Over 11 months after her (catastrophically bad) loss in the Presidential election, the Guardian is still gamely waving Hillary Clinton’s battle standard. Apparently Clinton is currently doing the press circuit in the UK to promote her book “What Happened”, culminating in a hard-hitting political interview….on the Graham Norton Show.
Why does nobody mention that Hillary Clinton is perfectly nice?
The comments on said article went into great detail about how nice Clinton is. That’s why they were moderated to oblivion and closed after just a few hours. So, since The Guardian doesn’t want answers to Ms Williams’ question BTL, we’ll post them here, above the line. That’s what we’re for, after all.
In brief, no one talks about how nice Hillary Clinton is…because she isn’t. She’s a liar and a war criminal. That’s not a debate or an opinion, those are proven facts. But, while this answer is complete, it’s hardly a fair response to a column Ms Williams must have spent dozens of minutes writing. Maybe a more detailed reply would be…nicer.
Firstly, let’s address Clinton’s persona, what Ms Williams refers to as the:
pressing incongruity of her normality
Here the author goes on to try desperately hard to paint Clinton as relatable by mentioning her coffee and her surgical-boot.
She arrived on stage wearing a surgical boot which she explained in an anecdote neither interesting nor uninteresting, just ambiently pleasant to listen to, like cicadas. “I was running down the stairs in heels with a cup of coffee in hand,”
“Wow”, we’re supposed to think, “she’s just like one of us. She’s so normal.” I’m unclear on whether Zoe Williams is a complete idiot…or just thinks her readers are.
Either way she’s displaying a remarkably bad understanding of the English language – even for a Guardian journalist. Seeming to have no notion of what “nice” and “normal” actually mean. Ms Williams would have us think it normal to lie…a lot…in order to further your own ambitions. It seems Ms Williams thinks of starting wars as the behaviour of “nice” people, and a military coup as “just one of those things”.
Graham Norton’s line of questioning was pretty bold: did she feel jinxed? You know, all geared up in 2008, then Obama came along. Then in 2016 Bernie Sanders came along (though he didn’t actually win)
My added emphasis shows up a lie. A sneaky lie by omission. Yes, technically, Bernie Sanders lost the primaries…but it’s also true that Clinton cheated. She was fed debate questions by DNC staff prior to debates, that’s a proven fact. The person responsible resigned in disgrace…only to be immediately hired by Clinton’s campaign team.
And then there’s the odd manner of “victory” for Clinton in some primaries – winning Iowa by 6 consecutive coin-toss wins, and winning Nevada on a high-card draw. Add to that her husband’s apparent breaking of electoral rules in Massachusetts, and the admission of certain Democrats that the DNC “rigged” the votes and you have a victory far beyond merely tainted, that to not mention the various controversies becomes a wilful act of deception.
But about her feelings, upon losing, she was perfectly plain: she felt terrible. She felt responsible.
My emphasis again. This is another lie, not of omission this time. It’s a simple denial of reality. Anyone even passingly familiar with the election knows that Hillary never once accepted her defeat as her own responsibility. She has blamed Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, James Comey, the DNC, the public and (of course) Vladimir Putin. But she has never blamed herself. Apologists in the press went so far as to claim that Clinton’s campaign was just “too smart”, rather than blame their chosen candidate. Zoe obviously hasn’t been paying attention.
Seriously, run through this one more time. How did a nation choose – over her – the guy who could only debate her with grim-faced, pantomime prowling?
There is no end to Ms Williams’ bafflement. She talks about “regret hanging in the air”, as if Clinton could have ushered a golden age of peace and prosperity. She never acknowledges the one word, more than anything else, that lost Clinton the election: War.
Whatever Trump has done and said since his election, he built his foreign policy platform on no war in Syria, and on cooperating with Russia to fight ISIS. Americans are sick of war, especially in the middle-east, and Hillary had helped build two and wanted a third.
None of this has any impact on Zoe’s opinion on Clinton’s “niceness”. It’s as if Zoe doesn’t realise wars exist.
…and here is where the penny drops – Zoe Williams doesn’t live in the real world. It all makes sense when you factor that in.
That’s why she doesn’t mention Clinton’s lies about Bosnia or money (or any of the others). It’s why she doesn’t mention the feeling of entitlement which people resented, or the mysterious illness people were unsettled by. It’s why she doesn’t acknowledge the rigged primaries, the sex scandals or inappropriate emotional reactions. It’s why the words “Libya” and “Honduras” can’t be found anywhere in her vapid apology of an article. She lives in a dream world, and has written a 2000 word request for our company.
In short, the reason no-one talks about how nice Clinton is, is that we all live in the real world, and remember real things that actually happened. Apparently, this is a burden Guardian journalists no longer have to bear.