Account Share


Thread by @frodofied: "It's nearly inarguable that @HillaryClinton is viewed by the majority of the men & women in the MSM that she should be silenced, increas […]" #Resistance

, 74 tweets, 19 min read
8 subscribers
It's nearly inarguable that @HillaryClinton is viewed by the majority of the men & women in the MSM that she should be silenced, increasingly at all costs.

The full answer as to why so many have lent themselves, whether consciously or not, to this cause remains elusive.

We do know many of the reasons why they fight so openly against Clinton and they include an often unacknowledged level of real misogyny that is horrifying for it's obviousness, it's depth, and the lengths to which many go to pretend it does not exist.

I have written many, many threads on the subject of @HillaryClinton. For me, she remains one of the most competent, most talented, and most comprehensively knowledgeable of her or any generation. Those who actually surpass her on any of these scales remain few.

That she's also one of the most maligned public figures of that same group should be a surprise to really no one.

Clinton is no longer just a person and it could be argued that the problem is that her personhood is often denied b/c she's perceived by many to be just a woman.

This fact alone is disturbing for all kinds of reasons, many of which extend across a great many academic disciplines including psychology, sociology, political science and many others.

At its heart lies a truth not often talked about in depth, to our collective detriment

Whether fairly or not Clinton was long ago elevated to a higher level of significance by many across the political spectrum. She's either the answer or the warning-- the proverbial canary in coal mine.

Clinton is more than Hillary now. She's a symbol, an emerging archetype.

Many early generation feminists understand this, yet too few younger ones seem to understand the connection to their lives. But failing to thread this needle could have catastrophic consequences for future women in public.

Truly, Clinton's battle IS a feminist battle.

And the blueprint for how they defeated her, and, like it or not, it would seem that they have (in a broadly political sense), is already being used against others. In fact, variations have been recently employed against @KamalaHarris, @SenGillibrand, @SenWarren & others.

This generational divide is in many ways understandable. The questions that Clinton and so many of the women of her generation answered now seem anachronistic to young feminists.

But if we are not careful, they are questions we might someday be forced to reckon with again

There is a reason, for instance, that, when discussing her many accomplishments we choose to highlight that she graduated first in her class at Yale Law.

People forget that when Clinton attended she was still the exception. Only 26 other women matriculated in 1960.

Many, if not most, law professors still believed that the law, and the study of it, was a male pursuit. They considered it an aggressive and masculine arena that women would necessarily fail in.

@HillaryClinton proved them all wrong.. And she did it on their own turf.

The significance of Clinton, and many other women's accomplishments can hardly be overstates. Their determination against a rising tide of social and generational resistance forced the doors open, but their drive, abilities intellect, humor, and fortitude KEPT them open.

Diane, Susan, & Melinda do not face questions today about whether it is appropriate for women to engage the law, or even if they are capable of doing so, because @HillaryClinton helped solve that equation for them.

She didn't just graduate, she graduated First among many.

Clinton like successes reverberated through the hallowed halls of not only Yale, but others besides. "Did hear about that Clinton girl? First in class at Yale Law. I never would have imagined.* was certainly a part of many professorial conversations in 1963 & beyond.

For those interested in an introductory look at Clinton's time and work at Yale, this article is a nice place to start.

But Clinton's accomplishments and the unapologetic way she pursued her academic career, had political and cultural ramifications as well. To the political right, women like Clinton were introducing something toxic into the American mainstream.

They were poison.

Some even saw it (and correctly I would argue) as a direct assault on the white supremacist patriarchal doctrine that had ruled this nation since Washington first took the Oath of Office.

The resentment that Clinton fostered has followed her everyday since, and grown.

For some balanced analyses of many young feminist's rejection of Clinton and a look at the barriers Clinton struggled against at Wellesley and beyond I suggest these two links.……
The roots of the right's HATRED of Clinton run deep, reaching far back into the annals of our history. Religious doctrine served as the basis for almost all views and laws pertaining to women from Colonial times onward. The mythological tale of Eve & the Apple still haunt.

The late Joseph Campbell was forceful in his insistence that popular mythologies affected our views and shaped our worldview whether we adhered to their lessons or respected their worth.

