I read with dismay yet another stupid story in the NYTimes about Hillary Clinton this morning. It’s going to be a long 18 months.
This time, it was about how progressives are pressuring her to kiss their asses. I wonder why she is even bothering at this point to give them any attention at all. They’re never going to like her, trust her, believe her, even if she really is the best thing they’ve got right now. They can’t see her for what she is and can’t appreciate what she’s got to offer them. It’s almost as if they’re under some kind of spell:
If you ever wondered what happened to Wormtongue, he left Meduseld “to spend more time with his family” and went to work for the NYTimes after working for a marketing research firm on Wall Street in 2008.
This sentence cracks me up:
Mrs. Clinton cheerily welcomed Mr. Sanders into the race, even as she works to deny Mr. Sanders or any other liberal an issue on which to bloody her from the left.
Are you serious? Sanders entering the race is the best thing that could have happened to Clinton. Now, there is another credible person on the left. Sanders is passionate, he speaks well, he’s rational. He doesn’t have the air of dweeb about him like Kucinich and he doesn’t come off as being an unrealistic “knit your own sandals” type who is going to make us eat a raw vegan diet with a heavy emphasis on organic beets. His concern is primarily about the very real erosion of the standard of living of most working Americans today.
He adds weight to the left side of the field. The longer he stays in the race, the better for Clinton. That means it won’t be six silly nobodies trying to out-mean each other on the right sucking all of the air out of the room and one woman defending the left all by herself. It means that issues might actually get discussed that aren’t all on the ultra conservative right. It means she won’t have to be so defensive. It means there will be a clear difference between the two political sides.
Damn straight she’s cheery.
Duh.
But the left is convinced that she’s with the enemy. In a way, I kinda understand it. They were completely taken in by Wormtongue in 2008. That was a disaster.
Still, the real enemies have almost won. It’s bad out here. And here the left is, sitting in its golden hall, lapsing into a coma like some crusty old dude enchanted by some evil wizards. Utterly feckless and hostile to the people who are begging it to get its act together and fight back. It’s almost like someone doesn’t want people with a common cause to become allies…
Suit yourselves. I’m going with the white haired guy and the blonde lady.
“Forth Eorlingas!“
Filed under: General | Tagged: Bernie Sanders, gandalf, Hillary Clinton, NYTimes, Wormtongue |
The Confluence 
“Forth Eorlingas!”
[Snagglepuss] Fifth Eorlingas, even! [/Snagglepuss]
Heavens to Murgatroyd!
I will turn serious now.
HRC’s biggest problem may prove to be her taking the SoS position, and her resulting perceived hawkishness. Although how much of that is real and how much perceived must be left to each of us to decide for hirself, many people, who might have supported her otherwise, see too much blood on her hands.
As for how she put herself into this troublesome situation, I think Joe Cannon’s newest post is good.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2015/05/umbrella.html
the problem may be one of definitions and connotations.
There is a widely perceived idea out there that “hawk” means someone who will ALWAYS vote for war and militarization. And “dove” is someone who favors peace.
And I just have a problem with that. I mean, who decided on these words and their definitions? They get thrown around a lot and hawk got stuck to Hillary. I think we need to ask ourselves how that happened. What was the mechanism. Who started it. For what purpose.
Because, while I see her vote for the AUMF and the Iraq war vote as pretty awful, I don’t see her as a hawk in the same way that john McCain or the other republicans are Hawks.
That word puts her in the same camp as a zealous republican. If you saw her defense of her vote, it’s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that she is nothing of the sort. Her vote wasn’t based on the rightness of the invasion.
Butcha know, John Kerry voted for it, john Edwards voted for it and their speeches were a lot less considered or convincing. The left forgave them anyway.
Why do you and others only hold her responsible and stick only her with the label of hawk?
They other thing is there are no shades of gray with that term. You are either a complete pacifist or you are a warmonger. Don’t say that’s not what those terms mean. Of course that’s what they mean or people who don’t like Clinton wouldn’t keep using them.
But let’s say that she became a born again Gandhi.
What would happen if Canadians all converted to evangelical Klingons and invaded Maine and Michigan killing every male American they encountered simply because they were considered opportunistic vermin. Let’s say these Canadian Klingons rounded up young male Americans and put them in concentration camps to use as slave laborers.
Would a good response to that be for Hillary to say, “Well, those young adolescent American males should offer themselves to the Klingons or commit mass suicide.”
Because that’s essentially what Gandhi said the Jews should do during WWII.
I think under the circumstances, we would want Hillary to say eff that #%it about pacifism and kill and maim every Canadian until they were driven out.
I kind of felt that way about Afghanistan. Likely Clinton did too.
