XPost: alt.journalism.gonzo, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.greens   
   XPost: nm.general   
   From: investigate.pelosi@cnn.com   
      
   In an interview with "60 Minutes" that aired on Sunday, Hillary   
   Clinton actually said something that is undeniably true: "I   
   often feel like there's the Hillary standard, and then there's   
   the standard for everybody else." By that, Clinton meant to say   
   that she often gets treated unfairly. Which is also true.   
      
   But then Clinton went on to claim that by "Hillary standard,"   
   she meant that she is uniquely singled out for "unfounded,   
   inaccurate, mean-spirited attacks with no basis in truth." That   
   should have elicited a laugh from CBS News' Scott Pelley, but   
   instead he asked this tough follow-up question: "Why do you put   
   yourself through it?"   
      
   Anyone who isn't blinded by partisanship can see that there is,   
   and has been, a Hillary standard. But not one in which Hillary   
   is the victim. It's one in which she, because of her party   
   affiliation and gender, is held unaccountable for any wrongdoing   
   that would doom mere mortals.   
      
   We don't need to run through the familiar litany in detail, but   
   suffice it to say that if a Republican had been secretary of   
   state when a U.S. ambassador was killed by terrorists in a   
   country that the secretary's own policies had destabilized, that   
   person would unlikely be the party's nominee.   
      
   If anyone but Hillary Clinton had set up a private foundation   
   that took money from government officials who were at the same   
   time seeking favors from the federal government, she'd never   
   have survived the scandal.   
      
   And if anyone but Hillary had set up a private email server   
   while secretary of state, for the express purpose of protecting   
   her correspondence from Freedom of Information Act requests,   
   well, first of all, the press would likely have exposed it while   
   she was secretary of state.   
      
   Once the email scandal did come to light, her blatantly obvious   
   and yet endlessly repeated lies would have sunk any other   
   candidate a long time ago. It's also unlikely that the FBI would   
   have concluded -- after amply demonstrated that she was grossly   
   negligent in handling national security information -- that no   
   "reasonable" prosecutor would want to try Clinton for her   
   crimes. If it weren't for the Hillary standard, there would be   
   "reasonable" prosecutors lined up around the block eager to try   
   this case, if for no other reason that to show that no one is   
   above the law.   
      
   Finally, if anyone but Hillary had been so greedy as to make   
   half a million in one day giving speeches, and more than $21   
   million over the course of two years, to major corporations and   
   special interests, no one would ever take her seriously when she   
   complains about "greed."   
      
   To be sure, the "Hillary standard" isn't entirely unique to   
   Hillary. It's more like the "Democratic standard," whereby   
   Democrats generally are treated differently than Republicans.   
   Democrats can lie, cheat, viciously attack opponents, be as   
   corrupt as the day is long, and the press will play it down,   
   ignore it, or make excuses, all while sending armies of angry   
   reporters chasing after even the slightest perceived GOP   
   wrongdoing.   
      
   Clinton is like Nietzsche's "Ubermensch," except in Nietzsche's   
   version, the Ubermensch didn't whine about being above the law.   
      
   http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/yes-there-is-a-   
   hillary-standard-she-gets-away-with-everything/   
                       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)