Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid!! – The DNC’s Suicide Pact with Hillary Clinton

Suicide pactSo now the Democratic Primary is moving into its last stages, and a very disturbing trend is starting to appear.

It seems that the DNC and the Superdelegates are determined to support Hillary Clinton even in the face of mounting evidence that she is a deeply flawed and weak candidate who is in serious peril of losing to Donald Trump in the General Election.

The DNC campaign to elect Hillary Started in 2013 with the “Ready for Hillary” PAC

NGP VAN (DNC Database provider) donated the "Ready for Hillary" bus

NGP VAN (DNC Database provider) donated the “Ready for Hillary” bus – conflict of interest much??

Upon her leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton’s DNC allies wasted no time in setting up the Ready for Hillary PAC, an organization that was setup according to the new rules that were in place following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. By September of 2013 the Ready for Hillary PAC was already involved in helping finance the campaigns of Clinton’s “down ballot allies” such as Terry McAuliffe in Virginia, and by 2014 the PAC even started to spread money around to 27 state Democratic parties and six national organizations such as Emily’s List.

Fast forward to 2015, when the Ready for Hillary operation split into the Ready PAC and the Hillary Victory Fund, which continued to funnel money to Democratic State parties and candidates.

The Clintons and the DNC are now one big corrupt entity

Sen. Claire McCaskill is an example of the influence the Clintons have on the DNC

Sen. Claire McCaskill is an example of the influence the Clintons have on the DNC

The Democratic Establishment is fully invested in Hillary Clinton, and vice versa. The two entities of the DNC and the Clinton Family are so intertwined that they cannot be separated. The Clintons invented pay-to-play politics back in the 90’s and now they have perfected and promoted the “system” to the point where they completely dominate that system. I would expect that a substantial amount of the DNC and state party funding is now due either directly or indirectly to Clinton contributions or influence. It is reminiscent of the Medicis and the Catholic Church in Renaissance Florence – financial and political patronage combined with Establishment “legitimacy”.

But here is the problem

Hillary is the weakest and most flawed candidate that the Democratic Party has ever put up for election. This is not a subjective opinion, it is an objective analysis. Her negative favorability numbers are well north of 50% and have been for most of the past 3 decades. In the Democratic Primary of 2008, Senator Chris Dodd famously opined at a candidate debate that Hillary was “unelectable” because polls showed that half the country would never vote for her. “We may not like it but a fact is a fact,” Dodd said, and “we as a party need to take that into account.”

Hillary's unfavorables are now 5 points WORSE than when she was deemed "unelectable" in 2008

Hillary’s unfavorables are now 5 points WORSE than when she was deemed “unelectable” in 2008

That was then, but this is now. Hillary still has astronomically high negative favorability numbers, but the Democratic Party is steadfastly refusing to heed Dodd’s words. The fact that a large majority of Americans consider her untrustworthy is a fact that is NOT being taken into account.

Aside from her blatant flip-flops, her wooden personality, and her universally acknowledged problems with appearing human on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has a major problem that is not going away: Hillary Clinton is at the center of a FBI criminal investigation. Despite the best efforts of both the Clinton campaign and the DNC to spin the investigation as a “security enquiry,” the FBI Director James Comey has confirmed that it is a traditional FBI investigation to ascertain whether laws have been broken.

This is mind-boggling. That a candidate under FBI criminal investigation could not only survive but flourish under the overt and protecting hand of a major political party is something that was unthinkable until this election cycle. Whether or not Hillary is indicted, whether or not anyone is indicted, is not at issue at this point. What is at issue is the fact that this “scandal” continues to raise questions about Clinton’s trustworthiness, her hubris, her preference to play outside the rules, or to bend those rules when they suit her.

Warnings are everywhere

Hillary is essentially tied with Donald Trump in the polls nationally, and is in a very weak position in key battleground states. Indeed, in the key swing state of Ohio, Trump is already beating Hillary by 4 points. And this is BEFORE Trump “pivots to the center.” Trump is already backpedaling on some of his more incendiary positions, <a href="" HRC-Trumptarget=”_blank”>seeming to be OK with transgender Americans using the bathroom of their choice, implying that the minimum wage should be raised in America, and that the rich should actually pay more in taxes.

These U-turns are now added to the advantages Trump already had against Hillary in the areas of Trade and Foreign Policy, where he is attacking her for supporting NAFTA and other “bad” trade deals, and hammering her for supporting the Iraq war and generally being a war hawk who is too eager to go to war:

“On foreign policy, Hillary is trigger happy,” Trump told the crowd. “She is, she’s trigger happy. She’s got a bad temperament,” he said. “Her decisions in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya have cost trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and have totally unleashed ISIS.”

"She came to my wedding. She had to, because I gave."

“She came to my wedding. She had to, because I gave.”

And of course, Trump is attacking “Crooked Hillary” on corruption. Trump has a personal and compelling argument to make about Hillary because he contributed to her campaign and he saw a return on that investment. “She came to my wedding,” he says, “she had to, because I gave.”

Think about that: Trump has first hand knowledge of how the “corrupt political Establishment” works because it worked for him – with HILLARY!

If Trump can successfully tone down his rhetoric, his “leftist” positions on Trade and Foreign Policy will echo those of Bernie Sanders; his attacks on Hillary for being “in the pocket” of wealthy campaign donors and Wall Street will find a ready and willing audience, and he will succeed in capturing many of Bernie’s supporters who are Independents.

The numbers don’t help

And the Democrats need those Independents in order to win. Membership in the Democratic Party has continued to dwindle, and now the Democrats represent only 29% of the American electorate (the GOP has 26%). A plurality of voters are now Independents (42%) and any successful campaign will have to court those voters.

And yes, since 2013 the % of voters identifying as Democrats has dropped from 31% to 29%.

And yes, since 2013 the % of voters identifying as Democrats has dropped from 31% to 29%.

The solution is clear and simple – and that is to make Bernie Sanders the nominee. Bernie does not have the baggage of Clinton, he polls very high in favorability ratings, he is seen to be honest and trustworthy, and his positions ALL command majoritarian support among the American people. Most of all, Bernie is NOT under an FBI criminal investigation.

