It’s Time to Bring Back Bernie

Hillary’s bid for the presidency is no longer defensible; it’s time to bring back Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee.

The issue isn’t Hillary Clinton’s health per se; what is indefensible is her response to legitimate questions of the American public regarding her health.

Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself to be President of the United States because she is incapable of telling the truth about anything. There is no such thing as truth or transparency in the Clinton persona and campaign; everything is an ongoing experiment in perception management.

First one narrative is floated; if the narrative shifts the public perception positively, it is defended to the death, and anyone questioning it is instantly accused of being a conspiracy theorist from the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that has been Hillary’s favorite defense for 30 years.

If this tried-and-true attack fails, then the questioners are accused of being sexist, partisan, etc.

If the first trial balloon narrative doesn’t gain public perception traction, it’s quickly dropped and another explanation is unleashed on a willing-to-accept-anything-as-“fact”-from-Hillary mainstream media.

So when the “overheated” explanation in 79-degree weather doesn’t get traction, then it is dropped in favor of pneumonia, which mysteriously puts most sufferers in bed but Hillary declares that she feels great.

This process of replacing explanations and narratives, interspersed with attacks on anyone who questioned the previous narrative, is repeated until the perception management result is satisfactory. Hillary is clearly incapable of honesty–the word has no meaning, because all communication is aimed at concealing or obscuring the facts of the matter and defending what is visibly indefensible as if perception management is the same as the truth. It is not the same, but Hillary is incapable of discerning the difference.

This reliance on attacking the questioner to delegitimatize what is a legitimate inquiry also disqualifies Hillary. The American public has a legitimate interest in how Hillary Clinton benefited from the Clinton Foundation’s hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from overseas donors during her stint as secretary of state.

The American public also has a legitimate interest in the health of presidential candidates. John F. Kennedy’s poor health was masked by a compliant media in the early 1960s, but that sort of duplicity is no longer condoned. The American public wants an accurate accounting of the candidate’s health.

As you view the clip of Hillary collapsing, study the body language of her multiple handlers. I’m not referring to the Secret Sevice agents; I’m referring to her private handlers and aides. Note their extreme defensiveness about anyone seeing what was happening to Hillary. Their way of propping her up doesn’t look like it was the first time they had to prop her up; their actions were practiced, automatic.

They are accustomed to propping her up and masking her true condition from the public. Study the clip; it’s all there, in plain view.

Their hyper-wary posture was not just an attempt to shield the candidate from anyone seeing a moment of weakness; their over-protective watchfulness for “eyes on the candidate” is 24/7. Their only job is to mask the truth of Hillary’s condition, whatever it may be.

This tells you everything you need to know about how Hillary will operate as President: there will be no honesty, transparency or truth, ever. Life for Hillary boils down to managing perceptions and hiding facts–inconvenient or otherwise. This is not a campaign strategy–it is her default mode of existence, the only way she knows how to operate.

Hillary’s health may or may not be decisive, but what is decisive is how she has banished honesty, truthfulness, candor and transparency. The issue for Hillary and her handlers is not the facts of her health; it’s how to manage public perceptions of her health in a satisfactory manner.

We don’t just need to know whether Hillary suffers from conditions beyond allergies and pneumonia. What counts most is whether she is capable of being honest, forthright and truthful about legitimate, important issues. She has clearly proven that she is incapable of being honest and truthful about anything, very likely because she cannot distinguish between plain, simple truth and perception management.

Let’s be honest for a moment, and confess that this is a character flaw that disqualifies the candidate from holding office. The last two presidents who saw their job as hiding the truth and managing perceptions were Richard Nixon during the Watergate era, and Lyndon Johnson during the War on Vietnam.

Attacking every legitimate inquiry as a “vast right-wing conspiracy” is not governance; it’s a paranoia and distrust of the American public that leads inexorably to catastrophes like Watergate and wars of choice that drag on as the bodies and lies pile up.

