HILLARY CLINTON - IF ANYONE ASSASSINATED HER CHARACTER, IT WAS HILLARY HERSELF

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

HILLARY CLINTON - IF ANYONE ASSASSINATED HER CHARACTER, IT WAS HILLARY HERSELF

.

I was recently accused of character assassination by staunch Hillary Clinton supporters as a result of the mere mention in my article, "This Is Why I Don't Trust Hillary Clinton - She'll Do Anything To Win, And She Thinks We're Dumb," that once Hillary Clinton became desperate over her all but certain loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, she began to continually allude to the assassination of Robert Kennedy during the 1968 primary. She kept repeating that mantra as justification for why she didn't simply get out of the race. The mere mention of this episode seemed to drive these Clinton supporters up the wall. They said it was "water under the bridge," and others tried to make light of it as though I was some sort of crazy conspiracy theorist - "Was Hillary also responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania - and by the way, where's her birth certificate?" But the fact is, this issue is not funny, and it should be seriously examined.  

.
What made Hillary's remarks seem much more malevolent than a simple gaffe was, as pointed out in a Keith Olbermann commentary, someone had obviously told her that her mention of the word "assassination" was inappropriate since Sen. Obama had been receiving death threats every since the day he threw his hat in the ring to run for president, so Hillary stopped using the word - temporarily. But as her situation became more dire and it was all but certain that she was going to lose to Sen. Obama, she began using the word "assassination" again.
.
And later, On May 11th 2008, while appearing on Meet The Press, Hillary’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely."
.
So how much farther did they have to go, say, "Calling all wingnuts! If somebody - ANYBODY - don't kill this guy America could end up with a Black man for president!!!?"  

.

As writers and journalists, we should never tailor our opinions to appease our audience.  Audience appeasement and manipulation is the philosophy of Fox News, and it's one of the major problems that we have in our political environment today - political pundits and politicians are only telling the people what they want to hear. That's why America is so uninformed. Writers should ALWAYS seek truth, reveal what they find, and then let the people make up their own minds regarding what they believe; if they don't, they serve no useful purpose. If what you're saying is ridiculous, more often than not, the people will recognize it, but if a politician and his or her staunch supporters go ballistic at the mere mention of a subject, chances are, you've hit pay dirt.
.
These Clinton supporters tried to justified their position that what I was saying was ridiculous by pointing out that President Obama appointed Hillary to Secretary of State and she served him well. In response, I pointed out that Bill Clinton was pushing for Hillary to be given the vice presidency. But while President Obama had the good sense to throw Hillary a bone to heal the rift in the Democratic Party, he also had the good sense NOT to place her within a heartbeat of the presidency. In addition, Hillary wasn't serving the President as Secretary of State, she was serving her own ambition.   
.
In the interest of full disclosure, admittedly, I support Bernie Sanders - although, if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination she'll have my full-throated support, even though I'll be holding my nose in the process. I don't subscribe to the the Ralph Nader/Cornel West philosophy of becoming so upset with the Bogey Man that I leave the backdoor open for the Devil. But if I knew of, or found out, anything negative in Bernie Sanders' background, I'd be writing about it just like I'm writing about Hillary, because that's what I do. That's why at one point or another I anger everybody - Blacks, Whites, Jews, and Gentiles. The only people I haven't offended so far are Eskimos - but someone just informed me that by simply saying "Eskimo," I'm now batting a thousand. 
.

PERSONALITY CULT

So in my judgment, when Hillary Clinton repeatedly alluded to assassination while on the verge of losing the nomination to the first Black man with a legitimate chance to become President of the United States, that was, and is, a serious issue. That was much more than just a simple gaffe, and it shouldn't be fluffed off as such, because it speaks volumes about either Hillary's character, her judgment, or both. Thus, any journalist worth his or her salt should feel obligated to pursue this matter. It's about the obligation to follow truth wherever it leads and regardless to whose ox it gores. That's what both journalists, and true progressives are suppose to be all about, not joining personality cults. Only wingnuts and idiots place blinders on to support their favorite candidate. That's how we got George W. Bush - through the blind devotion of his less than thoughtful supporters - and we paid for it dearly, and we're still paying for it.
.
This is neither a one-issue matter, nor a popularity contest. We're considering the best person to become the next President of the United States of America, and that's an awesome responsibility - and again, we can't do that responsibly by joining cults.  The future of this nation, and the future of our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are depending on us to make a sober and intelligent decision on this matter, not to just vote blindly through knee-jerk emotionalism.  I addressed that issue in 2011 in an article entitled "Obama Supporters VS.  Cheerleaders."  I pointed out the following:
.
"There are two types of people who support President Obama. There are his supporters who want to see him be a success, and then there are the cheerleaders who simply go along with everything that he does and deeply resent his supporters who don't.
.
"The president's supporters understand the importance of remembering that in a representative democracy the president, and all politicians, are elected to serve the people, and not vice versa. They understand that all politicians are employees, and their primary job is to represent and protect the interest and principles of those who hired them. Thus, when we place the importance of any one man [or woman] above our own principles, we create a dangerous situation by corrupting the intent of our founding fathers, and turning the democratic process on its head." (http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-supporters-vs-cheerleaders.html)
.
So if anyone assassinated Hillary's character, it was Hillary herself.  I'm simply reporting it.

