Hillary Revealed

Bill Clinton, the youngest President to retire from office since Theodore Roosevelt 90 years earlier, was prepared to engage the flip side of his life once he left Office, but not in politics. 

It is reasonable, though, to assume that Hillary had planned, at some level, a career in politics, and no wonder. Starting life in equal footing with her spouse, by all accounts with more cerebral firepower, then spending the next 21 years as a virtual lady-in-waiting, she was likely primed to realize in her own life the gender equality she had advocated for decades.

For Bill in the late 90s, he wanted to construct a vehicle that delivered tangible value, where the application of his time produced visible results as opposed to the blurred outcomes of government administration. The past 16 years have demonstrated the fact of the choice he made. If it had been to paint really bad pictures, I’m sure we would have seen those instead.

He chose to create a charitable organization that would provide assistance and relieve suffering for people whose needs were dire and whose distress transcended nationality.  Why he or anyone in a similar position decides to build a mechanism to help human beings for whom they have no responsibility doesn’t merit analysis.

In the last days of his Presidency Bill Clinton was asked in a formal interview why he allowed himself to do something so foolish and reckless as his backroom sexual encounters with Monica Lewinski.  He insightfully replied “…for the worst reason in the world, because I could.”  Safe to say, he chose to build the Clinton Foundation for the best reason in the world, because he could.  So goes the paradox of opportunity.

Some might admire the all too common televangelist who extracts, through guilt and fear, small dollars from the faithful of limited means. They then compile the dollars to create great edifices for their “church” and for themselves personally. I’m not one of them. 

I prefer to see the wealthy touched for big dollars to provide direct aid, with no one else benefited disproportionately.  It’s limited welfare and may provide more inspiration than solution, but without someone to instill the transfer it doesn’t happen.  Unlike the great philanthropists of our time (Bill Gates e.g.), Clinton managed it with simple influence.  The modest quid pro quos donors received (there are always quid pro quos, even if it’s just recognition) should hardly be a controversy, let alone a scandal.

Hillary Clinton has had minimal involvement with the Clinton Foundations, given the attention she paid to her political career.  She was not as a Tammy Faye to a Jim Bakker.  Even if there was some interaction between her as Senator or Secretary and the Foundations run by Bill Clinton, it doesn’t merit the outrage that Republicans have leveled or which the media has given deference to.

Show me how Hillary benefited personally from the Foundations, other than pride. Don’t hand me the bullshit about speaking fees. They would have made those regardless.  In a nation where LeBron James receives $100 million for shooting basketballs for 3 years or Carly Fiorina receives $100 million for driving a company into the dirt over a 5 year period (at least LeBron sinks his baskets), I’ve become numbed by outrageous earnings, and the Clintons are hardly standouts.

The fact that Republicans have decided to use the Clinton Foundation to play into the narrative that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, is a testimony to their own failed narrative of which Trump is the personification.

I will concede that if the only thing the Clinton Foundations did was to airdrop billions of bibles (in the appropriate translations) over desperate populations then there would be no useful controversy for the Republicans, even if the Clintons owned the companies that printed the books. However, the real story has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundations, since the work done by those foundations carries no weight for those who are quick to condemn the Clintons.

The real story has to with the unrevealed secret why Hillary is so inherently dishonest, why Conservatives across the country know she is not to be trusted, why Trump can pose (thumbs up) with a fan whose t-shirt reads “Hillary for Prison in 2016”, why anything she is or was involved in stinks of corruption, why her words by definition are suspicious, and why the only appropriate path for her is to “lock her up”…probably Guantanamo.

There is a reason that Republicans and the media treat this conniving, manipulative, and lying personality as an natural state of being for Hillary Clinton which I am going to reveal to you here:

Hillary Clinton is…a woman.

If Hillary Clinton were a man there is nothing I can think of; Benghazi, email, computer servers, and certainly not a successful charitable foundation that could have been used as distrustful, let alone as prison quality activities.

Trump has lied at levels never imagined possible among public figures, political or otherwise.  Just ask the thousands of New Jerseyites who celebrated 9/11. Politifact has him lying over being honest by a margin of 2 to 1, look it up! Yet we never hear him described as inherently dishonest, rather he is described as a man who is acting that way. The difference is that a man can change, but the woman cannot.

Women are burdened with the reality that for the Conservative mind, as with racial bias, if a woman strays from traditional female paths they can easily succumb to the stereotypical attributes of being something less than honorable.  Perfectly nice Conservatives I know, including women, will say to me “I know Trump is crazy, but I could never vote for that woman”. There is a reason why they say “woman” instead of person or her name.

How Americans react to Hillary’s candidacy as she runs against a dangerous nutcase, when her truthfulness is woefully attacked, will reveal just how far we’ve come in dealing with gender equality…or not.