• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Daisy on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Mayo on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    jjmtacoma on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Ga6thDem on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on When Hillary met Bernie
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Joan on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Joan on When Hillary met Bernie
    Ray McGovern getting… on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Marshall Applewhite on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    riverdaughter on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
    ProNewerDeal on Hillary, Diana and Journa…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos debate Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare occupy wall street OccupyWallStreet Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    May 2016
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr    
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

  • Top Posts

Reactivity

A couple of observations:

1.) Trump seems to think he can be as wildly and stupidly provocative as he wants to be and he will suffer no dire consequences. I think this is probably true. He gets support from white supremacists and yet, I know some people who lean Trump who would not consider themselves racists. They just like the way he doesn’t hold back. So, I’m fairly confident that he could get the endorsement of NAMBLA and nothing bad would happen. Why is this? I think it’s because the average Trump supporter has been conditioned to contemptuously hate what they perceive as “liberals” more than they hate any other group of people in the country.

If they are pissing you off with their crazy ass support of dangerous gun nuts, racists and sexist assholes, they’ve done their work for the day.

2.) I met some people on Twitter who were freaking out that Hillary Clinton isn’t actively defending herself against every accusation of wrongdoingdishonestskullduggerylawbreakingindictment that pops up in the media. I tried to explain that it wouldn’t really matter what she or her surrogate said about the latest scandal of the day hour.  You either see through this as irrational media pursuit of Hillary for ratings or you don’t. There’s not a lot she can do to address it through the regular “get a surrogate on the TV box thing to defend her” type deal.

Hillary conspiracy theories are a little bit like 9/11 theories. They are completely resistant to actual facts.Journalists are convinced that a Hillary supporter is an old, crusty, uneducated, walker using granny who feebly shakes her bottle of geritol at Hillary on the TV without much enthusiasm. Protests to the contrary do not seem to penetrate reporters’ thick skulls. So, why bother? You’re never going to make Hillary cool to them and reacting to anything they say is a losing proposition. It always puts the campaign on the defensive and who wants to be constantly defending oneself? It’s exhausting.

And pointless.

This is not to say that there are not strategies to get around media bias and crazy ass supporters of the Trumpian variety. It’s just that reacting to it seems like a losing proposition.

The best defense is a good offense.

3.) One place that *might* be worth pushing buttons is Twitter. Many Hillary skeptics (let’s call them that to be nice for now) take to Twitter to disgorge the same stupid, tired old arguments against her. One I see constantly is the notion that the Tweeter doesn’t want a coronation of Hillary. This meme deserves a reply. Because becoming a queen depends on nothing but birth. People who spout this stupid meme are completely invalidating the hard work, experience and accomplishments of a woman who has been a lawyer, first lady of a state and country, a twice elected US Senator and a Secretary of State. What kind of message does that send to other accomplished women? I’d like to see more challenges, and I mean aggressive challenges to this meme.

4.) One last thing, Trump is carpet bombing on Clinton’s marriage, or so I’ve heard, since I don’t watch cable TV.

Is the carpet bombing more effective because of the saturation level or because of the level of disgust it provokes in the viewers? Provoking the sensation of disgust is a very effective propaganda tool and there are a lot of elderly people who find the idea of putting a dirty, urine spouting penis in their mouths the epitome of disgusting things.

Something to keep in mind as the election season goes on and as the audience is conditioned to be disgusted by Hillary while taking a pass on a creepy orange serial philanderer who reportedly doesn’t shake his moist little hands with his supporters.

He probably finds that disgusting.

5.) Ok, one more last, last thing. I think the key to taking down Creamsicle is to make him look like every other Republican political panderer. He’s got to get funding from somewhere and he’s got to learn to play nice with the politicians in his own party. Let us count the ways the system will rein him in, shall we?

Oh, and see if we can find video of him as Melania’s birth partner or doing something sufficiently Sensitive New Age Guy.

Ok, Time to Stop Walking on Egg Shells

old-lady_drivingFor some incomprehensible reason, there is a left blogosphere that thinks that Hillary is going to blow this election. In fact, here is a Vox post on the subject by Alex Pareen called “Don’t Blow This”. It’s a mansplainy post in the style of “Ok, I’ll let you drive the car but I know how careless you are so don’t screw up”.

