Hillary Clinton’s ‘House of Cards’

Special Report: In promoting Hillary Clinton for President, the Democratic Party is betting that American voters are ready to venture back into the Clintons’ “House of Cards,” a structure long defined by scandals and self-interest, writes Greg Maybury.

By Greg Maybury

For “House of Cards” fans who can’t get enough of fictional President Frank Underwood and his First Lady Claire, it must be tempting to view Bill and Hillary Clinton as their real-life political doppelgangers. Certainly there’s fertile ground for those seeking parallels between the main protagonists of this quintessential political soap opera, and our more flesh and blood “heroes.” Like their imaginary foils, the Clintons’ moral compass is functionally impaired, so much so one suspects the HoC scriptwriters modeled their lead characters on the Democratic Party’s resident “royal couple.”

To be sure, a critical assessment of Hillary Clinton’s fitness for the Oval Office can’t be undertaken absent some reference to the respective roles she and her husband have played in each other’s professional lives. Many folks will recall their indelible slogan from Bill Clinton’s successful tilt at the top job in 1992, where the campaign pitch to voters was, “Two for the price of one.”

President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)

President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)

Again, one not unlike the mantra the Underwoods might concoct for voters. One wonders why the Clintons have not retooled that hoary old refrain for 2016, and here I’m thinking, “Buy one, get one free” might fit the bill.

The Clintons then (cue Frank and Claire again) are the consummate political “chancers” (British slang for “opportunists”), with style overwhelming substance, ruthlessness eclipsing truthfulness, and political expediency supplanting personal integrity. Occupying their own “house of cards” is a long, yet not so illustrious history of deception, malice, corruption, duplicity, careerism, avarice, turpitude, warmongering, hubris, incompetence, arrogance, media manipulation, venality, hypocrisy, influence touting, and everything in between that the ugly, sleazy side of politics has on offer.

This reality was first underscored most notably when — in what must be the modern American narrative’s most indelible “stand by your man” moment — the then “Tammy Wynette” of U.S. politics vigorously defended her husband against allegations of unbridled lechery and sexual predation. These allegations, along with many others in her view, were invented by what she later defined as a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” one that was unscrupulously trying to take them down and out.

But irrespective of whether this much touted “conspiracy” was actually a reality (the Clintons surely had powerful and well-heeled enemies), a product of Mrs. Clinton’s penchant for self-aggrandizing delusion, or simply dirty politics (the perfect tautology if there is one), it is now safe to say it was going to take much more than a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to stop the Clinton juggernaut in its tracks.

Powerful Juggernaut

That this “juggernaut” shows few signs of losing steam is evident; at the same time it continues to showcase all that’s wrong about Establishment politics — Republican or Democrat. And whilst we can say now the accusations against her husband contained more than a grain of truth (at least those related to womanizing and self-aggrandizement), both Bill and Hillary were in for the long haul. That she tendered her impassioned denials in the full knowledge that many were true is difficult to refute, and if nothing else, says much about the candidate’s capacity to deny reality in the service of a larger ambition.

From "House of Cards," President Frank Underwood (played by Kevin Spacey) and his wife, Claire (played by Robin Wright).

From “House of Cards,” President Frank Underwood (played by Kevin Spacey) and his wife, Claire (played by Robin Wright).

And without placing too fine a point on it, this is one area where given the prevailing zeitgeist in Washington – in both neoliberal and neoconservative circles – Hillary Clinton is most definitely qualified as both the preferred candidate of Democratic insiders and the Establishment’s choice for president (including a number of erstwhile Republicans).

In any event, the Clintons themselves are no slouches when it comes to playing “dirty politics,” for whom we might say all’s fair in love, war and their chosen vocation. They embody moreover, raw political ambition at its hard-core finest, steeled by narcissistic megalomania, all of it unencumbered by accountability, transparency, humility, ethics, honesty, scruples or altruism. Her seemingly inevitable selection as the 2016 Democratic flag-bearer — and from there most likely the presidency — is ample indication of that “long haul” ambition.

To their credit as political survivors, they’ve been effectively dodging political snipers ever since they parachuted into public consciousness during the 1992 campaign. And if the current contest is any guide, the Clintons have not lost their innate talent in this regard. As for Hillary Clinton, one suspects even her most zealous detractors could not help but admire — if begrudgingly — the mix of chutzpah and resilience that have been key to her longevity, with her not always subtle campaign “trump” cards: “It’s my turn!” Even without playing the “elect me as your first woman president” card, the palpable sense of quasi-regal entitlement becomes icing on the Clinton cake!

We might argue that given the weight of mounting evidence against her fitness for office — a modicum of which would deep-six most politicians’ career ambitions — they have become ever more adept at keeping their political ducks flying in a row, and well out of the range of the shooters. Not that they’ve achieved this all on their own.

In this the Clintons have been ably served by the mainstream media (MSM), who’ve generally eschewed the forensic analysis — whether political, policy or personal — vital to objectively evaluating her fitness as the Democratic nominee (and therefore president).

Mistress of Malevolent Mayhem

The prospect then of another Clinton presidency should make all right-thinking Americans increasingly concerned – even afraid – about the direction in which their country is heading. I know I am, and I’m not even an American!

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton honor the four victims of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony held at Andrews Air Force Base, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Sept. 14, 2012. [State Department photo)

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton honor the four victims of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony held at Andrews Air Force Base, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Sept. 14, 2012. [State Department photo)

Like many of America’s key allies over recent years, our country Australia is no different in that more and more Aussies are harboring anxious — one might say existential — fears about the respective agendas of the U.S. neoconservative and neoliberal establishments. And notwithstanding her blandly reassuring campaign rhetoric on both counts, Clinton hasn’t just aligned herself with these agendas; it’s increasingly clear she’s the preferred standard bearer of the authors.

With this in mind, outside of her aforementioned Tammy Wynette moment, we should explore a little more of the aspiring president’s résumé. In an excellent book, aptly titled Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, Diana Johnstone does just this. The author chronicles in a clear-eyed manner her subject’s back story in excruciating detail. What makes Johnstone’s tome all the more remarkable and essential is the depth and breadth of her narrative, one that goes way beyond the outwardly narrow focus suggested by the book’s title.

For Johnstone, Clinton’s “misadventures” aren’t simply a reflection of the warmongering misadventures of the country she aspires to lead and whose dubious “virtues” Clinton obsequiously and glibly extols at every turn. In Johnstone’s studied analysis of the candidate, Hillary Clinton embraces all the vices that distinguish the prevailing Washington “group think” on foreign, national security and military policy. Indeed, Clinton does so as promiscuously as her philandering spouse did in pursuing his own personal vices.

Moreover, along with being attendant to her husband’s career, the back story of Hillary Clinton’s political ascendancy is inextricably woven into the larger narrative of America’s preeminence as the “indispensable” empire du jour in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, itself coinciding more or less with Bill Clinton’s election to the presidency in 1992.

As Johnstone notes, in her youth, the then Hillary Rodham, a former Republican and “Goldwater girl,” “grew up with the viewpoint of a rich and dominant America obliged to maintain its position on top of an envious and resentful world. This was the standard attitude.”

It should be noted that it was her husband’s foreign and national security policies that in so many ways facilitated the rise of the “full-spectrum dominance” mindset that prevails in Washington to this day. In fact, Bill Clinton’s track record as POTUS is a singular pointer to how a Hillary Clinton presidency will shape up on the critical economic and financial, as well as the geopolitical and national security fronts.

Though we may never know the full extent of Hillary Clinton’s influence on her husband’s foreign and national security policies during his tenure, we can safely assume it was never less than substantive. In this we might point to her well-documented encouragement of Bill Clinton to bomb Yugoslavia, as just one example.

Bringing in Bubba

And now with her husband as a key fundraiser, campaign strategist and arguably her closest political confidant, it’s a safe bet that once Hillary Clinton is ensconced in the White House, “Bubba” Clinton will almost certainly reign behind the throne as her indispensible consigliore. In fact, we can’t rule out his appointment as a key player in the next administration.

Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton debating with President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton debating with President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

As it is, such a prospect was announced just this past week when the candidate said she is likely to appoint her husband to a senior economic advisory position, purportedly to “revitalize” the economy. “You know, he knows how to do it,” she declared.