It’s time to bring back Bernie Sanders, a candidate who can tell the difference between the truth and perception management, someone who isn’t an embarrassment to the nation. I understand that Hillary’s coronation as Head of the Deep State has already been scheduled by the Powers That Be, but that doesn’t mean we too must lose the ability to differentiate between the truth and perception management.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • JerseyCynic

    It’s like a scene right out of – um – Weekend at…… Hillary’s?

    after a few hours expelling demons at Chelsea’s apartment – she’s FINE~

  • Aug 24, 2016 If Voting Made Any Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It

    Don’t be fooled into thinking that the only road to reform is through the ballot box. Whether you vote or don’t vote doesn’t really matter. What matters is what else you’re doing to push back against government incompetence, abuse, corruption, graft, fraud and cronyism. After all, argues John W. Whitehead, there is more to citizenship than the act of voting for someone who, once elected, will march in lockstep with the dictates of the powers-that-be.

  • nomadfiles

    “The last two presidents who saw their job as hiding the truth and managing perceptions were Richard Nixon during the Watergate era, and Lyndon Johnson during the War on Vietnam.”
    I dunno. I’d have to put Barack Obama in that category. That seems to have been his primary MO. Changing the way people feel about issues rather than addressing them. Changing terminology. What are we calling drone murder now? I forget.

    • Eric Zuesse

      Exactly so, except that George W. Bush was likewise lying through his teeth; and so was his father, and so was Bill Clinton (on a few important things, not only his sex-life). Why be at all selective about this? Lying has now become the settled essential technique for winning the U.S. Presidency.

      • nomadfiles

        So true. It’s just that Obama seems especially manipulative. And spectacularly so. That healthcare reform was a feat to watch. A masterpiece of mass manipulation. And don’t forget the inordinate amount of politically convenient (apparent) false flags that have occurred on his watch. And the betrayals!!! Trying to sellout social security! He’s at least on a par in public deception with Nixon and Johnson. Probably out does them.

      • nomadfiles

        Oh! And let’s not forget this little gem. Like Trump said, he did create ISIS! But Americans don’t know about it. How’s that for perception management? The kid is an ace!

      • nomadfiles

        And Syria! Another Obama perception management project. Not failed, since he persists, but remember how we were supposed to be psyched into invading with a false flag gas attack? The guy is oleaginous

        “President Obama has gotten a pass for almost eight years from self-styled anti-war elements that back his proxy war against Syria. Phony anti-warriors blame the Syrian government for resisting jihadist head-hunters in the pay of Washington and its allies. They have become supporters of state terror, and cannot comprehend that “there would not be bombs of any kind, sieges, starving children, or refugees” if the Obama had not launched his war.”

      • nomadfiles

        perception management – now he wants us to equate Putin with Saddam Hussein

        i say Obama is the epitome

  • ClubToTheHead

    If a vote for Stein is somehow determined by Democrats to be
    stealing a vote from Hillary, the assumption must be that there is a common
    ground between Stein and Hillary that would result in a split vote.

    A vote for Hillary in a state where she is sure to lose is a
    wasted vote since it has no effect on the outcome of the election.

    So if Hillary would campaign for Stein in states where
    Hillary is sure to lose and Stein would campaign for Hillary in swing states to
    ensure a Hillary win over Trump, then both would stand to win something from
    the participation of each other in a joint move to the left.

    A CBC broadcast claimed that this worked in Canada where two
    liberal parties, where instead of splitting the liberal vote to the advantage
    of the major conservative party, the liberal parties coordinated to defeat the
    major conservative party.

    If Hillary did coordinate with Stein to ensure a more
    certain defeat of Trump, she would demonstrate that she considers a candidate
    to the left, and a move to the left, is a lesser evil than a possible Trump

    If Hillary did not cooperate with Stein she would
    demonstrate that her real interest is in consolidating the power of Democrats
    and anti-Trump Republicans to defeat Trump in a move to the right.