He considered this an obvious fact.

Understanding Christian mythology, particularly the stories of Eve, the Virgin, & the Magdalene is essential to understanding America's unique Protestant based brand of misogyny.

Until quite recently in America people went to church. Hillary Clinton still goes to church.

From the pulpit of the American church preachers from New England to Cali preached that women were inherently immoral and too easily swayed. They were disloyal, dishonest, and unable to be trusted.

This message was, while tempered in some denominations, nearly universal.

Women's nature, therefore was exposed/determined at The Fall, and the only way to save society from them, or indeed they from themselves, was to keep them in line, in the home, & at the hearth.

These were the core beliefs of most Americans right up to the last century.

These ideas often formed the basis for many of the arguments put forth by various anti-Suffrage movements that sprung up to fight Women's right to vote.

In their list of reasons to oppose Women's Suffrage a 'Household Hints' pamphlet offered this:
So, what does any of this have to do with the subject at hand?

I would argue everything.

Campbell would have argued that foundational beliefs are hard to grow beyond, and he would be right.

If 2016 proved anything it proved that.


I argue that Protestantism's focus on certain stories from Christian mythology & their often literal translations of tem form the basis of American misogyny. This misogyny is not then only a symptom of the culture. It's actually in the material they built it with.

That particularly American misogyny (and Racism) that has governed our ethics & legal presumptions for centuries was able to influence those, then, who considered themselves above such influence.

It's why it's so easy for people to believe the worst out of Hillary Clinton.

It's why even good progressive men unhinge when she's discussed. Our nation is actually built on the notion that women are unrepentant until made so.

When a Hillary Clinton graduates first in her class at an elite mostly male institution she becomes a traitor among us.

When she works to defend those who must be kept in line, like women & children, she becomes a subversive whose intent is to tear at the fabric of American existence.

When she does not take her husband's name she becomes a danger to society.

When she does not bake cookies she becomes a radical.

When she stands up to the men around her she becomes a bitch.

When she runs for the highest office in the land and does so as the most qualified for the job in a generation, she becomes the enemy at the gates.

Many of us learned as kids that curiosity, jealousy, arrogance, disloyalty, dishonesty, and naivete, caused Eve to partake of stolen fruit in hopes of obtaining more that was not hers.

We were then denied paradise & all women marked w a blood curse to expose her nature.

Whether we realize it or not our subconscious lives have been shaped by these ideas even if we have not had direct contact with them. Because, whether or not we have, our friends, mentors, teachers, and lovers have.

And we often rely on them when shaping our own opinions.

When the far right began their assault on Clinton almost thirty years ago, it did so with confidence.

Their insurgency movement was building. Rush Limbaugh was pulling AM radio ratings that made some television producers weep. Anne Coulter became a thing.

But both Clinton's proved hard to topple. Hillary Clinton, still young, vibrant, & smarter than her husband, worried them most of all. Behind closed doors she was tough as they came & was known for too often having the better argument.

She had a future & everyone knew it.

People forget that @HillaryClinton has been fighting a two front war off and on for almost the whole of that time.

One front was protecting the legacy of her husband, a man she really loved. She knew that few lay people understood what Bill Clinton's administration faced.

When Hillary Clinton talked of "a vast right wing conspiracy" she was not exaggerating. Since the days of Lee Atwater the Republican machine had become a win at all cost, take no prisoners group peopled with political mercenaries.

What the Clinton administration faced was unprecedented at that time. Large corporate interests, ultra-rich conservative donors, the nascent but incredibly powerful RW radio media coalition, a bevy of well funded think tanks, religious leaders, & an army of investigators

worked in tandem to demonize the Clinton's and anyone associated with them and to thwart Clinton's policy agenda on every front.

To do so, this network developed strategies and shared information and even assigned time sensitive tasks.

They were incredibly successful.

For some insight into the RW assault on the Clinton administration I highly recommend "The Hunting of the President" by @JoeConason & Gene Lyon (and subsequent documentary)…

Also "The Hunting of Hillary" by Conason &e Lyons

The kinds of accusations against the Clinton's that leaders within mainstream conservative media openly embraced & even discussed as fact were a harbinger of things to come. If fake news has an antecedent, it can be found in the conservative response to Clinton's presidency.

