I have been telling you about the need to peel away the layers of BS that cocoon the candidates and which isolate you from the truth, crippling your ability to vote wisely.
This need to peel away the layers applies to both the candidates and the people who speak for them, as it does to the media which filters the information that reaches you.
Some of you may be aware already of the comments of legendary journalist Bob Woodward, who broke the Watergate story for The Washington Post in the 1970s. That story led to the downfall of then President Richard M. Nixon. Others of you will not be aware, because most of the media seem to have ignored or to given the most cursory play to what Woodward said in an interview Sunday with Chris Wallace of Fox News.
Please keep in mind that I think most people and journalists would consider Woodward a reporter who looks through a liberal lens.
So on Sunday, with news out from Wikileaks that the King of Morocco gave $12,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for a visit from Bill and Chelsea Clinton, and perhaps other considerations, Wallace asked Woodward for his take on the accusations that the Clintons used their foundation as a pay-to-play scheme.
“It’s corrupt. It’s a scandal”, Woodward said in a quote provided by mostly secondary news sources but which was included in a story that appeared in the left-leaning Huffington Post. “The mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined. And it’s corrupt. You can’t just say it’s unsavory.”
That’s a damning judgment based on the facts, coming from a veteran, legendary journalist like Woodward.
We can extrapolate two things from Woodward’s judgment.
First, we see how the standards of journalism have changed. Forty years ago, the pattern of facts demonstrated by the Clintons, Hillary’s campaign, Hillary’s operation of the State Department, and their “charitable foundation”, would have undergone massive, relentless scrutiny by the press. Newspapers and TV networks would have pursued the story until they had uncovered everything. Character, or ethos, the ethical attitude given off by the person being examined in the public light, possessed a significance to news people and voters that it does not today. Hence, we see little meaty reporting on the Clintons.
Nonetheless, we arrive at our second and most important point, and it comes to you in a question: Do you really want to elect Hillary to sell out America?
Hillary is not going to change. She is not going to uncorrupt herself. She is not going to stop using elected office to enrich herself by selling what she can of her country. She cannot. Her habits have grown long, thick roots into her soul. She does not want to change. She could not change even if she wanted.
You can change, however. You can look the facts straight in the eye. You can acknowledge you have been misled, that a person you thought was good and well-meaning in fact was not. It’s a tough admission to make to yourself. I get it. The facts aren’t going to change for us, though.
Hillary says all the right things, but she does something different.
You can exercise your reasonableness and your foresight and say, “I cannot vote for someone of such weak and poor ethical character. I cannot vote for someone who bases her decisions on what will enrich her. I cannot allow Mrs. Clinton to expose our national security and our American lives to unnecessary danger. I cannot allow Mrs. Clinton to sell out my country.”
Join Americans of all political stripes, some who have not even voted in thirty or forty years, and take a stand.
“I won’t let Hillary sell out my country!”