:

  • Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein sat on this allegation for three months, until after the confirmation hearings were over (and after no other barnstorming tactic during the confirmation hearings worked against the nominee).
  • The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat, and a feminist. RT notes that she appears to have a strong interest in politics.
  • Reports of “death threats” against Dr. Ford have been reported. This is a common feature of any anti-Trump attack, to relate him to some sort of “right-wing” radicalism. This radicalism does not exist among conservatives, but the media is determined to say otherwise.
  • Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, naturally, believes Ford’s story.
  • Every Democrat senator is in agreement that this matter should table the confirmation vote. Some Republicans were at first but appear to be backing away.
  • A woman Democrat senator,  Mazie Hirono, went on record telling men to “shut up and step up.” It seems abundantly clear that this assumes that there can only be one “step” that the men are expected to do. A second lady senator , Patty Murray of Washington, gave all men a warning against stepping off the plantation by saying “Women are watching.”
  • The Senate Republicans offered a chance for Dr Ford to testify on Monday. She refused, but now she is offering to come “next Thursday” – this is ten days later, past the October 1 start date of the US Supreme Court, and closer to the November Midterm elections.

We interrupt this list to make this point. The issues at hand are threefold.

First, the Democrats and other left-wing activists are terrified that they will lose the “Warren Court”, which is the name of the Supreme Court Justice who was a major left-wing judicial activist that enabled the Court to “legislate from the bench” along liberal policy lines since 1969. If Kavanaugh comes in, even if President Trump is somehow magically removed from office, his mark will remain on the Court for at least a generation. Of course, the removal of President Trump is predicated on the Democrats regaining control of the House, which actually looks somewhat likely if polling data is to be believed, and of course a Democrat Senate. (The actual tiny caveat that the President has done absolutely nothing which warrants impeachment will not be taken into consideration. He is to be eliminated. That is Democrat point number one, and make no mistake.)

Second, if the Judge is confirmed, it will look great on the President’s achievement list and energize his voter base even more than it already is. The result could be that the Senate expands its Republican majority, and gains Trumpian conservatives in its ranks, which would likely help the President continue his really great agenda. A defeat in the House that holds or expands GOP, again with Trumpian conservatives, would solidify this, and make it more difficult to stop Trump’s re-election and further solidification of reforms in 2020.

Third, and probably even more important, is that the possibility of a third seat getting vacated on the Court in the time period between now and 2024 is relatively high. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest Justice on the Court, and she is a raving liberal. If she retires (which she promises not to do), or if she is retired by the processes of old age, Trump can score a three-peat and get a third constitutionalist justice into the Court and that will signal the closure of one of the biggest avenues of liberal activism.

To return to the list, some of the further characteristics that make this situation patently obvious are these:

  • As reported in The Duran, the smear job is looking a bit ragged around the edges as time goes by. President Trump called Dr Ford’s bluff by saying he is interested in having her come to testify and that it would be “unfortunate” if she didn’t do so. Ford’s response was as shown above, to try and delay this testimony.
  • The Hollywood “sisterhood” is on record defending Dr Ford. For them, she’s right. She said Kavanaugh did this, so she is right. And why? Because she is a woman, a feminist and a Democrat. She is one of them. It would very interesting to know if the sisterhood would stand behind a conservative woman raising such a concern against a Democrat, but we have President Clinton to show how well that all went.

This by no means concludes the list of characteristics, but as noted earlier here, anyone that does even just a little critical thinking about this can see that this issue is no moral outrage, it is strictly partisan hackery, making use of the greatest weapon against conservative men put in use over the last fifty years – the sexual allegation from a woman, who must always be believed, because the woman is always right. 

The unfortunate truth is that this tactic works. It works because most men are actually gentlemen. We honor women, and we are taught to defer to them in America, because that is what a gentleman does. Feminism takes this characteristic of men, especially in modern times who really want to make sure they treat the ladies right, and it throws it back in their face in contempt. It is so bad it even has a physiological effect on men, who are now marrying less, and having fewer kids. There are even physiological changes that result from this abuse.

Further, there is an appalling lack of critical thinking in our society. The British news site, The Independent offers a poll with questions about the Kavanaugh case. The astonishing lack of critical thinking is clearly evident as the reader votes his or her thought and then sees the results for that question. Going through the questions and observing their responses can be very illuminating.

