Hillary Clinton, friend to women and girls, breaking the glass ceiling and all that other b.s., right?
We were reminded of how fake and fraudulent Hillary has become Sunday morning.
And how a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't mean a lot for women.
Friday, Hillary's e-mail scandal was back in the news.
Sunday, she dispatched her henchmen to take on the press and the FBI -- emphasis on "men" or -- better yet -- pig boys.
CBS FACE THE NATION spoke with two Hillary surrogates -- Joel Benenson and
Vice President Joe Biden, NBC's MEET THE PRESS spoke with two Hillary surrogates -- Robby Mook and her running mate Tim Kaine, ABC's THIS WEEK served up two Hillary surrogates -- US House Rep. Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine, FOX NEWS SUNDAY WITH CHRIS WALLACE featured Robby Mook, and CNN's STATE OF THE UNION featured John Podesta.
Where are the women?
Where are the women?
Hillary didn't want another woman on the ticket, which is how (overpraised) Elizabeth Warren got rejected.
But why does she turn her campaigns over to men.
Remember Mark Penn last go round in 2008?
Why is it that this supposed feminist running feminist campaigns is always using male surrogates?
It does not bode well for what a Hillary Clinton administration would offer.
But it has helped us all reevaluate Hillary (and Bill).
"What difference, at this point, does it make!"
Remember that outburst.
It was a game changer for many.
From the January 24, 2013 snapshot:
Hillary's performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday should have resulted in her being condemned -- both for how she presented herself and for what she said. We called her out in yesterday's snapshot. In addition, Wally covered it in "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally)," Ava covered it in "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth covered it in "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat covered it in "Can she not answer even one damn question?" Kat admits that she was so surprised and disgusted by Hillary's performance that she didn't attend the afternoon hearing with us because she couldn't take seeing Hillary like that again. Ava points out that Hillary acted out in every negative stereotypical was possible. Ruth compares her to Nixon when it comes to answering questions. They went into the hearing expecting Hillary to sail through it in a professional and adult manner. I did have doubts and by the time Hillary was screaming and waving her hands -- above the shoulders -- like a lunatic, I'm sorry. I supported her in 2008. I don't see supporting a presidential run again.
I have never seen lunatic behavior like that in a hearing and I was present a few years back when a Ranking Member stormed out in the middle of a witness' remarks, loudly and intentionally slamming a door behind him. Everyone stopped -- the witness stopped testifying -- and we all appeared to wonder, "What the hell is wrong with Steve Buyer?" I disagreed with Buyer on many things (he was very right, however, on the burial grounds for military members who were buried in this country and overseas -- he was a champion on that issue and deserves praise for it) but I had never seen anything so rude.
It was the end of the road for a number of us.
We'd given her the benefit of the doubt in 2008 -- that her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake. After all, in that year's Democratic primary, she was running against the man who dropped his objection to the Iraq War once it started.
And there he was, actively lying about that and so much more.
But this "mistake"?
We waited and waited for Hillary to make amends for it.
Her voting for -- and support of -- the illegal war resulted in the deaths of millions.
It resulted in the destruction of women's rights in Iraq.
2009 found her serving as Secretary of State.
Many rightly focused on how she was even more of a crazed War Hawk after 2008.
She had a blood lust for Libya -- which resulted in destruction and death -- and a blood lust for Syria -- where Barack rejected her itchy trigger fingers.
But there's more to her disaster as Secretary of State.
As noted in the July 9, 2016 "Iraq snapshot," WikiLeaks e-mail releases included one where Hillary's longtime friend Melanne Verveer e-mailed Hillary on December 11, 2011:
We attempted to raise the issue of women's participation in the Iraq government, in their economy and more broadly when Biden was just in Baghdad. Jeff Feltman was trying to get it into the conversations there.
You will recall the comments of the Iraqi who participated in the NGO meeting with you in Doha about how the door has been closed to women in the government. We have had many discussions with impressive Iraqi women over the last couple years, and to a person they describe their fate as worse now than years ago. Yet without them it will be even harder for Iraq to move forward. To that end, we have been working with post on a action plan along the lines of the National Action Plan on women, peace and security, you will launch next week.
I hope you will find a way to raise the "women's issue" in your discussion tom'w.
So-called feminist Hillary responded, "I raised women's issue w Maliki and Zebari. Can't say either of them seemed interested. But, we'll keep trying -- as always!"
Keep trying?
When?
Not in the National Action Plan on women that Hillary would "launch next week."
That was Hillary's December 19, 2011 speech entitled "Remarks on Women, Peace, and Security."
Check for Iraq in that speech.
You won't find it.
That approximately 4,500 word speech never notes the women of Iraq.
She can, and does, name check Ireland, Liberia, Egypt, Senegal, Darfur, Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Chile, Kosovo, Yemen and Nepal.
But she never mentions Iraq.
Her "mistake" destroyed the lives of Iraqi women.
But it wasn't enough of a "mistake" for her to feel the need, years later as Secretary of State, to do anything to improve the lives of Iraqi women.
As we've long noted, it's a funny kind of feminism Hillary and her supporters express -- where voting for a woman equals feminism.
That's not feminism.
It's not even activism.
Friday, Hillary Clinton yet again demonstrated that she wasn't up for the job.
That's when the FBI reopened the criminal investigation into her e-mails and private server.