Alex, do you have any idea what an arrogant, stupid dick you sound like?

Dear Lefty Blogosphere who can’t get over Clinton Derangement Syndrome,

Did you forget that Hillary Clinton won two senate races by wide margins?

Do the 18,000,000 people who voted for Hillary in 2008 mean nothing to you? I realize this is a rhetorical question because you seem to think that all you need to do is insist dramatically and throw personal insults at her and her voters will once again step aside for you like indulgent grannies.

Seriously, just how old and stupid do you think we are?

You are getting all emo about the superdelegates who stubbornly refuse to flip to your candidate even though he might not have the pledged delegates he needs before the end of the primaries as if you are The Only Ones Who Matter. Did it ever occur to you that we might be extremely upset with such a scenario?

We must pay attention to you, you, you. And you don’t even have a reason to be angry with the primaries at this point. No one is halving your earned delegates in Colorado or Indiana. There aren’t a bunch of wild and aggressive Clintonistas shutting you down at the caucuses, locking you out of the venues or grabbing the sign in sheets. The party isn’t actively undermining every victory you have. It’s all been on the level.

But what the hell, guys? Seriously. If you don’t have a legitimate reason to protest the way the party has conducted the primaries this year, what makes you think we are just going to say, “Gosh, they are really insistent. Well, I guess my vote for Hillary is meaningless. Let’s let Bernie have all the superdelegates.”

Is that why we’re getting this crap from Alex Pareen? We’re unreasonably holding on to the idea that our candidate is probably going to win so you guys who got your way last time have to be all begrudging about it.

I don’t think we should be so deferential to you guys anymore. Go ahead and vote for whoever you like but it’s probably time we stopped giving you WATB so much attention.

We LIKE our candidate. We’re not ashamed of her. She’s as squeaky clean and honest as you’re going to get in a candidate. Your brain knows this. She doesn’t run bad campaigns or so many millions and millions (and millions) more people wouldn’t persist in voting for her. If you find her inability to transcend being human as cringeworthy, that’s YOUR problem. We are not going to apologize for the fact that you find women your mom’s age occasionally embarrassing.

You need to get over it.

Bernie’s a good guy and I really like him. But if he loses the primaries, Hillary Clinton is going to have to fight Trump, the media and you. She’s probably going to win. Don’t make it closer than it has to be by getting all “WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!” every time she does something that isn’t perfect.

Sincerely,

RD

As for the rest of us, party on, people! It’s time we celebrated our candidate and tell the world how excited we are for the election to come. Not just the election but giving Hillary the reins and seeing what she does with them. That, my friends, will be real change.

Cocktail Party Here Every Friday Until The Election.

Anyone interested? Should we google hangout it? Podcast it? Raise some money?

I’m open to suggestions.

Let’s get the party started!

 

It’s not us, it’s you

Yesterday, Twitter was all aflutter when someone who purports to be a Bernie supporter put out a #DropOutHillary hashtag up and it started trending. Then people started to take offense and  Melissa McKewn started a #KeepWinningHillary hashtag up and it started trending.

It sounds very silly and juvenile and “I know you are but what am I?” but it’s really not funny.

For one thing, we don’t know who started it. Or what their motivation was. But back in 2008, it was very common for Hillary to kill Obama in a primary in say, Pennsylvania, and the next day, there would be headlines in some major paper quoting some Obama campaign flunky telling her to drop out because she couldn’t win (subtext, she couldn’t win without FL and MI which were being negotiated away by Obama and his backers with the DNC).

Some current Bernie supporters know this.

I also went to one of my first Hillary campaign meetings in Pittsburgh and there were some negative things said about Bernie people. But there were also many of us who publicly said we were not going to indulge in that because we have friends and family members who were decent people who didn’t want free stuff and were more issues oriented and it was wrong to paint all these people with the same brush.

Butcha know, Bernie people are starting to get a reputation for being messianic zealots. Samantha Bee did a segment on them recently and one of my favorite podcasters, Seth Andrews from The Thinking Atheist (who seems like the “I’m not taking sides sort”), came down equally hard on Bernie’s people as Trump’s.