I was totally against the invasion of Iraq. When I listen to her speech on that vote, she doesn’t sound like she thinks invading Iraq is a good idea.
Politics is a tricky profession. Sometimes, you do what you do for reasons that are not obvious. There are many uncomfortable votes. The best you can do is make your decisions on your principles even if no one bothers to read the text of your speech.
What I would like to see is consistency from the voters on this. I ain’t seen it yet.
The fact that you must resort to such a bizarre hypothetical scenario (Canadian Klingon invasion? “Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!”) indicates how few real external menaces the common people of the USA actually face.
At least since 1945, the real overriding purpose of the foreign policy of the USA has been to make the world safe for unbridled increase of the profits and power of the Malefactors Of Great Wealth, who OWN the entity which still is called, anachronistically, the U. S. Government.
The USA is dead. The thing which stands in its place is a giant anime-style robotic warsuit, painted to look like Uncle Sam, piloted by the Malefactors–unless indeed, the spy agencies have slipped out of control even of the Malefactors, and are piloting it themselves.
It’s all howls of derisive laughter until some fundamentalists knock over a tower.
Whether or not the USA is a giant robotic killing machine or not DOES NOT explain why only Hillary is a hawk but no other Democrat who voted for the war in Iraq.
I believe you just had a moment of cognitive dissonance with a soupçon of thought stopping mental gymnastics. While I understand that it is very difficult to consciously overcome consensus reality, we are going to have to do it. For one thing, it’s unlikely that Hillary Clinton will ever be in the senate again, asked to approve a war resolution that she doesn’t believe in.
The second thing is, someone is going to be president in 2016. You can either let this one vote stand in your way of evaluating the candidates with any accuracy, or you can start to think for yourself.
I like Bernie but I don’t agree with him on everything. Could I vote for him? Probably. Because I agree with the Republicans on almost nothing.
Get a matrix, map out your issues per candidate and check the boxes.
I’m betting that the Iraq war will rapidly assume the right perspective when compared to the candidates from the looney bin.
If you can’t overcome this word “hawk” enough to make a choice, we might as well save ourselves a lot of money and time right now and just give the Oval Office to Ted Cruz.
“DOES NOT explain why only Hillary is a hawk but no other Democrat who voted for the war in Iraq”
Exactly. People who can’t get over the fact that ZOMG she’s a politician, ZOMG she was SOS, ZOMG she did something besides vote ‘present’ in the Senate, ZOMG etc. etc.etc, they really need to ask themselves why that is. Compare and contrast with other people’s records. And lack thereof. And think.
I am not singling out HRC. I have basically given up on both the Reptilian and the Dinocratic wings of the Imperial Property Party, although I will not rule out holding my nose, voting for the Dinocrat in 2016, and barfing afterward.
“…until some fundamentalists knock over a tower.”
A handful of camel-molesting religious nuts pulled off that feat all by themselves? Sh’yeah, right… 🙄
I forgot something. Thanks to the Electoral College system, and the scarlet politics of the Arkanshire, whom I choose for Preznit is not going to matter anyway, unless the Arkanshire turns purple by November 2016.
You’re missing the point. You can vote for whoever you damn well please. For all we know, Arkansas will go D in 2016, or Green or Commie. You don’t know what will happen and I don’t either.
The point is, don’t make up your mind based on the consensus reality of your side. That’s what the left did in 2008 and look who got elected? Was Obama the liberal messiah the left wanted? It fell for the whisperings and mental maneuverings and dogwhistles of the worm tongues. Wormtongue says that Hillary is a “hawk”. Oh really? In what way is she a hawk? What does it mean to be a hawk? What are the qualities of a hawk? How many military engagements does a person have to vote for in order to get this designation? Why isn’t John Kerry also called a hawk? Is Hillary more or less of a hawk than John Kerry or John Edwards? To what degree? Is she more or less a hawk than Lindsay Graham?
I only ask.
That’s the problem. Too few people on the left ask. They just accept. Well, someone on the left must have studied the problem, some Juan Cole person must have dug up the records and figured it out. There is no doubt in their minds that Hillary is a hawk, based on some criteria, right? Some authority figure who the left trusts did the math.
But what if no one on the left actually did?
What if it’s just a clever earworm planted there by someone with less than honorable intentions? How would you know?
Consistency is key.
Don’t try to get out of the dilemma you’re in by claiming that your vote doesn’t count or making light of it. What counts is whether everyone has an honest, consistent, unobstructed, unfiltered view of the candidate without shortcuts that terminate the thought process with facile categorization.
If she ends up wanting after you have discarded the shortcuts, fine, at least you will have done your job. But don’t cop out and tell me you can’t trust yourself to make those calls on your own.
