HOW WE GOT HERE: Every possible answer but one!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2016

Part 3—The guild must be disappeared: Why do so many people hate Hillary Clinton so much?

Under the circumstances, it's a very important question. Because so many people hate Clinton, the craziest candidate in American history, by far, may end up in the White House.

Why do people hate Clinton so much? A full-blooded answer to that question would help us know how in the world we got here.

As such, the question is very important. In her recent piece for Slate, Michelle Goldberg examined every possible answer to that question—every possible answer but one.

As we noted yesterday, Goldberg interviewed an array of Hillary haters seeking the reason for the hate. One hated Hillary Clinton because of all the "suspicious deaths." Another hated her for an offhand comment she made in March 1992.

Why do people hate Clinton so much? Partly, we humans just love to hate, a fact which is increasingly clear within our own liberal tents.

That said, Hillary Clinton is hated a lot. What explains all the Hillary hatred? Goldberg pondered some possible answers.

In some ways, she tried to be fair. She cited Clinton's lack of charisma, though lack of charisma could hardly explain all that hate.

She also cites some normal political factors. Some people don't like Clinton's political positions, including some which have changed down through the year.

Again, though, a problem arises. This might explain political opposition, but it hardly explains all that hate.

In the end, Goldberg mainly considers the role of sexism and misogyny. Almost surely, such attitudes are one part of the problem.

Without any question, misogyny has played a role in the hatred of Hillary Clinton. Just consider all the times Chris Matthews derided her as "Evita Peron" or "Nurse Ratched" during his decade of Hillary hatred, a decade of lunatic public behavior which ended after 2008.

Goldberg won't mention those comments, of course. Within the guild, it's not done! But Matthews was hardly the only offender within the guild as the Hillary hatred grew.

During the Obama-Clinton nomination race in 2007 and 2008, such comments were also common from media stars like Mike Barnacle and Keith Olbermann, MSNBC luminaries both. And in June 2008, the New York Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, savaged star columnist Maureen Dowd for her incessant gander-based trashing of Candidate Clinton.

In a remarkable column, Hoyt savaged Dowd from stem to stern for what he called her misogyny. You will never learn such things from the work of a figure like Goldberg.

Briefly, let's be fair! Right at the start of her piece, Goldberg names two major journalists who have criticized Clinton. One is a former Republican speechwriter. The other is no longer alive and was hugely never well known:

GOLDBERG (7/24/16): It might seem as though nothing much has changed in 20 years. Many people disliked Hillary Clinton when she first emerged onto the political scene, and many people dislike her now. She is on track to become the least popular Democratic nominee in modern history, although voters like Donald Trump even less.

But over the last two decades, the something that pisses people off has changed. Speaking to [Professor] Gates, former Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan described “an air of apple-cheeked certitude” in Clinton that is “political in its nature and grating in its effects.” Noonan saw in Clinton “an implicit insistence throughout her career that hers were the politics of moral decency and therefore those who opposed her politics were obviously of a lower moral order.”

Noonan’s view was a common one. Take, for example, Michael Kelly’s 1993 New York Times Magazine profile, mockingly titled “Saint Hillary.” “Since she discovered, at the age of 14, that for people less fortunate than herself the world could be very cruel, Hillary Rodham Clinton has harbored an ambition so large that it can scarcely be grasped,” Kelly wrote. “She would like to make things right. She is 45 now and she knows that the earnest idealisms of a child of the 1960s may strike some people as naive or trite or grandiose. But she holds to them without any apparent sense of irony or inadequacy.” Kelly’s piece painted Clinton as a moralist, a meddler, a prig.

Michael Kelly died in Iraq in 2003. He was a virulent Hillary hater, and a childhood friend of Dowd's.

Noonan is a famous figure from the conservative press—and "a former Republican speechwriter."

Kelly and Noonan are named by Goldberg right at the start of her piece. That said, it's the last time Goldberg names any major journalist who was ever critical of Hillary Clinton.

Where did all the hatred come from? At one point, Goldberg mentions "conspiracy websites." Those websites are part of the answer.

That said, who does she never name? She never names the mainstream press! In this passage, you see the classic, guild-approved, mandated shifting of blame:

GOLDBERG: Some who loathe Clinton see her as the living embodiment of avarice and deception. These Clinton haters take at face value every charge Republicans have ever hurled at her, as well as dark accusations that circulate online. They have the most invidious possible explanation for Whitewater, the dubious real estate deal that served as a pretext for endless Republican investigations of the Clintons in the 1990s. (Clinton was never found guilty of any wrongdoing, though one of her business partners, James McDougal, went to prison for fraud in a related case.) Sometimes they believe that Clinton murdered her former law partner, Vince Foster, who committed suicide in 1993. They hold her responsible for the deadly attack on the American outpost in Benghazi, Libya. Peter Schweizer’s new book Clinton Cash has convinced them that there was a corrupt nexus between Clinton’s State Department, various foreign governments, and the Clinton family’s foundation. Most of Schweizer’s allegations have either been disproven or shown to be unsubstantiated, but that hasn’t stopped Trump from invoking them repeatedly. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he accused Clinton of raking in “millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers.”

Who is responsible for all the hate? That passage gives us our clearest answer.

The Hillary haters believe the charges Republicans have hurled. They've swallowed the guff about Whitewater, a set of charges which led to endless Republican investigations.

They've swallowed the claims in Schweizer's book, even though most of his charges have been disproven or shown to be unsubstantiated. As for Schweizer himself, he was last seen—where else?—speaking at the Republican convention!

Let's state the obvious. Republicans have played a key role in building the Hillary hatred.

The party did run crazy Whitewater probes. Republicans have hurled a bunch of crazy claims, including claims about Vince Foster and other "suspicious deaths."

Peter Schweizer did appear at the Republican convention. Without any question, that's all part of the problem.

Republicans have played a key role in building the Hillary hatred. But who did Goldberg forget to cite in her lengthy piece? She forgot the mainstream press!

Citizens, can we talk? The bungled claims about Whitewater began in the New York Times.

When Schweizer wrote his discredited book, he signed a deal with the New York Times to publish his bungled work.

Last August, that resulted in the most embarrassing "news report" of the current campaign. We refer to the New York Times' embarrassing 4400-word report about the scary uranium deal—a piece of work which should have gotten all participants fired.

When that giant piece appeared complete with its nine count-em nine photographs, we spent a week outlining its ludicrous, shoddy work. But within the mainstream guild, the boys and girls don't challenge the might of the hapless but powerful Times.

Instead, Goldberg appeared on the Chris Hayes program, where the embarrassing, bungled piece was excitedly described as a "bombshell report." One year later, Goldberg says the book has been discredited, but as she does, she forgets to note the role played by the ludicrous Times in its propagation.

By now, everyone knows a basic fact about the journalism of the past twenty-four years. But within the upper-end guild, the careerist boys and girls also know they mustn't mention the fact.

What fact did Goldberg choose to withhold about all the Hillary hatred? Everybody knows this fact:

The Hillary hatred has largely been spread by Clinton-, Gore- and Hillary-haters within the upper end press corps! Among a million other names, by figures like Matthews and Dowd!

Everybody knows this fact; Goldberg also seems to know that she mustn't state it. For today, we'll leave our discussion right there.

This afternoon, we'll post a few links. Tomorrow, more to come.

Tomorrow: Shedding tears for alas poor Romney!

Still coming: The Yanks and the Cubs