    In other words, Hillary will be in a position to choose a
    rightward move to defeat Trump with the support of anti-Trump Republican votes
    or a leftward move to defeat Trump with the support of Green Party votes.

    In a close election Hillary must decide from her perspective
    whether Trump or Stein is the lesser evil.

    If Sanders could still become the Green Party candidate and
    coordinate with Hillary in the way proposed here, Sanders would not go down, as
    he fears, as the “Ralph Nader of 2016”, but as making the decisive
    move in the defeat of Trump.

    Sanders has already subordinated himself to Hillary so this
    would not be a stretch, and would also empower the movement of his

    • cstahnke

      You are assuming Clinton is a “progressive.” She’s not nor is she the lesser of two evils. This notion that American elections are about “issues” is ludicrous. They are about power and control between a number of allied gangs who have not one iota of interest in the common good. That political world faded away gradually since ’63 and disappeared after 2001.

      • ClubToTheHead

        I make no such assumption.

        Hillary will make known who SHE considers a lesser evil, the Greens or the Republicans by her choice.

      • ClubToTheHead

        Since neither party of the duopoly will campaign in any state except where the polls are so even that they present as swing states, all votes for a sure loser in those states are wasted votes. It doesn’t matter if Hillary loses by one vote or by a million votes, she will receive absolutely zero Electoral College votes from that state.

        For example, if a state is given up as a lost battle for Hillary with Trump at 60% and Hillary at 40%, then all votes for Hillary are wasted votes because they have absolutely no impact on the number of Electoral College votes Hillary receives because Electoral College votes are allocated by winner-take-all rules.

        If millions of votes that would otherwise be wasted in voting for Hillary were instead given to the Green Party, the Green Party would become viable by exceeding the 5% vote total to be recognized as a national party in all states.

        Bernie Sanders could campaign for Hillary Clinton in swing states as he has pledged to do from the very beginning and still campaign for the Green Party in states where votes for Hillary would otherwise count for absolutely nothing.

        This would further strengthen the electoral power of the very voters that supported Sanders in the primary without splitting the vote and ensuring a Trump win.

  • Sarastro92

    Au contraire, Clinton’s health IS an issue per se. First, she was being neurologically assessed on Sunday. She went into convulsions and collapsed. She’s had a number of these attacks as Bill Clinton blurted oiut Sunday (and the CBS News redacted).

    In any case, after seeing this video, getting a snow job from Clinton and her people, a lot of voters can ask: Is Hillary going to make it to Inauguration Day, no less 2021?

    Is this the portrait of a strong, steady commanding leader the nation needs. Or is this a damaged, debilitated, lyin’ old lady we don’t like to begin with, and either stay home on Election or vote for another candidate?

  • Charlie Primero

    I agree. Bring back the Marxist.

    Even the warmongering Republicans now pledged for Hillary would vote Trump.

  • cstahnke

    What you say is impossible. Unlike Trump, he cannot afford first-rate security and has no allies in the National Security State and support from that direction is a requirement. We live in a gang-dominated political reality, not the Constitutional Republic many think we live in–you know that as well as I do, maybe better.

  • ICFubar

    Why bring back .B.S. as a sycophant member of the Democratic-Republican Party singularity. Not that voting counts much under this singular paradigm as the offerings are merely a choice between “Coke and Pepsi” despite all the hoopla and campaign rhetoric. Personally I don’t see any political platform that I could endorse in total. While the Greens under Stein seem the least objectionable their noxious mantra surrounding ‘anthropic global disruption’, as currently termed, and as a means of population control is stuningly inappropriate considering the current state of climate science with the valid scientific questioning being raised that no policy makers should ignore. This fact about the Greens gives me cold feet and leads me to question their validity as to being truly progressive or whether they are just another form of a ‘left’ leaning group of individuals who also ‘know what is best’….and I consider myself a ‘leftie.’

  • Silverado

    Bring back a…socialist?? I’d rather go to the dentist…