The evidence for some of these accusations often barely reached the level of hearsay. Those directed at Hillary were the most brutal & were often simply invented.

This brings us to the second front Clinton has had to fight, the one for her personal legacy & reputation.

They have accused her of everything. They have called her everything. They have lied about her and have done so with compunction.

They have denied her significance while also exaggerating her power.

This push and pull has happened in the open and is well documented.

It is rarely easy to have to defend oneself against reasonable forms of criticism, but when faced with the kinds of ridiculous, even downright preposterous, accusations that have been levelled against @HillaryClinton it takes a special kind of restraint & self-awareness.

That so many in the mainstream media allow these wild accusations to exist without challenging them on moral or journalistic grounds speaks volumes about their desire to for Clinton to both fail and fall.

And many do, because the MSM has a vested interest in her failing.

For over 25 years journalists, newspapers, and magazines have taken the bait on Bill and Hillary Clinton and have never learned their lesson.

It's reflexive now, particularly as regards HRC.

And no matter how often she is vindicated they refuse to acknowledge or relent.

It's best for the reputations of many that there always be the faint smell of corruption or scandal follow Clinton even in the best of times.

For her to be publicly vindicated would mean that the MSM had willingly taken part in a two decade long character assassination.

It would mean a whole lot of smart people had been wrong, or lazy, or themselves corrupt. It would mean that she never had a fair chance to be judged on her abilities or her strengths.

The media exists to expose such malfeasance. Most are terrible at their jobs.

The kinds of corruption that we are watching happen in real time as the Trump Administration dismantles our democracy has existed in the Republican Party at every level for over two decades, only then it happened in closed door meetings and at Koch brother's retreats.

But the media, much of it owned by the very parties who have taken part in this corruption, have largely ignored this fact.

They have also ignored the lies. So many easily disproven, instead have been allowed to be repeated over and over.

They ignore the hypocrisy too.

In truth Donald Trump is forcing out into the light that which was once kept in Darkness. His Antics, his dishonesty, his corruption, and his belief that his opinion matters more than others because of his well are not new they are in fact defining features of the @GOP.

The question, usually asked rhetorically, wistfully, & often while staring off into the distance, that I most often receive while doing my #Resistance work on the street is "How could this have possibly happened?"

They have their ideas, of course.

Often they blame Clinton.

The media is almost always mentioned.

Sanders is frequently, as is Obama.

But hands down the number one factor mentioned is Russia.

They almost always want to know my opinions. I am, after all, a guy with a clipboard resisting alone on the street, so I must be smart.

I usually begin by asking how much more time they have.

They always laugh. I never laugh.

You all see how long my threads are? Imagine me talking to with full physical animation at a speed which makes it seem like I should cut back on the coffee.

For those with plenty of time and real interest I suggest they buy me a soda (I'm a poor resistor y'all) & find a quiet spot.

If their answer was Clinton I always begin my response with "Are you an idiot?"or, more likely, "You should know I worked hard to elect Clinton."

Now, even I have to admit that my client presentation is pretty damn awesome. Often I am accompanied by a woman in the group or CIS couple constantly saying, "See, I told you!"

White middle-class married men hate me.

A lot.

But where I am most passionate is in my critique of the US media. Know, when I talk about the US mainstream media I do not I want to suggest that it was everyone. There were a great many amazing journalists and producers of content who worked hard for truth.


I've found that if I'm taking about the sins of the US media from roughly mid-2014 through, um, let's go with yesterday, it's best to try to stick with bullet points with limited comment. Because I tend to go on tangents...


1. The @nytimes -

The commentary here will be longer and will include specific examples which I consider pivotal or particularly egregious. But it will in no way be comprehensive. That would not be possible in this format. For some outside analysis:
The New York Times have had a contentious relationship with the Clinton's, particularly Hillary, since the early 1990s.

It has only gotten worse over time.

But no one could've predicted the unethical approach the paper took w/ Clinton in 2016.