On the foreign policy front, the aptly designated “War Party” — the cabal of neoconservatives and liberal interventionists who are the flag-bearers of America’s hegemonic ambition — are now more entrenched than in Bill Clinton’s heyday and key leaders are backing Hillary Clinton. This being the case, the die one imagines is already cast — America’s future preordained. There can be only one outcome from a Hillary Clinton presidency – more wars.

In an interview with Joan Brunwasser on OpEdNews, Johnstone explained there were two things [that] inspired her to write Queen of Chaos. The first was the Libyan intervention and accompanying “regime change” gambit. Johnstone described the war that eventually destroyed Libya as “totally unjustified” — a familiar refrain in the decades-long history of America’s war for the Greater Middle East. The author added that most people are “totally unaware [of] how much falsification was used to justify that war.”

It was Clinton as Secretary of State, Johnstone says, who cajoled President Obama into that war and is “quite ready to use it as model for further regime change in countries whose leaders she doesn’t like.” Clinton’s sniggering, grandiose exultation — “we came, we saw, he died” — upon hearing of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s grisly demise at the hands of Western-aided anti-government rebels was clear evidence of this.

Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.

Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.

Her close pal (and now presumably, aspiring “presidential whisperer”) Henry Kissinger — himself a past master of malevolent mayhem and Machiavellian mischief — doubtless would’ve been mightily impressed with the way the Libyan debacle unfolded, although “Hank” one expects may have had the decorum not to gloat about it in public, if only for appearances’ sake.

As for her second reason, Johnstone points out it was, “the totally disproportionate hostility aroused against Vladimir Putin and Russia as a result of the Ukrainian crisis … [itself] incited largely by Washington and the European Union. That hostility was already brewing, and Hillary has kept it stirring. These events are part of a trend toward a much greater war than people today think possible.”

In a recent article at Counterpunch, Johnstone declared that she had hoped the occasion of the campaign might be seized upon not only to expose the lies of Hillary Clinton,” but, also to “seek freedom from America’s seven decades of subjugation to the military-industrial complex and its organic intellectuals who never cease conjuring up threats and enemies to justify the war economy. This entire policy needs to be exposed, denounced and rejected.”

The Regressive Progressive

Andrew Levine from the Institute for Policy Studies singled out so-called “progressive liberals” for their unstinting support of Hillary Clinton. In his view, no notable people within this nebulous constituency (one of her unabashed admirers Paul Krugman comes to mind here) have been able to come up with examples of anything progressive or worthwhile that Hillary has accomplished.”

Levine notes, somewhat acerbically, as First Lady Clinton, “set the cause of health care reform back a generation, laying the groundwork for all that is wrong with Obamacare; as a Senator, she did nothing noteworthy at all; and, worst of all, as Secretary of State, all she has been good for is facilitating world-endangering disasters.”

And on the neoliberal front, more people are now viewing secretive faux trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) as Trojan Horses concocted to enhance corporate power and influence, allowing the transnationals to further enrich themselves at the expense of the national sovereignty, economic prosperity and self-determination of the countries who sign off on them. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons and Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill.”]

In Australia, our all but obligatory commitment to this agreement has many Australians doubtful not just about the alleged benefits of the pact itself, but our “no questions asked” vassal-status alliance with America in general. That few if any of these agreements do what their advocates claim they do is evident to all but the most myopic or deluded of observers of the political economy.

Bill Clinton’s own 1994 NAFTA agreement might be Exhibit A here. And Hillary Clinton’s flip-flopping on this issue is not a good “look” in the eyes of those increasingly opposed to these “trade” regimes.

Further, despite her earnest proclamations about reining in Wall Street, Clinton is not likely to do so. The Clintons’ respective presidential campaigns — indeed their political ascendancy, and by some accounts, their personal financial rehabilitation after Bill Clinton left office — were funded in large part and via various means by the “gangbanksters” of “grab-it-all” street.

These massive payments — essentially pay-to-play “payola” dressed-up as speaking fees, charitable donations or campaign contributions — could be viewed as Wall Street’s protection money guaranteeing that a President Hillary Clinton will use her office as the bulwark between the financial criminals and the folks with the pitchforks.

Pepe Escobar has noted that “Wall Street’s Golden Girl” likes to portray herself at least for public consumption as a dedicated disciple of the “No Bank Is Too Big To Fail” ethos and “fully committed” to financial industry reform. But she is “the reigning Queen of Turbo-Charged Casino Neoliberalism … the evidence insists to suggest that her actions do not exactly match her rhetoric.”

The Wall Street bull statue by Arturo Di Modica

The Wall Street bull statue by Arturo Di Modica

It seems then that few presidential aspirants have campaigned for office schlepping so much obvious “baggage” with them. In fact, it is a testament to the Clintons’ formidable, perpetual motion political machine that much of HRC’s “baggage” is either hidden from public view or is rarely subjected to the rigorous scrutiny that should accompany any candidate aspiring to the highest office in the land.

Paradoxically, this applies even more so now despite more informed folks having the Clintons’ political and personal measure. But as indicated, the MSM has dutifully shoved her dirty linen down the political laundry chute and welded the doors shut at both ends so the smell doesn’t offend the nostrils of the voting public.

In at least one case, the MSM appears to have been joined in pulling punches by some in alternative, independent media (AIM) circles. Fellow Australian, renowned filmmaker and journalist John Pilger noted recently, in reference to an article he published on Counterpunch concerning Clinton’s fitness for the White House, another well known and generally respected AIM outlet Truthout, refused to republish it in full until he excised some of what they viewed as his more contentious statements regarding the Woman who Would be President. Pilger said this was the first time he’d ever been asked to undertake such self-censorship. He was, as might be expected, less than impressed, saying like all censorship, this was unacceptable.”

Pilger added that Truthout said “my unwillingness to submit my work to a ‘process of revision’ meant [they] had to take it off their ‘publication docket’. Such is the gatekeeper’s way with words. At the root of this episode is an enduring unsayable. This is the need, the compulsion, of many liberals to embrace a leader from within a system that is demonstrably imperial and violent. Like Obama’s ‘hope’, Clinton’s gender is no more than a suitable facade.”

In this case, it was a news outlet positioning itself as a credible alternative to the glorified stenographers and perception managers populating the newsrooms and editorial boards within and across the NYT/WPost/LAT axis.

For Pilger and other like-minded observers, the broader challenge for those wishing to expose the leading candidate’s “dirty linen” to greater scrutiny when it is needed most is made more difficult as a result of her status as the anointed candidate amongst the Washington power elites.

Now that Clinton has fashioned herself as the “women’s candidate” and “champion of American liberalism” in its “heroic struggle” with those mostly unelected folks who dictate U.S. economic, foreign, military and national security policy, it is increasingly difficult given the existing political climate to counter this cockamamie narrative.

Or as Pilger put it: “This is drivel, of course; Hillary Clinton leaves a trail of blood and suffering around the world and a clear record of exploitation and greed in her own country. To say so, however, is becoming intolerable in the land of free speech.”

Surviving President Clinton-45?

What should be especially troubling for Americans contemplating their next commander in chief, Clinton clearly views herself amongst those elites whose position, profile, public persona and self-importance license them to see themselves being above the law. Of course, this phenomena is nothing new, but it is becoming increasingly obvious to ordinary Americans that those in power and/or those with influence aren’t routinely — without fear or favor — subject to the same rules and penalties as they would be, all things equal.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Given her legally suspect track record on so many issues, this alone should disqualify Clinton from consideration as President. Her arrogant, contemptuous dismissal of the very idea that she might face prosecution from her careless handling of sensitive information in the so-called “Server-gate” scandal — “it’s simply not going to happen” — is ample evidence that she sees herself as a member of the exclusive but expanding “Too Big to Jail” Club.

As former CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern sees it, with the FBI investigation into the matter about to wrap up, it’s anyone’s guess at this stage as to whether the U.S. Justice Department will find against her for using a private email account and server to conduct official, classified and/or top secret State Department business while Secretary of State, and from there prosecute her to the full extent of the law.

But McGovern goes on to add the following: “if there is something incriminating — or at least politically damaging — in Clinton’s emails, it’s a safe bet that at least the NSA and maybe the FBI, as well, knows. And that could make life difficult for a Clinton-45 presidency. The whole thing needs to be cleaned up before the choices for the next President are locked in.”