Again, I am not singling out HRC; they either all are hawks, or must become hawks if they want to rise to the top.
No candidate, of either the Reptilian or the Dinocratic wings of the Imperial Property Party, who does not commit to torturing and murdering as many human beings as necessary to make the world safe for the Malefactors of Great Wealth to profit off the labor of slaves and quasi-slaves will be allowed to win the nomination of either major party.
Obummer was no dove, either. He was a hawk in dove’s feathers.
I accept that I will probably end up having to vote for a minor-party candidate, because neither major party will support what I want; the abolition of the Empire.
I want my Republic back.
Did anyone else notice that during her tenure as secretary of state following Dubya’s Administration, Hillary Clinton patched up our nation’s tattered relationships that he left behind with most other nations around the globe? She also laid the foundation for the Iran Nuclear Treaty, which until the truth surfaced, Obama was given credit for finally earning his Nobel prize. The record also shows that she tried to get Obama to dial back his kill list and related drone activities. How do Hillary’s detractors label those achievements the work of a hawk?
I like having a real campaign. Of course the process is corrupt and in trustworthy. Because the rules haven’t changed.
But we should have some excellent debates.
Ditto! This campaign might actually be lively in a quite unexpected way.
Sexism, Mommy Issues, CDS? Who knows; who cares?
America needs her, the World needs her; and most importantly, I need Hillary to be president.
Please don’t print my letter — I don’t want you to. I don’t know if you remember me but I was the ‘fat’ girl who got emotional in an interview many years ago about signs being stolen. You called me and we spoke for a while. I respect you despite the fact that I disagree with 99% of what you say.
Well, a woman I met on PUMA encouraged me to seek a doctor’s advice (after seeing 20 years worth) and they put me on hormones and I lost the weight (and ran a couple of races). I also lost the last vestige of idealism that kept me died to a dead horse as far as ideologies go.
This is how much I loved Hillary Clinton. I wrote a letter to her while in college and the White House called me to tell me she liked it so much they sent Tipper and Gore to speak at my college. I loved that she went to work for the Children’s Defense Fund (vs. big law firm) and that it appeared that she understood the problems we face and thus would work to find and apply solutions. I idolized this woman. When Obama was ordained by the Democrats I worked hard to expose the truth but, alas, truth was not wanted so it didn’t matter. I wrote letters, read, spoke to people, but truth is passe in 21 century America.
Fast forward to today. Hillary Clinton is a bloated, blinded, ugly opposite clone of herself 20 years ago. The Hillary I knew would NEVER have joined forces with the evil ones, she would NEVER have backed down from workfare, she would NEVER have allowed her man to prey on women, she would NEVER have allowed Benghazi to happen (and she should be tried, convicted, and put in jail for her role in the murder of Americans), she would NEVER have put herself above the law (so many things to say but let’s just say the word email), and she certainly would not be in charge of a Global Charitable Organization that is a sham and illegal sham at that giving away 10% a year and using the remaining $1.8 billions for salaries and travel (and let’s not even mention the law breaking foreign and unknown donations). My god she bought her daughter a $10,000,000.00 house so she and her son-in-law (whose father served time for defrauding MILLIONS) can live the life of luxury while telling us to suck it up. And let’s not talk about Obamacare (and I can because I actually read the bill) because she allowed seniors to be robbed, insurance companies to be given more power-cum-money and the American population to be worse off. Just yesterday the liberal news actually reported that 1/2 of all exchanges are underwater and will not make it. Big Surprise.
I was a true believer but I am awake now. I can move beyond the dreams of my childhood and face reality with no heroes. Hillary is just another scum sucking piece of shit who deserves jail time. Period. And the enemy isn’t Republican or Democrat it is stupidity. Thinking you can solve the problem without knowing what the problem is will kill this country if we let it. More money is not the solution to our problem and neither is blaming anyone but our side. And following your heroes and what you once knew to be true until the end is not courage but rather it is weakness. What is strong is sometimes being able to give up your past beliefs and finding truth no matter what you lose in the process.
I am writing a book (who isn’t) about losing my heroes and finding peace of mind. It isn’t easy to do this when everything you thought was right is wrong but it is a lot easier than denial. Denial is a cancer that eats you even when you sleep and at the end of your life you realize you never had anything really. Hillary is not my hero anymore and I am free.
I don’t understand your continued support of a corrupt party and candidate. But my opinion is irrelevant to you and I can handle that. I just can’t see a future when smart people are willing to vote for garbage. I have voted straight ticket Republican ever since they stole the candidacy from Hillary. I feel really good about it. Really good. Unbelievably good in fact. It was hers and it was ours and it was my dream. My god I still cry when I think about it. Despite everything it was hers and it was ours. But right is out just like truth.
