This is nice and evil. It’s from Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run, and I missed it at the time, as did many Americans. It speaks to a deep, abiding ugliness in Hillary’s psyche, I dare say a psychopathic will to power. Where Lloyd Bentsen famously knew Jack Kennedy and how His Vigah compared to Potatoe Bae, Hillary remembered Bobby Kennedy, mainly for how his assassination opened up the field late in the game to dark horse challengers in a way that, oh, you never know, might also happen to a certain Chicagoan from Hawaii, allowing the eleventh-hour reinvigoration of her own struggling campaign. This was why she wanted to stay in the race to the end. She didn’t talk about making a political statement by showing what she could at the polls and in the final delegate count. She didn’t talk about trying to influence Obama and his camp with her ideas. She talked about how someone might whack her opponent in the grand Kennedyeque tradition. Nice campaign you have here, Barry; shame if a little Sirhan Sirhan happened to it. It’s just part of the horse race that is politics, dispassionately discussing how one’s increasingly successful challenger might be assassinated to one’s own political advantage.
I’ll be damned if that isn’t one vicious, vicious shrew. She’s even worse than I had thought. I’ve sometimes figured that maybe Hillary just comes across badly and given her the benefit of the doubt. This, however, is not a misunderstood woman being misunderstood again. She’s coldly discussing the prospect of her Senate colleague’s assassination in terms of what it would do for her presidential race. Her affect is flat. She is not, very unfortunately, just some teenage dipshit calmly talking about slasher flicks on the bus while her buddy proposes creating their own private language. She’s running for the fucking presidency of the United States of America.
Misogyny doesn’t explain why this calculating shrew alienates so many people; what explains it is her again and again being an icy, calculating shrew. I’ve never heard a thing of the sort from or about Maggie Thatcher–who, by the way, had a much better sense of humor and wasn’t so fucking self-serious so often. Lady Thatcher was no shrinking violet. Homegirl spoke her mind. But what was on her mind was usually a desire to sandbag the Labor Party and kill it with sick burns. I don’t recall her gloating about the gruesome deaths, real or fantasized, of her enemies. She didn’t quite have that holier-than-thou yuppie social climber thing going on, either. Thatcher at least looked principled.
Clinton acts like a small-town district attorney who lets the power of prosecuting two-bit check kiters go to her head. At the same time, she engages in truly Nigerian levels of public corruption. She has loyalists, not even leftist dissidents within the Democratic Party, publicly expressing their hope that she will dissolve the Clinton Foundation before she is inaugurated as President because maintaining it would look like an unseemly conflict of interest. That’s quaintly principled, as her ongoing involvement with the Foundation was already a flagrant conflict of interest during her term as Secretary of State, when, it has become more and more damningly clear, she used it as a conduit for bribes from foreign officials and businessmen in exchange for favorable treatment by the State Department. This woman cherishes simony as the first principle of her politics, and she has the nerve to lecture the rest of us about fitness for high office. It’s unbelievably disgusting.
Since we were on the subject of assassination, a DNC staffer named Seth Rich was killed in a random street stickup in Philadelphia during the convention, by someone who didn’t relieve him or his corpse of any of his cash or valuables. Gee, that’s curious. Julian Assange has now posthumously implicated Rich as his source for the Clinton e-mails. Of course the Clinton machine would rather blame it on the Russkis than on an internal whistleblower whom they may have had whacked. Assange is a strange bird, but he’s one of the great savants of our age, often principled to a fault, and when he takes security seriously, he takes it very seriously. Assange has offered a $20,000 reward for information on Rich’s murder. This doesn’t sound like idle speculation or a bluff.
I feel very uncomfortable with the prospect of a sitting US president being tried for murder. I think we all should feel uncomfortable with this prospect. This is the stuff of an extreme constitutional crisis. We’re stumbling into uncharted territory. How the hell would we deal with the highest value Secret Service protectee in the country being jailed or incarcerated? More broadly, how would we deal with the crisis of political legitimacy that a murder indictment, or even just a wrongful death lawsuit, would provoke?
No, I am not joking. I am not exaggerating. I am not angling for cheap political advantage against a candidate I dislike. This shit scares me. The Rich case isn’t the first time the Clintons have been circumstantially but credibly implicated in gangland hits on people who had wronged or threatened to expose them. The Clintons sound frighteningly like Whitey Bulger-style serial murderers. I don’t feel comfortable voting for the more overtly vicious of them for president just because her opponent is something of a clown and a butthurtful troll who upsets a bunch of self-righteous shitheads. Maybe not a murderer isn’t good enough in a president.
Donald Trump truly looks like the more psychologically fit of the two. This election sucks more and more every week.