In a recent piece — querulously titled “Would The World Survive President Hillary?” — Paul Craig Roberts noted that the Clintons represent everything that is deeply flawed about the way Washington works as they serve as the “poster couple” for the corrosive graft, corruption, political perversion and criminal sleaze that infects the Beltway milieu.

Roberts writes: “government has been privatized. Office holders use their positions in order to make themselves wealthy, not in order to serve the public interest. Bill and Hillary Clinton epitomize the use of public office in behalf of the office holder’s interest. For the Clintons, government means using public office to be rewarded for doing favors for private interests.”

Part of the reason HRC’s fitness for the Oval Office has not been subjected to the sort of scrutiny we all should expect was the reluctance of her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders to go for the jugular throughout the primary campaign. Hillary Clinton might own the most vulnerable “jugular” in this battle, but she’s been extraordinarily adept at ensuring hers is a constantly moving, hard-to-hit target.

Yet even if Sanders had conducted a more aggressive campaign against Clinton based on her dubious record, it’s arguable the MSM would not have accorded such efforts that much attention, no matter how on the money Sanders was or how well such tactics might have played with voters. Insofar as the MSM is concerned, the nomination of Clinton as the Democratic — indeed, Establishment — candidate, was a foregone conclusion from the get-go. The MSM’s job is to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Neglecting Sanders

All this was underscored by the amount of MSM ink lavished on the respective campaigns, with Sanders receiving a fraction compared to Clinton (or certainly Donald Trump). Even then, the coverage of Sanders was often begrudging and dismissive (focused recently on why he won’t just concede the nomination and stop “hurting” Clinton).

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

Plus, there were the reports of vote rigging in various primary contests and Democratic campaign funding anomalies, all of which have been ignored or played down in MSM circles. For its part, the MSM have long since abrogated any and all responsibility for guiding voters towards the selection of a president who might begin to reverse the course America seems hell bent on pursuing, whether in the broad economic, financial, social, military, national security or geopolitical spheres. It wasn’t going to change gear this time around.

Last but not least is the aforementioned Clinton machine itself, whose principal drivers are doubtless leaving nothing to chance in their relentless, ruthless drive towards the “inevitable” nomination of their standard bearer and ultimately the presidency. This, coupled with the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) own “out of the starting gate” anointment of HRC as the presumptive nominee along with the crucial backing (above and below board) that accompanies said “anointment,” translated to Sanders having to work much harder to gain sufficient traction, and from there position himself as the more qualified, suitable candidate for nomination.

That he continues working harder as of this writing is both a testament to Sanders’s own determination and the undeniable level of grassroots support for him. It is also an indictment of the Democratic Party itself which seems determined to stop him — along with those among the “opinionocracy” equally determined to write him off — even if this means risking destruction of the party as a viable political entity.

In an interview with talk show host Ed Schultz, Sanders said “super-delegates” – party insiders who get to vote on the nominee without being elected as a regular delegate – had to “do some hard thinking” before deciding who to support at the convention.

The Vermont senator had this to say about the state of play: “‘Take a look at the polls, take a look at the nature of the campaigns. And I think if you do that, you’ll find that the energy, the enthusiasm, the voter turnout will be with us. We are the strongest campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton — to defeat Donald Trump, and hopefully Hillary Clinton as well here, and if that’s the case, I would hope they support us.”

Clinton’s Fitness

And though it may be too little, too late, some people within the AIM ranks are still calling into question Clinton’s suitability, qualification and fitness for the White House. To this end, in a recent article journalist Robert Parry of Consortiumnews posed a simple but seemingly vexed question about HRC — is she qualified to be president, not just based on her résumé but on her actual performance in office?

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Parry wrote that Clinton “seemed incapable of learning from her costly errors — or perhaps she just understands that the politically safest course is to do what Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment wants. …

“That way you get hailed as a serious thinker in The Washington Post and at think-tank conferences. Virtually all major columnists and big-name pundits praised Clinton’s hawkish tendencies as Secretary of State, from her escalating tensions with Iran to tipping the balance of the debate in favor of ‘regime change’ in Libya to urging direct U.S. military intervention in Syria in pursuit of another ‘regime change’ there.”

Such fitness for office should be a fundamental consideration for selecting a U.S. president, along with an equally crucial question: What kind of individual is the best person to reverse the course America seems intent on pursuing at the expense of everything it purports to stand for? At one stage Obama held out this promise to America, and more recently for some, Sanders.

Hillary Clinton is, indeed, the “Queen of Chaos” inhabiting her own real-life “House of Cards,” one that’s been erected by a fawning, uncritical mainstream media, bankrolled by wealthy elites and the denizens of Wall Street and the military-industrial-security complex with its perimeter secured by the neoconservatives and their fellow travelers, the (not-so) liberal interventionists. In other words, the power enclaves that constitute the existentially toxic Washington political firmament.

All things considered, simply being “afraid” somehow just doesn’t cut it. When it comes to the Clintons, one imagines we’d all be safer and more secure with the conniving Frank Underwood as President and his calculating wife Claire as Vice President, or perhaps vice versa. Now, there’s a thought!

Greg Maybury is a freelance writer based in Perth, Western Australia.

59 comments for “Hillary Clinton’s ‘House of Cards’

  1. May 26, 2016 at 01:48

    G’day Folks,

    Thought I’d pass this on. Two similarly titled articles that might be of interest. For the record from the off: Although both were published before mine, I only just discovered these pieces. The similarity of the titles is more coincidental than serendipitous. Either way, it’s not surprising folks have latched onto House of Cards as a title, so obvious and compelling and so many are the parallels. Nonetheless, both are worthy of your attention.

    The first one (see Link 1 below) is more in-depth piece on the link between Frank and Claire Underwood of Netflix’s “House of Cards”, and the Clintons. Fascinating insight into marriage, gender, power, corruption and politics (in all its ugly glory) and the nexus between them all.

    For the 2nd similarly titled piece (see 2nd link below).

    In both cases it is interesting to ponder how differently my piece might have shaped up had I seen these pieces. For my part I did have a suitable alternative title and in hindsight I might’ve gone with that had I known, but I’m saving that one now for a rainy day. The Clintons are nothing if not (ahem) “newsworthy” — a situation unlikely to change going forward. With this in mind, folks of a certain age may recall the voiceover fadeout/refrain at the end of every episode of the The Naked City. TNC was a popular (and for its time, memorably gritty) crime drama of the late sixties, set in New York. The refrain went like this from memory: ‘There’s a million stories in the Naked City, and this has been one of them’.

    Will leave it to readers to work out where I’m coming from here.

    Have enjoyed v much the discussion and the contributions, interactions. Time to move onto a couple of other projects. Much obliged!



  2. May 26, 2016 at 00:13

    Clinton is exactly the President the American people deserve.

  3. Melvin Belli
    May 25, 2016 at 06:57

    The Clintons are life actors. The entire made of TV political show is a historical canard and nothing more.
    Terrorism is more smoke and mirror than not. Its about Coca Cola and getting you to pay your taxes as a wage slave…

  4. Mark S.
    May 24, 2016 at 12:06

    Thanks Greg Maybury for the great broad view on this primary and the Clintons issues. I was a delegate and group grassroots member of #TeamBernieNV at the Nevada Dem state convention and witnessed the energy and the frustrations reported. As the debate goes on about chairs and violence (none seen by wife or myself) I started to see a setup for a narrative of violence from Bernie supporters.

    Jon Ralston, a reporter from Nevada, and the one to go to by the MSM for Nevada news, pushed this story of perceived violence(and on to Philly) on twitter and was added to the story reported by the Washington Post. Then the ABC adds to this on it’s website and reports about concerns oft Bernie supporters becoming violent at the national convention in Philly. After this, it is reported by several news outlets that the Dems are considering creating rules to tighten and stop the Bernie delegates from expressing much of what they are going there for.

    It is quite interesting that when referring to Jon Ralston by the MSM, it was always preceded by some tag of utter respectability. I then find out he has a subscription blog, which is very expensive and asks also for corporate members. I am now very suspicious of this. I really sense a manipulation here. Is this how we get played?

    I remember these words: “Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see”. MLK, Jr. Thanks Again.