The utterly invalid push-back against Bernie

ClaireWhen forced to confront all the negative aspects of a Clinton nomination, Hillary supporters push back with the same story lines that we have been hearing from the likes of Claire McCaskill since Bernie first announced his candidacy:

“Bernie is not vetted” – this is ridiculous. Bernie has won 14 Congressional and Senatorial elections running as a Socialist Independent up against the Democratic AND Republican establishments, and in one case beat Vermont’s wealthiest man, who outspent Bernie many times over. He is certainly more thoroughly vetted than Barack Obama was.

“Bernie will be attacked as a Socialist/Communist who wants to raise your taxes” – this argument literally makes me laugh. I feel forced to ask the person making it whether they have been in a coma for the past 8 years. Has there ever been a campaign in recent memory where the Republican did NOT attack the Democrat as a commie who would raise taxes? The American electorate is wise to this sort of bunk, and coming from the Republicans, who have never ceased to compare Obama to Mao, Stalin, Castro, and even Hitler all at the same time, such arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Even the GOP admits that this election will be the first in decades where the size of Government will not be an issue, and that indicates a sea change in the electorate that Hillary is just not able to connect with. Remember, she and her husband were the ones that famously and proud;y declared that “the era of big government is over.” The fact that government is no longer seen as “the problem” is something that old-school DLC apparatchiks like Hillary and Bill Clinton simply cannot cope with.

A Slow-Motion Train Wreck

To anyone paying attention, it is clear that the DNC and the Superdelegates, who have been “bought” by the Clinton campaign, cannot make a rational decision when it comes to selecting the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump. They will support Hillary up until the day she is indicted, and even then I am sure some surrogates would still be supporting her. But aside from the FBI investigation there are already many signs to indicate that she will lose against Donald Trump in the fall, whereas Bernie Sanders would win.

Die-hard Democrats accuse Bernie supporters of being naïve, of not accepting reality, in believing in a fairy tale dream. With Hillary, so the narrative goes, we will have a candidate that is practical and has been battle-tested. Yes, they say, her poll numbers are horrible, but that is only because she has been in the public eye for so long, and has suffered decades of scorn, scandal and vicious attacks.

But while Clinton supporters are quick to point out the history of attacks, they refuse to acknowledge the result: Only 19% of Americans think Hillary is trustworthythat number can only go DOWN.

By contrast, fully 80% of Americans think that Bernie Sanders is trustworthy.

Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz: More than BFFs.

Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz: More than BFFs.

And yet — they are convinced that Hillary Clinton, having spent 35 years in the public spotlight being constantly painted as a corrupt politician by her opponents, will be able to change the opinion of the American public in just a few months’ time. They steadfastly believe that she will overcome decades of opprobrium and negative polls quickly and successfully, and she will turn those numbers around all the while being attacked by an unscrupulous and outrageous media manipulator like Donald Trump, with the full funding and fury of the Right Wing and the GOP behind him.

Surely, this is madness.

Posted in 2016 Campaign, Bernie Sanders, Politics | Leave a comment

Jury Nullification, the “Glass Ceiling” and Clinton’s Support Base

Like many progressives who support Bernie Sanders, I have been amazed by the capacity for Clinton supporters to defend her even in the face of overwhelming and damning evidence of her faults. During the course of the Primary campaign, much of Clinton’s history, her past deeds and positions have come to light, and yet the hard core base of Hillary fans are immune to any and all proof of her having adopted, promoted and defended very illiberal positions on health care, fracking, trade, foreign policy, and so on.

Hillary's "convenience" explanation is false on its face, yet her supporters claim they believe it.

Hillary’s “convenience” explanation is false on its face, yet her supporters claim they believe it.

Moreover, I am continually astounded at the vehemence with which Clinton adherents dismiss the current FBI criminal investigations into her emails as just another “witch hunt” perpetrated by the “vast right wing conspiracy.” The fact that this is the Obama Administration, the Kerry State Department and the frigging FBI who are investigating is completely lost on them. The actions of the US Dept. of Justice under the aegis of a Democratic President – and one who had Hillary serve in his cabinet – are, in the end, no different to Clintonites than those of the slavering partisans in the GOP-controlled House committees.

Why is this?

I first attempted to describe this phenomenon in a blog post in which I talked about “RCDS” – or “Reverse Clinton Derangement Syndrome.” I believe that I correctly identified a major phenomenon of cognitive dissonance on the Left as regards Hillary Clinton, in that Clinton supporters are having to twist themselves into mental pretzels in order to claim a progressive mindset and yet support the clearly non-progressive policies of their candidate. But I could not explain WHY this was happening.

And then it hit me: what we are witnessing among Hillary supporters – especially women of a certain age – is sort of “Jury Nullification.” This is the act by which a jury finds a defendant innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and even when they may privately recognise the culpability of the defendant. Jury Nullification exists in order to right previous wrongs or fight back against an unjust legal or social order by “nullifying” the law’s intended effect on a particular defendant. The phenomenon of Jury Nullification goes back a long time historically, but was most recently seen prominently in the case of O.J. Simpson.

Lionel (Lon) Cryer, an OJ Simpson juror, who gave the "Black Power" salute just prior to the "not guilty" verdict being read.

Lionel (Lon) Cryer, an OJ Simpson juror, who gave the “Black Power” salute just prior to the “not guilty” verdict being read.

In the Simpson trial, almost all those who were watching nationwide – especially white people – simply could not understand how Simpson could be exonerated. And yet for the mostly black jury, the trial was not so much about the guilt of one man as it was about the fact that the LAPD was an extremely racist organisation filled with sadistic cops who had been unjustly persecuting people of colour for years.

I think the same is true in Hillary’s case. The people who support Hillary Clinton most adamantly are those who admire her ability to have come as far as she has, done the things that she has done, but above all for having achieved them despite the many obstacles and hindrances that were placed in her path all along the way over the past 40 years.

I first started to suspect that Jury Nullification was at work when I looked at all the female Senators that had endorsed Clinton en masse. Among them were Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, the two Senators from the State of Washington. Bernie Sanders won the Washington State Primary with 73% of the vote, but these two Clinton Superdelegates refuse to even consider moving their support away from Clinton.

