2,240 words

The eighth wonder of the modern world might be Hillary Clinton, the “wonder” being how someone with such massive deficits of character, ability, and self-awareness has been taken seriously by enough people to make her so dangerous to the rest of us. Like much of what is presented to us by the professional reality managers as true, the opposite is usually the case. This super-feminist whizz who attached herself to a hobbyist philanderer from Hope, Arkansas is profoundly stupid.

Her stupidity typically surfaces when she’s in a bind, bragging about her prowess, or is out to ruin someone in her way. The latest evidence of it was displayed in her remarks in a recent CNN interview. More on that shortly.

Without Bill Clinton, Hillary had very little going for her. He could be likable on occasion; she never has been, as sarcastically insinuated by Barack Obama in the 2008 Democrat primaries. To contemplate this charmless harridan on a non-stop cavalcade of corruption, scandal, and malfeasance on the world stage for what seems like an eternity, you may experience the onset of your worst migraine headache.

Her many churlish performances in front of the cameras, dodging the latest scandal, were like watching a game of Whac-A-Mole. The lies, stupid and obvious, just kept popping back up, looking even more risible, only to be clumsily wacked down until her act became too lame and boring to generate continuing interest, after which she would shamelessly move on to another scam.

Hillary as well never possessed Bill’s talent for a succinct and paradigmatic phrasing to address rumors of crimes and misdemeanors that perpetually swirl around them.

Hillary Struggles To List Accomplishments At State

Back in 2014, the carpetbagging Senator from New York was eying the presidency. She was on stage with New York Times columnist, Clinton sycophant, and obnoxious know-it-all Thomas Friedman. He asked her to summarize her accomplishments in her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. For a question she cannot or does not want to answer, Hillary lays down a dense cloud of self-promotional, verbal smog until her listeners’ eyes begin to glaze over. Click on this two-minute YouTube video to experience a masterpiece of mindless, dithering incoherence while watching Freidman looking on like he’s having a petit mal seizure. Then try to comprehend why anyone would pay this stupid woman a quarter-million dollars or more to listen to one of her canned speeches that are loaded with self-serving drivel.

With this question, Friedman had inexplicably stepped out of his assigned flunky role and asked Mrs. Clinton a real question. He was supposed to have posed it this way: “Secretary Clinton, in the face of Republican hostility, nay-saying, and sexism, you did all of these wonderful x, y, and z things as Secretary of State. How do you feel about that?” It is obvious at the beginning of the video, body-language wise with the finger-pointing, that HRC was not happy with any questions that might threaten to disrupt her dog-and-pony show.

As a strategic politician, she’s also spectacularly stupid. She completely bungled the “health care reform” project Bill handed her shortly after his 1992 election: “Hillarycare failed, and never even received a floor vote in the House or Senate, although both chambers had Democratic majorities.” Arrogance plus greed plus stupidity is the tried-and-true HRC formula for fouling whatever she touches.

According to The New Yorker:

Clinton’s biggest blunder, as [her biographer Carl] Bernstein tells it, was to offend the very legislators whose support she needed most. At a retreat for Democratic senators in the spring of 1993, Clinton was asked whether it was realistic to pursue such an ambitious health-care program, given her husband’s many other legislative initiatives. She responded that the Administration was prepared to “demonize” those who opposed the task force’s recommendations . . . “I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I’ve ever known in my life,” Bob Boorstin, the [President’s National Health Care] task force’s deputy for media relations, told Bernstein. “And it’s her great flaw, it’s what killed health care.”

Early in the 2016 primaries, HRC was orgasmic at the thought — improbable as it was at the time — of facing Donald Trump in the general election. Given Hillary’s well-known, shall we politely say, “interpersonal limitations,” who could possibly have been an easier target for a Democrat demolition job? Here was the raging bull in America’s China shop of politics, a tailor-made, larger than life caricature of all those horrible things the Democrats had long taught the American voters to believe compose a typical Republican candidate. The only voters both Democrats and establishment Republicans could predict to turn out for this rude, ineloquent braggadocio with the orange comb over would be a couple of unemployed coal miners fresh off their barstools and some knuckle-dragging bigots from the sticks who cling to their religion and their guns, as well as remnants of the Klan. Everyone else was supposed to be “Ready for Hillary!” This was very stupid, as they failed to realize that “Ready for Hillary?” posed as a question would resonate more like a promo in a trailer for a horror movie. In the poster, she can’t disguise that smug, morally superior, know-it-all look that says, “I was born to be in charge of everybody.” Given her pose, she looks like Mussolini wearing a wig.

Her entire campaign was a monumental disaster of overconfident arrogance topped off by the “basket of deplorables” slur. It was an incredibly stupid, gratuitous gesture of contempt. It made her appear even more threatening, unlikable, and self-righteously loathsome than she already was, while energizing and galvanizing a wide swath of voter opposition.

When the debacle that was her campaign was over and the shock of an incomprehensible defeat began to register, many Democrats had to conclude that it took the uniquely incompetent, clueless Hillary Rodham Clinton to blow a cakewalk election and loose to a philistine such as Trump.

It should have been obvious. For decades, the woman couldn’t open her mouth without whining, lying, or blackening someone. Below are some of the more memorable demonstrations of the rotted-out core of her character.

In 2008, while running against Obama in the Democrat primaries, she let loose with this whopper about a visit as First Lady to Bosnia: “I remember landing under sniper fire . . . we just ran with our heads down.” It was HRC vintage stupidity servicing her bloated ego. Ample photographic evidence of the lie was quickly produced to make her look like what she is: a shameless liar.

“What difference at this point does it make now?” said a screeching Hillary while lying to Congress about her role as Secretary of State in the attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This, too, would show Hillary as she really is: a serial screw-up who dumps her failures on someone else.

