Hillary Clinton Smears Bernie Sanders In What Happened

More excerpts have been released from What Happened.  After Bernie Sanders spent months campaigning for Clinton, she repaid him by smearing and lying about him in her new book. While Hillary Clinton does get dirtier than most, such attacks on political opponents are expected during a political campaign. Hillary Clinton takes the political slime to new heights by continuing her dishonest attacks long after the primary is over, undermining her claims that Bernie only entered the race to disrupt the Democratic Party. If anyone is disrupting and damaging the party, it is Clinton.

CNN reported on this exchange from her book:

In her forthcoming book, Clinton noted that the Vermont independent “isn’t a Democrat.”

“That’s not a smear, that’s what he says,” she wrote. “He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.”

After outlining how she disagrees with Sanders’ view of the Democratic Party, Clinton concludes, “I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too.”

Clinton also complained that Sanders “attacks against her during the primary caused ‘lasting damage’and paved the way for ‘(Donald) Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign.'” Actually it was Hillary Clinton who paved the way for the Crooked Hillary campaign when Clinton used her political position to sell access and influence. This includes grossly violating the ethics agreement she entered into before she was confirmed as Secretary of State. What is really sad is that she does not even understand why her actions are rightfully considered crooked.

Clinton is also clueless as to the ideological differences between Sanders and his supporters and Clinton: “Because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn’t make an argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character.” This ignores the many areas of disagreement, including her support for neoconservative interventionism, her far right wing record on civil liberties, her right wing views on social issues, and her dishonest attacks on single payer health care.

Clinton contradicted her own argument elsewhere in the book when she criticized Sanders’ ideas. She cannot consistently both deny there were disagreements on policy on one page and attack his ideas on another.

Despite her claims of agreeing on so much, during the campaign Clinton falsely claimed to be to the left of Sanders on guns during the campaign, despite his D- lifetime rating from the NRA, when it was Clinton who had described herself as a “pro-gun churchgoer” in 2008.

Clinton’s problem is that she did not stand for anything and could never answer questions as to why she was running. If she really stood for something, she might have written a book promoting what she believes in as opposed to resorting to a book of bogus excuses for why she lost.

Clinton even resorted to repeating the debunked Bernie Bros narrative, which was actually created by Clinton supporters in an attempt to discredit her opponents. While sexist attacks on her supporters as she described undoubtedly did occur, comparable attacks on Sanders supporters from Clinton supporters were probably far more common on social media, with their attacks being both racist and sexist with their repeated slurs against “white males,” often including quite a bit of profanity. I have blocked far more supporters of Hillary Clinton on Facebook than backers of any other candidate for their rude, dishonest, and harassing behavior. This included Clinton supporter Tom Watson, who released portions of the book on Twitter.

Clinton’s arguments were essentially the same type made by her most rabid supporters such as Peter Daou, who launched a new pro-Clinton propaganda site over the weekend, which I wrote about yesterday.

There is some justice in the world. Despite the attempts of Clinton and her supporters to promote her with such falsehoods, Clinton’s favorability has fallen further since the election. As The Hill points out:

According to the latest Harvard-Harris Poll survey, Sanders is the most popular active politician in the nation, at 54 percent favorable and 36 percent unfavorable. Clinton’s favorability has not improved in her time out of the spotlight. She remains underwater at 42 percent positive and 53 percent negative.

There is an excellent chance that Clinton’s book will backfire and her favorability will fall further. RogueDNC correctly showed what section of the book store What Happened belongs in their graphic above.

Update: The Hill reports, Sanders brushes off Clinton criticism: ‘Look forward and not backward’

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Comments

  1. 1
    Llis says:

    What the heck is wrong with this woman? Her book, so far, reads like a fairy tale, with her the damsel in distress. In reality she was the wicked witch who along with her wicked sister DWS and the DNC rigged the primary so Bernie couldn't win. Now she wants sympathy because even with that, she couldn't best Trump? She needs to go back in the woods. I don't want to see her or hear from her whiny self any longer. I would never vote for her for anything, even dog catcher.

  2. 3
    Darrell Eldridge says:

    The most disturbing thing about Clinton's book is that it shows that she is suffering from such a large ego and is arrogant to the point of blindness. She has the same problem as most of the elite persons in our society, they feel entitled. The election processes for public officials have been bastardized to the point of total dysfunction. She is trying to rationalize loosing an election they fixed for her to win through control and exclusion. The nomination process which is used to determine the ballot is used to control who is on the ballot to make the results of the election more predictable and controllable. The same is true of how the Electoral College is represented and counted.

    The way the constitution is written, the candidates for the offices of President and Vice President are chosen by the electors and which office they will hold is determined by which candidate receives a majority of the electors ballots. Today this is all backwards, the candidates are choosing what office they want and who they want in which office, as well as the electors to vote for them, and this even includes changing the electors ballots to reflect the popular vote of the state, which is unnecessary in the electoral college system.

    First the electoral college is underrepresented because the House is underrepresented, 435 representatives instead of 11,000 representatives. That means there should be 11,100 electors in the Electoral College instead of 535. These electors are also to be chosen by each state, by the representatives of each particular representative district, either by the representatives themselves or by the constituents of that district, to represent the will of the people of that district. Yes there are two state wide electors which correspond to the Senators for each state.

    Here is the cool part, candidates who aspire to either the office of President or Vice President can make their aspirations known, but it is not incumbent of the representatives, or electors, to consider them or place them in the position they desire on th elector's ballots. That will be decided upon the counting of the ballots of the Electoral College who received the majority, and for which position. In case you still don't understand, of the 11,100 electors, each can have two different people on their ballots for President and Vice President, than all the other electors. There is no constitutional requirement that they vote for a common ballot of candidates with predetermined positions or as a ticket.

    Wow, that is a pretty profound statement, the electors choose the best persons to serve and in which positions. The candidates don't choose which office they will serve in and who they will serve with, or what their agenda will be once they are elected to serve.

    If you would like evidence of my above analysis, review the results of the first Presidential Election as recorded in the Journal of The Senate.

    In Harry Potter terms; the wand chooses the wizard. Meaning, the President and Vice President are chosen by representatives of the people, and for which office they will serve, not the other way around. Jefferson found this out, to his dissatisfaction and frustration in his first three attempts to be elected President. The elections Jefferson was evolved with are a great study in Electoral politics.

    By all rights Clinton should have either been President, if the electoral college were counted correctly, or Vice President since she was the other person to appear on the electors ballots. Vice Presidential nominees don't count, they essentially were not on the ballot because of the coupling of candidates into a single ticket receiving a single ballot vote of the two available to each elector.

Leave a comment