  5. Lefty
    May 24, 2016 at 10:32

    Hi Greg,

    Dunno that I can do much enlightening, you’ve got a pretty good eye and lots of information. It wasn’t that long ago that US nominations were decided in the proverbial smoke filled back rooms by party bosses. In ’68 Humphrey (as sitting VP) was nominated without running in a single primary. Subsequently George McGovern and others worked to change the process to respect primary/caucus voters more and super delegates were part of that. Wikipedia has brief but decent overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

    I believe you’re right, a Biden coup would not be well received by the Sanders folks. Biden has most of Clinton’s flaws along with a nasty temper and few of Sanders virtues.

    FWIW I’m too old to be president and to me that means that Sanders, Biden, Clinton and Trump are too. Us boomers have had our day. It’s time for a new generation to have the opportunity to screw things up. Regardless of the outcome this time it seems that right wing, DLC, corrupt, fat cat, war mongering neocon Clintonism will die with Hillary’s exit from the stage. It will be back to people first party visions ala FDR’s New Deal. Sanders has changed the Dem party, as perhaps Trump has the Repubs.

    For me political junkie has been a lifelong addiction. I’ve never found a way to kick it, nor I confess, ever tried very hard. It has been a wild ride this year and it is getting rougher. I’m advocating more seat belts and less popcorn.

    Thanks again for a wonderfully detailed post, we need more like it.

    Regards, Lefty

  6. Art
    May 24, 2016 at 03:47

    I’m certainly no fan of the Clintons – I’m far to the left of Bernie Sanders – but this article was a new low for Consortium News.

    4 000+ words long and lacking focus as it was all over the place, this diatribe could have really benefited from some serious editing. The tone is that of a hysteric blog, and not befitting a website claiming to be an investigative news magazine.

    • May 24, 2016 at 09:06

      G’Day Art,

      Many thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion. The tone and temper of your response for me recalled one of my all-time favourite literary anecdotes, and I felt the urge to share it with you. After his play Arms and the Man premiered in London in 1894, the great Irish playwright, raconteur and wit George Bernard Shaw was called onto the stage after the final curtain, where he received rapturous applause from genuinely delighted theatre-goers, almost all of whom represented the ‘creme de la’ of London’s ‘glitterati’.

      After the cheers eventually died down one audience member though, clearly unimpressed with proceedings, found himself unable to suppress the urge to bellow out a raucously impolite, ill considered “boo”, resounding so loudly and clearly around the auditorium that few mistook his intent. Shaw, himself clearly wishing to savour the moment — yet not wishing to portray himself as anything less than a man of good grace and good humour — in characteristic fashion and without missing a beat replied along the lines, “My dear boy, I agree with you entirely, but who are we (two) against so many?” Needless to say, it brought the house down!

      As a suitable riposte to your “thoughtful contribution”, I can only trust the pertinence of this anecdote is apparent to your good self!

      On a slightly less whimsical plane, let me say this in respect of length and intent. I believe you may have actually ‘got off light’ mon ami. Which is to say, try reading Gary Leupp’s excellent take (*see link below) on Mrs Clinton, which he recently posted on Counterpunch. This article came in at well over twice the length of mine (close to 11,000 wds). A great read, but not for the time poor, or the faint-hearted. Or for that matter, anyone looking for some redeeming characteristics of Mme Secretary or attributes that might qualify her for the presidency. This was after all both the essence and purpose of my piece.

      Best, GM.


      • Art
        May 27, 2016 at 19:12

        Dear Greg,

        Brevity is the soul of wit. You might want to take that to heart. An 11 000 word article might be appropriate. If one is a talented writer with structured arguments, that is. But in most cases parsimony is a good guiding principle, which is something one learns at university.

        But it’s just not length, it’s about tone. You simply don’t come off as a serious writer, the fourth paragraph being a prime example. And the structure is all over the place, like the ramblings of a tinfoil hat wearing madman scribbled in feces on a bathroom wall. Throwing everything but the kitchen sink into an article, hoping that something will stick, is a quite tiring read indeed.

        Look, we certainly agree on Hillary Clinton, and I have nothing against you personally, this article is the first one of yours I’ve read. But if this article is indicative of your quality of work, I can’t say I’m surprised I haven’t seen your writings anywhere else.

        The question still stands. Is Consortium News a blog, where lengthy diatribes like this belong, or is it an investigative news magazine? Because this is the first time, in my experience, where Consortium News is no better than a right-wing mud slinging blog. It’s a question of credibility.

  7. Lefty
    May 23, 2016 at 22:30

    G’Day Greg. Nice salutation you Aussie’s have. Last fall Biden expressed disinterest in campaigning in the primaries. He said it was too close to his son’s death, and a decision driven by his family not his own inclinations. He has never said he didn’t want to be president. Some of his recent comments have been more positive about it, including an email today soliciting money for the DNC. How could he resist the call for “Uncle Joe” to step up at the convention and accept the nomination, strictly for the good of the party and the country you know?

    I too have heard the indictment gossip if Clinton continues to look wounded against Trump. While that seems far fetched, there can be no doubt the Dem party elite is entering panic mode, and it will vary directly with Hillary’s polling numbers. The worse the polls, the worse the panic. More likely perhaps is for the super delegates to perform their duty and prevent a wounded candidate from getting the nomination. It also seems likely that bunch would follow orders to go for Biden over Sanders. Chaos results, but Clintonism is dead.

    Cindy, both Trump and Clinton are horrible, but in different ways so it is hard to decide which one is worse. Watch the video of Hillary as Sec State cackling “We came, we saw, he died” then watch the video of Gadaffi, a head of state, being sodomized by a bayonet. Just what pray tell has Trump done that is “100X” worse than that?

    • May 24, 2016 at 08:10

      G’Day Lefty,

      Genuine thanks for enlightening me on this. I did try and cover my rear end by positing this using some qualifiers. In any event, if JB is drafted, even he must realise that in accepting the DNC invite, doing so is going to set a cat amongst the pigeons. The fact that he has not participated in the primaries — that unique baptism of fire in the US presidential election process — must make such an outcome itself unique. Is there a precedent for something like this? With a presidential election that has already been marked by so many unique moments and unpredictable developments (to say nothing of wrong calls), as noted, such a development on the one hand is going to keep us political junkies/voyeurs salivating for more. On the other hand, it would not portend great things for America going forward, in more ways than space allows me to articulate herein.

      Again, great to hear from you and thanks for your contribution. Am always happy to be enlightened. Best, GM

  8. Noizpots
    May 22, 2016 at 19:26

    Bravo, an excellent synopsis of the many red flags presented by Candidate Clinton. Will distribute this essay far and wide. If an Australian can understand all this, why can’t Americans? (Rhetorical question). It’s all so confounding! BTW, there are a few other alternatives to Clinton and Trump, if it comes down to that. Check out Jill Stein (Green Party); even Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, might be preferable.

    • Zachary Smith
      May 22, 2016 at 22:45

      Check out Jill Stein (Green Party); even Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, might be preferable.

      Jill Stein won’t be on the Indiana ballot. If I decide not to vote for the top of the ticket, I may stay home entirely. In my area of Indiana voting for any Democrat is a meaningless “protest” vote, so why bother. Besides, the polling place I’ve used most of my life was shut down this year and I’d have to drive some distance where I’d be handed the unverifiable touch-screen device. And possibly rejected by people who have never before laid eyes on me. That would NOT be good for my blood pressure.

  9. Cindy Lewis
    May 22, 2016 at 18:35

    While I share some of your concerns about Secretary Clinton the alternative, Donald Trump is not just 10x worse, he is 100 x worse in terms of being qualified. I live in the swing state of Colorado and in November will do what I thought I would never do. Vote for Hillary Clinton.

    • Zachary Smith
      May 22, 2016 at 22:38

      Assuming the election comes down to Hillary vs Trump, everybody is going to have to make a decision. Do they vote for one or the other, or stay home.

      “Qualified” is a judgement call, of course. On a whim I googled “unqualified presidents” and came up with some I didn’t (and don’t!) know much about. Zachary Taylor and his vice president Millard Fillmore were supremely unqualified. Andrew Johnson. George W. Bush. Barack Obama. None of these characters out to have ever been considered to be either President or to be a heartbeat away from the White House.

