The vanguard leftist English Press institution The Guardian in a two part essay covers what it entitled "Destroying Hillary Clinton". A must read for anyone who is interested in the historical nature of HRC candidacy. Penned by Maureen McCluskey and Melissa McEwan the article covers how some of in our blogWorld went after her including detailed links to the well known blog articles.  I'll let the article speak for itself.

The first part of the article is about "How a bitter primary campaign saw the right's discredited smears gleefully revived and reused by the left."

In 1998, as six years of a national campaign to demonize First Lady Hillary Clinton -- funded by conservatives and rooted in profound anti-feminism -- was reaching a fevered crescendo, then-conservative David Brock (now of Media Matters) penned a book called The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The publisher's note for the tome says of its subject: "No public figure in contemporary life has elicited more polarized reactions than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The first presidential spouse who pursued a major policymaking role, the beleaguered first lady has been a heroine and role model to her feminist allies - and a malevolent, power-mad shrew to her conservative foes."

Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole "malevolent, power-mad shrew" thing sounded pretty good, too.

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as "wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn't matter we swear." The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Clinton was suddenly a bitch, a witch, the Queen of Hearts "who has parasitically attached herself to the legacy and record of" her husband, the screech on the blackboard with an elitist trademark laugh. "Hitlery,""Hildebeast," and "Billary" - staples of 1990s criticisms of the feminist First Lady have returned with a vengeance. She was a monster, the devil in a pantsuit, targeted with dehumanizing and eliminationist rhetoric to which liberal bloggers used to object when the right used it against liberals, but apparently now consider okay, as long as it's only directed at a candidate they don't like.

For more of the first part of the article follow the link :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2008/jul/01/hillaryclinton.uselections20 08

The second part of the essay covers " Why did the left uncritically accept the claims aired by Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh?

When I saw last year the article by David Broder in Washington Post where he referred to the Clintons as two headed monster, I had a good inkling what was coming..

It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren't even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them.

Not content to merely destroy the entire Democratic party single-handedly, Hillary Clinton was hell-bent on murder. Evidently having failed to satiate her bloodlust after murdering Vince Foster - or such was the claim of her ideological enemies, a charge still being chanted like a demonic incantation by rightwing pain-maker Rush Limbaugh - now she was openly lusting for the assassination of her opponent, Barack Obama. (That is not to suggest there were no legitimate concerns about her statement.) And Randi Rhodes - a "progressive talk radio personality" - fresh from calling Clinton a "fucking whore," fanned the same flames when she announced fearing for her life after delivering the insult to someone who routinely has her enemies whacked.

"Billary", the two-headed monster created by the rightwing to demonize the "two-for-one" presidency of Bill Clinton and his feminist, advisor wife Hillary Clinton, also stumbled out of its grave, given new life by liberals who defended the Clintons against the very same attack when it was her being used against him during his administration, but now found it politically expedient to use him against her. Billary was back in vogue, and infamous Clinton-haters in the media like Maureen Dowd or Chris Matthews (who remains as fixated on Clinton scandals, especially the Lewinsky matter - the scandal that made his career - as ever) accused Hillary of being nothing without her husband, only having come within inches of the presidency because her husband had cheated on her. The progressive blogosphere largely remained silent, or, worse, acquiesced by suggesting there was some truth to the categorisation.

For more of the second part of the article follow the link to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2008/jul/02/hillaryclinton.uselections20 08

To quote the famed Harvard historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich:

Well behaved women rarely make history.

Update [2008-7-3 18:1:9 by louisprandtl]: Well Folks, looks like this had generated lot of good discussions. It is clear that there are lot of bruises and emotions still out there. There is clearly a need within the party and the progressive community to address the sexism and racism that still pervades our country. Unfortunately we (and I mean collective We) progressive liberals/moderates perpetuate it sometimes unknowingly using rightwing frames. It is necessary for us to openly discuss these important issues so that the primary wounds can truly heal. We need to come together to fight the good battle for November General Election for our great nation and for our future in the World stage. But we need to understand and nurse our own bruises..calling each other silly names or troll rating or hating each other is not helpful, neither should we box anyone to a corner...hopefully time and camaderie would heal us..Onward...

There's more...

I kept saying it again and again and again.  If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I would support her.  That may no longer be the case.  I think anyone who's ears and mind are open, who's eyes see objectively and don't see only what they want to see, who's hearts are not blackened by the poison of blind partianship, I think all of them will know why.

Earlier in the week, Hillary Clinton said that John McCain will bring a life time of experience into the White House.  She said she would do so too.  She said Obama would only bring a speech that he made.  I called the comment stupid, possibly a misstatement, and no big deal worth prying over.

There's more...

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has already completely debunked and discredited the phony U.S. scare tactic that the country of Iran has any Nuclear Missiles or is even in a position now to develop Nuclear Missiles.  Like the lies used to create irrational and unfounded fear about the helpless and pathetic country of Iraq, these allegations are just a repetition of groundless NeoCon War-Propaganda.

But facts were never important to  Hillary "Yellowcake" Clinton before, and once again they aren't again now.
Just today, the Guardian Washington correpsondent reports:

CLINTON WOULD USE VIOLENCE AGAINST TEHRAN

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday October 15, 2007

Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its "nuclear program".

In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies.

"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Ms Clinton said.

Link:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/ hillaryclinton/story/0,,2191830,00.html? gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

There's more...

In my research of this area I have discovered that there has been a threat of war for years over waters being diverted from the Wazzani River in Lebanon, and Israel's alleged attempts at taking water from the Jordan and the Litani Rivers. Therefore, is taking out Lebanon's pumps and gaining control of the Litani and Wazzani Rivers now also part of the plan of these current attacks?

There's more...