Likewise, I look at Claire McCaskill and Jennifer Granholm, one a Senator and one an ex-Governor, who have both been tireless and enthusiastic surrogates for Hillary since the beginning of her campaign.

Katherine Lawrence was an HP employee credited with coining the term "Glass Ceiling" in 1979

Katherine Lawrence was an HP employee credited with coining the term “Glass Ceiling” in 1979

All of these women were born in the 50’s, and so would have been in their 20’s when the term “glass ceiling” was first coined by HP’s Katherine Lawrence in 1979. According to Wikipedia’s definition, “A glass ceiling is a term used to describe the unseen, yet unbreakable, barrier that keeps one from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of qualifications or achievements.”

The concept of the Glass Ceiling was thus something very real and very important to them. The idea that women could not succeed or rise to a prominent position either in politics or business due to unfair biases, “old boys networks” and other structural prejudices was something that directly affected them and their contemporaries. Even today there is a large group of middle aged and even younger women who realise that the Glass Ceiling still persists in many areas of endeavour, and that women continue to be judged unfairly by both their male colleagues and the mass media. Female “baby boomers” were thus predisposed to combat and destroy this “invisible barrier” everywhere they found it. It was a quest, an ethos, a crusade like any other in the Civil Rights and the woman’s movement. Yes, the gutless politicians could not pass the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), but women themselves could certainly break those barriers in the private sector. But that still left Politics. And the greatest symbolic prize there was to elect a woman as President.

So when Hillary exhorts her followers to “help me break that last glass ceiling” she is speaking to something very deep-set and very powerful within this cohort of Democratic women. When Hillary talks about “breaking down barriers” (ass she did in her Super Tuesday victory speech), she is speaking to those ardent supporters who have been breaking down barriers their entire lives.

The Jury Nullification argument becomes even stronger when we look at the 2008 race, which was very contentious and hard- fought. Back then it wasn’t “Bernie Bros” but “Obama Boys” who were the sexist misogynists out to derail a worthy woman from her deserved destiny. The Corporate Media was also against her, and even the most energetic, vituperative and savage attacks by her husband against her opponent could not save the day.

When Hillary did concede, however, she gave a very definitive and pointed shout out to those who had watched her blaze a trail through what they perceived as a misogynistic, rigged system. She spoke in the plural and rallied her sisters thusly:

Hillary Clinton giving her concession speech, June 7, 2008.

Hillary Clinton giving her concession speech, June 7, 2008.

“Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it, and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time.”

So there you have it: in 2008, Hillary declared that the “invisible barrier” was still there; she had done her best to break it, but it was not yet broken. To all those who listened that night, however, it was clear that she would be back.

And now she is back, and she is winning. And there is nothing that will stop her. That Glass Ceiling, that invisible barrier that has been blocking women for the past 40 years, will finally be shattered. And THAT is what is important.

Hillary may be an imperfect vessel; she may have faults, she may be a weak candidate and suffer the loathing and mistrust of a majority of Americans, but for that energized cohort of female Democrats who have themselves been butting their head against that Glass Ceiling for decades, it is not about Hillary Clinton per se. It is about electing a woman President of the United States.

Elizabeth Warren is a firebrand and a darling of the Progressive Movement.

Elizabeth Warren is a firebrand and a darling of the Progressive Movement.

Many Democrats, liberals and progressives would also like to see a woman in the White House – “just not that woman”. I have been on many blogs and website comments sections where Sanders supporters or Hillary detractors defend themselves by saying that they would have loved to see Elizabeth Warren run for President. Indeed, it is widely believed that had Warren run, Sanders would not have thrown his hat into the ring. But that misses the point. Warren is NOT running, and Hillary is. It is Hillary Clinton that can gain the nomination and then go on to be elected POTUS.

The foibles, the scandals, the failures, the faults and the suspected criminal activity that pertain to the specific person of Hillary Rodham Clinton are irrelevant. She could be sitting in a jail cell and there would still be people trying to get her elected, because she is the last, best hope for a female President in 2016 and, after coming so close in 2008, after having put those “18 million cracks” in the Glass Ceiling, it is more important than anything else right now to finish the job, to break that invisible barrier, to achieve what so many have fought so hard to make happen.

Ulysses S. Grant was a horrible person, and a man of many faults. But he won the Civil War, and that was what counted. Democratic dames d’une certaine age and many of their younger sisters see Hillary in much the same light, I am sure. And like those jurists in the O.J. Simpson trial, they are willing to give the defendant a pass in order to strike a broader blow for the common good.

My take-away from all this? Do not try to reason with a true Hillary supporter. Anything you say will only come across as you telling them that the Glass Ceiling is still there, and it will not be broken. For them it is all about the message, not the messenger. Hillary is not just Hillary, she is all women who have faced that Glass Ceiling, who have had to live in that rigged system, who have struggled against the sexism that does surely still exist among their colleagues. And any words against that messianic cause will be received by them as a personal afront, as if you’re saying “it’s not yet your time.” And they have waited too long to be denied again.

Posted in 2016 Campaign, Bernie Sanders, Culture, History, Politics | Leave a comment

The Clintons and their Allies, The Koch Brothers

In April 2016, Charles Koch made headlines when, during an interview with CBS, he said that he might very well support Hillary Clinton rather than any of the GOP candidates still in the running at that time.

Koch’s remarks were treated as a major surprise:

DLC_HRCHillary was very quick to denounce the half-hearted endorsement, but there is a reason why Koch’s support for Clinton should come as no surprise: the Kochs helped propel the Clintons into the White House and were a major donor and backer of Clinton’s Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

When Bill and Hillary Clinton moved into the White House in 1992, they had a lot of people to thank. Prominent among those people were the Koch Brothers and their massive corporation, Koch Industries, Inc.

As Robert Dreyfuss explained in The American Prospect:

“…28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC’s executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC’s executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively–meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.”

Clinton_DLCSo there you have it. The Clintons were part of the “New Democrat” movement that was funded by Corporate America, including the Koch Brothers.