      Unless he’s run over by a truck, Donald Trump is going to be the Republican candidate for President. Judging from my experience with GWB, he’s going to be like Teflon so far as his unbelievably large closet of skeletons is concerned. Bush was a lazy playboy who went AOL from a cushy Reserve job he had no business whatever getting, and that was ok with the BushBots. He’d failed at everything he had touched, and that was ok too. His lies got us into the Iraq invasion, a disaster beyond measure, and THAT was ok with the BushBots. (In fairness, Hillary helped with the last one)

      Hillary’s problems are with the Independents and a large number of Democrats. There is no doubt Trump is a corrupt and ignorant blowhard, but Hillary has – again and again – proved herself to be a murderous personality, and her personal body count must be in the hundreds of thousands.

      My own worry about Trump is that as President he would take the easy way out and “outsource” the job to people approved by Israel and his fellow billionaires. In that event there wouldn’t be a dime’s worth of difference between President Hillary and President Trump.

      But in the end it may not matter what we think. Most US votes are taken and tallied by easily hacked electronic devices with no possibility of a recount. This gives the edge to Hillary, for Israel’s computer capabilities are excellent.

    • May 23, 2016 at 21:37

      G’Day Cindy,

      Thx for your interest and contribution. I appreciate what you’re saying, but it’s interesting to note what Stephen Cohen had to say in John Walsh’s Counterpunch piece (See 1st link below) about Trump’s views on foreign policy as a case in point. He not only tries to distinguish between Clinton and her Republican rival-in-waiting, but identifies why [he sees] Trump is a preferable alternative to HRC.

      That said, I also saw another piece that more or less summed up my own feelings — and I suspect those of most right-thinking Americans about the 2016 contest for POTUS. (In hindsight it possibly doesn’t just apply to this election). It was titled: Is this the best we could come up with? (See 2nd link below).

      One other point. It was always my intention to follow up the Clinton piece with one on The Donald. My only dilemma is that as of this writing, I’m not quite sure where to start! That in itself is I think, something of a fashion statement. Some might say that writing a critique of Trump in the context of his suitability for the Oval Office might be tantamount to shooting fish in the proverbial. But I guess we can say the same about Clinton.





  10. Zachary Smith
    May 22, 2016 at 17:59

    It’s really interesting to read a view of US politics from another side of the globe, so naturally I’ve saved it to my “Clinton” folder.

    Today I ran into an analysis from an unnamed blogger which I’d like to link as a tiny addition to Mr. Maybury’s essay.


    A really interesting part was the fellow’s take on what BHO will do if HRC’s polls vs Trump keep sliding.

    I have close friends in high Democratic Party circles. Trust me, they are beginning to panic. They are starting to think about Plan B… and that doesn’t include either Hillary or Bernie being their nominee.

    So let me lay out a very plausible scenario. What if Hillary’s approval ratings slide continues? What if over the next 60 to 90 days she finds herself down by 5 to 7 points to Trump? What if she goes down by double digits? Would the panic become hysteria?

    What if the FBI recommends indicting Hillary over the email scandal — my law enforcement sources tell me this is a very real possibility.

    But it gets worse. Have you heard that Russia claims to have 10,000 of Hillary’s hacked emails? They say they will release them. If this is the case, Hillary better stop worrying about the White House and start worrying about the Big House.

    Would President Obama allow the Justice Department to indict his former secretary of state? I used to think “no.” But I now believe the answer to that question depends on only one factor — is Hillary beating Trump?

    Every Washington insider knows that Obama has no love or loyalty for Hillary.

    I’m betting if Obama senses Hillary is a sinking Titanic — and he still has time before the convention — he will throw her under the bus.

    At this point, I would guess the president gives Hillary a choice that is no choice at all. Be indicted, lose the presidential race, and risk a long jail term, or announce to the world that your cough has become a real medical issue and you will have to decline the nomination, then receive a presidential pardon.

    This person believes that the nomination would be given to Joe Biden, an event which would (in my opinion) guarantee the election of Trump, for it would do nothing less than enrage the Sanders supporters.

    On a final note, the Clintonites keep harping on Sanders getting out of the race. This is so freaking hypocritical – Hillary stayed to the bitter end in 2008. Worse than that was her reason – Obama might be murdered!

    Clinton Remark on Kennedy’s Killing Stirs Uproar

    By Katharine Q. Seelye MAY 24, 2008

    BRANDON, S.D. — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

    • May 23, 2016 at 01:17

      G’Day Zachary,

      Many thanks for the contribution to the discussion and this link. I hadn’t seen this piece (it’s written by Tyler Durden, someone who always has interesting things to say). What he is saying I believe is that anything is possible in this contest. Whilst I concur, I’m not overly confident the Party toffs will give the nod to Bernie (not without being dragged kicking and screaming to it), if the honchos feel that Hillary is a no-go for whatever reason, such as those TD has outlined.

      Yet the Joe Biden theory is an interesting proposition, and certainly drafting JB as the party’s default fall-back guy has been mooted before. But given that insofar as I am aware he hasn’t himself indicated he is even interested, I’m not sure of this as a scenario. Even if they turn to JB and he comes to the party as it were, I believe all hell would break loose in any event. Seems to me the DNC will be faced with something of a Hobson’s Choice in this case. And that could portend a DNC convention that’ll make Chicago ’68 look like a cake-walk in the ball-park. Methinks there will be blood, some of it overflowing from the ballot boxes and onto the convention floor, and the rest on the streets of Philly. So much so, those delegates still standing may need a wetsuit and Scuba gear to get out alive. And the Republicans may end laughing all the way to the White House and beyond.

      And speaking of ’68, as for Hillary’s observation about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, it’s hard to know what Mme Secretary was thinking when she said this. Maybe it’s wishful thinking – directed at Sanders. In any event, in the likelihood history might repeat itself (which is what she seemed to be suggesting), she also better make sure she has some heavy duty home-boys/girls securing the perimeter and covering her rear end in California in June. We might even expect that the ghost of Bobbie will be there to witness it all. I think I can even hear him crying and moaning already.


  11. Sello Mokotjo
    May 22, 2016 at 17:47

    A well written analysis of U.S political tragedy both in America herself and the world. One thing, though, which I completely can’t understand, is how the hell on earth American voters can practically kneel for people like Clinton, who will always be remembered by killing million of people around the world. She compared Putin to Hitler, and Americans still do not realize she is not fit for president. In which way is Putin the same as Hitler? Is Hitler not the one who caused WW II, who killed the Jews which Clinton love so much? Did Putin do any of those vile acts? Where is the basis of comparing the two come from? I will never give my vote to such politically ignorant people like her. She is the former Secretary of State and former Senator, for God’s sake. Still, It has not yet occurred to her there is no comparison between the two. For her information, Putin is respected as the most intelligent statesman of modern era and the world depend on him for maintenance of world peace and security. Unlike Clinton who, should she ever become president, peace of the world will be in danger. Thanks Greg, for insightful piece of writing.

    • Bill Bodden
      May 22, 2016 at 22:36

      One thing, though, which I completely can’t understand, is how the hell on earth American voters can practically kneel for people like Clinton, …

      The answers are many and complex. A key factor is that Americans are lied to from the time they are infants and a sizable number of them become conditioned to believe what they are told for the rest of their lives. They believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

  12. Dennis Merwood
    May 22, 2016 at 17:32

    Drew, I have been a Paul Krugman fan for years.
    But man, has he really sullied his reputation in recent months with his sucking up to HRC.
    More and more the New York Times is revealing itself as just part of the Clinton Machine.
    Sadly, the UK Guardian is also a publishing a bunch of articles by Clinton sycophants.
    Like the rest of the posters here today, I disagree with Kent Smith’s take on this author.

    • Drew Hunkins
      May 23, 2016 at 17:22

      I too enjoyed reading many a Krugman piece. I now do it with more of a jaundiced eye, that’s for sure.

  13. Drew Hunkins
    May 22, 2016 at 17:18

    One of the wonderful paradigms the Sanders insurgency has exposed is the tepid faux liberalism of Krugman and Gloria Steinem. When push came to shove they revealed their true colors. They’re two establishmentarians who have essentially now been exposed to many as being wedded to the Clinton machine.

  14. May 22, 2016 at 15:31

    G’Day Consortium Readers/Commenters,

    Many thanks for participating in the discussion. It’s always been my contention that Americans should be made aware of — and recognise — the impact that its governments’ policies have had — and continue to have — on the wider world. Along with the more obvious examples (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Ukraine etc.), this also includes those of the U.S.’s long-standing allies and friends. That such critical feedback should come from informed/concerned citizens in the countries in question is a given of course, especially considering that our/their own governments (whether conservative or liberal) rarely do so. They are too much in thrall of the prevailing neoliberal and neoconservative Washington zeitgeist even if the majority of our/their citizens aren’t always so disposed.

