Should Hillary make an Impassioned Plea?

by Tom Kando

 This is our twentieth piece about the Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump race - just this year alone! I apologize for this, and obviously our fixation must come to an end in about a week (half of these pieces were about each of the two candidates, and roughly half were written by me and half by Madeleine).

The “Comey letter” has revived the persecution of Hillary Clinton for the way she has handled her e-mail. This is an unbelievable abuse of power by the FBI chief, whose attack is pure innuendo, an attack which says: “You MAY be guilty of something, but I cannot tell you what it is. Good luck defending yourself.” And to do this 11 days before the election is obviously meant to throw the election to the Republicans. It violates several laws and regulations, including the “60 days rule.” The timing is obviously calculated to inflict maximum damage, as Comey could have written the exact same letter six weeks earlier. The election is rigged indeed, although not the way Trump has alleged. This is a variation on what happened in 2000, when Florida’s Republican secretary of state Katherine Harris stole the presidency from Al Gore and gave it to George W. Bush.


I have written many times about the shameful way in which Hillary Clinton is being treated not only by her haters on the right but also by a majority of the mainstream media. I was pre-scient about how much worse this would get as the campaign progressed. See my posts going back several YEARS: Obsessive-Compulsive Hillary Hatred Disorder and The Persecution of Hillary Clinton, among others.

NEVER in the history of the United States has a public figure divulged more personal information and yet been accused of being secretive. She has revealed DECADES of her taxes, her detailed medical records, dozens of thousands of her e-mails. Trump on the other hand? No taxes, no medical records, nothing, zip, nada. Do the media clamor for more Trump disclosures?

Secretary Clinton is guilty of having a “private Hillary” and a somewhat different “public Hillary.” Oh, not that! Doesn’t EVERYONE?!?! Don’t YOU?

So now, a week before Election Day, Clinton is in grave danger of losing whatever advantage she enjoyed recently, caused by Comey’s disgusting sneak attack.

Nate Silver, of Five Thirty Eight, lists four strategies which Clinton should consider using to respond to the Comey attack: (1) demand more information, (2) attack Comey; (3) do nothing; (4) attack Trump. Of course, these strategies are not all mutually exclusive. For instance, Hillary has already done #1. But let me suggest a fifth possibility:

Would it not serve Clinton to offer one last major impassioned speech to the entire nation, one in which she would implore America to cease persecuting her, cease blaming her for things of which she is utterly innocent? The charges against her include (1) events where she did absolutely nothing wrong, events that belong under the heading “shit happens” (Benghazi), (2) events that involved mistakes, but never deliberate malice, in other words things of which 100% of us are guilty at one time or another (the whole damn e-mail business), (3) misbehavior by OTHERS, misbehavior of which she HERSELF was the victim (her husband’s dalliances, and now, unbelievably, even Anthony Weiner’s sexual misconduct). In Andy Borowitz’s  biting humor, we shall next hear about new evidence linking her to Lincoln’s assassination.

I realize that such a public plea for compassion and sympathy would take a page from Richard Nixon, one of our more flawed presidents. That man used such a strategy successfully several times. There was his famous checkers speech In 1952. He had been accused of some wrongdoings, and that year, as vice-presidential candidate, he addressed the nation on television, presenting an impassioned self-defense that played to the public’s softer emotions, for example by alluding to his little cocker spaniel by the name of Checkers. This sentimental speech helped Nixon’s career. He did something similar again in 1962: Having lost several elections, he addressed the national press corp with the now famous words, "you won't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." Of course, he came roaring back into the White House in 1968, only to finally vanish in ignominy in 1974.

A passionate, from-the-heart, plea for sympathy to the world helped Nixon. I am in no way equating Hillary with “tricky Dick.” Nixon’s accusers were often right, whereas I am firmly convinced that most of the charges against Secretary Clinton are bogus.

I merely ask whether such a strategy, at the last moment, might help stop the downward spiral of secretary Clinton’s polling statistics.

The best thing would be if someone ELSE pointed out how cruel and shameful Hillary’s treatment has been. Nearly every news event makes me cringe. I see her as a twenty-first century Joan of Arc, a heroine, a martyr, as someone being crucified while being as innocent as Jesus himself. Occasionally, President Obama and husband Bill have timidly touched upon Hillary’s victimization by a disgustingly cruel media and public opinion. But her “supporting cast” (including the brilliant Michelle Obama and Joe Biden) have preferred to focus on Hillary’s strengths.

I understand this. Somehow, in our macho culture, pleading for sympathy and fairness is viewed as whining, as a sign of weakness. People have pride. They don’t want to complain. You don’t grovel for justice. You bear your cross in silence, without flinching. You tough it out.

Still, is it possible that a plea to be treated more fairly and justly FROM HILLARY HERSELF, a great nationwide speech asking the country why she should be treated so cruelly, might touch some millions of decent people, people who might then suddenly wake up and ask themselves, like the lynch mob that suddenly comes to its senses, the riot that suddenly returns to reality, “what are we DOING to this woman?”
© Tom Kando 2016;All Rights Reserved

memory. leave comment here