I have written many threads about the US media's actions, inactions, and the systematic way they worked, often in tandem, to ensure that the reporting on Clinton was consistent, negative, and strategic.

No other single media entity impacted Clinton's campaign more.

The Times would call my view ridiculous, but it's not based on opinion, it's based on the data & several studies by major universities conclude much the same.

Columbia Journalism Review:
"...the most influential mainstream media was gossip-prone and uninformative."

The Columbia Journalism Review, singled out the Times in particular calling their coverage "as superficial and scandal-obsessed as any online outlet trafficking in political gossip in the 2016 campaign."

It was their own reputation that shielded them from early criticism.

Any complaint by Clinton supporters or the campaign was dismissed out of hand as partisan barking, with some actually arguIng that if Clinton's team was uncomfortable it was evidence that The Times was doing it's job.

Except no, not even close.

The fact of the matter is in the final months of 2014 The New York Times could say with 90% certainty that Hillary Clinton would, in fact, make a second run for US Presidency. That she would also win the nomination was obvious.

The Times would do anything to stop her.

The idea of major US media entities working together to thwart the political ambitions of any politician would sound ridiculous unless that politician represented an existential threat to our democracy, but it was not Donald Trump that they were trying to stop.

It was her.

What's strange is that hardly tried to hide it, from the beginning the media was openly provisioning themselves an adversary to her campaign. And given her history, @HillaryClinton had ever reason to believe them.

In a well produced video, short on special effects but showcasing a beaming Clinton, on April 12th 2015 Clinton declared herself a nominee for the Democratic nomination.

Exactly one week later came this.

(Thanks to my friend @tomwatson)

When Tom Watson posted this a couple of weeks ago I was thrown. I had forgotten this story. At the time, as the server story (timed by Gowdy to step on her announcement) was exploding it became just another story.

But it's actually an important piece of forensic evidence.
The deals that were brokered obviously predated Clinton's announcement. The Times (and others) were now in the business of paying for opposition research about particular candidates, from dubious sources.

This was the warning shot fired across the bow. 69/
No one who had known or followed @HillaryClibton's career, or who had ever worked for her, or who had survived 2008 expected it would be easy.

But I doubt that Clinton's amazing team which included @RobbyMook, @jmpalmieri, & @brianefallon had any clue what was in store.

No one knew except the perpetrators.

Trey Gowdy knew and so did Jason Chaffetz. Their special relationship with the New York Times kept Clinton on the ropes throughout most of 2015 and 2016. "Anonymous sources" or simply "sources" my ass.

Symbiosis anyone?

Gowdy had been generous enough to hold off on announcing the "discovery" of Clinton's private email server until she announced her bid for the presidency.

He's a good guy like that.

But the server was never a secret. There was no reason for it to be.

In fact, the best Gowdy can argue was that he didn't know until 2013. That's when Guccifer (the original) hacked Sidney Blumenthal's emails.

We knew then.


But @HillaryClinton wasn't yet running for President so it remained what it was, nothing significant.

What's strange is that they hardly tried to hide it, from the beginning the media was openly positioning themselves as adversary to her campaign.

And given her history, @HillaryClinton had every reason to believe them.

Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.
8 subscribers
This content can be removed from Twitter at anytime, get a PDF archive by mail!
This is a Premium feature, you will be asked to pay $30.00/year
for a one year Premium membership with unlimited archiving.
Don't miss anything from @frodofied,
subscribe and get alerts when a new unroll is available!
Did Thread Reader help you today?
Support us: We are indie developers! Read more about the story
Become a 💎 Premium member ($30.00/year) and get exclusive features!
Too expensive?
Make a small donation instead. Buy us a coffee ($5) or help for the server cost ($10):
Donate with 😘 Paypal or  Become a Patron 😍 on
Trending hashtags
Did Thread Reader help you today?
Support us: We are indie developers! Read more about the story
Become a 💎 Premium member ($30.00/year) and get exclusive features!
Too expensive?
Make a small donation instead. Buy us a coffee ($5) or help for the server cost ($10):
Donate with 😘 Paypal or  Become a Patron 😍 on