Hillary’s personal fixations on the global landscape have become part and parcel of her policies, such as good ol’ Russia, or the Alt-Right, a fringe internet movement, and now Julian Assange for crossing her. While Donald Trump may devote a sizable portion of his speaking time to personal battles, he has not threatened war over them, or implied his critics were part of a geopolitical conspiracy w/ foreign governments. Just recently, Hillary threatened to use “military resources” against the Russians if they happen to be blamed for a cyber-attack against the US, citing the DNC hack as an example of Ruskie villainy .
Despite Clinton’s sabre rattling, Trump is still the candidate the media portrays as unhinged. Hours of airtime on the 24 hour networks are spent dissecting Donald Trump’s tweets, speeches, and even body language, all to prove how dangerous he would be in possession of the fabled “button”. Meanwhile, Clinton’s foreign policy reads like a Tom Clancy novel; hackers working for the Russian government are attempting to rig an election, while seeding a revolutionary nationalist movement on social media. As war-weary as Americans are, having lost so many loved ones, you think we would have developed a better immunity to this shit, but Clinton has ingratiated herself to the public through demographic pandering, co-opting a lite version Bernie’s radical economic reforms, and the sheer force of her political connections and power.
I’m about 30 years old and I have never seen a political candidate with so much open contempt for the public, with such a brazen hunger for power, be so successful. Her total insulation from a press with kid’s gloves stitched to their wrists, while hacking up her lungs or making outrageous gaffes, is enough to explain the abysmally low trust Americans have in the media. Even if someone is voting for Hillary, I assume most would be aware that the media has mobilized behind her in total, even satirists and late-night hosts. Most liberal Americans, at least the ones honest enough to admit media bias, would leverage Trump’s racism or nationalist tendencies in defense of a Clinton-friendly media, stating perhaps, that he is a threat to the liberal values journalism itself is founded upon. This is at least the argument I heard on NPR when a panel of journalists from such ideologically disparate publications as Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and the New York Times, dissected and justified their critical views on DJT, fancying themselves as modern day Murrows.
What about Clinton’s political network of intimidation, bribery, international subterfuge, regime change, etc. etc.? Her criminal career is so prolific as to make leaps and bounds beyond the hopes and dreams of a prison full of RICO statute violators. It stretches across oceans and continents, leaving civil wars, assassinations, and mass migrations in its wake. A few brave souls sift through the wreckage of her crimes, only to watch her outmaneuver every new revelation before subsequently destroying their lives, and possibly ending them.
Colin Powell’s recently leaked emails tell of her hubris and crass, self-serving world view. Still, this evidence, like the rest, will amount to no harm for her campaign. Trump will still be viewed as the more dangerous candidate because he dared to propose that a judge’s national origin may affect his views on immigration, or because he said mean things to women. For middle class, college educated whites mostly voting for Clinton, a potentially racist or sexist president might truly be worse than another war. At the very least, they are willing to take that gamble. Many of them even idolize Clinton. Plenty of popular television shows have had her on in a positive, usually feminist, light. While famous millennial yentas trot her out, attempting to render her into a more human form, they look on with ga-ga eyes at the pantsuit marvel who can wreak havoc upon the proles just like a man can. For these reasons, coupled with her demographic support, no matter how hawkish Clinton may turn, during her candidacy or presidency, and no matter how dovish Trump may be in comparison, she will enjoy broad support from traditionally anti-war voters, who probably still view themselves as humanitarian exemplars.