You may have noticed that Verizon Communications was also a part of the DLC Board. That is probably why it took Hillary so long to express support for the striking workers last month. Of course, Bernie was out there supporting the Verizon workers last October. Still, it must have come as quite a shock to the executives at Verizon when their old DLC comrade, Hillary Clinton, finally spent some time with the workers …

Posted in 2016 Campaign, Bernie Sanders, Politics | Leave a comment

RCDS – “Reverse Clinton Derangement Syndrome” – Its Symptoms and its Cure


There is an epidemic affecting millions of people who once described themselves as “liberal” and/or “progressive”.

I call it “RCDS” — “Reverse Clinton Derangement Syndrome.” But while this epidemic has only recently broken out, this type of affliction is not new.

Many of us are already familiar with ODS: Obama Derangement Syndrome

This disease has led many GOPers to actually OPPOSE the legislation they had introduced or favoured, such as the ACA (which was a GOP idea first introduced as Romneycare). Watching Republicans tie themselves into pretzels trying to explain why Romneycare was good but Obamacare was a disaster was really interesting — likewise with Merrick Garland: praised by Orrin Hatch who implied that the GOP would vote for Garland but Obama would never nominate him and then … bam! Now they have to be against Garland.

There have been many instances where Obama has proposed something that had been pushed by the GOP but the Republicans then had to find some reason to oppose what they had previously favoured, or to favour what they had previously opposed. All due to ODS.

It is the same with RCDS
I am sure that many if not most Hillary supporters would be the first to say that the GOP is funded by Big Oil and Big Pharma and other special interests, and that they are corrupted this way and so represent those interests. Indeed, I am sure there are many diaries from a few years ago here on DK that decried the Big Money donations that were going to the GOP.

Look, we all know that 70% of this Corporate money goes to Republicans, and 30% goes to Democrats (Barney Frank says it is 80/20, but he exaggerates). Hillary supporters would maintain however that whilst the Republican recipients of Corporate largesse do the bidding of the Corporate donors who fund them, Hillary is somehow magically immune from their influence. This particular strain of cognitive dissonance is a hallmark of RCDS.

I am sure that the Hillary supporters were OUTRAGED when Dick Cheney held “secret” meetings with the energy industry “behind closed doors” and that many of them vehemently demanded that the minutes of the Energy Task Force meetings be divulged by the Bush Administration. But Hillary’s “closed door” meetings with Wall Street? Well, that’s a different KIND of Corporate meeting. A horse of a different feather.

Likewise, I am absolutely positive that many if not most Hillary supporters were strong proponents of a Single Payer healthcare system when it was proposed by Obama and was part of the Democratic Party Platform in 2008. But now they all are convinced that a Single Payer system will just “never, ever happen” and Bernie Sanders is “unrealistic” to even propose such a thing.

Fracking, as it now appears to Hillary supporters, is not such a bad thing after all — it just needs to be properly regulated.

Lifting the cap on Social Security — bad idea …. now.

Were today’s Clinton supporters less strident on gun control when Hillary was portraying herself as “Annie Oakley” (shooting ducks, etc.) to contrast herself with the “anti-gun” Obama of 2008? I would imagine so.

I am sure also that many Hillary supporters were — at least at one time — disappointed in President Obama. His promise to fight for a Single Payer system fell by the wayside; his promise to close Guantanamo never happened, even though he does have the power to do so.

And I know many “liberal” Democrats were disappointed that no one from the Bush-Cheney Administration were prosecuted or at least called to account for lying us into a war. The greatest and most devastating fraud ever perpetrated on the American people went without any public reckoning. But that is all water under the bridge now for RCDS sufferers. Clinton has said it was a mistake, and so that is that. We must, as Obama said, “look forward, not backward,” because bringing the matter up only casts shadows on Hillary Clinton’s infamous vote, and RCDS sufferers are now honour-bound to defend that vote in any way possible.

Likewise, I am sure that at one time many Hillary supporters were against big money in politics, and they felt that the Citizens United decision was incredibly injurious to American democracy. But we don’t hear much about that any more from Clinton or her supporters. Indeed, the subject of campaign finance is a taboo among those with RCDS, because the unlimited campaign donations that Hillary is able to bring in thanks to Citizens United and McCutcheon allows her to “help” down-ballot Democrats and Superdelegates, and this is a major point of contrast and an effective attack line against Bernie Sanders.

The fact that the Obama Justice Department, the FBI and the Inspector General of the State Department (who was appointed by

State Dept. IG Steve Linick was appointed by Obama and John Kerry

State Dept. IG Steve Linick was appointed by Obama and John Kerry

Obama and John Kerry) are all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that is out to nail Hillary Clinton for no reason at all, and that she is being singled out by these Democrat-appointed operatives for no other reason than something John Podesta calls “Clinton Bias.”

Is there a cure for RCDS?
As Democrats we should extend our sympathy and compassion to those who live with RCDS every day. It cannot be easy to cling to these DLC-driven, centre-right corporatist beliefs in the face of the growing wave of insurgent progressivism both among Democrats and Independents.

We are already starting to see massive and epic FAILS among RCDS sufferers around Bernie’s tax returns, his putative “sexism” and his trip to the Vatican. The pathetic attempts to discredit, “disqualify and defeat” Bernie Sanders are blowing up and blowing back with increasing ferocity. W.B. Yeats could have said it: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” And indeed, this may be the way the world ends for centre-right DLC New Democrats and their corporate allies.

There is, in the end, only one cure for RCDS, and that is to finally give in, to let go, to surrender to the righteous cause and to finally embrace Bernie Sanders. And as Sanders supporters let us all do our part to support our benighted brothers and sisters even as we gently nudge them towards salvation.

Feel the Bern.

UPDATE 17 April:
There is an excellent article in The Guardian that covers this topic as well. Here is an excerpt:

The Clinton campaign has spent the last few weeks furiously pushing back at the criticism that she is influenced by the vast donations her campaign receives from backers in the oil and financial industries. Her supporters have been vigorously arguing there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo.

How quickly they forget. As journalist David Sirota reported earlier this week, in the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Clinton harshly criticized then senator Obama for accepting donations from oil and gas executives – and even cut a campaign commercial about it. The kicker? It was less money than Clinton has accepted from people working for fossil fuel companies so far this campaign season.

While Clinton called the suggestion that she might be influenced by the wealthy bankers who raise money for her campaign an “artful smear” in 2016, she also had no problem hurling even stronger accusations about Obama in 2008: “Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors – Exelon, a big nuclear power company,” she said. “Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure of the nuclear industry.”

