The inevitable has now occurred. Barring something earth-shattering, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President. She is the first woman to become the nominee of a major political party. In fact, she is the first woman even to be a serious candidate for President.
In her speech tonight, Hillary took time out to make a gracious mention of Bernie Sanders and all that he has accomplished in his campaign. Her audience cheered. Bernie, for his part, made only a brief, classless mention of Hillary (making hey of the fact that it was she who called him). His audience booed at the mention of her name. Charming folks.
Kevin Drum lays down some truth about Hillary:
For the record: Whitewater was a nothingburger. Travelgate was a nothingburger. Troopergate was a nothingburger. Filegate was a nothingburger. The Vince Foster murder conspiracy theories were a nothingburger. Monica Lewinsky was Bill's problem, not Hillary's. Benghazi was a tragedy, but entirely non-scandalous. The Goldman Sachs speeches were probably a bad idea, but otherwise a nothingburger. Emailgate revealed some poor judgment, but we've now seen all the emails and it's pretty obviously a nothingburger. Humagate is a nothingburger. Foundationgate is a nothingburger.
Bottom line: Don't let Donald Trump or the press or anyone else convince you that Hillary Clinton is “dogged by scandal” or “works under a constant cloud of controversy” or whatever the nonsense of the day is. That constant cloud is the very deliberate invention of lowlifes in Arkansas; well-heeled conservative cranks; the Republican Party; and far too often a gullible and compliant press. Like anybody who's been in politics for 40 years, Hillary has some things she should have handled better, but that's about it. The plain fact is that there's no serious scandal on her record. There's no evidence that she's ever sold out to Wall Street. There's no corruption, intrigue, or deceit. And if anything, she's too honest on a policy level. She could stand to promise people a bit of free stuff now and then.
This is exactly right, and it's one of the reasons I support her so strongly. Never has a politician been on the receiving end of such a sprawling, professional effort at personal destruction, and never have so many low-information types bought into it. That she has persevered, and even thrived, in the face of all this is all you need to know about her character.
All I keep hearing is that the independents loathe Hillary Clinton. That's the word that gets used. Loathe. But once you clear away all of the fake scandals, what is there to loathe about her? She's a typical, centrist Democrat who's taken her various jobs a lot more seriously than most politicians. Is she too hawkish for you? Too close to Wall Street? Insufficiently left-wing? Fine. Then don't support her. Be unenthusiastic about her. But loathe her? No. That's so out of proportion to any sin she's committed it places you outside the bounds of serious discussion.
And if you loathe her, then what emotion is left for the wall-to-wall scum of the modern Republican Party? Their nominee is a bigoted narcissist who lacks even the basic understanding of world affairs you would get from listening to a thirty-minute news broadcast every night. The Republicans are mostly falling in line behind him. They claim to be bothered by his relentless, overt racism, but one suspects they are only bothered that he never learned about dog-whistling.
In his own speech tonight, Donald Trump tossed off a deranged litany of charges related to Hillary's e-mails, beyond even what the most ardent right-wingers had thought to allege. It was all invented from whole cloth, but who cares about that? He's promising us a major speech where he's going to detail his list of particulars against the Clintons. It will be lies from start to finish, and I'm sure the television pundits will harrumph about it. But all those mindless college-age Berniebros? The one's who don't remember the nineties, and whose champion has told them relentlessly that Clinton is the product of a rigged, corrupt system? They'll believe it.
The country has gone mad. Half is supporting a malignant fraud, while a good portion of the other half thinks that malignant fraud might be preferable to Hillary Clinton. Folks, democracy doesn't work.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Close to 100% agreement here, and good to see Hawking, Terry Tao, Scott Aaronson & others finally speaking up not-a-moment too-soon. Perhaps wishful thinking, but won't be surprised if Trump totally implodes and is denied the nomination.
Still concerning that there are enough knuckledraggers amongst voters to have even taken him this far.
Hmm, I have not heard that. I think I'd probably characterize the middle as being disillusioned or fatigued about her. She and Bill have been in visible, national politics for 24 years now. The US public often craves a fresh face, and the Clinton's aren't it.
I think the GOP machine wants to paint her as loathed by the middle, because they think if they tell voters that other people loathe her, those voters will change their vote based on a sort of desire-to-be-with-the-majority. This was also the basis for their 'skewed polls' drive from last election, and it seems to be the basis behind Trump's absurd claims to be highly popular with latinos and women. "Don't you want to be on the side that's winning? Well ignore the polls! I'm winning!"
It didn't work last time around, and I very much doubt it will work this time around. You don't shift a lot of votes just that "be on the winning side" argument, particularly when there is obvious and abundant evidence the person speaking isn't winning as much as they say they are.
I don't believe that the FBI believes that e-mail gate is a nothingburger! She broke the law. She did not secure classified documents. Period. End of story. She used a private server to avoid public disclosure of correspondence. She belongs in prison, not the White House!