Dr Ford is demanding an FBI investigation, but she has no date, time or location attached to the incident she accuses now-Judge Kavanaugh of perpetrating. Rush Limbaugh did a great job at showing just how absurd this demand actually is, given these glaring areas of non-knowledge and we include some of that transcript below:

What would happen, let’s say — I don’t know — in the last 10 years up to last week if any woman had walked into any FBI office in the country and said the following: “Hi. I’m here to report that I was abused 35 years ago. I was — I was — I was at a party. Uh, I was 15, a little bit to drink, and a 17-year-old guy pushed me down on top of a table and laid on top of me. And then — and then and then I think — I think — a friend came in and did something and anyway they left and I was left locked in the room. And I want to you to investigate.”

Do you think if somebody shows up at an FBI office with that story, if they show up in person with that story, that the FBI is gonna give it any time whatsoever? The agents are gonna look at each other with kind of wary eyes and they’re gonna crack silent jokes to one another. I’m not kidding. You take this out of the realm of a letter to a crazed, partisan United States senator, Dianne Feinstein, and just move this into the victim walking into an FBI office, “It was 35 years, 34 years. I’m not sure where. But I know that when I was 15, I was at a party, and some guy jumped on top of me.”

So let’s say the FBI agent decides to actually take this further and in a very respectful way says, “Well, Miss, were you raped or injured?”

“Uh, no, not really.”

“Did you report this or tell anyone at the time, 36, 35 years ago?”

“Uh, no.”

“What year was this, again, that this happened?”

“Uhhh, I’m not — I’m not sure. I think it was 1982.”

“Where did this happen?”

“I don’t know! I don’t know. I was so traumatized; I don’t remember any of it. I just remember some guy jumping on me and I was drunk and — and I don’t know. But I want you to investigate it.”

“Okay. Ma’am, were there any witnesses?”

“Just the one friend of his that pushed him off, and then they left before he could do anything.”

What would the FBI do with this, if that scenario happened in one of their field offices? I will tell you what they would do: Zip, zero, nada. And the reason for bringing it up this way is to try to shine some kind of a different light on this and try to put this kind of allegation in some kind of context. The president is handling this in a quite fascinating way. He’s saying, “I hope she shows up. I want to hear what she has to say. I really hope she shows up. I’m very interested in what she has to say. We all are. And if she shows up and if she’s credible, why, then we’re gonna have to do something about that.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russian Hierarch explains Ukrainian issue in detail (VIDEO)

A Russian Orthodox Hierarch explores the incursion of earthly politics into the life, pastoral activity and needs of the Orthodox Church.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

RT’s “Worlds Apart” interview program recently interviewed Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), a hierarch who heads the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Duran has covered the crisis in Ukraine surrounding the activity of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, of Constantinople, intended to create a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This effort falls completely outside the normal and authorized operating procedures of the Orthodox Church, but to the lay listener it is difficult to understand what the fuss really is all about.

Metropolitan Hilarion and Oksana Boyko do an excellent job with both the answers, but more importantly, the questions, since Ms. Boyko asks the questions that someone who knows nothing about the Church might ask. This situation is completely about politics and not about the true work of the Church, and Met. Hilarion answers these questions very completely and thoroughly.

One of the really interesting points that Met. Hilarion makes is the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch seeks to bring about the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church from these four groups:

  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which is canonical and which has not requested self-rule, called autocephaly
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church “Kyiv Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko, which is a completely schismatic group. This group, and Filaret, are leading the charge.
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church – another schismatic group that is not in communion with Filaret’s church
  • The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine – and this is truly interesting, because this group is not even Orthodox, but is an Eastern Rite group under the Pope of Rome, and is in fact Roman Catholic.

The notion of bringing together such a disparity of groups is stunning to the Metropolitan, and yet he understands the motives of the men driving this idea, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew, and Filaret Denisenko.

While the United States is not mentioned in this interview in any prominent sense, it should be noted that this move also does have strong US support as the American political leadership has been advocating for the Poroshenko government in an effort to continue to surround and isolate Russia. As we have noted elsewhere, this series of moves may well create more problems for Russia, by design.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

James Woods Suspended From Twitter Over Satirical Meme That Could “Impact An Election”

James Woods crushes Jack Dorsey: “You are a coward, @Jack.”

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor’s tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.

The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with “nu-male smiles” and text that reads “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” Above it, Woods writes “Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible.”

According to screenshots provided by an associate of Woods’, Twitter directed the actor to delete the post on the grounds that it contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.

In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote. 

In a statement released through associate Sara Miller, Woods said “You are a coward, @Jack,” referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.

Earlier this month, Woods opined on the mass-platform ban of Alex Jones, tweeting: ““I’ve never read Alex Jones nor watched any of his video presence on the internet. A friend told me he was an extremist. Believe me that I know nothing about him. That said, I think banning him from the internet is a slippery slope. This is the beginning of real fascism. Trust me.”

Nu-males everywhere non-threateningly smirk at Woods’ bad fortune…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending