International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 9, Issue 2 2026 32
history, simply had to be stopped. Her threat to
the growing populist, hyper-conservative brand of
Republican politics and religion that was fomenting
and finding voice under Trump’s presidential campaign
was too much. Evidently, “the convenient way to make
sense of the social, political, and cognitive chaos that
Clinton’s intrusion into politics would make was simply
to characterize her as a Witch and to hunt her down”
(Lim, 2009, p. 265).33
1
As in the witch hunts of centuries
past, those with power and influence cast aspersions on
Clinton’s character: allegations of demonic allegiance,
unbound sexual practices, cannibalism, the abuse
of children (including blood sucking), seduction,
deception, breaking of social norms, and questioning
the divine order (Goodare, 2016 Jensen, 2007
Westerkamp, 1999). The application of the “stigmatic
label” witch is required (Jensen, 2007, p.3) to restore
order and cleanse the political order (Voltmer, 2020).
Notifying the population of the threat, conspiratorial
narratives and ideologically driven fear and misogyny
saturated social media—the Malleus Maleficarum of
the Internet age.
When viewed through the lens of Wood et al.’s (2017)
analysis, Hillary Clinton has evidently been the subject
of a witch hunt since the late 1970s when Bill Clinton
assumed the governorship of Arkansas, with the hunt
against her intensifying further in 1993 when she became
First Lady. Her political goals in the 2000s saw the
witch hunt reach new heights. As Clinton approached
the apex of American power—the presidential office—
her opponents, terrified of what they might lose,
chose to pull the noose tighter still. Chants of lock up
Crooked Hillary and a mock witch trial for Clinton at
the Republican National Convention (Bordo, 2017)
amidst the unfiltered and unchecked diatribe against
her made for a public spectacle: an intense reminder of
what can happen to women who are viewed as out of
33 Other American female politicians have achieved high levels of
success, though none so much as Clinton. Considered at the very least as
unlikable, Clinton differed dramatically from one prominent Republican
counterpart, Sarah Palin. Palin’s political career in the 2000s seemed
acceptable in part because she was likable and therefore less threatening,
having not breached an important gendered expectation. Palin, however,
was also less competent than Clinton (Lim, 2009). Although Palin was not
subjected to the same level of malicious attack as Clinton has been, she did
experience negative bias, discrimination, and political exclusion because
she was a woman and a mother. Moreover, Democrats primarily were
responsible for much of the gendered disdain levelled against her (Martin,
2008). As leader of the Tea Party—an earlier populist movement—Palin
and her colleague, Michelle Bachmann, gained acceptance within their
very conservative base largely because they embraced and wanted to protect
traditional women’s roles (Bracewell, 2021). They simply did not challenge
or engender fear in conservative right-wing men in the way that Clinton
did.
place and out of control. Even those Republicans who
had worked well with Clinton while she was a senator
and then as secretary of state “subjected her to snarling
interrogations worthy of a trial for witchcraft” (Bordo,
2017, p. 29). Republican undermining of Hillary seemed
endless, and most Republican politicians seemed to
accept that conspiracies and Trump’s open misogyny
were the means to their party’s ascendency to power.34
.1
As a means of socially controlling women in power,
misogynistic stereotypes and caricatures of women in
such positions serve to stifle their political agency and
fuel fears about feminism. The cruelty that women in
power endure may also have the effect of deterring other
women from entering politics (Miller, 2018 Vasby
Anderson, 1999).35 Certainly, our analysis here could
be adopted to address the ways in which many women
(and non-binary people) experience intense and overt
levels of misogyny and discrimination throughout
their careers. Measures taken to prevent women’s
success at the highest levels of politics are evident,
for example, in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s careers (Ferris, 2020
Women in Leadership, 2020). Protecting patriarchal
political power structures at any cost appears to have
supplanted any notion of healthy political competition
and democracy. The more successful women are in
the political sphere, the more intense the closing of
patriarchal ranks has become.
Furthermore, in Clinton’s case, this attack approach
can also attract some women to join the witch hunt.
Accusations of child-trafficking, sexual abuse, and
the butchering and consumption of babies were
instrumental in attracting women to the initially
masculinist QAnon movement through social media
(Bracewell, 2021). In populist politics, feminine
identities largely center around traditional notions
of motherhood and maternal duty (Bracewell, 2021).
Populist movements focus on presenting everyday
34 Many Republicans spoke out against Trump (NBC, 2016) and
continue to do so (Republican Voters Against Trump, 2025). Moreover,
not all Republicans have treated Hillary viciously or fabricated falsehoods.
For example, George Bush Senior and Junior publicly supported and voted
for Clinton (BBC, 2017). Also, there have been occasions when Republican
women quietly expressed discomfort at seeing Clinton being treated so
poorly in the public realm (Hitt, 2009).