I think Clinton people just want to get on with it. If they seem grouchy, maybe it’s because as jjintacoma said last night, Trump is negative towards her, the media is negative towards her and the Bernie people are against her. It gets old after awhile.

I’m not saying that she’s a “poor little me” type, quite the opposite. Because, you know, she keeps winning in spite of it all. So, clearly, there are many millions of people who see through all of the endless investigations that find nothing, and the accusations of dishonesty that are unfounded, and the crazy notion that she has ever traded her vote for contributions (ATT retroactive immunity bill? Hello!). There’s no conspiracy going on here to deprive anyone of votes.

She runs a clean campaign. If she didn’t, you can bet there would be yet another investigation about it.

She is possibly the cleanest candidate we have ever had run for office.

You may not like everything she says and I would agree that she took way too long this time to wake up to what’s really going on because it is really difficult to block out the constant cheering for Obama’s every thought, word and deed. But she is clean.

And some Bernie people should know it.

Chill out, people. This is a normal, no funny business primary season. There will be one winner and one person who will not win.

It’s not over yet. Not by a long shot. A lot could happen. Even the person who loses could make a huge difference. Let everyone vote and watch what happens. There’s no need for a protest vote yet.

Finally, if there are people who are sowing dissension between the two parts of the Democratic party, we need to consider who they are and who they are working for. Because they might be outsiders.

 

Something to Chew On: Iconoclasts and Coattails

dsc00141_closeup_of_highland_cow2The New York Times editorial yesterday was about how the Democrats need to start listening to Bernie. He’s the one with his finger on the pulse of the country.

Regardless of how the nomination procedure turns out, I have to agree with this. It was one of my major concerns about Hillary this time around. She seemed to have gotten campaign advice from former Obama people who hadn’t been outside for awhile. They have no idea what has happened to us in the last 8 years. Or maybe they do and they think we’re all ok with being contractors with no benefits one layoff away from being entrepreneurs.

Hillary need to do another listening tour. I think she is hearing us now. That’s a good thing.

And unlike some Clintonistas, I think it would be a very good thing to push ourselves more in the direction of small, homogenous Scandinavian countries, which if you grouped them all together take up a whole lot of European territory (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, I might be tempted to throw in the Netherlands).

One belwether that points to the level of discontent is the Senate primary in Pennsylvania where Joe Sestak, who would presumably be the party pick but oddly wasn’t, lost.

And John Fetterman, a very unlikely Senator, won almost 20% of the vote. John is the mayor of Braddock, PA, about 15 minutes from where I live. I used to pass through Braddock and think, you know what would improve this place? A bomb. But Fetterman had other ideas. He’s a big fan of urban renewal and community and the kind of things that one might do in Norway.

I don’t think anyone expected him to get 20%. That’s significant. We ought to think deeply about that. Why would the state of PA give up 20% of its vote to a giant who doesn’t seem to own a suit who is the mayor of a bankrupt steel town on the Monongahela?

The other thing we need to note is that Katie McGinty actually won the primary. She’s a former chemist (yay!) and a current lawyer with a work history in environmental policy. I’m really thrilled to be able to vote for her this fall.

But I have to admit, she had a really crappy ballot position.It was waaaaay down on the ballot where the nether world candidates usually live. I’m sure it was just the luck of the draw. But to find her name and vote for her, you needed to be very committed.

That, oh, best beloveds, may very well be Hillary’s coat tails.

Rachel Maddow Destroys the 2008 Narrative

Bernie says he’s going to contest the convention.

I like Bernie. But I think he is beginning to listen too much to the same damn people we had to put up with in 2008. This is what they think:

Hillary is evil. She has The Ring. Her voters are unimportant. She must step aside. 

I would go even further and speculate that many of Bernie’s middle aged male Democratic supporters are suffering from what I call The More Deserving Man Syndrome. That is, no matter what over accomplished woman is competing for what has been an exclusively male position before, there will always be that one more deserving man out there that only other men can see. But I digress.

Getting back to the title.