My plan is just to vote Republican until Democrats crater (just a dream of course) and then I plan to vote for independents. Not that my vote matters it just helps with that peace of mind thing.
If you ever want to email me I would be interested in your opinion on how we can change the world by voting, or doing anything for that matter. And many years later I just wanted to thank you for your kind words.
“Friends don’t let friends vote Republican”.
Sorry, regardless of how you feel about Hillary, I can’t support your decision to legitimize the lunatics. I can see that you read or watch a lot of opposition research. IMHO, it’s no better than what the Obama droogs put out there in 2008.
So, not a fan. Not into republicans and unlikely to give that kind of sentiment much real estate here. Please understand that my objection is not because you don’t like Hillary anymore. It’s because you seem to have joined people I don’t have much respect for.
The blogosphere is big, huge even. You just can’t imagine how ginormous it is. I suggest you set up your own blog where you can write about anything you want. If there is an audience for furious ex-Democrats who turned to the ultra right, then you should be very successful.
Here? Ehhhhhh, not so much.
RD–You, better than anyone, should know that there already is a blog for furious ex-Dems who turned to the ultra right. It’s that blog formed by Jack Napier and his fellow defectors from your blog, remember? 😉
There’s no reason why she can’t start another one.
Let the clown and Jennifer poach each other’s people.
Blogs are easy to start, hard to maintain. But if you’ve got a message that other people want to hear, knock yourself out. Just don’t do it here, Jennifer. I’m really not interested in hearing right wing drivel translated from its original German. I could listen to rush or o’reilly for that.
Frankly, while anyone can decide what they choose to, I have no respect whatsoever for anyone who writes that they were once a liberal Democrat and now are voting Republican in every election. The Republicans of today bear no resemblance to, say, the Republicans of 1960. They are the most Far Right Party in the history of this country. If they could call a Constitutional Convention and get rid of the First Amendment, they would do so. If one of these people ever gets elected, I am going to Mars to live, water shortage or not. It makes no rational sense for someone who claims to have been a Democrat to vote for any of them–not if the person actually cares about issues. Ex Weatherman Bernadine Dohrn became a corporate attorney, but it was never about anything more but indulging herself, for her.
Sing it.
They’re not a political party. They’re very wealthy aristocrats organizing mobs to overturn centuries of modern political thought.
There are not Abe Lincoln’s Republicans.
The biggest story in the 2nd half of 20th-Century USAmerican politics is how the party of Abe Lincoln became the party of Jeff Davis.
The most important difference between the old slavery and the new slavery is that this time, the slaves are available in every human skin tone.
Don’t get upset folks.
Hillary will be held responsible for the perceived failures of her husband (all of them), for the failed policies of George Bush, and for the failed policies of Obama. That is because, a) *they* don’t want her (the powers to be), b) the press hates her, c) trolls are going to try everything to see what sticks, and d) ugly sexism is very much alive and well.
A little while ago, I saw some idiot posting on Robert Reich (Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary) that he wouldn’t vote for Hillary because of NAFTA, …. Iraq war, … Repeal of Glass-Steagall act … . The irony of posting this on Reich’s page was lost on the poor troll/idiot.
Let O become a bit more of a lame duck, and the creative class will yell at her for drone policy too (I am serious and I will bet you on this). They will never admit that they let their own guy get away with this horrible, atrocious policy.
Haruhi help me, I’m tempted to support her, despite my ambivalence, just to p!$$ off both the Rabid Right and the Phony Pwoggies.
After over 20 years in the public eye with more digging into her life, opinions, marriage, etc than anyone who only had 8 years elected service its amazing when people seem to think they can dig up more dirt—but yes they will try.
Hillary Clinton was treated by her own party about as poorly as any POTUS candidate ever. No other candidate going up against the eventual nominee was ever treated that brutally and let’s not even get started on the misogyny that progressives threw at her, meanwhile the GOP sat back and laughed. 8 years later she is the front runner with no opposition.
I said in 2008 to people, what will be the condition of the Dem Party when Obama is done with it. He lost both houses of Congress, continued and furthered the worse of GWB policies, is trying to convict journalists for doing their job, has the largest number Espionage Act accusations than any POTUS ever. He had no coattails in any elections–Dems were running away from him.
But Obama will go out and make Clinton money on the chicken dinner circuit starting in 2016. He won’t start some charity to help AIDS research or any other global initiative. He won’t build houses for Habitat for Humanity. He won’t discuss issues that his supporters think the next POTUS should deal with–mass incarceration, pay inequality, Ferguson/Baltimore, gay rights. They were always happy with him giving a speech and not action.