Her surrogates like Podesta rushed to insist that the investigation wasn't reopened.
Remember earlier this year, when her surrogates (and she) continued to insist that it was "a review" and not "a criminal investigation"?
It was a criminal investigation.
But her whores love to lie and the press loves to help them -- that would be the press that has been in the tank for her from day one.
We were reminded of that Saturday when we caught ALJAZEERA's INSIDE STORY which devoted the show to the reopening of the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.
They had three guests.
Lucky for Hillary, all three supported her.
Scott Lucas was positively giddy -- clearly as surprised as we were that someone as visually unappealing as he was had made it onto television.
Worse was Lincoln Mitchell who bragged -- on this show devoted to the latest scandal -- that he'd ignored it to watch the World Series and all he really knew was what other Hillary voters told him about the scandal as they watched the baseball games.
No wonder the idiot Mitchell presented as fact that Hillary did a great job as Secretary of State.
He offered no proof of this claim but hacks rarely do.
State Department employee and professor Clyde Wilcox rounded out the unholy trinity of Clintonistas.
And we wondered how does a program ended up with three guests discussing a breaking story -- and all three were Hillary supporters?
We wondered that for about five seconds.
Then we remembered that Dana Goldstein (AMERICAN PROSPECT) noted in 2009:
An email just went out to the press corps announcing that, as promised, Bill Clinton has released his foundation's donor list ahead of his wife's confirmation hearing for her appointment as secretary of state. But no sooner had I clicked over to the foundation's website and read that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar had donated multiple millions of dollars each to Clinton's charitable works, than the site crashed.
And we remembered how, this month, POLITIFACT had noted:
The New York Times article, published Oct. 15, details an email to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, obtained by Wikileaks. (The Clinton camp has yet to confirm or deny the leak’s authenticity.)
Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director, emailed three Clinton Foundation employees and Doug Band, Bill Clinton’s personal aide on April 16, 2012, about his meetings with ambassadors from Qatar and a few other foreign countries. Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
"Qatar — Would like to see WJC (William Jefferson Clinton) for ‘five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promises from WJC’s birthday in 2011," Desai wrote. "Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti — particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I'm collecting input from CF Haiti team."
[. . .]
The Qatari government has given cumulatively between $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2002 to 2016. The country is controversial for its treatment of women and the LGBT community, and has been accused of being a sponsor of terrorism.
And, most importantly, ALJAZEERA is owned by the House of Thani (ruling family of Qatar).
Hillary Clinton -- supported by so many.
Not the voters, you understand.
If the voters supported her, then she'd have put Donald Trump away months ago.
Bernie Sanders could have -- poll after poll made that point earlier this year.
The same polls noted how it would be more of a struggle for Hillary to do the same.
And today?
The latest WASHINGTON POST - ABC NEWS poll finds that a third of likely voters say that the FBI reopening makes them less likely to vote for Hillary (margin of error +/- 3).
The spin from camp Hillary includes that this is interference in an election and completely unprecedented.
Really?
Because when we pull up "Lawrence Welsh" on WIKIPEDIA, we find:
On the eve of the 1992 presidential election, on October 30, Mr. Walsh obtained a grand jury re-indictment of Weinberger on one count of false statements. One phrase in that superseding indictment referred to President George H.W. Bush. Some believe that Bush had been closing the gap with Bill Clinton, and that this event stopped his momentum.[3][4][5] Clinton administration attorney Lanny Davis called the decision to indict a week before the election rather than after the election "bizarre."[3] Judge Thomas Hogan dismissed the October indictment two months later for being outside the statute of limitations.[5] Weinberger's subsequent pardon by President George Bush in December 1992 preempted any trial. Walsh steadfastly denied that the investigation was politically motivated, while Bush and others criticized it as "the criminalization of policy differences."[1]
And, let's be clear.
Hillary didn't object to Walsh.
Even the laughable Lanny Davis didn't object in real time.
He'd only object in a 2007 book.
Hillary completely created her own problems.
She refused to be above board with the voters.
She retained Cheryl Mills as her attorney during FBI questioning -- even though Mills signed an agreement giving herself immunity and was herself questioned by the FBI.
She allowed e-mails to be deleted after they were subpoenaed.
This is on her.
As her groupie and advisor Neera Tanden asked in an e-mail to Podesta, "Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered?"
Or what about the DNC e-mails? Remember what Tanden e-mailed Podesta after that:
> > I know this email thing isn't on the level. I'm fully aware of that. But
> her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine
> feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem
> (more so than honesty).
> think it's the truth. I see no downside in her actually just saying, look,
> I'm sorry. I think it will take so much air out of this.
> > She always sees herself bending to "their" will when she hands over
> information, etc. But the way she has to bend here is in the remorse. Not
> the "if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't do it." A real feeling
> of - this decision I made created a mess and I'm sorry I did that.
> > No one thinks she doesn't have the judgment to be president - she's not
> reaffirming a negative characteristic in saying sorry. She needs to do
> that - I see no way of moving on until October otherwise.
> > Anyway, that's my advice.
> > > > >
Let's emphasize "her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty)."
In 2008, Hillary ran a strong campaign.
In 2016, she has come off as entitled.
As if America owes her something.
She's run a lousy campaign and her problems are of her own making.
----------
Illustrations: cartoon is Isaiah's "Hillary and the FBI" while screen snap is from Hillary's campaign website.
