The reason you don't respect her is not from her doing or the doing of the DNC. It is because there has been a plurality of the political community that has been working for literal decades to destroy her reputation. If you repeat a lie loud enough and long enough it becomes true. In reality she is in the normal range of candidate. I grant you she is closer to the bad side than the good (at least in most people's mind), but she is no more corrupt or politically calculating than your average member of Congress.
Hillary didn't need any help destroying her reputation.
As a matter of public record, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in her FBI interview that she could not recall briefings at the State department pertaining to handling classified information, nor could she give an example of how information might be classified.
Now this is either a lie, or a self-admission that disqualifies a person to hold the position of commander-in-chief of the armed forces, privy to the most sensitive information in the government.
How can you fault a voter who observes these facts and casts their vote for someone else?
Except that all is normal politician CYA type doublespeak. That isn't a good trait and it is something Clinton is certainly guilty of doing, but it is something almost all politicians are guilty of doing. Like I said, Clinton isn't a great candidate without faults. However a large group of this country has worked tirelessly to make these common politician flaws appear as if they are completely abnormal and disqualifying for the presidency.
But that's not what people believe! The Democratic party could have accepted that the right wing press had done a character assassination, and nominated somebody else, but they didn't see how they could lose.
I can't really disagree with you, but it is a sad state of affairs that we are asking one of this country's political parties to bow to the propaganda of the other.
To win a battle, you need to choose the right tactics for the battlefield you are actually fighting on, not the ideal battlefield you think you are entitled to fight on.
Or, to adapt from Donald Rumsfeld, you go into an election with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had.
I know it's sad and upsetting. But propaganda these days is extremely powerful and I don't know how to counter it. If I oppose this kind of propaganda, do I try to counter it with my own propaganda? What are the other choices?
The problem with that conspiracy theory is it doesn't explain why her. Its clearly not gender or we've be getting the two minutes hate on Warren and Stein. Its clearly not simply being high profile because even pres Obama doesn't catch as much heat as Hillary. It's as if there's something about the Clintons. Sometimes a criminal is just a criminal, simple as that.
There could have been a vast conspiracy to frame the Unibomber or Al Capone or John Dillinger or Nixon. No one can explain why them. Therefore I think it infinitely more likely they were just crooks.
Because she has been in politics for for 30 something years, been on the national stage for 20 something years, and has been "the next president" for roughly 10 years. This wasn't one hit job, this was decades of concentrated work that eventually broke the camel's back.
That's because nobody gave a shit about Bernie until he tried to run for president. He was never a threat to anyone or a challenge to the status quo (like having a female president is).
"challenge to the status quo (like having a female president is)"
How is "I'll do exactly what the establishment tells me to do, just like the last couple figureheads, except in a $10K Chairman Mao pantsuit" a challenge to much of anyone?
The country has a not so comfy history with black folks, yet men and women have lived together for eternity, so why didn't Obama get it perhaps 100 or 10000 times worse? Surely you're not a racism denialist? Perhaps no one accused Obama of being a criminal because... he isn't? I mean I never voted for him but I can respect him, he's a wise constitutional scholar who probably deserves a supreme court appointment to an empty liberal seat when this is all over. I disagree with him on many issues but he's no crook and he's reasonably wise. He got teased, essentially, about a technicality of being born in a foreign country and being muslim which frankly don't matter and never turned out to be a problem and never went past offending people on twitter.
Palin was hated in the mainstream media, but it was just a generic Quayle style two minutes hate. How come no one provided any evidence of her crimes? Perhaps... there were none? Could there possibly be any hatred hotter than the DNC controlled MSM's hatred toward Palin, yet there's nothing but sophistry against her because she's clean? I wouldn't describe Palin as being a bright bulb or a beacon of wisdom yet I voted for her, she's not that bad.
Palin is the perfect comparison to Clinton because there was just as much smoke around her. For example Troopergate[1] is the exact kind of non-serious controversy that has hounded Clinton her entire career. Except no one really cares when Palin did this because she never was that close to actual power. Meanwhile if this happened to Clinton there would be endless discussion of it.
Warren has little power and Stein even less. No one bothers to villify women until they get real power. Everyone was cordial to Hillary until she started pushing for health care reform in Congress as a First Lady. It's about people stepping outside of their perceived place.
The Republicans dislike Obama just as much as Clinton, yet his presidency has been virtually scandal-free and he remains quite popular. Clinton's problem is that Democrats and Independents who aren't politically predisposed to dislike her have legitimate concerns about her trustworthyness.
I like your optimism, but do you remember what first brought our new president elect into the political sphere? It certainly wasn't to praise Obama for his clean and scandal free record.
