Few would dispute the widely accepted premise that most politicians are dishonest creatures who have little or no reservation about selectively playing fast and loose with the truth.
Nor are many surprised when they witness their elected officials manipulating facts and hiding behind high-priced public relations experts who excel at creating disingenuous personal narratives that suit their respective clients.
But Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is arguably the poster child for such antics because she has so successfully manufactured a 20-plus year record of arguable incompetence into solid credentials and has also mastered the art of purporting victimization to such an extent that any legitimize criticism of her extensive shortcomings is automatically labeled sexism by her supporters.
Suggesting that the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, may have been caused by an anti-Muslim video rather than terrorists capitalizing on her failure to mandate adequate security personnel was one thing.
However for her to simultaneously tell her daughter and other governments that it was caused by terrorism was indefensible. She treated related Congressional hearings pertaining to that incident and the destruction of classified emails sent on a private server as a politically motivated joke. She also recently insinuated that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders resorted to chauvinistic behavior simply by telling Clinton during a New Hampshire debate that “shouting” about the need to prevent gun violence is an ineffective strategy. All of this illustrates evidence of a persecution complex.
The former first lady and Secretary of State has consistently demonstrated Nixon-like contempt for those who seek to hold her accountable and has tried to convince millions that she is a perpetual victim.
It is also somewhat telling that Clinton’s Republican rival, Donald Trump, who is also self-obsessed, disdainful of accountability and lacking in morals-had the tenacity to call out Clinton’s victimization tactics without fear of voter reprisal when in late April he accused her of playing the “woman’s card” and subsequently suggested that Clinton’s accomplishments can largely be attributed to her gender.
While there is arguably considerable merit to Trump’s first claim, the second is somewhat less credible. Clinton did not become a U.S. senator and subsequently Secretary of State because she is female. Both positions were likely garnered by political power and monetary connections acquired by her husband during his eight years in the White House. After all, it is hard to dispute the premise that without Bill, Hillary would not be where she is today, much less a likely presidential nominee.
Hillary’s continued marriage to Bill, both legally and politically, necessitates a more thorough examination of the latter’s self-professed feminist credentials. Former President Clinton’s alleged infidelities, which include allegations of sexual harassment as well as sexual assault, are more than fair game for any candidate opposing Hillary Clinton, particularly in so far as she is accused of threatening alleged victims.
That Hillary arguably enabled Bill’s indiscretions by sticking with the former President through and thick and thin as well as allegedly taking part in concerted efforts designed to undermine the credibility of his accusers, further indicts her self-professed credentials.
And when combined with the Clinton Foundation’s willingness to accept donations (an organization of which she is a full fledged partner) from countries such as Saudi Arabia, which brutally suppress women’s rights, pointing out such hypocrisies can no longer be regarded as merely partisan nitpicking.
Perhaps Hillary, like her husband, is an opportunistic self-promoter above all. Such proclivities are not unusual in politicians but the Clinton’s have always tried to stretch the truth beyond plausibility and each time their repugnant behavior and hypocritical actions were called into account, they reacted as if they were victims of a politically motivated conspiracy.
Such moral ineptitude is arguably the net result of those who have the tenacity or support that tenacity to quibble over the definition of “is.”