.

Eric L. Wattree 

wattree.blogspot.com

Ewattree@Gmail.com

.

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

THIS IS WHY I DON'T TRUST HILLARY CLINTON - SHE'LL DO ANYTHING TO WIN, AND SHE THINKS WE'RE DUMB

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

THIS IS WHY I DON'T TRUST HILLARY CLINTON - SHE'LL DO ANYTHING TO WIN, AND SHE THINKS WE'RE DUMB

(BELOW IS A REPRISE OF AN ARTICLE I DID ON MAY 26, 2008)
*

IS HILLARY ENGAGED IN SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING?
.

*

Beneath the spin has never been more meaningful than it has become during this political season, because it’s beginning to look like Hillary Clinton has taken it’s meaning to a new and very insidious level. After her comment regarding Robert Kennedy’s assassination, I began to consider all the “gaffes” that both she and Bill have been involved in during this campaign, and I’ve found strong evidence that points to the possibility that Hillary has been engaged in the practice of subliminal messaging throughout this campaign. If this is indeed the case, it makes her latest misstatement much more serious than many of us would like to believe.

Subliminal messaging involves sending messages to the subconscious mind that are not picked up on a conscious level. This technique is often used in advertising–sometimes overtly, but at other times very covertly. An example of the overt use of subliminal messaging in advertising is to have a beautiful woman caressing a new car that’s being advertised for sale. Having the woman there caressing the car sends a subliminal message to the subconscious of perspective male buyers that if they buy this car, it will draw beautiful women to them. Another example of overt subliminal advertising is in the use of Michael Jordan to advertise tennis shoes. It sends the message that if you buy these tennis shoes, it will help you to play basketball like Michael Jordan. Neither is necessarily true, but the beauty of subliminal messaging is since the message goes directly to the subconscious, it circumvents the scrutiny of logical thought.

That’s what makes the use of covert subliminal messaging so ominous. I remember studying one case in college involving a group of moviegoers who were subjected to the technique. In that case, while the group was watching a movie, one frame of a juicy and delicious-looking, cheese burger was spliced into the reel. the moviegoers never even noticed it on a conscious level, but the subconscious doesn’t miss a thing. Later, when they became hungry “out of the blue” and flocked to the concession stand, they never realized that they’d been manipulated.

This technique can also be applied in a political context. But instead of one frame in a reel during a movie, it becomes one word in a sentence, a paragraph, or even an entire speech. I suspect very seriously that this technique was being employed when Bill Clinton mentioned “Jesse Jackson” while discussing an Obama win in the South Carolina primary. By doing so, it was Bill’s intent to implant a subliminal message in the mind of the voter associating all of Jesse Jackson’s baggage, or perceived baggage, on the back of Barack Obama. The beauty of such a strategy is that it doesn’t matter what the context, as long as the statement is graphic, and mentioned while discussing Obama, it serves to implant itself in the mind of the voter.

Another example of subliminal messaging at work was in Bill’s post-Iowa remark that, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” He said that during a time when the Clintons thought that they still had a chance of getting the black vote, so by implanting “fairy tale” in the mind of black voters, it sent the message that they were wasting their vote, because Obama’s candidacy was a fantasy.

Hillary’s comment regarding John McCain having more experience than Obama is another example of this type of manipulation at work. Hillary said, “He’s [McCain] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

In this case, Hillary was trying to implant two messages. First, by saying, “He’s never been president, but . . .” She was attempting to implant the subliminal message that she had been president. Then, by aligning McCain and herself on the one hand, and Obama on the other, and saying Obama only had a speech, she was contrasting the white experience with the presidency, against that of a black man--and then dismissing Obama by saying all he could bring to the table was a speech.

That was the primary reason that no one could figure out why Hillary had aligned herself with the Republican candidate–it had to do with race, clear and simple. Notice her phrasing–McCain “will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience.” She emphasized, and then re-emphasized the word “lifetime”. So she wasn’t talking about governmental experience, or even legislative experience–she was talking about white experience. So the message she was actually trying to implant was, What experience could a black man possibly have that would prepare him to be president?

Then on May 8th she went there again when she said, “Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." The reason she stuttered after the first comma was because on her first attempt, she forgot to implant the word “white.” The message? Vote white.

In addition, the implication of her remarks left the message that white people are the only one’s who work hard. So the subliminal message is, if many black people are poor, yet, don’t work hard to remedy that condition, what does that say about them–and through extension, what does it say about Obama?

Now we come to her latest “gaffe” about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. She claims that her words are being taken out of context, but she could have made the very same point by using other examples. In fact, that would have been the prudent and compassionate thing to do considering Sen. Ted Kennedy’s condition, and what the Kennedy family was already going through. But for some reason, Hillary deemed it absolutely necessary to implant the word “assassination.”

And this was clearly not an issue that hadn’t been considered within the Clinton camp. On May 11th while appearing on Meet The Press, Hillary’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely."

