Posted on 10/05/2017 7:23:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
Autobiographies, like dramas, usually include passages of unconscious self-revelation of character. Hillary Clinton's latest memoir, What Happened, is no exception. But, like the Bible, it will be interpreted differently by different readers. Her devoted followers will find it poignantly honest, while her foes will perceive thinly veiled narcissistic tirades. The latter should be cautious about mocking her; she may well go down in history as one of the major promoters of religion in our time.
I'm reminded of the story about a holy missionary who died and was received in Heaven by a crowd of angels and saints. Soon, a trumpet sounded, and everyone but his guardian angel left to join a much larger crowd greeting a scowling unpleasant-looking man. The bewildered priest turned to the angel, who said, "Don't be surprised. He's no saint, but he saved far more souls than you. He was a notoriously reckless driver, and wherever he drove, people prayed." So it was with Hillary.
According to one count, her book blames her defeat on James Comey, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, the New York Times, the media as a whole, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, sexism, white resentment, and her own misstatements. Others attribute her loss to her inept handling of the Benghazi attack, her private email server, dubious aspects of the Clinton Foundation, and a long string of past scandals, from Whitewater to Travelgate.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Her devoted followers will find it poignantly honest, while her foes will perceive thinly veiled narcissistic tirades.”
LOL! So true. Over at Democratic Underground there are threads and threads of DU-ers bowing down and worshiping at the alter of Hillary and this book. Quite a few saying they cried reading certain chapters, awed by her strength and honesty.
/gag
According to one count, her book blames her defeat on James Comey, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, the New York Times, the media as a whole, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, sexism, white resentment, and her own misstatements. Others attribute her loss to her inept handling of the Benghazi attack, her private email server, dubious aspects of the Clinton Foundation, and a long string of past scandals, from Whitewater to Travelgate.
All of which were caused by her conduct.
i dont get people worshiping her.. even if i thought a liberal, she just isnt a very nice person.. shes a B@tch actually...
If I were dating, I would consider any woman who voted for Hillary as a ‘no way’.
So cozy.
I agree that “cow” and “hillary” are interchangeable.
Uh, no.
I think Trump is great guy..but I do not worship him.
I do not believe he is infallible or a diety...?
lefties would be okay with hilsabob if she were a dictator.
Thank GOD no Macedonian content farmers were in the room with this group of angry women.
They can't stand it if they are not making gods out of people who have celebrity status. It's like they are all mentally frozen at 14.
Bottom line: Hillary CHOKED. She “knew a thing or two” about dealing with mean old men but PawPaw Trump twisted her knickers REAL tight. Sent her shrieking through the woods. The Valium/Chardonnay drip slowly returned her to an ordinary level of unhappiness and HATRED.
YES!! exactly!! I dont worship anyone, if Trump screws up, I say so... sometimes I think Hillary could gas their own children and they would say see! she did it for the good of the planet!
Agree.
I like some of his policies; I think them better for this country. It doesn’t mean I worship, like, trust or care for the man, he was simply the more qualified of two candidates I had to choose between. That gets some morons calling one a ‘never Trumper’ and other morons calling one a woman hating fascist :-(
Some people can’t discern between that and supporting Hillary or Worshiping Trump; I’ve friends on the right who seem appalled I don’t think him the greatest patriot and businessman ever and friends who are equally appalled that I supported him over Hillary.
I pretty much don’t like ‘rich kids’ (having been one of the poorer ones in a rich high school), as a Californian don’t even like the NY accent to say nothing of attitudes, and having been badly screwed by someone declared ‘bankruptcy’ will never trust someone who did, *BUT* didn’t want to assist the USA in committing cultural and economic suicide, either.
The Clintons benefit from something I call “we never made a mistake” vote too. Voting for a Clinton reaffirms earlier votes for Clintons. This goes back to Bill’s first term when the it started to seep in that there was more than just womanizing to be concerned with.
As the left undertook the emotional, quasi-intellectual circling the wagons around Bill, adopting notions of evidence to exclude evidences that could be had and beginning a cycle of accommodation/further scandal/more accommodation they started down a road to desensitization. The pride with which they continued to support the Clintons being part of this.
Naturally, this irrational process didn’t start in a virulent form and only obtained its true irrational character over the years.
Conversely, those predisposed to care about wrongdoing often became more attuned to it.
It finally reached a fever pitch during the Obama years where I observed that it seemed as if they had learned to manage scandal with scandal, keeping a steady stream of up damaging issues coming as a way to prevent any shocks from big issues arising. This works two ways: when the left is preconditioned to circle the wagons they do so BOTH because they do not want to face it and also because they are resisting the offense at perceived wrongdoing of Republicans.
I was able to reach this conclusion because of early observations about Obama that clearly suggested he was able of this amount of cynical manipulation.
I’m referring to something I saw in an interview before the 2008 general. In it Obama was asked if, after the election, people might be disappointed in him and his answer let slip what was likely the brilliant manipulative technique behind his rapid rise and success.
He basically said that, yes, people would be disappointed in him because they were likely to have voted for their own fantasy of him. He explained that as a largely unknown quantity that had positioned himself as an agent for hope and change it was left open for people to provide the hope and change that they wanted, to look at his statements and rhetoric in light of that personalized version of “Obama” and then vote for that. He said that when illusion met reality that disappointment would be the result.
Now, at that point I think he may have been lying, for if I could notice the “we never made a mistake” phenomenon then others could too. Obama’s whole career, from when he was groomed and introduced on, seems to have been orchestrated to make a powerful politician. If someone could arrive at the idea of using the self willed delusion of voters to bring about success at the polls then they would probably have the ability to see what went on with Bill and rely on that to their advantage too.
Simply, once emotionally invested in him and his hope and change, Obama voters who might have been disappointed were more likely to protect themselves from it, to alter their expectations of Obama so that they were always in the know, had never been wrong. What he is, where he goes, they would follow. The alternative, the red pill, was simply never going to be an option for many.
Now, going back to what I said earlier, about excluding any evidences that that can be offered, I’ve described this interview by Obama, which I DID see, before and the attitude of leftist is that unless I have a clip they can watch it just didn’t happen. It isn’t evidence because it isn’t proof sufficient to disabuse them all at once.
It actually goes deeper than this, though, for you can show (as happened with a number of Wikileaks emails) a progressive some evidence and later make a reference to it and they will not remember it from when it was previously showed to them, so unless you produce it again, they challenge, it isn’t true (or they may even remember it and act as if they don’t for rhetorical purposes). If they are honest or not about their recollection, here something like Wikileaks, which is vast, works against you (finding a particular email published months ago) and the left knows it.
So, in summation, the left automatically circles the wagons, they resist any evidence that can actually be given demanding a standard of proof to basically you must disabuse them all at once or go home, being emotionally invested they ultimately never made any mistakes, they go along with their leaders as a result drawn along after them because of effects like I’ve tried to to outline here because to escape is to face the possibility of having voted for bad people, corrupt people, and that’s just not gonna happen.
The PEOPLE saw that experience as lying, cheating, stealing, power-hungry, entitled, spoiled, greedy, corrupt, sell-out, hypocritical...married to a perv with identical traits.
My liberal relatives, who are likely highly intelligent by measuring IQ only, believe that she is an honorable and “nice” person.
This case shows that there is no correlation between iq and character.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.