Then there are the closed-door speeches that Clinton gave for Goldman Sachs and other big banks after she left her role as secretary of state. While she has steadfastly refused to release the transcripts, she’s claimed it has never affected her position on the banks one iota. Which is fine, if that’s the principled stance you want to take, but it’s not one her party has had in the past. Mitt Romney was hit hard in the 2012 presidential campaign by Democrats for the speeches he gave to financial institutions.

So which is it? Are politicians corrupt (or susceptible to corruption) if they are giving highly paid speeches behind closed doors to financial institutions, or not? It doesn’t work both ways.

Clinton has also criticized the supreme court’s ruling in Citizens United by rightly pointing out that the original case was sparked by an attempt to air a documentary that was critical of her right before an election. Yet she has reaped the rewards from the ruling – possibly more than any other candidate – from myriad Super Pacs and outside groups that have spent heavily in favor of her candidacy.

The president of Citizens United even told the Center for Public Integrity last week: “Wouldn’t you know that Hillary Clinton has become one of the greatest beneficiaries of the Citizens United supreme court decision. It is an irony that is not lost on me.”

Posted in 2016 Campaign, Politics | 1 Comment

Here’s what will happen at the Democratic Convention in July

HillaryIn July 2016 the Democratic National Committee will hold its National Convention in Philadelphia, in the appropriately named “Wells Fargo Center.”

Here is what most probably will happen:

1. A political party that represents 29% of the voters will nominate a candidate to run for President.

2. That candidate will run against the nominee from another party that represents 25% of the voters.

4. The Democrats will nominate a candidate with a 46% favourable rating among voters.

5. That candidate will face an opponent who has a 35% favourable rating.

That spread, i.e., 65% unfavourable versus “only” 54% unfavourable, is what the DNC considers a “winning scenario.”

So let’s sum up:
One party, representing 1 in 3 of the nation’s voters, will nominate a candidate that more than half of all voters do not like.

The other party, representing 1 in 4 f the nation’s voters, will nominate a candidate that two-thirds of all voters do not like.

So we have two parties, neither of which represents a majority or even anywhere near half of us, choosing candidates that more than half of us do not want to vote for.

For all my friends out there who were worried about having to choose “The Lesser Of Two Evils” let me tell you the truth:

This year, we will face the Evil of Two Lessers.

The two party system is broken. We need to fix it.

And yes, since 2013 the % of voters identifying as Democrats has dropped from 31% to 29%.

And yes, since 2013 the % of voters identifying as Democrats has dropped from 31% to 29%.

Let us all hope that Bernie Sanders can help revitalise the Democratic Party and make it relevant again by attracting young people and others to the Democratic fold, so that the future DNC will be able to nominate a candidate with a “net positive” approval rating. It is not too much to hope for.

Posted in 2016 Campaign, Bernie Sanders, Politics | Leave a comment

This is what Corruption Looks Like: How Hundreds of Superdelegates were “bought” by the Clinton Campaign.

Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz: More than BFFs.

Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz: More than BFFs.

You know, I always thought it was somewhat strange that so many Superdelegates had endorsed Hillary Clinton even many months before the Primary race started.

As Debbie Wasserman Schultz explained to Rachel Maddow, the Superdelegates should not be treated or counted like pledged delegates. They do not have to declare their preference until the Convention.

I always thought it was strange, then, that so many Party officials and officeholders would be tripping all over each other in a mad rush to endorse Hillary, when the convention was still a year away.

Now I know why.

You see, these Superdelegates are members of their State Democratic Parties, upon whom they rely for support and funding for re-election. And the money that will be available for those re-election efforts has, in many cases, been provided by Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has provided funds for these candidates through a sophisticated system of money laundering that has allowed the Clinton campaign to funnel billionaire’s donations to State parties in return for their participation in a massive money-laundering payback system to also funnel money to the Clinton campaign itself.

Margot Kidder supports Bernie.

Margot Kidder supports Bernie.

The whole sordid affair was recently brought to light in a Counterpunch article and showcased on The Young Turks. As Margot Kidder (yes, THAT Margot Kidder) writes in Counterpunch:

In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.

Remember, this was in AUGUST — 6 months before the first vote was cast in the actual Primary. Margot continues:

The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that knocked down a cap on aggregate limits as to how much a donor could give to a federal campaign in a year. It thus eliminated the ceiling on amounts spent by a single donor to a presidential candidate.
From these large amounts of money being transferred from state coffers to the Hillary Victory Fund in Washington, the Clinton campaign got the first $2,700, the DNC was to get the next $33,400, and the remainder was to be split among the 33 signatory states. With this scheme, the Hillary Victory Fund raised over $26 million for the Clinton Campaign by the end of 2015.

… and the rest of the money went to the State Parties and, eventually, the candidates, including many officeholders who are Superdelegates.

These Superdelegates are actually PLEDGED — to Clinton

Many people are speculating as to whether or not Superdelegates from States that have voted for Bernie will move their support away from Bernie.

Unfortunately, that will NEVER happen.

You see, when it comes to all this money flowing in from the millionaires and billionaires who give to Hillary, the Clinton Campaign can decide which State Parties get to partake in the spoils:

The fund is administered by treasurer Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer. Ms. Jones has the exclusive right to decide when transfers of money to and from the Hillary Victory Fund would be made to the state parties.

So if a Superdelegate whose State voted overwhelmingly for Bernie switched her support to Sanders under the reasoning that she was representing the will of her State, then Clinton’s Campaign COO would shut off the spigot and all that sweet, sweet billionaire cash would stop flowing into the coffers of her State Democratic Party — and the candidate herself.

As Kidder gently puts it:

One could reasonably infer that … the super-delegates of these various partner states would either pledge loyalty to Clinton, or, at the least, not endorse Senator Sanders. Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s super-delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.

So — there you have it. Not a pretty story. It is not just the money-laundering operation itself, which has allowed the Clinton campaign to “legally” obviate campaign finance law, but it has further allowed them to pervert the political process of the Democratic Party by “buying” the fealty of the Superdelegates. These Superdelegates are supposed to be “free to choose the best candidate” according to their own beliefs and their own conscience. But now many of them will have that choice essentially turned into a dilemma: they can support Hillary and stay in politics, or they can support Bernie and deprive both themselves and their State Party of significant funding from the Clinton campaign — thereby ending their career.

