Thursday, April 16, 2015

How Secret Is Hillary's Secret?

Nate Silver had her at 50/50.

Specifically, he thought that Hillary Clinton’s chances of being the next president were about 50%.

For my part I thought the likelihood was considerably less, though that might very well have been wishful thinking.

After Jonathan Chait declared that Hillary was likely to win, Megan McArdle wrote a detailed analysis, showing why Hillary was anything but inevitable.

Like Silver, McArdle suggested that reading the present as a mere recurrence of the past was a mistake.

One understands that pundits like Chait are not merely reporting the news. They are trying to influence public opinion. People like to side with winners. If more people believe that Hillary will win they will be more likely to vote for her.

But, hold the presses. The National Enquirer has just published a story suggesting that Hillary wanted her emails on a private server because they contained potentially embarrassing information about her lesbian lovers. (Via Instapundit)

Having to choose between revealing the names of her lovers--and even the content of their correspondence-- and taking a public relations hit for deleting the emails, Hillary chose the latter.

Anyone who feels tempted to dismiss the Enquirer as tabloid trash should first put in a call to John Edwards.

According to The Enquirer everyone knows that Hillary prefers women to men as love interests. Of course, it’s one thing to know in the abstract. It’s quite another to know the specifics, beginning with the names.

The Enquirer writes:

Hillary Clinton isn’t just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint as secretary of state – she’s also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!

Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential candidate’s famously “deleted” emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers’ names.

“I don’t think she’s so concerned about emails referring to her as secretly gay,” said a Clinton insider. “That’s been out for years – her real fear is that the names of some of her lovers would be made public!”

The ENQUIRER learned the list of Hillary’s lesbian lovers includes a beauty in her early 30s who has often traveled with Hillary; a popular TV and movie star; the daughter of a top government official; and a stunning model who got a career boost after allegedly sleeping with Hillary. 

Even though stories about Hillary’s sexuality have been widely reported, how many people really know them? How many people really want to think that Bubba is Hillary’s beard?

One suspects that many people dismiss these stories as malicious gossip, planted by the vast right wing conspiracy. If the stories have not appeared in the mainstream media—and they have not— most people are more likely to remain skeptical.

When the nation was forced to face the details of the sexual predations of Bill Clinton, people tended to blame the messenger. Most people did not want to know what Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were doing. Their revulsion at having to think about the details trumped any concern about his lies.

More strangely still, when Juanita Broaddrick came forth on NBC to claim that Bill Clinton had raped her, most people did not believe her or did not care.

If one is inclined to say that the mainstream media buried the story, the truth is that NBC, a major media outlet, ran an hour’s worth of Broaddrick telling what happened to her.

On the other hand, those who have granted themselves the power to speak up for oppressed women—the feminist sisterhood—had nothing to say about Bill Clinton’s history of abusing women.

If the feminists didn’t care, why would anyone else?

Perhaps Americans were feeling prosperous and believed that such behavior was understandable, given who Bill Clinton was married to. Or perhaps, in an increasingly decadent culture, they were willing to grant him what the French call: droit de cuissage.

The question is: are they willing to grant the same rights to Hillary Clinton?

Or would they prefer not knowing?

But, if the stories are true, why hide them? Haven’t we all learned by now that there is nothing shameful in loving whomever you please? If the media hides the stories, doesn’t that suggest that it ought to be hidden?

Obviously, Hillary’s defenders will say that she needed to keep it all a secret because of the nation’s rampant homophobia.


On the other hand, making the emails you exchange as a government official private and then destroying them is a larger problem. After all, should a government official have the right to delete the historical record in order to erase her amorous exchanges with Huma Abedin?

6 comments:

Ares Olympus said...

Zzzzzzzzzzz... what was that?!

Okay, as the X-files says "The truth is out there."

So Bill was the first Black president and Barack is the first Woman president. What's left for Hillary?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/03/bill_clinton_i_loved_being_called_the_first_black_president.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372898/barack-obama-first-woman-president-matthew-continetti

So Hillary can be the first bisexual president! That's the ticket!

Ambiguity is a key character trait for politicians.

I imagine a fun thing about blogging is you have dated proof when the truth comes out, and you can say "I told you so!"

Meanwhile I'm still waiting to find out what alien race left those flashlights on Ceres! Do you think NASA is going to cover them up? But why didn't they cover them up initially? Why pique our interest, and then blame it on some stupid ice volcano?

I'm going to be really grumpy if we don't discover those Lizard people on Ceres. That would explain so much.


Kaiser Derden said...

maybe folks would care that she was cheating on her cheating husband ... it could be a double negative that works in her favor ...

Sam L. said...

Don't make no nevermind, Ares; you'll be grumpy, come rain or come shine.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Stuart, please don't use the word "homophobia." It is a silly, made-up word by a bunch of activist morons. It's beneath you. Saying "people who are scared of homosexuality" is accurate, clean and within the bounds of the English language.

Similarly, I would also like it if people stopped using this euphemism called the "N-word," as it is similarly juvenile and moronic. Either say the word or say "racial slur." That's what it is. If it's good enough for Huckleberry Finn, I don't know why newscasters need to patronize us by being prudish about the reality of it.

Anonymous said...

Enquiring minds want to know!

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

The whole libertine/libertarian argument ridiculous when it comes to politicians and their sexual mores or infidelities.

Do I want to know if the President and First Lady have sex, how often and in what ways? Of course not! It's none of my business. What is my business as a citizen is to evaluate whether the candidate has the dignity the office deserves and can maintain fidelity to the role they declared they were running for, with all its attendant privileges and responsibilities.

Political office is a public trust, not a right. This idea that this is Hillary's "turn," or other such nonsense like "It's time we had a woman president" are silly chants that diminish the dignity of the office. Add the usual Clintonian behavior and we turn the idea of "public service" on its head.

I have high standards few can meet, but I consider the importance of the roles. To that end, I firmly believe that clarity and prudence in sexual matters are important for a politician, and a condition of the office, more so as one rises to higher positions of power.

Why? Because human beings still have sex in private because it is intimate, and there are all kinds of things we don't want people to know about our bodies, our tastes, etc. Sexual dignity hinges on discretion. This is a human universal.

The truest thing that ever came out of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was "Everyone lies about sex." Yes, and lies compromise character and leave the liar open to blackmail. We all have skeletons in our closet, we are all sinners. That's not the point. The point is: what end will a candidate or politician go to in order to protect their secret? Bill Clinton boldly lied to the American people on camera, wagging his finger and talking about "that woman." Hillary's email rationalizations are disturbin, and if they are tied to covering up correspondence with lovers, this emphasizes my point.

If Hillary is a lesbian, she's a lesbian. It's her choice. Whatever. But if she cannot be honest about it, she is a security risk. That's a huge problem for someone who is the President of the United States.

Kennedy may have slept with an East German spy. Was that just a personal choice? JFK burning off some steam? Was it just between him and Jackie? I don't think so. You want the job, you deal with what comes with it. Otherwise, you're not worthy. And that's what campaigning and elections are all about: evaluating the candidate. Hillary is a FAIL in the integrity part, which is the most important to me. I don't care whether she's a lesbian... given her history with Bill, it makes sense. But if she's covering something up, the coverup owns her and there are tremendous consequences.