Clinton Papers: Bill and Hillary Feared the Internet

The Clinton Library has released over 7,000 pages of documents from Bill’s presidency, likely hoping that what ever is in them will be “old news” by the time Hillary announces her bid for president. But one of the documents is very interesting and shows that Bill and Hillary really feared and hated the free flow of information on the Internet.

A report, titled “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” was meant to “prove” Hillary’s claim that a “vast right wing conspiracy” was trying to destroy her and Bill. It also made to explain “the Internet influence.”

In 1998, Hillary appeared on NBC’s Today Show and said that a “vast right wing conspiracy” had been trying to destroy her husband “since the day he announced for president.”

Of course, her absurd claim became the joke of the decade and for years afterward conservatives were proud to belong to that “vast right win conspiracy.” The phrase became such a joke, though, that Clinton’s White House decided it had to “prove” the claim with a report linking that “conspiracy” all together.

In the report, Clinton pointed fingers of accusation at conservative think tanks, newspapers, and then the Internet–the latter coming in for particular fearmongering as Clinton blamed the Internet for “bouncing” negative Clinton stories “all over the world.”

The White House report said that the think tanks “serve as the idea mill” for the GOP: “The think tanks define and shape the idea’s agenda for the party and serve as the training ground for this new generation of conservatives.”

There was also a line showing just how paranoid the Clintons were about the think tanks.

“In many way, these Republican think tanks are to today’s media age of political organizations what the Democratic big city party machines were to the New Deal era of political organizations,” the report strangely stated.

This is amusing in that think tanks don’t command votes like big city Democrat political machines do. Think tanks can’t force their will on the electorate, but a party apparatus can. The comparison here is just silly, but it does show how Clinton feared the think tanks.

The most telling part of the report is the hate, fear, and disdain it displayed for the American people as seen in the section explaining to its late 90s readers just what that darned ol’ Internet was (remember, the Internet was fairly new at that time).

Here is how the report put it:

The Internet: The internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication. The internet can link people, groups and organizations together instantly. Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all. The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.

Here is what I wrote about this at Brietbart:

There couldn’t be a more telling entry that at once describes the left’s lock on the media, the left’s hatred of a free flow of information, plus its hatred of the great unwashed having the gall to interact with Congress.

Note that this report is dripping with disgust over the “unregulated data” that the Internet allows people access to. Further see that the Clintons were alarmed that this information was “open to all”.

Then, when the White House wrote, “The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people,” it was essentially admitting that before the Internet, conservatives had few avenues by which to reach the people. This is an open admission that the left fully controlled the media until the advent of the Internet.

Finally, the White House was incensed that Republican staffers would dare interact with those commoners on the Internet, calling we, the Internet people, “extremists.”

Another hilarious thing about this is the Clintonistas’ ultimate hypocrisy here. Even after writing this report crying about how evil the right was for using these tactics, they took them right up themselves. Clinton’s pals, John Podesta and David Brock, used these exact same practices starting in the early 2000s to create their own “conspiracy commerce” by starting the Center For American Progress in 2003 and Media Matters for America in 2004.

If these things were all so evil, why perpetrate the same actions yourself? Hypocrites.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Chicago Math: Three is Only Two
  • jim_m

    People are sharing ideas!!! We must put a stop to that!

  • Brett Buck

    The use of the phrase “unregulated information” show just how they view the world.

    • There’s goodthink, badthink, and double-plus ungood badthink.

      Control what the people can express, and you can eliminate badthink altogether.

  • jim_m

    There can be little doubt that the left opposes freedom in all its forms. Can’t talk about forbidden ideas, The IRS and DOJ should be used to stifle political opposition and civil disobedience should bring the death penalty (Or so says a lefty on the recent Bundy thread).

    But don’t worry, Bruce will come along and explain that when Lois Lerner contacted the DOJ to prosecute and imprison conservatives who wanted to express their political views that this was not evidence of fascism and that she was really just making sure that the country was safe for lefties.