    That said, although I will attempt to respond to individual commenters where appropriate, in the meantime, I felt it appropriate to share herein some comments made by a fellow Aussie James O’Neill to an earlier version of this piece that was published on Gumshoe, an Australian based alternative media site. O’Neill is a former legal academic, and now barrister, political activist and writer. He regularly writes on geo-political issues with a special emphasis on international law and human rights matters. I believe he has also worked for a time at the International Criminal Court in Europe. I’ve included below links to his more recent articles, which have been published on NEO, Counterpunch along with several Aussie based sites. Immediately below though is what he had to say in response to the above piece on Mrs Clinton. It speaks for itself. (#I have included links below to O’Neill’s own most recent pieces for interested readers. I can highly recommend them.)
    “Greg, thanks for this analysis which one will almost certainly never read in the Australian mainstream media. As you say, they are all too complicit in the crimes of Madame Clinton to ever challenge her apparently pre-destined role as the next titular head of the American War Machine.

    Two thoughts come to mind. The first is that the appalling direction the US has been hell bent on pursuing for the past several decades (at least since 1945) is not going to change for the better. That should inspire some serious rethinking in DFAT (Aussie Foreign Affairs) and the Ministry of Defence about whether it is really in Australia’s interests to be the reliable adjunct to whatever war the US wishes to pursue. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that every war Australia has gotten into since 1945 has been at the behest of the Americans. They have all ended disastrously and the ones currently in progress, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, are not going to end any differently. Not a single vital Australian interest has been enhanced by this lap dog conduct. It ought to be a golden opportunity to fundamentally rethink our whole foreign policy stance, but notwithstanding the experiences referred to above, and the powerful arguments mounted by the late Malcolm Fraser (Ed. Note: Fraser was Aussie PM ’75-’83; a conservative BTW) in his book Dangerous Ally*, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that such a rethink is in fact going on.

    The second thought that comes to mind is that the United States has gotten away with its outrageous behaviour over the past decades, and especially since 1990, because there’s not been a serious countervailing power centre. That in my view is fundamentally changing. There is likely to be some significant changes in the Kremlin hierarchy, not, as the neocon wet dream would have it by Mr Putin being replaced, but rather with Atlantic sovereigntists such as (Dmitry) Medvedev being shown the door because a much harder line faction wants stiffer resistance to US and NATO belligerence and blatant breaking of several treaties. I highly recommend that people listen to Stephen Cohen podcast (see link below) for his insights, the likes of which you will never hear or see in the Oz MSM.

    A related change is closer to our own backyard. China is equally sick of American interference and troublemaking in Asia (of which the so-called pivot, and the TPP are two classic examples). As with the Russians, they now have the superior military hardware to give effect to confronting further American adventurism. Of relevance to Australia is the Dongfeng-41 ICBM missile, which can traverse 12,000 in 30 minutes. Each missile carries 8-10 independently targeted warheads. Our naval fantasists, who see an Australian submarine popping up in the South China Sea to lob some missiles at the PRC, and other military fantasies, will be rudely shocked. The Chinese response would eliminate Australia as a player in approximately 30 minutes.

    It seems to me we’ve a stark choice. Either continue with our suicidal path, that will undoubtedly accelerate under a Clinton presidency, or we actually formulate a foreign and defence policy that puts Australia’s real national interests to the forefront.”

    #Recent Articles from James O’Neill.



    *Article by Malcolm Fraser (dec.), Australian Prime Minister, 1975-1983 (December 16, 2014)


    Stephen Cohen Link


    Greg Maybury

    • Bob Van Noy
      May 23, 2016 at 11:46

      Many thanks to all for this so very important dialogue. Mostly to Mr. Parry for this wonderful site…

      • May 24, 2016 at 07:12

        G’Day Bob,

        Thankyou for your interest and contribution. Best, GM.

  15. Lin Cleveland
    May 22, 2016 at 12:49

    Indeed, Mr. Maybury! Each new interminable election season arriving on the heels of the last campaign season appears evermore like some bizarre and grotesque game of liars’ poker where the sycophantic MSM implies that Hillary plays the Most Experienced card to beat Republican’s “Trump” card. In unabashed support of their paymasters media spokespersons ignore the fact that surveys show Bernie’s “Political Revolution” card wins the day by a larger margin than Hillary’s dwindling ratings.

    The Right-Wing Conspiracy Card: Must admit that one strikes a tone of truth! We who remember Ross Perot running against the duopoly and especially “The Republican Dirty Tricks Squad” cannot deny the underlying truth. However, the Democrats keep hidden among their hold cards some dirty tricks of their own. During Perot’s 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton and Robert Dole, I worked at the Sedgewick County Fair in Kansas. Because this was an election year Republicans and Libertarians had set up booths to campaign while handing out miniature “made in China” U.S. flags. Just to be funny I asked one Republican booth occupant, “Who will you vote for?” Of course he answered Dole and went on to say that should Clinton win the White House he would be impeached. In retrospect I must conclude impeachment plans were already held in the the hand of the dirty tricks squad! Perot also warned of the giant sucking sound should Clinton’s NAFTA plans go through.

    The “Stand by your Man” Card: This card played by the Republicans means to show Hillary’s complicity in the game, while Democrats play the card to show her forgiving nature and her willingness to take one for Team Democrat. Whatever we thinks of Ms, Clinton, she is no naïve babe in the woods. She knew from years of experience that her husband was a philandering skirt chaser. Yet attaching her wagon to Bill’s rising star well served her own political aspirations and that’s why she stood by her man.

    The “Because I’m a Woman” Card: Playing the “sexist” card works well with some but for others works against her. If We_the_People, the voting base, were to abandon knee-jerk reactions, the gender of any politician would not matter at all. Unfortunately, some women believe against all evidence to the contrary that if Hillary wins the hand her presidency will be as a boon to all womankind. It would not! Also, we must admit that many men–both conservative and liberal–do not take well to the idea of a dame in charge. Notice how Hill likes to pound her talking points home by punching the air with a balled up fist. Like Lady Macbeth her message reads “unsex me now!” I’ll sacrifice my femininity to prove I’m just like any “tuff-talking” pugnacious male. Those who keep up with behind the scenes info can see that the very intelligent Dr. Jill Stein runs a principled campaign focused on real issues and doesn’t play the silly gender card.

    If the “Demo-Pub” duopoly has its way campaign 2016 will boil down to Clinton vs. Trump. Trump is an immature, egocentric, narcissistic buffoon. Hillary, on the other hand, is a pure sociopath detached from normal human emotions. She laughed when her former friend Qaddafi died in an American attack. The question now remains, “will Bernie switch his support to Hillary or will we witness a challenge at the Democrat’s convention?” Also, if Sanders joins Robert Reich, Noam Chomsky and such recommending we “hold our collective nose” and fight hard for Clinton? And if he buckles under, will the political revolution continue without him?

    • Frank
      May 23, 2016 at 22:30

      “We who remember”

      Your memory is failing.

      “During Perot’s 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton and Robert Dole”

      In 1992, George Bush was the republican nominee.

      “Perot also warned of the giant sucking sound should Clinton’s NAFTA plans go through.”

      NAFTA wasn’t Clinton’s. It was Reagan’s. Because of our bs partisan politics, a Democratic majority Congress wouldn’t pass the legislation in the 1980s. Once Bubba was installed with a Republican majority Congress, the bill quickly became law.

  16. Bill Bodden
    May 22, 2016 at 11:50

    The dangers posed to this nation and its empire go beyond the Clintons. There are the morality-challenged power brokers and financiers in Washington and Wall Street who support the Clintons for their own benefits. Then there are their accomplices in the media – radio, TV, print, movies – who add their support. Last but not least are the legions of gullible authoritarian followers who provide a fig leaf of illusion that further ascent of the Queen of Chaos is an example of democracy.

    • Bill Bodden
      May 22, 2016 at 16:14

      There was an interesting interview on CNN this morning when Fareed Zakaria asked George Schultz, former secretary of several offices for some of our worst presidents, what he thought of Hillary Clinton. The essence of Schultz’s reply was that they were members of a club of former secretaries of state and they defended each other. No moral ifs, ands, or buts. Another example of my country right or wrong.