Spread the Word!

The next time you hear or read someone challenging you to prove that the DNC and/or the State Parties are “in the tank” for Hillary, or possibly doing ANYTHING to help Hillary defeat Bernie, show them this diary or the original article — or even this article on AlterNet. It is clear that it is in the direct financial interest of all these groups to have Hillary win — our at least be seen to be helping her win, so that their gravy train of Clinton campaign cash does not derail.

The next time you see Rachel Maddow or someone else criticise Bernie for not supporting down ballot candidates, and you hear them crow about how Hillary has “raised significant money” for Democrats, you should point out that that money came from billionaire donors using a clever money-laundering process to avoid campaign finance laws, and that Clinton’s “altruism” and “Party loyalty” has in fact been nothing more than a corrupt scheme to “buy” the votes of hundreds of Superdelegates and thereby subvert the political process and the will of the People.

The Rogue’s Gallery

Here is a handy list of the beneficiaries of the Clinton Victory Find scheme. Super delegates from these States will not be able to switch to Bernie if they want to keep any friends in their State Party.

Recipient Party Type** Office Sought Total Clinton, Hillary D C Pres $4,440,000 DNC Services Corp D P $2,263,436 Democratic Party of Wisconsin D P $207,278
Democratic Party of Oklahoma D P $140,000
Democratic Party of New Hampshire D P $74,700
Democratic Party of Pennsylvania D P $70,500
Democratic Party of Texas D P $69,100
Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida D P $66,200
Democratic Party of Nevada D P $66,200
Democratic Party of Colorado D P $66,000
Democratic Party of Ohio D P $66,000
Democratic Cmte of Utah D P $64,100
Democratic Party of Alaska D P $64,100
Democratic Party of Mississippi D P $64,100
Democratic Party of Montana D P $64,100
Democratic Party of Oregon D P $64,100
Democratic Party of South Carolina D P $64,100
Democratic Party of Tennessee D P $64,100
Democratic State Cmte of Massachusetts D P $64,100
Georgia Federal Elections Cmte D P $64,100
Idaho State Democratic Party D P $64,100
Michigan Democratic State Central Cmte D P $64,100
Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party D P $64,100
Missouri Democratic State Cmte D P $64,100
Rhode Island Democratic State Cmte D P $64,100
West Virginia State Democratic Exec Cmte D P $64,100
Wyoming State Democratic Central Cmte D P $64,100
Democratic Party of North Carolina D P $64,000 Democratic State Central Cmte/Louisiana D P $64,000 Indiana Democratic Congressional Victory Cmte D P $64,000 Democratic Party of Arkansas D P $63,000 Maine Democratic State Cmte D P $59,800 Democratic Party of Virginia D P $43,500

Source: FEC

Posted in 2016 Campaign, Bernie Sanders | Leave a comment

As Commander-in-Chief Hillary will keep us safe like no other Democrat would

Hillary and friends When it comes to foreign policy, there is no doubt that the Middle East poses the greatest challenge to any would-be American President. Hillary Clinton is in a unique position to defend both the US and our closest allies in the Middle East by virtue of her experience, her proven track record in foreign relations and her unparalleled personal connections and relationships with the major players in the region.

Hillary Supports Israel 110%

hillary-netanyahu-530x306Hillary is by far the strongest supporter of Israel, our “special and irreplaceable ally” and the only theocratic Democracy in the world. Her steadfast support for the ruling Likud Party and her personal allegiance to Bibi Netanyahu is unquestioned, and she has for years supported Israel in their efforts defend themselves against the terrorists living in Palestine. For Hillary, there is no “grey area” – there is only the black and white reality that Israel is our ally and that their actions in Palestine are purely based on self defense and a desire to secure their own right to live in peace without fear of terrorist rockets or suicide bombers. In her speech to AIPAC, Hillary was clear, stating that the United States could not be “neutral” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; could not be neutral when it comes to settlements or land or the need to rout out the terrorists wherever they may hide. She railed strongly against the so-called “BDS” movement (Boycott, Divest and Sanction”) which she sees as nothing more than anti-Semitism and an unfair attack on Israel and the Jewish people.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, still talks about the so-called “two state solution” in which the Palestinians should have the right to live in an “economically viable” state of their own, and he is actually on the record as condemning Israeli settlements and the bombing of Gaza and various other operations that Israel has had to conduct in order to protect itself from sen-bernie-sandersthe terrorists living in Palestine. His positions on these issues clearly put Bernie out of touch with the modern Democratic Party. Indeed, his views are a throwback to the 1970’s and the naïve peacenik policies of Jimmy Carter, who recently has even gone so far as to call the Israeli administration of Palestine an “occupation” and “a modern apartheid.” Clearly, politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jimmy Carter simply do not understand the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as they have evolved over the past years, and how the situation has become more grave and more dangerous for Israel since the Likud Party has taken control of the Jewish State. Hillary knows that without the firm and unrelenting leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu Israel would find itself in a very different situation today, and so her strong and unswerving personal loyalty to the Israeli Prime Minister has gained her his trust and his thanks. Having Hillary in the White House will re-establish warm, friendly and close ties with Netanyahu and the Likud Party, which have grown tenuous and weak under President Obama – and would certainly become even more contentious under a President Sanders.

Hillary has a Proven History of Working with our Arab Allies

HRCarabsHillary’s close ties and unqualified support for Israel has not kept her from developing equally close ties with our greatest Arab allies. As Secretary of State she moved decisively to push the Obama Administration to overthrow the Libyan government and remove Muamar Gaddafi from power. The US support for the bombing campaign that ultimately killed that despot was critical to the success of that mission, and Hillary herself described the overwhelming victory when she said “we came, we saw, he died.”