Hillary, the feminist champion of women, has a long history of bullying and intimidating a special class of women: those used for recreation by her husband. She used her connections to batter their reputations.

Monica Lewinski was a “narcissistic loony toon.” Projection at work.

Gennifer Flowers was “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t have much of a resume to fall back on.” Envy at work, given HRC’s feminine-allure limitations.

Then, there was Clinton’s lying about sending e-mails using her private server: “On ‘Fox News Sunday,’ Clinton pinpointed one statement by Comey and ignored others in wrongly claiming the FBI director had backed up her assertions to the American public that she never sent or received classified material.” More dishonesty in the face of conspicuous evidence of the truth. She could not even lie competently.

Some had hoped that the 2016 humiliation would cause Hillary to leave us alone, vacate the swamp, hit the sauce, and hire a ghost writer to churn out another book that nobody would read. But she’s shameless, pathologically ambitious, and at least one rumor has it that Hillary is plotting one more shot at the presidency.

From Karen Kwiatkowski at Lew Rockwell:

But a Hillary, with her new campaign hairstyle, and possibly running with a healthy-looking younger super leftie like Gavin Newsom, may be required to guarantee a Democratic win 13 months from now.

If this seems politically implausible, look at the Gilligan’s Island that the White House has become with Joe even dumber and less funny than Bob Denver.

Two things lend credence to the rumor. First, the Clinton money laundering operation — aka the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) — that was in hibernation in recent years has recently gotten a huge infusion of cash, a billion dollars, from The Water.org Water & Climate Fund, co-founded by Hollywood idiot Matt Damon and Gary White. Giving lots of money to Bill and Hillary is not a mark of intelligence. CGI is also launching a Ukraine Action Network, gathering numerous financial pledges to support non-profits working in the country.

Hillary is definitely not in retirement mode, and when the Clintons are hosing up piles of someone else’s cash, they are up to something that has nothing to do with philanthropy.

Second, Hillary in on the media circuit, attacking her nemesis, Donald Trump, and now threatening his supporters — the “deplorables” –yet again. Earlier this month, Hillary was interviewed on CNN by the pompous, irritatingly affected pretend journalist, Christiane Amanpour. Egged on by the obsequious Amanpour, in just three minutes and ten seconds HRC managed to display almost every unsavory feature of her personality. Let’s see:

Psychological projection: “[Trump] is only in it for himself.” In length and scope, no one can compete with the grifting, corruption and self-enrichment coming out of the House of Clinton: the half-million-dollar Goldman Sachs, Saudi speeches; the Clinton pardons; and looting the White House when they left. Remember the politics of personal destruction?

Bending the truth: Hillary tends to lead with her visceral contempt for those who don’t share her self-admiration, and so she arrogantly distorts the truth to reflect the world as she thinks it ought to be. And so Trump has “no credibility left by any measure . . .” Really? Trump is widely conceded to be the Republican Party’s nominee, so at least by the “measure” of Republican voter preference Trump has enormous credibility, and for someone with “no credibility” he seems to be getting a lot of fear-filled attention. Amanpour later got Hillary to concede that Trump will be the nominee, but HRC has yet to meet a contradiction she can’t ignore.

The most remarkable moment in the interview, however, is “Hillary unfiltered” or “Hillary unleashed”: “At some point, maybe here needs to be a formal deprogramming of the [Trump] cult members.”

Whoa! With Hillary in front of a camera and “Trump” dangled in front of her like a matador’s red cape in front of a bull, she just can’t help herself. Out comes a snarl that sounds like: “When we’re in power, we are coming for you!”

Now, a real journalist might have jumped all over this ominous threat and followed up with some obvious questions for Hillary while she was doing her best imitation of Nurse Ratched.

Who exactly will be “deprogrammed”? Voters? Before or after the election? Since most people don’t voluntarily submit to “deprogramming,” what will be the nature and level of coercion, and what legal or constitutional justification for it will be offered? Who will do it? And, what does “formal” programming mean?

This sounds pretty sinister, but not to Christiane Amanpour, who always keeps her options open for hobnobbing with the powerful. Her function is as an enabler. She was tasked with moving this life-long case of dueling banjos of ambition and avarice through the interview without looking like what she is: a conniving megalomaniac short on impulse control. She understands that Hillary fails to realize that not everyone important out there thinks that she is a big bundle of wonderful. Hillary stupidly assumes that the listening audience is composed entirely of admirers and Clinton consiglieres such as John Podesta and Terry McAuliffe. She’s not bright enough to grasp that her take-no-prisoners scheming should perhaps be reserved for backroom discussions.

After Amanpour tries to steer Hillary back to less police state-style discourse, we get: “We have to be smarter about how we empower the right people inside the Republican Party.” Well, that’s better, except the filter still isn’t functioning, and this may be the most revealing line in the entire session. Who is the “we”? And who are the “right people inside the Republican Party”? Apparently not the people the Republican voters might approve of.

Okay, even regular CNN watchers may start to catch on to what’s going on here; it’s not a secret anymore. This is how the uniparty works, with managed opposition to make the ruling class look like they care about the voters. The “right” people, however, are always selected before the elections. 2016 caught the right people napping and Trump slipped past the guards — which is why he is now under indictment, just to be on the safe side. This is how “our democracy” is supposed to be with Hillary running the show — “empowering the right people” — and deprogramming the Untermenschen.

Think of this interview as a Hillary redo of the 2016 “basket of deplorables” speech. She still wants to be President. She’s a slow learner — stupid. She still can’t figure out why Donald gets so much traction, can’t comprehend why she lost to him, and can’t get over how much she hates the “basket” people.

Forrest Gump had her number: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.

1. Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.


2. Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)


3. Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.


4. Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.


5. Paywall members can “like” comments.


6. Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.