    • Brucehenry

      I find it flattering that you name your pet strawman after me but let’s be clear he speaks for himself. So to speak.

      • jim_m

        I will simply note that you do not deny any of the positions I have ascribed to you.

        • Brucehenry

          And I will note that you have ascribed them to “Bruce,” your strawman, rather than Brucehenry, famed and feared Wizbang naysayer.

          • jim_m

            Riiiight, because you never answer to “Bruce”.

          • Brucehenry

            The funny thing is that you think that unless I address,and refute, specifically, the harebrained positions you ascribe to your newly named “Bruce” strawman character, I must embrace them.

            Now, apparently, I must not only endure the spectacle of watching you make strawman arguments, but since you have named your strawman “Bruce” I must deny and disavow any position he takes? Yeah, I don’t think so.

            You can call your pet “ackwired” or “Crickmore” or “Chico” if you like and see if the people actually named that want to play. I’ll bet they don’t wanna play either.

          • jim_m

            It’s not a strawman. I’m simply reflecting what we have all heard from you. If you dislike the impression you have created then I suggest you act to correct it. I can only assume that if you don’t correct me that you are satisfied with the impression you have created.

          • Brucehenry

            You can assume anything you like, you loony bastard, lol.

          • jim_m

            How could I possibly be lonely if I have all these strawmen with me? Clearly you need to work on your insults.

          • Brucehenry

            “Loony” and “lonely” are not the same thing, Mr Reading Comprehension. Oh wait that’s that other guy.

    • Brian_R_Allen

      …. this was not evidence of fascism and that she was really just making sure that the country was safe for lefties ….

      Truly sweet of her. Like so many of her ilk, a perfect little Hitler. Or Stalin, Mao or Putin.

  • LiberalNightmare

    You cant “frame the message” if people can get the facts for themselves.

    • Thus the frantic need to discount the messenger when you can’t discount the message.

  • Commander_Chico

    The prospect of neocon authoritarian corporate shill Hillary facing neocon authoritarian corporate shill Jeb is bleak.

    • Brian_R_Allen

      In the Left’s fascistic fanasies, perhaps.

      But not in the age of instant electronic communication. And especially not so since we thwarted Sayyid Sail-Eared Simpleton AKA Barry Soetoro, AKA Buraq Hussayn bin Buraq Hussayn bin Hussayn Samuel Doe Frank Marshall Davis Ugubugubama AKA “Barak Hussein Obambi'” attempt to hand off ownership, ownership and control of our internet to the Socialist International and to its un gang.

      The recidivist, treasonous, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, co-serial-raping fat old habitually-drunken Missus Billy-Bubbah has a snow-ball’s chance in Hell of even running – let alone of winning. And – remind me! Who’s that other feller, again? That “act of love”** clown?

      Brian Richard Allen

      ** RINO for how to “eff” America!

    • Retired military

      Because we all know that Chico wants Hillary to run all by herself.

      My 2 cents on the subject of Jeb is this.

      The last 5 people who call themselves republican who I want to see running for President is

      1. McCain
      2. Romney
      3. Lindsey Grahamnsety
      4. Christie
      5. Jeb Bush.
      in that order.

      • Commander_Chico

        If Jeb runs, he’ll get it. The establishment can always get GOP AND Democrat primary voters to vote whichever way they want.

        It will be easy, he just needs to distinguish himself from his brother but not too much. The media will fall into line.

        They are already trying to sink Rand Paul:

        The last thing the Establishment of both parties wants is a 2016 presidential race pitting an anti-interventionist anti-surveillance Republican against the stridently interventionist Hillary, who long ago declared that the Internet needs “gatekeepers.” I would argue that of all the potential candidates, it’s Rand Paul who has the best chance of stopping the Clinton Restoration. Jeb Bush as the candidate would make it a clash of dynasties, with the Clintons an easy winner in that kind of contest. Marco Rubio has limited appeal, and by the time the primaries get going will be polling in the vicinity of John Bolton. Chris Christie is over. David Petraeus, once a neocon favorite, is in disgrace: you only get to have that kind of fun after you’re safely elected. So who’s left?