This action was not just a humanitarian mission, however. It was also something that our Arab allies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and elsewhere desperately wanted to see happen, and Hillary’s strong leadership in this action earned her the respect and the thanks of the ruling families of those kingdoms. Hillary was also able to cobble together support for the move to overthrow Assad in Syria, something both the Israelis and the Saudis wanted to see happen. Clinton thus proved capable of working with our two closest Middle Eastern allies in an effective way that reflects well on both her ability to get things done as well as her skill in keeping such initiatives “under the radar” in order to cloak the involvement of our allies and therefore spare them any embarrassment.

Hillary Occupies a Unique Position in World Affairs

Hillary cemented her personal ties with many Arab and Muslim leaders around the world by masterfully leveraging her position in government. Every arms deal must be approved by the State Department, and Hillary made sure that no weapons shipment was made without first ensuring that America and the world would benefit from the transaction.

HillaryCGIAlongside her duties as Secretary of State, Hillary also championed the charitable activities of the Clinton Global Initiative, deftly using her arms negotiations with over 20 countries to cajole sizeable donations from the recipients. While some have criticised her for this, it is obvious that any negotiation resulting in such a “win-win” scenario can only serve to strengthen Hillary’s credibility and hence her ability to get things done with our Arab allies. In this way Hillary is uniquely positioned to succeed in enforcing her policies in the Middle East through leverage she can exert both through official channels as well as non-official and even private sector engagement. She is truly a “triple threat” in the world of Realpolitik.

Hillary is Right on Anti-Terrorism

snowdenAs a US Senator, Hillary Clinton was and remains a staunch supporter of the Patriot Act, having voted for it in 2001 and again to re-authorise it in 2006, when she proclaimed “We understood then, as we do now, that these tools are important in our fight against terrorism.” Democrats need to be strong in this regard, and the good work that is being done by the NSA and other Government agencies are needed to keep us safe. This is the Democratic position.

Bernie Sanders has adopted a radical opposition to the original Patriot Act and its reauthorisation, and in this he is in the company of such Republicans and Libertarians as Rand Paul. Moreover, Hillary realises the danger in having such people as Edward Snowden breach our national security without facing the consequences. While Bernie Sanders seems to want to extend leniency towards Snowden, Hillary will be steadfast and forthright in demanding that the criminal Snowden “face the music” for his traitorous activities.

What Hillary will get done in Foreign Policy

Hillary will continue to be the lion-hearted crusader in Foreign Policy that she has always been. Hillary is not afraid to take on the enemies of America and our key allies like Israel, and she will not hesitate to use America’s military might to extinguish any perceived threat to us or our friends, and she will be pro-active in pursuing a policy of international engagement that fits America’s unique position as the world’s lone Superpower and the “indispensible” country when it comes to international security. Henry Kissinger, though not a Democrat, is still one of the most venerated statesmen in America, and he has rightly praised Hillary for her handling of foreign affairs while at State. This is because Hillary, like Kissinger, understands that America occupies a unique position in the world in terms of its military capability as well as its innate moral superiority.

neocon_monstersMoreover, Hillary has a proven track record of bipartisanship in getting things done on Foreign Policy. Kissinger is not the only Republican to have praised Hillary’s performance as Secretary of State: John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Condoleeza Rice, Cory Gardner and even Jim Demint have all praised Hillary’s leadership while at State.

Indeed, Hillary maintains a “massive” stable of advisors including such luminaries as Robert Kagan as well as Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk, who share Hillary’s determination to assert America’s rightful position on the world stage as well as to stamp out terrorism and defend Israel at all costs. If elected President there is no doubt that Hillary will indeed “get things done” in the foreign policy arena.

Posted in 2016 Campaign, Bernie Sanders, Politics | Leave a comment

Democrats should Embrace the “Bernie or Bust” Crowd

UnknownThere has been an awful lot of vitriol and haranguing among the ragged ranks of the Left lately. Purity versus fealty is now turning into a sort of 30 Years War among Democrats, supporters of Bernie Sanders battling it out with those of Hillary Clinton.

The latest battle is raging around the so-called “Bernie or Bust” movement that has taken hold among a very dedicated cohort of Sanders supporters. The adherents of this movement swear that if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, they will “write in” Bernie’s name for President.

First, Don’t Freak Out

Hillary supporters are losing their sh$t and screaming that these Berners are not “real Democrats”, and that they are acting from a vile position of “privilege” in which they somehow will not suffer personally from the extreme depredations that will be visited upon the American people should Donald Trump win the White House. Others maintain that a Trump Presidency will make the sarandongeopolitical disaster that was the George W. Bush Presidency look like a picnic compared to the Apocalypse that will surely follow if Trump is sitting in the Oval Office.

Please can we step back and look at this thing logically and intelligently?

1) YES, the Bernie-or-Bust people are probably not normal Democrats, and

2) YES, they probably would not even vote if Bernie were not running, and

3) YES, that makes them immune to exhortations by Democrats to vote for Hillary and “toe the party line” if Bernie loses.

BUT — these three attributes actually explain WHY we should all be working on trying to bring these people into the Democratic fold, not alienate or exclude them through savage attacks and haughty condemnations. Indeed, even dismissive snark should be ruled out in this case as it will only serve to further frustrate and irritate people who are already massively pissed off and feeling hard done by the Democratic “Establishment.”

What Bernie Has Wrought

It is no secret that voter turnout in the USA is abysmal, and that young people as well as blue collar middle class Americans have given up on the political process. Even the most rabid of Hillary surrogates are quick to acknowledge the fact that the Bernie Sanders campaign is hitting a nerve with these groups, and literally bringing masses of them into the political process in a way we have not seen since 2008 or even earlier.

Indeed, Democrats have been presented with an amazing gift this election season: namely, the opportunity to increase the ranks of the Party and become a truly overwhelming Majority that can dominate US politics and policy for decades to come.

WHY, then, would any true-blue Democrat wish to drive these people AWAY from the Party and back into the shadows of apathy and cynicism?

WHY would anyone put a cult of personality – whether it be for Clinton or against Trump – ahead of the greater good that can be easily realized in victorious Congressional, Senatorial and Statehouse races that could result when such “new Democrats” go to the polls in November?

Those who are dumping on the Bernie or Busters have allowed themselves to become obsessed either with a love of Hillary Clinton or a fear of Donald Trump – or both.

Likewise, the Bernie or Busters have become so focused on the Man himself that they cannot think about anything but the office to which he aspires, the winning or losing of which will have an irreversible and Manichean impact on the rest of their lives.