Rachel Maddow destroyed Bernie’s argument (post from BlueNationReview) for why there should be a contested convention by taking away one of the pillars of the “Obama ran a great campaign!” argument. She pointed out just how close the convention was in 2008. Actually, I think her estimate of a 4% pledged delegate difference is too high. It depends on how she is counting the Florida and Michigan delegations. If she is counting them as only half strength and Obama getting all of Michigan’s uncommitted delegates from a primary in which he wasn’t even on the ballot, then it was much, much closer than 4%. It was statistically insignificant.

Nevertheless, almost all of the superdelegates switched from Hillary to Obama. I say there was money involved, filtered to down ticket races from Obama’s Wall Street donors. But whatever.

Here’s the bottom line: Obama “won” the nomination from:

1.) Winning mostly caucus states. He lost most of the big Democratic prizes like CA, PA, NY, NJ, MA, FL, OH, TX, MI, NJ, just go look at the primary map

2.) Gifts of uncommitted delegates in MI plus a halving of FL and MI delegates by the fiat of the Rules Committee in May 2008.

3.) Superdelegates

That’s it. There was nothing magical about Obama’s campaign. He wasn’t that successful. If it weren’t for the media helping him but constructing a false narrative about *his* inevitability, he could have been subjected to a legitimate floor flight from a opponent who had far more reason to contest his appointment. In short, he would be where Bernie is now.

Do you hear what I’m saying Emily Bazelon, David Plotz and John Dickerson??  Obama did not win in a landslide. It wasn’t even close to a landslide. He won because you guys helped him and gave his crazy ass supporters a lot more legitimacy than they deserved. Now, it is coming back again full circle because those same crazy ass guys think they can do it again.

And the reason we know just how ridiculously close the 2008 delegate count was is because Hillary was pressured to concede the nomination before the first ballot roll call ended and before California had to commit its delegates, by law, to Clinton. Pelosi et al wanted to hurry the whole thing along and flip the states without the legal requirement of a first ballot commitment before anyone caught on.

I can never listen to Love Train again without wanting to throw up.

You would think that the first female candidate to get that close to winning the nomination would be accorded the honor of a full first ballot roll call vote. How does that make you feel, Rachel Maddow? Her pledged delegates were bullied and harassed in some cases, and many states didn’t get an opportunity to vote for her during the first ballot. We’re not talking about the second ballot where they could switch. We’re saying that some states were forced to switch during the first ballot. And the vast majority of the media was totally onboard with robbing the first female candidate of a first round roll call vote that she was going to lose anyway by less than 100 votes if we count all the delegate reassignment.

The first female candidate with legitimate claim to the nomination was ordered by her party to step aside.

Does that sound cool to you now eight years later? Because it wasn’t to us.

But if the party had gone ahead with a regular roll call vote, just like every male candidate would have demanded, the vote would have looked way too close and might have roused the attention and enthusiasm of the voters who were not enamored with Obama and thought he didn’t have the experience to take on what the Bushies and the financial industry were going to leave him. And they would have been right.

But Hillary graciously stepped aside. Just like Al Gore graciously stepped aside. Just like John Kerry graciously stepped aside.

Three points. Hmmmm, there’s a trend there…  It’s almost as if someone wants a relatively weak and easy to control Democrat in the White House or a right wing Republican…

But Bernie wants to contest the convention. His supporters would like for Hillary to graciously step aside — again.

Really?  I’m talking to all you issues oriented Bernie supporters out there. Do you really want Bernie to push aside this female candidate who is winning in a legitimate, clean primary season without any hinky rules crap? Is this really what you want?

She’s winning fair and square. It’s not up to you to substitute your judgment for the judgment of other voters no matter how stupid, mislead or uninformed you may think they are. If you were able to tolerate the least prepared Democratic president, you can tolerate the most prepared. Yes, there will be people who will make her look like Satan incarnate. It’s going to be hard for her. But if she couldn’t challenge in a year when she had every right to do it, then Bernie should accept the will of the voters after everyone has had a vote, and concede graciously.

Nobody gets exactly what they want in an election year. There is no perfect candidate who will say all the right things and is certified and guaranteed to do exactly what you want once they get into office. Do you want that anyway? What if something really important comes up and that president has to do something they thought they’d never do? All you can do is look at their records, look at their accomplishments, see if they are learning as the campaign proceeds and vote accordingly.