35 Miller notes, “Julia Gillard, first female prime minister of Australia…
met with taunts of ‘ditch the witch’ from protestors. Nancy Pelosi, the minority
speaker of the US House of Representatives, has faced similar witch-related
insults, and recently Theresa May [British prime Minister from 2016–2019]
was filmed laughing loudly, and her so-called ‘witch’s cackle’ quickly went
viral” (Miller, 2018).
history, simply had to be stopped. Her threat to
the growing populist, hyper-conservative brand of
Republican politics and religion that was fomenting
and finding voice under Trump’s presidential campaign
was too much. Evidently, “the convenient way to make
sense of the social, political, and cognitive chaos that
Clinton’s intrusion into politics would make was simply
to characterize her as a Witch and to hunt her down”
(Lim, 2009, p. 265).33
1
As in the witch hunts of centuries
past, those with power and influence cast aspersions on
Clinton’s character: allegations of demonic allegiance,
unbound sexual practices, cannibalism, the abuse
of children (including blood sucking), seduction,
deception, breaking of social norms, and questioning
the divine order (Goodare, 2016 Jensen, 2007
Westerkamp, 1999). The application of the “stigmatic
label” witch is required (Jensen, 2007, p.3) to restore
order and cleanse the political order (Voltmer, 2020).
Notifying the population of the threat, conspiratorial
narratives and ideologically driven fear and misogyny
saturated social media—the Malleus Maleficarum of
the Internet age.
When viewed through the lens of Wood et al.’s (2017)
analysis, Hillary Clinton has evidently been the subject
of a witch hunt since the late 1970s when Bill Clinton
assumed the governorship of Arkansas, with the hunt
against her intensifying further in 1993 when she became
First Lady. Her political goals in the 2000s saw the
witch hunt reach new heights. As Clinton approached
the apex of American power—the presidential office—
her opponents, terrified of what they might lose,
chose to pull the noose tighter still. Chants of lock up
Crooked Hillary and a mock witch trial for Clinton at
the Republican National Convention (Bordo, 2017)
amidst the unfiltered and unchecked diatribe against
her made for a public spectacle: an intense reminder of
what can happen to women who are viewed as out of
33 Other American female politicians have achieved high levels of
success, though none so much as Clinton. Considered at the very least as
unlikable, Clinton differed dramatically from one prominent Republican
counterpart, Sarah Palin. Palin’s political career in the 2000s seemed
acceptable in part because she was likable and therefore less threatening,
having not breached an important gendered expectation. Palin, however,
was also less competent than Clinton (Lim, 2009). Although Palin was not
subjected to the same level of malicious attack as Clinton has been, she did
experience negative bias, discrimination, and political exclusion because
she was a woman and a mother. Moreover, Democrats primarily were
responsible for much of the gendered disdain levelled against her (Martin,
2008). As leader of the Tea Party—an earlier populist movement—Palin
and her colleague, Michelle Bachmann, gained acceptance within their
very conservative base largely because they embraced and wanted to protect
traditional women’s roles (Bracewell, 2021). They simply did not challenge
or engender fear in conservative right-wing men in the way that Clinton
did.
place and out of control. Even those Republicans who
had worked well with Clinton while she was a senator
and then as secretary of state “subjected her to snarling
interrogations worthy of a trial for witchcraft” (Bordo,
2017, p. 29). Republican undermining of Hillary seemed
endless, and most Republican politicians seemed to
accept that conspiracies and Trump’s open misogyny
were the means to their party’s ascendency to power.34
.1
As a means of socially controlling women in power,
misogynistic stereotypes and caricatures of women in
such positions serve to stifle their political agency and
fuel fears about feminism. The cruelty that women in
power endure may also have the effect of deterring other
women from entering politics (Miller, 2018 Vasby
Anderson, 1999).35 Certainly, our analysis here could
be adopted to address the ways in which many women
(and non-binary people) experience intense and overt
levels of misogyny and discrimination throughout
their careers. Measures taken to prevent women’s
success at the highest levels of politics are evident,
for example, in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s careers (Ferris, 2020
Women in Leadership, 2020). Protecting patriarchal
political power structures at any cost appears to have
supplanted any notion of healthy political competition
and democracy. The more successful women are in
the political sphere, the more intense the closing of
patriarchal ranks has become.
Furthermore, in Clinton’s case, this attack approach
can also attract some women to join the witch hunt.
Accusations of child-trafficking, sexual abuse, and
the butchering and consumption of babies were
instrumental in attracting women to the initially
masculinist QAnon movement through social media
(Bracewell, 2021). In populist politics, feminine
identities largely center around traditional notions
of motherhood and maternal duty (Bracewell, 2021).
Populist movements focus on presenting everyday
34 Many Republicans spoke out against Trump (NBC, 2016) and
continue to do so (Republican Voters Against Trump, 2025). Moreover,
not all Republicans have treated Hillary viciously or fabricated falsehoods.
For example, George Bush Senior and Junior publicly supported and voted
for Clinton (BBC, 2017). Also, there have been occasions when Republican
women quietly expressed discomfort at seeing Clinton being treated so
poorly in the public realm (Hitt, 2009).
35 Miller notes, “Julia Gillard, first female prime minister of Australia…
met with taunts of ‘ditch the witch’ from protestors. Nancy Pelosi, the minority
speaker of the US House of Representatives, has faced similar witch-related
insults, and recently Theresa May [British prime Minister from 2016–2019]
was filmed laughing loudly, and her so-called ‘witch’s cackle’ quickly went
viral” (Miller, 2018).
