COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SAMUEL OSBORNE IN THE
INDEPENDENT
"Renowned
pollster Nate Silver said Ms Clinton would "almost certainly" be
President-elect of the US if the election had been held on 27 October, the day
before Mr Comey's announcement."
First, we all know that the polls were wrong many, many
times. So how can you go back and compare polls with any meaning?
And I believe the polls were wrong because they were often
done or commissioned to give engineered results, not true insight. It's an easy
thing to do by playing with the sample used, and in at least one well-known
case, there was a penetrating analysis done on a “fake news” site showing the
flawed method in detail.
And the commissioning and publication of bent polls are just
what we would expect, given the performance of the entire mainstream and
corporate press during the election.
I never saw such a lack of all journalistic principles as
newspapers and broadcasters exhibited during the entire election. The
Independent, for example, was consistently and bizarrely biased in every
sentence and photo and cartoon that it published.
And, in the case, cited above, of an
analytically-demonstrated, truly bent poll, I recall The Independent featuring
the very poll as though it were an important new insight, a revelation.
Second, any decent writer never, never starts a sentence
with something like, "Renowned pollster Nate Silver." It is
question-begging right from the start.
It attempts to give an unproved sense of authority to all
that follows. It is, quite simply, a technique used by propagandists, tabloid
stories, and fakes.
Third, FBI Director Comey simply did what he had to do. To
ignore such discoveries would invite immediate attacks of special treatment. As
it is, she did get special treatment. That airplane meeting between husband Bill
and Comey's boss, the Attorney General, should have led to the Attorney
General's impeachment. It was scandalous behavior beyond telling.
It is a pathetic tactic of Hillary's to blame him. She has
no capacity for looking into the mirror and seeing why it is that she really
lost.
Fourth, of course, this all ties in, too, with her babyish,
whining, 1950s-style complaints about Russian hacking.
The fact is that the Russians, and likely a dozen intelligence
services, got into her State Department servers, and they left not a trace
because real professional hackers can do that, not leave a trace. A real
tribute to her professional incompetence.
Yet somehow, in the mental landscape of Hillaryland, when it
came to the DNC computers, it is now proved that the Russians did it. Utter
nonsense. There would not be a trace if they had.
There is considerable informed speculation that the DNC
hacks were the work of a Party insider. Lots of folks do not like this ugly-tempered,
mean-spirited woman. It has even been speculated that Obama himself secretly might
have commissioned such an effort, and I think that could have some substance to
it.
Despite all the phony camera-op hugging between Obama and
Clinton, they very much dislike each other. Bill and Hillary have made scathing
comments about Obama to third parties, and if I’m aware of them, you can be
sure Obama is. Who knows, but it sure would be a nice form of revenge to play
as though you were supporting her while setting secret leg-traps.
No matter what the case, we can be glad this ugly political
hack did not gain power. She is without redeeming qualities, has contempt for
ordinary people and blacks, has a record of corruption without parallel in a
candidate, a record of lying and incompetence, and she helped kill tens of
thousands without so much as suffering a moist eye.