That’s what Clinton’s voters have done and they will not step aside this year.

The Things of May

beltane-fire-fest

The May Queen banishes the spirits of winter and darkness at the Beltane Fire Festival in Edinburgh

The White House Correspondent’s Dinner was last night. I haven’t watched it since Stephen Colbert did a masterful job of making the media stars look like the self-absorbed, overpaid, underwhelming, lazy “journalists” they are.

Obama was there and couldn’t help but take a swipe at Hillary– for not knowing how to use Facebook.

President Obama poked fun at Hillary Clinton’s lack of appeal among young people Saturday night, joking at the annual White House press corps dinner that Mrs. Clinton was like an aging relative who cannot figure out how to use Facebook.

“Did you get my poke? Is it on my wall?” he said, imagining Mrs. Clinton trying to use the popular social media site. “I’m not sure I’m using this right. Love, Aunt Hillary.”

Ok, stop right there. I wasn’t at this dinner so I’m not sure of the context that this comment was made. But I have something to say about Facebook.

I hate Facebook. I’m not the only person who feels this way. And I don’t want to toot my own horn here but throughout my career, I’ve learned many different applications. I even have an application scale of my own making. The hardest one I ever learned was called HKL and I didn’t even really learn it all that well because I ran out of time before we were laid off. New applications do not intimidate me. I look forward to bending them to my will.

Except for Facebook.I don’t like the interface. It’s confusing. I can post stuff on my wall and get around but it doesn’t feel natural to me and probably never will. Perhaps I’m overthinking it. There’s got to be more to it than this stupid wall and how do you see everything in order??

But guess what? I can survive without Facebook. In fact, there is a whole side of the internet that Facebook devotees will not discover unless they leave Facebook and learn to use other apps and browsers on their tablets.

I’ll go even further. You can use Facebook in several different ways. You can use it as a social media tool. It’s a way to post all those pics you took at the last party you went to or the last time you saw all your friends from high school. Or you can use Facebook as your single entry and exit point into the internet. This is how some elderly people I know use it. Unlike what Obama is suggesting, older people get around Facebook fine. They don’t have an issue with it. It’s like the AOL of the 21st century. When everyone else moves on to SnapChat and Periscope, all your older relatives will still be on Facebook.

So, I don’t know where Obama was going with this dig at Hillary and Facebook. But if she were a normal person her age, she would be a master of Facebook. Fortunately, she is not a normal person her age and she uses everything. Or her campaign does.

Will anyone be waiting for updates to Obama’s Facebook page when he leaves office? Um, probably not as many as might have obsessively checked in 2008. Facebook is old. It’s still a classic but the rest of the world has moved on. You have to wonder if Obama knew that when he made that stupid joke.

How many “journalists” thought it was funny? Did anyone watch it last night? I’m curious to know how many younger correspondents were rolling their eyes in embarrassment while people like Chris Matthews was guffawing and chugging his chard.

Anyway, I’m picking up signals here and there that Obama and Hillary have had a strained relationship and are only bound by party obligations. So, I guess it’s no surprise that he would take a few gratuitous digs at her.

I’ll never understand what some people saw in him. Never, never, never.

*********************************************************************

Lance Mannion has a post about why Bernie people and Hillary people see history differently and how this has led some Democrats to put the blame for everything on Hillary’s shoulders. Worth a read. Here’s a sample:

At any rate, it is in Bernie’s interest that Hillary be “remembered” as not just having been wrong but bad. Bad as in a bad person. Evil, in fact.

For many of the Bernie supporters of my online acquaintance, it’s not enough for Clinton to be evil herself. She has to be Evil incarnate, the root of all evil and cause of all that’s wrong with the country and all that electing Bernie would fix. The way they go at it in their tweets and posts it’s as if she was at least co-president through Bill’s two terms, that George W. Bush was president for just long enough to lie us into the war in Iraq, at Hillary’s urging, after which she took over, guiding and prolonging the war from her seat in the Senate, where she did nothing else—Lilly Ledbetter? Never heard of her.—until Barack Obama became president, when once again she assumed the role of co-president, making all his foreign and military policy decisions until she left the State Department to prepare for her coronation as Queen-President in her own right.

