Hillary Clinton has more chance of becoming president of Libya than she does the US

John Wight
John Wight has written for a variety of newspapers and websites, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal.
Hillary Clinton has more chance of becoming president of Libya than she does the US
If the antidote to Trump is Clinton, the antidote to cancer is heart disease, such is the grotesque perversion of democracy in the land of the free.

The news that Hillary Clinton intends to make another run for the White House in 2020 will have sent a chill sliding down the spine of every student of William Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth.’  

"By the pricking of my thumbs,

Something wicked this way comes."

Wickedness and Hillary Clinton walk hand in hand. Indeed wickedness is her particular field of expertise, dressed up in the clothes of liberalism. That said, perhaps where she’s concerned it is liberalism dressed up as wickedness, what with it becoming ever harder to distinguish between the two.

A creed that sanctifies sanctimony and hypocrisy while vilifying truth and justice, liberalism to paraphrase Einstein is the measles of mankind. And in this Hillary Clinton is merely the most egregious example. She is a woman for whom the world and everything in it is tantamount to a buffet that is useful only to the extent it feeds and nourishes US hegemony.

In 2016, her campaign for the White House fell apart at the seams, shorn of credibility as the sheep is shorn of wool, in her case by the shepherd of truth that is WikiLeaks. Corruption, double-dealing, lies and mendacity – you name it she and the Clinton Foundation she runs with her husband were exposed as the acme of it.  

Laid out in pristine Technicolor in the now infamous Podesta emails was revealed irrefutable evidence of her and her husband’s tawdry record of avarice, compounded by an obsession with status and power in the face of which even the Borgias would recoil. Even reading the revelations contained in the emails now, two years on, the stench remains strong.

The Democratic Party primary was stitched up to ensure that no matter the fact her opponent Bernie Sanders – running on a platform of wealth redistribution and social justice - was much the more credible and viable candidate to run against Trump, he never stood a chance. The Democratic Party machine made sure of it - made sure that the machine woman with the machine heart, that is Hillary Rodham Clinton, got ‘selected’ come what may.

In the subsequent campaign, she ran for president with a sense of entitlement the size of the Pacific which went a long way to allowing a man to enter the White House, as the nation’s 45th president, who is more suited to occupying a psychiatrist’s office than the Oval Office.

The wrath she unleashed in the wake of her humiliating defeat was directed not at the person responsible – herself – but instead at Russia, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, alleging collusion and conspiracy.

The result of this preposterous exercise in deflection was an investigation, headed by former FBI honcho Robert Mueller, into Russia’s non-existent interference in the 2016 election. Known colloquially as Russiagate, Mueller’s investigation has at time of writing turned up zero – nothing, nada – not so much as a sausage of credible evidence of Russian state collusion in Trump’s victory.  And this is regardless of the deployment of considerable resources, taxpayers’ money and effort with the objective of proving such.

In an interview conducted earlier this year to promote his acclaimed book on the Trump White House - ‘Fear’ – author and award-winning US investigative Bob Woodward revealed that, despite the fact he “looked for it hard” over the two years he spent researching the book, he could find no evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election.

So here we have a candidate, Hillary Clinton, shown to be as corrupt and grasping as a huckster peddling fake watches, initiating with the support of an equally corrupt liberal establishment, an investigation that has plunged relations between Washington and Moscow to an all time dangerous low.

Even the English language in all its wondrous capaciousness is unable to furnish a word capable of describing such wilful mendacity.

What should not be forgotten is that Hillary Clinton’s Olympian propensity for speaking untruth to the masses was exposed well before 2016. In a 2008 article for Slate magazine in the US – ‘The Case Against Hillary Clinton’ – Christopher Hitchens eviscerates the woman, lifting the rock of her character to reveal the insects beneath.

Writes:                                                                           

What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor?

Please do tell:

On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995 - the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy “experience”- Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim “worked” well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton’s memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.

Here now the clincher:

Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking.

The Clintons, Obama and their liberal works were the midwife of Trump and his neoliberal chaos begot right-wing populist rage, and if this right-wing populist rage is allowed to beget more neoliberal chaos in 2020 then the American experiment in the cult of the individual will surely give way to a second civil war.

For the masses of the poor across America, as well as a world aching to break free of the Empire’s tentacles, the differences between the Republican and Democratic Party wings of this simulacrum of a democracy are close to none at all.

As Gore Vidal points out with impeccable aplomb: “One does not bring a measuring rod to Lilliput.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.