        • warnertoddhuston

          One thing is sure, if Jeb wins the nomination it will be the end of the GOP and he WILL lose.

          • Commander_Chico

            If it’s Hillary vs Jeb, there will be a revolt and rioting.

    • warnertoddhuston

      That .gif is pretty funny.

      • Commander_Chico

        From Zero Hedge.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    …. The comparison here is just silly but it does show that the Clintons feared the think tanks ….

    And — much more importantly — it perfectly illustrates just how incredibly bloody stupid they are. And that – in the sense of either having any of the qualities of individuality and/or of autonomy – there is neither a Missus nor a Billy-Bubbah Blythe “Cli’ton.” They and their sychophantic subordinates are as if a single organism.

    A tumor.

    A cancer in the body politic.

    A Village.

  • If these things were all so evil, why perpetrate the same actions yourself?

    They always accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves want to do. IWTA,IWTD.

    • jim_m

      It’s a way for them to create an excuse and the will to actually do what they want.

  • ackwired

    “Another hilarious thing about this is the Clintonistas’ ultimate
    hypocrisy here. Even after writing this report crying about how evil the
    right was for using these tactics, they took them right up themselves”

    Pretty well sums it up. Both sides of the duopoly use the same strategies and tactics to gain and retain power.

    • Brucehenry

      I don’t read this report as “crying” or about how “evil” these tactics and strategies were. It simply reports how effective they were and how they worked.

      If your opponents have adopted an effective strategy and you don’t respond by effectively countering it or adopting the same strategy yourself, you DESERVE to lose.

      • ackwired

        The problem I see is that it is hurting our country. Both sides spend most of their energy trying to convince us that the other side is evil, and therefore, they do not have to offer anything positive.

        • jim_m

          trying to convince people that the other side is evil has been going on since Jefferson ran against Adams. The difference today is that the left wants to make whatever the right thinks or says illegal. For the first time we see people like Lois Lerner trying to get their political opponents put in prison for trying to express their ideas. Today the left has gone beyond simply vilifying their opponents and trying to make political activity a crime.

          • Brucehenry

            Did you ever hear of the loyalty oaths and blacklists of the 1950s? Was that the left doing that?

            If Lois Lerner is guilty of what the right alleges, she is guilty of applying extra scrutiny to try to get Tea Party groups’ tax exempt status revoked — not to put anyone in prison. The Voices told you Lerner was trying to imprison people, didn’t they?

            If you follow that logic you could argue that Lerner was trying to muzzle the opposition. But there is no evidence I’m aware of that anyone was ever in jeopardy of imprisonment.

          • jim_m

            I knew you would leap to the defense of Lerner. Never fail to apologize for fascism Bruce. That’s what you are all about.

            There is plenty of evidence that Lerner was using her position to illegally target people and organizations based on their political viewpoint. I suppose when you get all your info from the WH press briefings you would think otherwise.

          • Brucehenry

            And the evidence (what evidence there is) points to the objects of her targeting being denied tax exempt status, not being rounded up and sent to the gulags, you loony.

        • The question is, what’s someone who’s middle of the road going to believe?
          You’ve got Group A doing stuff that’s not helping the country much (if at all), Group B complaining about it, and Group A labeling Group B as evil and uncaring because at least Group A is doing something… ignoring that Group A locked Group B out of the legislative process at every possible turn.
          A pox on both of ’em, but someone’s going to running the country, and I – for one – prefer the ones that’ll do the least damage in the name of ‘doing good’.

          • Brucehenry

            I would suggest that the fact that you buy into the narrative that your “Group A/Group B” analogy implies means you’re not exactly “middle of the road.”

            It seems to me you’re just another FOX viewer, no offense.

          • None taken, since I don’t watch Fox.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s what they all say.

  • EricSteel

    Isn’t it ironic that the Clintons feared the internet and the guy who invented the internet was Bill’s VP?