The media has apparently woken up sort of to the fact that the current President does not tell the truth and does not care whether he tells the truth. Still some struggle with calling out the obvious lies and still they do not always press for answers. Still they are willing to talk with members of the the current President's staff despite knowing those individuals will lie to them. They even seem concerned now about the growing evidence of possible collusion between the current President's election team and the Russians who sought to influence the outcome of that election. But during the campaign the media routinely dismissed Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff's warning about Russian interference.
Rather than actually focus on the lies, the overt racism, sexism, fear-mongering and ties to Russia that emanated from the current President and his campaign staff during the election, the media gleefully chased stories about Hillary Clinton's emails and discovering who donated to the Clinton Foundation. They bought the whole "pay for play" scenario drummed up to taint Hillary Clinton while ignoring the fact that the current President was engaged in what certainly seemed like "pay for play". But then again, the media has had a long-standing love-hate-love affair with Hillary Clinton. When she is either in office or out of office and NOT running for anything, the media acknowledges her intelligence, wit and ability to do the job well. But once she decides to run for office, then the media turns against her. They portray her as a conniving, ruthless, liar who will do and say whatever will get her what she wants. They have done this for so many years that there were enough people who learned to believe the lies rather than the truth to prevent her from becoming President. Ironically the description of Hillary Clinton could easily describe the current President quite well yet the media never portrayed him that way.
Hillary Clinton faced not merely an uphill climb in her quest to shatter the highest glass ceiling, she faced an obstacle filled, booby-trapped mountain of soaring height. She was criticized for the sound of her voice, for not smiling or for smiling, for what she wore and what she didn't wear, for the sound of her laughter. What male candidate faced such a constant barrage of criticism about such trivial matters? During the primary season Hillary had to tread gently as she squared off against her opponent. She could not risk alienating his supporters. Apparently he was much less concerned about alienating her supporters because he and his surrogates denounced her as part of the establishment, beholden to Wall Street and wealthy corporations and just not progressive enough to really wear the mantle of liberal. As the outcome of the primaries turned more and more favorable toward Hillary winning the nomination, her opponent and his surrogates continued their relentless attacks while riling up their supporters to oppose Hillary. How did they ever expect that those people would just forget about all the words and accusations and reasons they heard against Hillary to then cast votes for her? Too many never did. In the general election, she was repeatedly criticized for not having a message and not being able to connect with voters while the republican candidate was praised despite his message being one of fear-mongering and anti-immigration.
When Hillary lost the Presidential election, her primary opponent's supporters railed against the Democratic Party for not choosing their candidate. He would have won, they taunted. The Democrats had made the wrong choice. They picked someone so flawed that she could not even beat a Republican opponent that should have easily been defeated. An opponent that many polls showed she would defeat. Their candidate would have easily won according to polls despite the fact that he could not win the nomination. Well that was stolen from him. Really? How? The Democratic Party did not control the outcomes of voting. Perhaps their candidate would have won because he would have something Hillary did not have: a united Democratic Party determined not to allow the Republican candidate to win. That is something Hillary did not have.
Nor did Hillary Clinton have the support of all Democratic women. Some women, in particular the younger voters, were outraged to think that they would be counted to support a female candidate because she was female. For them the struggle for women's rights was something they read about in history books, not something they lived. The battles had all been fought and the struggle was over perhaps they thought. But what they could not seem to understand is just how fragile every one of those gains still is and how easily they can be taken away. That is something we have witnessed in the past few days as protections for women in the workplace were removed by executive order. Hillary would never have had the support of every woman because there are still women who reject the idea that women should be treated as equal to men. Whether it is their culture, their religion, their upbringing or some combination of all three, they will never believe in equality for women.
So Hillary and her supporters climbed that obstacle filled, booby-trapped mountain of soaring height together and fell together as the election results became clear. She would not shatter that glass ceiling not because she did not get enough votes to win, she actually won the popular vote, but because she did not get enough votes in the States that she needed for a victory. Now as we face such an uncertain future with the fate of country in the hands of a man who lies because he knows he can and surrounds himself with people who will do more harm than good in their postions, we can only imagine what could have been. One thing is certain in these chaotic times: Hillary's supporters will always stand with and be with her!
No comments:
Post a Comment