    • May 24, 2016 at 09:51

      G’Day Bill,

      I couldn’t agree more heartily about the dangers posed to the nation. The only I would add is that it is not just about America the nation. It is about the rest of the world. This is the really scary proposition for all of us, whether from an economic, political, economic, social or environmental perspective. As for the Clintons, they will eventually exit stage right at some point, but the prevailing mindset of the Beltway Bedlamites sadly seems destined to remain for the foreseeable future. I’d dearly like to think otherwise, but as optimistic as I like to be I can’t see this happening in my lifetime. If indeed any positive change does come, I fear it will be too little too late.

      On a slightly different tangent, I firmly believe one of the biggest speed-bumps along this road to some positive change is the utterly bogus “left/right” paradigm. In fact this is a trap into which a couple of folks contributing to this thread have fallen into in how they’ve chosen to dress up their critiques. This line of argument is both redundant, and counter-productive to progress. It also divides and conquers. Although a discussion for another time (and it is one I hope to address in due course), it is time to move away from this type of political discourse. In short, the sooner we deep-six the largely faux ‘left-right’ dichotomy, the better.

      Best, GM.

  17. May 22, 2016 at 06:07

    Hillary Clinton poses an even greater threat to world peace than Dick Cheney did before her. Like the cabal of neocons, led by the Kagan cabal pulling her strings, La Clinton seems to regard the most humiliating defeat by the weakest of enemies as victory. In strict military terms, the U.S. and NATO have suffered defeat after defeat over the last couple of decades. Yet, despite glaring reality, each defeat on the battlefield has been trumpeted as a magnificent victory back in the corridors of power.

    The “Lions led by donkeys” quote used to describe the valiant efforts of the British infantry in WWI, as opposed to the stubborn arrogance of the generals who sent them to their deaths, was never more true than today. The only difference being: it is presidents and prime ministers ordering soldiers to the slaughter fields a century later.

    Generals who disagree with the present warmongering – of which I’m sure there are quite a number – have been sidelined into relative obscurity while convicted felons, such as Petraeus, are promoted to carry out the murderous policies of psychopaths like Clinton.

    The question arises as to how much longer are those military leaders – who signed up thinking they were doing so to defend democracy – going to stand by watching as the neocons lead the U.S. into a dystopic future?

    By throwing their support behind Trump and Sanders the vast majority of U.S. voters are signalling their discontent with the system as it stands, yet the 1% aren’t listening. If Clinton makes it to the White House it will be against the will of the majority. As the Obama presidency has clearly taught, voters can’t vote for ‘change’ through the ballot box. The present campaign looks as if it is going to reinforce that lesson.

    If Clinton thinks the electorate will be satisfied with more of the same, she may be in for a very rude awakening. Things may descend into chaos on the streets far quicker than she could ever anticipate.

    Across the pond in Europe we are expecting lights to go out all over as soon as she is inaugurated,

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 22, 2016 at 21:45

      I came across an interesting article describing just how bad off these presumptive candidates really are, when it comes to their being accepted by the American voter. Apparently, any independent candidate could win if wedged between Hillary and the Donald. I hope either Bernie turns Green, or Jill Stein gets some publicity to further her name recognition. We’re here now, and not much will change inside of the established political parties as we know them. It is time for a third party, or even a fourth party, because the Democrate’s and Republicans have failed the American people miserably. It’s not so much ‘hope & change’, as much as it is ‘I hope it changes’.


      • May 23, 2016 at 06:19

        G’Day Joe,

        Thanks for this link. I have posted this on my FB, G+ and Twitter sites. Hopefully this will give Sanders pause to reconsider his pledge to support Clinton in he does not get the DRC nod, and then of course run on his own. This would really make for an interesting presidential election, to put it mildly.

        Best, GM.

        • Joe Tedesky
          May 23, 2016 at 17:37

          You are welcome Greg. I always enjoy reading your comments. I hope the link comes in handy. We all need to do our job of protecting the innocents, and especially even the kangaroo in the land down under. Thanks JT

      • Bob Van Noy
        May 23, 2016 at 11:38

        Thanks JoeTedesky, nice link. So, this, yet unknown but still possible option, is what remains for those of us left with two unacceptable candidates. I’m a New Dealer so l like what Bernie says about domestic policy. Further, I’m willing to take yet another chance on international affairs with Bernie, (should he be another quiet warrier like President Obama, I’ll drop him life a hot rock) and then see how things work out, post primaries… I recall thinking very similarly early in the day of June 7, 1968 that if Bobby should win on this day, he will be in a questionable but seemingly undeniable position to take the nomination from Hubert Humphrey, the choice of the establishment. Of course that didn’t happen, and I didn’t fully recognize at the time; but my life course was set, trying to understand why Bobby was assassinated.

        • Joe Tedesky
          May 23, 2016 at 17:53

          Bob, you bring back memories that’s for sure. I graduated from high school in that summer of sixty eight when RFK got murdered, and then found myself in boot camp by that winter of sixty nine, when Tricky Dicky got inaugurated. Thank God my boot camp company commander talked me out of volunteering for duty in Vietnam. Many of my friends from back then weren’t so lucky to have such a great company commander, and you know the rest. Keep posting Bob, I enjoy your input. JT

  18. Douglas Baker
    May 22, 2016 at 02:04

    Oh Kent, Are you a troll or just slow? Buying into the authorized Clinton twosome sanitized story is fine for children, but for young adults and older the “full Monty” is more honest. As President, Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party with his deliberate pandering to racists and radical southern heritage folk as he destroyed a safety net for those those Americans in poverty, gave a pass to “too big to fail” financial gamblers in an regulated derivative market place with little to no regulation, led the charge to have more Americans in prison than any other country, with one of the prison for profit gang playing an important role in his wife’s second attempt to gain the Democratic Party’s nomination to be President, as President Clinton the First, he went to war to successfully destroy Yugoslavia with depleted uranium discharged providing a long term Clinton foundation of poison in the former country, he continued the sanctions in Iraq with hundreds of thousands dying and damaged a generation of children through malnutrition. One could go on. During Claudius reign as Emperor of the Roman “Republic”‘s Empire period, his wife Messalina took pleasure in physical intercourse with many comers, Secretary Clinton offers private loose lip group gatherings a talking head, as she takes pleasure in fiscal intercourse and exits with a heavy purse. With her aspiration to be the first woman President of our Republic am reminded of Gaius Julius Caesar, Junior’s remarks on learning of his wife’s violating Roman law, “My wife ought not ever to be under suspicion.” With an on going Federal Bureau of Investigation over the unsecured private Email Server she ordered set up that was outside of the government information record and offered easy penetration and information withdrawal for those that wanted to know state secrets, she should with draw, as well as for showing poor judgement, again.

  19. J.Narayana Rao
    May 22, 2016 at 00:10

    There is no place in the US History who stand for peace and who work for Peace.The Presidents are liars.What they don’t want to do they speak. Aggressions,destabilizaions,murders,occupations,wars,westernization on earth and in space is a continuous policy and program of the Government who may be the President.After all the military-industrial complex which runs the US Government and the President and the Senators mere puppets. Hilary Clinton will be of no exception.Obama got a Nobel Peace prize for his war mongering with in 8 months and this lady will get it with in 3 months.

  20. Kent Smith
    May 21, 2016 at 22:55

    I’m not a big fan of the Clintons, in fact I don’t much like them, but the right wing attack in your “House of Cards” piece is vicious in a way one doesn’t expect from a serious online publication. It reads as though the writer is equating the Clintons with Kim Jong Un, for god’s sakes, or Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot. This writer seems to be utterly out of control. Like him or not, Bill Clinton was a US president whom historians generally acknowledge for his skills in navigating through some very difficult times. He and his wife are not the sort of people who deserve an hysterical character assassination like the one you’ve published.

    I looked up the Australian writer and found that creating right wing hate pieces — almost all against the U.S. — is what he does for a living. There is a whole stream of defamatory and (it appears from the ones available online) largely mindless rants that have appeared under his name in the past few years.

    Is this the first step of Consortium News swinging to the hard right? If so, you will surely lose the bulk of your readership.