In a functional democracy, no political outcome should be inevitable. A federal indictment, which appears justified, is not a nothingburger, whatever a nothingburger is. Personally I LOATHE people who cheerlead for war and fossil fuels. People who look down on human rights through the sights of their weapons. People who think the economy is more important than ecology. And I am part of the majority in the U.S., if not the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is quite simply not the choice of the people. SO yes, perhaps she was/is inevitable, but only because the U.S. is not a functional democracy. #BDS
Re “the country has gone mad”; I think not. The media highlights things that might give that impression, but I believe Trump’s going to lose badly; that most of his “support” is ephemeral.
Everything you write about HRC is correct, but you leave one thing out; she seems unable to give simple, straightforward answers to simple straightforward questions. The email thing should be a nothingburger, but she dragged out her response and made it look like she might be hiding something. Her delayed disclosure of speeches falls into this same category; a nothingburger that got the appearance of a scandal by not being quickly dealt with.
This is why many rational people are not fond of her; it’s not her gender or her politics, it’s her reticence to just answer the question and put the matter to bed.
Re. “democracy doesn’t work”, nonsense. It’s a messy process, but there’s no better alternative. No one ever said democracy would be a smooth and efficient; the point is it’s better than all the alternatives.
sean s.
And since I wasn't clear on this; I'll be voting for HRC in November (barring extraordinary events) because Trump is (IMHO) a fascist and the personification of all things bad in politics.
sean s.
Well not yet she isn't, and she may not be, ever, because her election is not the 'inevitable' political outcome you seem to think it is. But if more voters pull the HC lever than the DT lever on November 8th, in what way will she not be "the choice of the people?"
Admittedly, there are probably a lot of ways to make the US electoral system more democratic. Some probably good, some probably bad. I hesitate to ask this, but what exactly do you propose as a fix?
Name one politician who has always told the truth - anyone?
I liked Trump's use of PPP for TPP and 'bigly'. It highlights his thuggish IQ.
BTW, Jason, the phrase is 'making hay' You live in Mennonite country. You should know that ;-)
"She used a private server to avoid public disclosure of correspondence."
Unless you feel equally strongly about the Republicans who preceded her and did the same thing, your objections aren't serious.
"Never has a politician been on the receiving end of such a sprawling, professional effort at personal destruction, and never have so many low-information types bought into it."
And I'm not sure why this approach was taken. The ones who buy it weren't on the edge about whom to vote for, they would not vote for any Democratic candidate regardless of how bad the Republican might be.
The folks who are on the edge have been hearing these attacks for years and haven't been swayed yet: repeating the same wild assertions isn't going to suddenly move them. A detailed, logically organized discussion of her verifiable faults might push some to the Republican side, but the folks writing their ads are incapable of doing that, or too lazy, or told not to work that hard.
Well, mud-slinging is such a time honored political tradition that I have to believe political analysts have evidence that its generally worth the effort (i.e., it works to produce changes in votes). But what I said about 'fatigue' and the Clintons in @2 probably also applies to HRC's critics. You sling enough mud, for long enough, people stop paying attention to your mud-slinging.
Re # 8; please name any person who's always told the truth; why expect more of our politicians than we expect of ourselves?
sean s.
@12
As usual, pedantic BS. thanks sean.
Except for Donald Trump.
Re # 14: Clinton has been the subject of a campaign of personal attacks since the 1990's. Trump has come under attack only in the last year. Clinton is attacked with mostly fabricated or exaggerated claims. The principle weapon used against Trump are his own poorly-chosen words.
Those are significant differences. Clinton is just a politician who happens to be female. Trump is a fascist.
sean s.
Sanders vows to work with Clinton as Dems move toward party unity
"Unless you feel equally strongly about the Republicans who preceded her and did the same thing, your objections aren’t serious."
I think if you actually look at the facts, you'll see this is, being generous, a distortion of the facts.
Her audience cheered. Bernie, for his part, made only a brief, classless mention of Hillary (making hey of the fact that it was she who called him). His audience booed at the mention of her name. Charming folks.
Yeah, that was really charming of you.
I'm sure you feel that way and am not surprised that you do.
Ok, now we know who the presumptive nominee happens to be it is time to get someone in our court to protect worker safety and health. We need to begin pushing for Labor Secretary Tom Perez. He is passionate about ensuring the american worker is provided with a safe work day and environment. He would be the perfect person to help move the agenda of the american worker forward.
Mrs, Clinton - Please bring Tom Perez to your ticket so we can make the workers within this country the driving force going forward, Workers Matter in the USA! Tom Perez is a GREAT Leader and has demonstrated his superior ability to take the steps that are necessary to make the American Worker something to be admired. Hillary for Prez, with Perez! Craig D. Lowry