So let there be no doubt about it, the Clintons know exactly what they’re saying--and it behooves us to listen very carefully to every word. Because these two are desperate, and they want to get back into the White House bad–real bad.
.

.

Eric L. Wattree 

wattree.blogspot.com

Ewattree@Gmail.com

.

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

.

Sphere: Related Content

IS HILLARY ENGAGED IN SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

IS HILLARY ENGAGED IN SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING?
.

*

Beneath the spin has never been more meaningful than it has become during this political season, because it’s beginning to look like Hillary Clinton has taken it’s meaning to a new and very insidious level. After her comment regarding Robert Kennedy’s assassination, I began to consider all the “gaffes” that both she and Bill have been involved in during this campaign, and I’ve found strong evidence that points to the possibility that Hillary has been engaged in the practice of subliminal messaging throughout this campaign. If this is indeed the case, it makes her latest misstatement much more serious than many of us would like to believe.

Subliminal messaging involves sending messages to the subconscious mind that are not picked up on a conscious level. This technique is often used in advertising–sometimes overtly, but at other times very covertly. An example of the overt use of subliminal messaging in advertising is to have a beautiful woman caressing a new car that’s being advertised for sale. Having the woman there caressing the car sends a subliminal message to the subconscious of perspective male buyers that if they buy this car, it will draw beautiful women to them. Another example of overt subliminal advertising is in the use of Michael Jordan to advertise tennis shoes. It sends the message that if you buy these tennis shoes, it will help you to play basketball like Michael Jordan. Neither is necessarily true, but the beauty of subliminal messaging is since the message goes directly to the subconscious, it circumvents the scrutiny of logical thought.

That’s what makes the use of covert subliminal messaging so ominous. I remember studying one case in college involving a group of moviegoers who were subjected to the technique. In that case, while the group was watching a movie, one frame of a juicy and delicious-looking, cheese burger was spliced into the reel. the moviegoers never even noticed it on a conscious level, but the subconscious doesn’t miss a thing. Later, when they became hungry “out of the blue” and flocked to the concession stand, they never realized that they’d been manipulated.

This technique can also be applied in a political context. But instead of one frame in a reel during a movie, it becomes one word in a sentence, a paragraph, or even an entire speech. I suspect very seriously that this technique was being employed when Bill Clinton mentioned “Jesse Jackson” while discussing an Obama win in the South Carolina primary. By doing so, it was Bill’s intent to implant a subliminal message in the mind of the voter associating all of Jesse Jackson’s baggage, or perceived baggage, on the back of Barack Obama. The beauty of such a strategy is that it doesn’t matter what the context, as long as the statement is graphic, and mentioned while discussing Obama, it serves to implant itself in the mind of the voter.

Another example of subliminal messaging at work was in Bill’s post-Iowa remark that, “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” He said that during a time when the Clintons thought that they still had a chance of getting the black vote, so by implanting “fairy tale” in the mind of black voters, it sent the message that they were wasting their vote, because Obama’s candidacy was a fantasy.

Hillary’s comment regarding John McCain having more experience than Obama is another example of this type of manipulation at work. Hillary said, “He’s [McCain] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

In this case, Hillary was trying to implant two messages. First, by saying, “He’s never been president, but . . .” She was attempting to implant the subliminal message that she had been president. Then, by aligning McCain and herself on the one hand, and Obama on the other, and saying Obama only had a speech, she was contrasting the white experience with the presidency, against that of a black man--and then dismissing Obama by saying all he could bring to the table was a speech.

That was the primary reason that no one could figure out why Hillary had aligned herself with the Republican candidate–it had to do with race, clear and simple. Notice her phrasing–McCain “will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience.” She emphasized, and then re-emphasized the word “lifetime”. So she wasn’t talking about governmental experience, or even legislative experience–she was talking about white experience. So the message she was actually trying to implant was, What experience could a black man possibly have that would prepare him to be president?

Then on May 8th she went there again when she said, “Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." The reason she stuttered after the first comma was because on her first attempt, she forgot to implant the word “white.” The message? Vote white.

In addition, the implication of her remarks left the message that white people are the only one’s who work hard. So the subliminal message is, if many black people are poor, yet, don’t work hard to remedy that condition, what does that say about them–and through extension, what does it say about Obama?

Now we come to her latest “gaffe” about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. She claims that her words are being taken out of context, but she could have made the very same point by using other examples. In fact, that would have been the prudent and compassionate thing to do considering Sen. Ted Kennedy’s condition, and what the Kennedy family was already going through. But for some reason, Hillary deemed it absolutely necessary to implant the word “assassination.”

And this was clearly not an issue that hadn’t been considered within the Clinton camp. On May 11th while appearing on Meet The Press, Hillary’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely."

So let there be no doubt about it, the Clintons know exactly what they’re saying--and it behooves us to listen very carefully to every word. Because these two are desperate, and they want to get back into the White House bad–real bad.
.

Eric L. Wattree 

wattree.blogspot.com

Ewattree@Gmail.com

.

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

.

Sphere: Related Content