Hillary Clinton Is One of the Most Ethical (and Most Lied About) Political Leaders in America
Democrats are sick and tired of the endless lies about Hillary, the character attacks, the distortions of her record, the contorted caricature portrayed in the media. They want an unfiltered connection to Hillary without the prism of GOP-style talking points and false frames.
If the headline of this piece blows some minds, you can thank three decades of relentless lies and smears by the conservative attack machine and its mainstream media enablers, who have labored to create an aura of corruption around Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s detractors on the right, left and center reel off a laundry list of unsupported accusations with an air of absolute authority, as though it is simply a given that she is a terrible, horrible, no-good human being.
And that is precisely the intention: Taint her through innuendo and guilt-by-association, throw enough dirt at her that voters develop an instant negative association with her name. Accuse, accuse, accuse until the accusation becomes the reality, and may the truth be damned.
Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and billionaire conservative moneymen like Paul Singer have spent inordinate sums to paint a malignant picture of Hillary, using sophisticated propaganda techniques to render her toxic to the American electorate.
Sadly, many on the left imbibe and regurgitate these fabricated narratives, spewing falsehoods and filth at Hillary with gleeful abandon. They are joined by mainstream media operatives with personal vendettas like Maureen Dowd and the Morning Joe crew, whose venomous words reveal more about their own failings than about Hillary.
But the fact is this: no one has ever produced an iota of evidence that Hillary has behaved improperly because of a campaign contribution. No one has produced a scintilla of proof that there is a quid pro quo when it comes to her speaking fees. From Whitewater to Benghazi to her emails, nobody can point to a single instance of corruption or purposeful wrongdoing on Hillary Clinton’s part.
None. Zero. Ever.
The most they have are votes or positions they disagree with. And even there, the false frames are tossed around with no regard for facts. Hillary’s voting record is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren’s, yet somehow Hillary is the one portrayed by some critics on the left as a sell-out, a closet Republican, a traitor to progressives.
I agree with most of Bernie Sanders’ platform – which is very similar to Hillary’s – but contrary to the assertions of his supporters, Bernie is not some outsider untouched by the messy complexities of politics. He is a seasoned politician who has spent a quarter century in Congress; he sided with the NRA when it was politically expedient; he hired a consummate DC insider as his top adviser; he engaged in negative campaigning against Hillary when he vowed not to; and his campaign showed a willingness to take swipes at progressive icons when it served their political goals.
My point is this: the notion that somehow Bernie is pure good and Hillary is pure evil is hogwash. They are both politicians who make judgments and adopt positions, some of which we agree with, others we don’t.
Hillary’s Republican opponent, Donald Trump, has spent a year hurling insults at people who disagree with him. He has embraced intolerance as a platform. He has a shameful history of demeaning women. He lacks even the most rudimentary preparedness for the office he seeks. He has a self-admittedly vindictive temperament which is profoundly ill-suited for the presidency. He lashes out at reporters in personal terms whenever he is questioned. Yet astonishingly, he receives less (yes, less) negative coverage than Hillary, according to two independent studies.
No matter how shocking this may sound to Hillary’s professional critics – those who spend their time condescendingly mocking anyone who says a good word about her – Hillary is an upstanding, principled leader who has survived the most intrusive, invasive, aggressive and unending vetting process in political history.
One day in the future, Neil will cough on an inhale of cigarette smoke and realize that it doesn’t remind him of a burning car and a burning body anymore.
Instead, each wisp of smoke smells like beach fires with the upperclassmen, the smoke in Andrew’s hair after their team barbecue, of the hazy night sky when they’re sitting out on the roof together. And Neil will realize that he’s truly okay, that he’s found a family that loves him, that he has the life he’s always wanted, that his mother’s ghost doesn’t need to haunt him anymore.
One day in the future Neil will say “no thanks” when Andrew offers him a lit cigarette. Andrew’s eyebrow will go up, but he won’t say anything in favour of stubbing it out on the concrete to save for later.
One day in the future Andrew will realize that he doesn’t have to be self-destructive, that he doesn’t need drugs to feel.
One day he’ll wake up in the morning and realize that he finally has a good reason to live - not promises and deals that unwillingly bind people to him. Andrew will think of his apartment, of his two cats, of his job that is actually sort of fun, of Renee on the other side of the world still insisting on sending him snail mail, of Kevin sometimes dropping by to restock his fridge with healthy food. Andrew will think about his nephew who isn’t nearly as much of a little shit as he expected, of his cousin who constantly tries to Skype him, of the man who looks at him like he’s the world and who he sometimes looks at the same way.
One day Andrew will decide to quit smoking, cold. He’ll shove his remaining half-packet into Neil’s hands and tell him he’s done. And Neil will ease the aching need with heavy kisses and a breathless “yes”.
One day both Neil and Andrew will quit because they don’t need the nicotine, because they’ve already found their happiness.
“Hiraeth is a protest. If it must be called homesickness, it’s a
sickness come on— as if hopping aboard
ship—because home isn’t the place it should have been. It’s an
unattainable longing for a place, a person, a figure, or even a national
history that may never have actually existed. To feel hiraeth is to feel
a deep incompleteness and recognize it as familiar.“
Look at the tags on tellmethisisnotlove's blog, look at the aggressive documentation and open speculation they engage in with a couple they believe is closeted. Look at the trash that is "the harry and louis treatise". THAT is the tinhatting behavior I object to. Anyone with a "babygate" tag used to document "theories" about how freddie isn't real, anyone with a closeting/bearding tag, those are the people perpetrating the problem. Not someone who thinks larry was real at some point.