And this actually points up the single major problem behind this whole mess: the complete and utter disregard for the Legislative Branch. Somehow both sides of this debate refuse to realize that the President cannot act unilaterally by fiat or decree. My God, how is it that so many people who have bemoaned the utter inability of Obama to get anything done during his second term somehow ascribe dictatorial powers to the next President, whoever that may be??

Hillary supporters are quick to warn that “the Supreme Court is on the line” in this election. Indeed it is. But the SCOTUS will not be repopulated solely according to the wishes of the President. If that were the case, then we would already be looking forward to the seating of Merrick Garland. Indeed, the nominee would probably not even be Merrick Garland but rather a more liberal appointee who did not have to weather the storm of a Republican Senate approval process.

The Senate is in many ways just as important as the Presidency in this election, at least where the matters of domestic policy are concerned. Indeed, I am sure that virtually all of the Democratic Party faithful who are wringing their hands over the prospect of a Trump Presidency have also spent the past 6 years bemoaning the fact that the Republicans in Congress have prevented Obama from doing all the myriad wonderful and progressive things that he had promised. Republican “obstructionism” has been the bête noir of the Democratic Party for many years, and yet – AND YET – being craven Democrats, they cannot possibly imagine fighting back in kind against the GOP.

This Election is about MORE than the Presidency

The Senate must be recaptured. And the Bernie or Bust voters can be a BIG HELP in doing that. When engaging in an anti-Clinton Sandernistas, avoid the Presidential race. Query them about other Democratic races. Surely they do not plan to “write in” Bernie’s name for every office down ballot. Depending on where they are from, you might ask:

“Will you help us defeat [INSERT SENATOR HERE] in November? Whoever is ion the White House, whether it is Bernie or Hillary, they will need to have a Democratic Senate, and your vote for [GOP SENATOR]’s Democratic opponent will help us give our new Democratic President a partner in the legislature, and if a Republican wins, a Democratic Senate will keep them from doing irreparable harm to our country and the Supreme Court.”

Here is a list of Senators you can use in that argument, BTW:

• Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
• Roy Blunt (Missouri)
• John Boozman (Arkansas)
• Richard Burr (North Carolina)
• Dan Coats (Indiana) retiring in 2016
• Mike Crapo (Idaho)
• Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
• John Hoeven (North Dakota)
• Johnny Isakson (Georgia)
• Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
• Mark Kirk (Illinois)
• James Lankford (Oklahoma)
• Mike Lee (Utah)
• John McCain (Arizona)
• Jerry Moran (Kansas)
• Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
• Rand Paul (Kentucky)
• Rob Portman (Ohio)
• Marco Rubio (Florida) retiring in 2016
• Tim Scott (South Carolina)
• Richard Shelby (Alabama)
• John Thune (South Dakota)
• Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
• David Vitter (Louisiana)

Keep your eyes on the prize, Democrats.

Do not make your dogmatic doom-saying turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy by alienating and rejecting the very group of people who could help turn Congress blue again and make the Democratic Party a true and virtually perpetual majority in American politics.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Bernie Sanders Rapid Response Library ver. 4.0 (12 March 2016) – facts, figures, comebacks and zingers to fight against the misinformation!

150429103321-ernie-sanders-gallery-photo-4-super-169Tired of conservatives, Hillbots and Clintonista trolls posting smack about our guy? Wish you had some statistics and facts to combat their BS?

Here is my own “Rapid Response Library” to use as a reference – some facts, figures and opinions – use whatever you think makes sense to you. Cut and paste, modify as needed to shoot down the nattering nabobs of negativism and the Clintonista shock troops wherever they may rear their ugly heads…

Just click the link below to download the PDF.
Bernie Sanders Rapid Response Library ver. 4.0 (PDF)

Or click here for the Word doc:
Bernie Sanders Rapid Response Library_4.0 (Word)

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Trump v. Clinton – for Progressives, a Tougher Choice than You Might Think

I believe that the Democrats will take back the Senate in the 2016 elections. This will put a halter on anything that Trump wants to do should he become President. This will also force Trump to nominate moderates to the Supreme Court and other positions requiring Senate confirmation.

Indeed, there are really only 2 areas where a President can act unilaterally with some degree of autocracy: Trade and Foreign Policy. I find Trump’s views and positions on both these issues to be much more in line with my own (and those of most Sanders supporters) than those of Hillary Clinton.

If Clinton wins, I am confident that there will be an almost immediate escalation of our involvement in Syria, greatly exacerbating a bad situation and generations even more anti-American sentiment. I am also pretty sure that a Clinton Administration will throw our move towards detente with Iran in reverse and would not be surprised if we are bombing Iran by the end of her first term. In sum, I am sure that a Clinton Presidency will have disastrous consequences for America lasting decades into the future. Trump has criticised the Iraq war and opposes “stupid” interventionist wars that simply do not make financial sense to him. He espouses a more restrained foreign policy and has even expressed a willingness to negotiate or even collaborate with Putin and Russia. He has also said that he will honour the nuclear deal with Iran.

On Trade, I am likewise 99.9% sure that a President Clinton will not only green-light the TPP but will actively promote it, just as she has for so many years. This will be a domestic disaster of epic proportions that will have repercussions extending far beyond the term of her Presidency. Trump opposes “disastrous trade deals” just like Sanders – albeit in a more crude fashion. Trump puts it into the frame of “winning” ands “losing” but the message is the same: these trade deals have been a disaster for the American middle class, and he opposes the TPP.

Trump is scary, but more scary to me is getting a phony corporatist Democrat in the WH. If Trump is elected, he will be a one-term President, and will hopefully be defeated in 2020 provided that the Democrats put up a TRULY progressive candidate and not a Corporatist Wall Street tool like Clinton. Hillary, however, would use her first term in office to consolidate her political power and further cultivate powerful allies and forces in the American corporate community. She will be unbeatable in re-election, and so the cause of Progressivism will be set back for decades. This, combined with a disastrous trade policy and an irresponsible and aggressively adventurist neocon foreign policy make her for me the less attractive candidate.

Posted in 2016 Campaign, Bernie Sanders, Politics | Leave a comment