But even among the more sensible, reasonable, and less doctrinaire, Bernie’s purity is generally proven by Hillary’s corruption and for that work history must be “remembered” accordingly.  And the ones taking the lead in the misremembering are middle-aged men—almost all the Bernie people I know online are Bernie guys and middle-aged Bernie guys at that—old enough to have been politically aware adults during the years of Bill’s presidency and Hillary’s time in the Senate but who apparently didn’t take notes and haven’t bothered to do the homework needed to make up for it.

Middle aged male Democrats, what’s up with them?? Srsly, I don’t get it.

I agree with him but I think there is another component to this. That is, Hillary takes the place of the sacrificial scapegoat. For some reason, some of it social pressure, these Democrats can not blame the party, Obama, themselves or Republicans for what has happened in the country in the last 20 years. It’s easy to make Hillary the convenient target because the media has beaten up on her continuously since she joined the spotlight and also because she actually has a record to criticize, a point that Lance touched on as well.

But something seems very primal here. There’s an element of ritual about hanging everything bad on this one woman. The Scapegoat Mechanism really is a thing, according to philosophers such as Rene Girard, who describes it like this:

In Girard’s view, it is humankind, not God, who has need for various forms of atoning violence. Humans are driven by desire for that which another has or wants (mimetic desire). This causes a triangulation of desire and results in conflict between the desiring parties. This mimetic contagion increases to a point where society is at risk; it is at this point that the scapegoat mechanism[9] is triggered. This is the point where one person is singled out as the cause of the trouble and is expelled or killed by the group. This person is the scapegoat. Social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual, and the cycle begins again. The keyword here is “content”. Scapegoating serves as a psychological relief for a group of people.

I can think of a lot of things that are desired here. For example, I think a lot of men can not wrap their heads around the idea that we might have a female president when they can think of a lot of “more deserving” men who could do the job. Do “desire” and “deserving” have a common cognate?

The idea that we can’t even contemplate one single woman before we have exhausted all of the other male possibilities who might be a smidgeon better is both funny and horrifying. After all, we have had over 40 presidents so far and all of them have been men. That means that half of them have been below average. (Average, not mean) Isn’t there any curiosity about where a woman would fit on the gaussian distribution graph?

I’m beginning to think that nothing short of a Nobel Prize would be enough to make Hillary comparable to a man who is running. Therefore, there must be something seriously wrong with her. She wants something that others want more and can’t get. She did her homework, got the experience, made all the right friends. Why is she so damned persistent? And how much bad stuff can we hang on her before we send her away again? Again! We thought we got rid of her in 2008 but she’s back. Well, we can’t have that…

(One final note: In this respect, Katiebird and I disagree. I don’t blame Hillary for getting a private email server. I remember in the early days of the Patriot Act when a system administrator working for the Republicans in the Senate broke into the Democrats’ server and made copies of strategic and other documents for his owners. He wasn’t punished or anything and if I recall correctly, the Democrats were blamed for not tightening up security of their server. It’s sort of the same argument that rapists make about their victims. If she hadn’t been wearing a short skirt, none of this would have happened. Nevermind that Nixon had to resign over doing something similar but lower tech before the days of personal computers and the internet.

So, if you are a Secretary of State and you just went through a grueling primary campaign and have 20 years of media and Republican nut cases trying to track down every “LOL!” you’ve ever texted to contort and parade before a gullible public, wouldn’t you want to make sure that nothing you wrote would be hacked into?

If the Republicans can have their own servers that are off limits to the public but through which they conduct public business (and then just conveniently erase when the heat is on), it’s unreasonable for someone who has had a history of bad relations with the other party, her own party and the media to be required more than any other person in government to leave everything open. Better to lock it all down as securely as possible. The State Department servers might not have been (and turns out the unclassified email servers weren’t) secure enough.