    • Rob Roy
      May 21, 2016 at 23:55

      I find Greg Maybury’s article exactly true. He covered the facts that I have found out myself. “Mindless rants?”…hardly. Everything he writes is there for anyone to discover. If president, Hillary Clinton will chomp at the bit to bomb Iran (a country that has never attacked anyone) at the behest of Israel and our money-hungry military. She is responsible for placing Victoria Nuland to create the coup in Ukraine, a country now under fascist/Nazi rule. She took umbrage at Putin’s “aggression” when he rightly took back Crimea (which the people there overwhelmingly wanted him to do) and she’s ready to take on regime change in Russia, who is trying to protect itself from the onslaught of NATO who illegally is creeping east to surround Russia. Our country is the most feared country on earth, followed by Israel, followed by Pakistan (via a world-wide Gallop Poll) and when 170 countries say Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestinians, with only the US, Israel and Canada disagreeing, people should pay attention. Just wait until this immoral woman is president, should that happen. With some people saying if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, we should rally around Hillary….I say no way on earth. I will write him in or vote for the best person of all who is running for president on the Green Party ticket, Jill Stein.

    • John
      May 22, 2016 at 02:35

      You claim that this is “right wing”, yet you provide no evidence for this. My reading of this article gave me no indication that any of the (factually correct, and well deserved) criticisms of Killary are from any view except from the left/anti-war side.

      I challenge you to point out a single point in this article that originates from the right-wing. Killary is a right-winger, and has been since her days as a Goldwater Girl, through her racist propagation of the “super-predator” myth, her vote for DOMA, etc ad nauseum.

      As pointed out in the article, noone has been able to find a single progressive issue that Killary has led on. Ever. In her entire career.

      I suspect that you are so delusional as to think any criticism of this amoral sociopath MUST be from the right-wing, because you do not even know what the right/left dichotomy means. (Hint, Bernie Sanders is slighly to the left of Killary, with his Social Democracy masquerading as Democratic Socialism. This basically makes him a Centrist. Killary, on the other hand, is not very far from Mussolini, when one looks at actual policy positions.)

      So, please, if you wish to have a vestige of credibility, please give even a single example from this article that even hints at being a criticism from the right.

      • Nancy
        May 24, 2016 at 22:55

        Could you please explain which part is untrue or “hysterical?”

    • Brad Benson
      May 22, 2016 at 06:26

      Nonsense. The woman is a WAR CRIMINAL. The author just took a few more sentences to elaborate on the subject.

      • Nancy
        May 24, 2016 at 23:01

        Thank you! If she gets elected instead of out in prison, war will follow. Every thinking person on earth should be coming together now to keep her from taking power. She is an evil War criminal who WANTS WWIII. It will affect everyone on this planet for the US military has overgrown like a field of weeds.

    • May 22, 2016 at 08:33

      The scale and the content of the ‘misadventures’ of both Clintons, but particularly those of Hillary, are of such a nature, that I will miss my bet, should she not be impeached for her high crimes and misdemeanors already committed, should she achieve the presidency. As simple as that. Mr. Maybury’s article is as accurate as it is devastating. It also underlines the complete surrender of a free mass media in at least the English speaking world, which has fallen into line to promote the terrible ideas of what is, debatably, the most dangerous collective leadership in world history.

    • Helga Fellay
      May 22, 2016 at 11:31

      Kent Smith, I am a progressive on the far left, and I agree with everything the author says. I think you are confused about labels. Just because Hillary Clinton calls herself a progressive does not mean that she is one. In fact, she is greatly admired and supported by the far right, including such people as Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger. The far right has no reason to criticize her because she is in fact one of them, just pretending to be a liberal. You can not assume that every criticism of Clinton must be a “right wing attack.” It is the progressive left that has every reason to be critical and reveal her misdeeds of the past. Pointing out well documented facts is not “hysterical character assassination” and analyzing and criticizing America’s misguided foreign policy, including those that violate international law and human rights, are not “hate pieces” nor “mindless rants.”

      • Tom
        May 24, 2016 at 17:53

        Very well said!

    • May 23, 2016 at 05:54

      G’Day Kent,

      Thanks for taking the time to respond. There’s probably little need for me to reply to your comment, since other readers have made their own views clear in respect of the key points you have raised. Needless to say, I’m on their side.

      Best, GM

    • exiled off mainstreet
      May 23, 2016 at 11:36

      Typical of those who are in denial for Hillary’s culpability in war crimes. Describing opponents of the yankee 21st century version of fascism as “right-wing” is part of the playbook. The Clintons’ career of corruption wasn’t even gone into in the piece, which is even pulling punches to some extent. The Clintons’ record would not bear scrutiny if they weren’t the anointed establishment choices.

    • francesco ferraro
      May 30, 2016 at 00:28

      I agree completely with your comments. Thank you

    • Elizabeth Detsis
      June 1, 2016 at 13:11

      Thank you Kent Smith. Well said. Couldn’t agree with you more. Bravo!

  21. Bob Van Noy
    May 21, 2016 at 21:40

    An excellent summation of our current Clinton condition, thanks Greg Maybury. I just finished a book written in 1996 that was recommended to me called “Partners In Power; The Clintons and Their America” by Roger Morris that I found to be totally illuminating about the Clintons. I was so impressed that I ordered and have read “The Money and The Power” by Sally Denton and Roger Morris about my home state of Nevada which also points much about the Clintons. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary should not be President or even a nominee.

    Amazon review page here: http://www.amazon.com/Partners-Power-Clintons-Their-America/dp/0805028048/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463880957&sr=8-1&keywords=Roger+Morris#customerReviews

    • David Wilson
      May 22, 2016 at 20:54

      —————Ode to Hillary————-

      Go away Hillary, you’ve been here too long.
      We’re tired of your lies, and your husband’s schlong.
      You and Billy have been thieves in the night.
      And trying to take away our gun rights.
      Don’t go away mad, just go away.
      We hope to never see you on another day.
      We’re hope’n and pray’n for justice to be done.
      To watch you in prison, would be so much fun.

      • May 24, 2016 at 10:02

        G’Day David,

        Loved the poetically droll representation of the Clintons. It’s what we might call here Down Under – a ‘spot-on p*ss-take’.

        Best, GM.

    • May 22, 2016 at 22:35

      G’Day Bob,

      Thanks for the feedback and contribution to the discussion. I am familiar with Sally’s and Roger’s work, although it has been sometime since I have looked at the books you mentioned. Good though that you have highlighted their work again. For anyone willing to delve into it, it is an especially eye-opening exercise for those who may be still prepped to extend them any benefit of the doubt.

      To cite just one of the many scandals that have accompanied them throughout their career, I recently re-familiarised myself with the Clintons’ Travel-Gate saga (see link below). Amongst other things, on its own this sad, sorry affair is a singular pointer to the callousness, mendacity and ruthlessness of this political power couple.

      Regardless of whether one is right-wing/left-wing/no-wing, right thinking Americans should think long and hard about her fitness for the presidency. At the same time, the DNC movers and shakers are on a slippery slope by continuing to push her as the Party’s Empress-in-waiting.

      None of this is to suggest that The Donald isn’t more or less equally repugnant as a candidate for POTUS, but at least the Republican ‘toffs’ can say he wasn’t their preferred candidate. But the Democrats still have a clear choice.

      Best, GM


      • Richard
        May 24, 2016 at 13:57

        Great article. Please look into the Bank of Zion and the Romney’s and the Clintons ?

    • Nancy
      May 24, 2016 at 23:10

      Thanks for book recommendations. I have been researching her past for a year now. She had me snowed because she’s a good liar.
      One thing is obvious after studying her history, she hates men. Her father grew up poor and was very stingy and tight with money. I can see that she loves money and hates men. This is a big handicap for someone to be Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in history. I have a 14-year-old son and the prospect of him being shipped off to another war for money and regime change is almost as frightening as the prospect of us being on the verge of WWIII.

      • Bob Van Noy
        May 26, 2016 at 07:52

        You’re very welcome, Nancy. If you look at the “body” of work that Roger Morris has done; it is most impressive. He was a new discovery for me. May readers and writers regain our American honor…Thanks.

      • Bob Van Noy
        May 26, 2016 at 08:02

        At !8 I was in Florida with the !01st. Airborne waiting to get the command to invade Cuba. We were a wonderful collection of American youth, and quite sure that our country would not commit our lives to anything but a just cause. We were wrong. President Kennedy, almost single-handily pulled us back from the brink. That is why I post openly. What ever you do; save your Son…

Comments are closed.