It’s up to the accusers to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something nefarious was going on with her personal email server, which didn’t contain any classified emails at the time she sent them, and that some hard and fast rule was violated that Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama haven’t also violated. When you can absolutely prove that, then you can make your case and seek indictments. Otherwise, it seems like a lot of cherry picking. Of only Hillary. The Scapegoat.

I guess you could say that it was dumb for her to do it because, as the designated Scapegoat, she should have known she was going to have to bear the blame of everyone else who did it. (“We didn’t say you were at fault, we said we were going to blame you”) It was ok when everyone else did it but it’s IMMORAL and ILLEGAL when Hillary does it. So, yes, that was probably dumb. But then, it would have been dumb to use a less secure system as well knowing that as the designated Scapegoat, everyone and their brother would use the flimsiest of excuses to go through each and every email on the State Department servers. On balance, is it better to ask for forgiveness or permission? Given that this was a no win situation, the more secure server may have been the most responsible, better choice.)

 

 

 

She did it again… and again

If we lose in November, we have people like Digby to thank.

Two times today, she posted about what she imagines to be the typical Trump voter. Naturally, racism played heavily into this image. I’m not linking to them. To be fair, she’s not the only one who does this. Paul Krugman and many, many others do it too.

I’m not going to deny that there are certain Trump supporters who are definitely racists. But she is completely missing the point. Or is she reinforcing it?

Whatever it is she and other lefties think they’re doing, I would advise them to STOP. DOING. IT.

I will spell it out: There are many people on the left and right who are very unhappy with the way government has been run since the financial crisis hit in 2008. But as soon as they open their mouths to lodge a protest or complaint, the left rolls out this meme that they MUST be racists.

That makes people who are already angry even angrier. Because what if their complaints are legitimate? You are giving them no where to complain and making them feel like they can’t get their point across.

That’s why they are turning to people like Trump. He’s promising to not shush them up. He’s going to give them a voice. And the thing that Fox News has been pounding into its viewers’ heads is that political correctness is wrong. That doesn’t mean racism isn’t wrong. What is wrong is for one group of people to use race as a tool to stifle dissenting voices.

I don’t happen to agree with Fox News that it’s Ok to be a racist ignoramus but it is certainly more than ok to make your grievances known without having to feel like you’ve become an instant bigot overnight when you celebrated the Civil Rights movement in your youth.

This is what the talking points arm of the Democratic party has been doing. They are turning a lot of people into instant bigots. It’s guilt by association. It’s not going to work. In fact, it is going to make the typical Trump supporter even more determined to shove it up your ass. Not all of Trump’s supporters are going to the rallies for the policies. They’re going for the empowerment. They’re going because it confounds and pisses off liberals. The more you lose your shit over them going and pointing out the racism, the more pumped they get about their candidate because the goal is to make you angry and it is working.

No, it is not rational, but it is very human.

Now, there are a lot more women in this country than there are african americans or hispanic people or any other group you can name. Women are NOT a minority and they shouldn’t be a “special interest” group. They are the majority of citizens in this country and the fact that so many of us are underpaid compared to men and that our issues and concerns are so downplayed on Op/Ed pages and in Congress should be a cause for general alarm. Because when the majority of people in our country are treated like second class citizens, that means it holds down all of the people who are dependent on them. Sexism is definitely a huge problem. But if the left keeps accusing everyone on the other side of the aisle as racists, then that means that they in turn will accuse everyone on our side of using a <fill in the blank> card whenever we want to shut down debate.

It will backfire on Hillary Clinton.

The typical Trump supporter is not as insecure as the typical lefty about being called names. We’ve been calling them stupid, uneducated, low-information, hicks and bigots for a long time. And some of that is definitely true. But they have Fox in their corner where typical Clintonistas have, well, absolutely nobody in the media. It’s a very lopsided situation. If you go after the typical Trump guy, he won’t give a shit. His cheering section will just keep going.

On the other hand, if even one little thing Trump says has even a tenth of a nanoparticle of credibility with respect to Hillary and her supporters, the New York Times is going to be all over it. She has no cheering section. That is no exaggeration. We’re it. Well, us, a few other blogs and some very determined people on Twitter.

Ok, nevermind. Just do it your way. The jini’s already out of the bottle. Keep it up. Force them to turn the card business around on us.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 607 other followers