SYNDICATED COLUMN: At Some Point, Progressives Need to Grow a Pair and Stop Having Anything To Do With the Democratic Party

 

At a certain point, if you have any relationship with dignity, you’re supposed to get sick of being used and abused. Speaking of which: liberal Democrats.

Democratic politicians act like right-wingers. Liberals vote for them anyway.

The Democratic Party espouses right-wing policies. Self-described progressives give them cash.

Comedian Bill Maher gave them a million cash dollars — yet Democrats don’t agree with him on anything. Why? Because he hates Republicans even more.

Why didn’t Maher save his money? Or better yet, fund a group or a writer or an artist who promotes ideas he actually agrees with? Because he, like tens of millions of other liberals, are stuck in the two-party trap.

The relationship between liberals and Democrats is dysfunctional and enabling, abused pathetics sucking up to cruel abusers. Progressives like Maher are like a kid with two rotten parents. The dad drinks and hits him; the mom drinks less and hits him less. The best call is to run away from home — instead, most children in that situation will draw closer to their mothers.

Voting-age progressives, on the other hand, are adults. When will they kick the Democratic Party to the curb, as Ricki Lake used to say?

Probably not in time for 2016. But they ought to.

You don’t have to be clairvoyant to see that the next presidential election promises nothing for liberals but more of the same: dismay, disappointment and disgust — in no small part with themselves.

Hillary Clinton, a conservative warmonger ideologically indistinguishable from Dwight Eisenhower, will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee. But she isn’t really a Democrat. Traditionally, Democrats were pro-worker; she and her husband pushed through NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and a slew of free-trade scams that have destroyed American jobs and depressed salaries. Democrats cared about the poor; Hillary has never so much as suggested a substantial anti-poverty initiative. Democrats aren’t supposed to invade sovereign countries for the hell of it; Clinton repeatedly pushed WMD lies, voted to invade Iraq and still hasn’t apologized for the two million Iraqis whose deaths for which she shares responsity. Democrats want single-payer healthcare; instead, she created the template for Obamacare, which keeps rates high to protect insurance company profits.

Yet in today’s “Democratic” Party, Hillary is “inevitable.”

Yes, the highly resuméed, slightly accomplished ex-senator could face a challenge from the left. But not a real one. Even if party bosses allow an actual primary process (they did not in 2012), any primary challenge will be symbolic and impotent (hello Bernie Sanders), poorly funded and sad, raising the faded, tattered flag of liberalism in a quixotic bid to coat Hill’s coronation with a veneer of small-d democratic legitimacy.

If you’re a leftie, the Democratic establishment doesn’t care about your opinion. They certainly don’t want your input. What they want is your vote — in exchange for exactly nothing in return. They’re political parasites, draining the enthusiasm and idealism of progressives, simultaneously neutering and exploiting mainline libs.

Like a tick, mainline “centrist” (i.e. conservative) Democrats will suck you dry. First they misdirect your hope for real change. Then they extract your vote. By the time you realize you’ve been chomped, the buggers drop off, bloated on stolen power and wealth.

You’re left with drained political energy.

During the initial months following the election, you get angrier. You watch con artists like Obama take office, appoint right-wingers to the cabinet and ignore America’s victims — the poor at home, the bombed overseas. Off goes the president — your president, since you voted for him! — golfing and shooting hoops and vacaying on the Vineyard while millions lose their homes to illegal foreclosures, poverty soars, the military gins up new wars and expands old ones, Gitmo stays open and killer drone planes fill the skies. Eventually, of course, you get over it. You recover.

Then, two to four years later, the parasitical Dems are back to suck out whatever idealism you’ve managed to regenerate.

Progressive Democratic voters are understandably unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. After enduring her conservative Southern Democratic husband (major accomplishments: bombing Bosnia, ignoring Rwanda, NAFTA, trashing welfare) and Obama (major accomplishments: drones, Libya, Syria, Iraq again), they know what’s coming: more of the same. Because they’re not willing to ditch the Democratic Party, however, they’re trapped in a state of cognitive dissonance, unable to act in order to avoid certain disaster.

Thus progressives are resorting to ridiculously transparent non-tactics. For example: “deploy[ing] the spectral presence of [Elizabeth] Warren to extract as many [liberal] concessions as possible.”

“It’s not a crazy strategy,” libbies are told. “The mere thought of Warren seems to rattle the Clintons, who are haunted by the debacle of 2008.” Actually, it is crazy. Because the Clintons watch the news — and Warren ain’t running.

Noam Scheiber recently wrote a New Republic piece titled “How Hillary Won Over the Skeptical Left,” in which he argues…well, read the title. (Note: by “left,” Scheiber doesn’t mean left. He means centrist Obama supporters, who are slightly to the left of Hill.)

“It’s not that liberals don’t perceive some ideological distance between themselves and Hillary Clinton, at least as they become more informed,” writes Scheiber. Hillary became First Lady in 1993. What is there left to learn? “Nor is it that they recognize this gap and simply don’t care about it. It’s that, after the somewhat disillusioning experience of the Obama years, many actually consider this gap an advantage for Clinton.” In other words: we’re out to beat Republicans, not help poor people.

I’m quoting the following section from Scheiber’s piece at length because it supports my contention that, at this early stage, it is perfectly obvious that Hillary Clinton will screw over progressives. Not only is it evident that she will break their hearts, it is clear how she will go about it.

So let’s say Democrats’ faith in Clinton is rewarded and she wins the presidency. Here is how the 2016 transition is likely to play out. Having talked about inequality during the primaries, and maybe even the general election, she will feel pressure to appoint economists who know something about the issue. She will pluck a few advisers from the reserve army of liberals at think tanks like the Center for American Progress (home to many former Clinton White House aides over the years), the Economic Policy Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But as the transition goes on, liberals will notice a disconcerting shift. They will watch most of the senior posts in her Treasury Department go to alumni of Wall Street. They will see her fill out the top echelons of financial regulators—the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency—with banking-industry lawyers. They will even notice bankers turning up in agencies with little role in finance, like the State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative. Though any one appointment may be justified—the Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance should probably have a finance background, for example—the larger mass of Wall Street transplants will create a stubborn level of groupthink. Their skepticism toward policies like a financial transactions tax, aggressive prosecution of financial-market crime, and breaking up the megabanks will ensure they never happen.

Don’t come back in 2017 and say you were surprised.

(Ted Rall, syndicated writer and cartoonist, is the author of “After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan,” out Sept. 2. Subscribe to Ted Rall at Beacon.)

COPYRIGHT 2014 TED RALL, DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

 

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

45 thoughts on “SYNDICATED COLUMN: At Some Point, Progressives Need to Grow a Pair and Stop Having Anything To Do With the Democratic Party

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXp79rAS5JQ&list=PLCF83A3C64BC5F3B5&index=11

    So very much, this make me think of the Jason Bourne Ultimatum, where at the end, JB asks the assassin who was sent to eliminate him, “Look at us, look at what they make you give ~”

    Ostensibly, America is supposed to have developed into a functionally exclusive, “two-party” oligarchy. What we actually are is a one-party corporate tyranny. With the last “only” practical choice America made, a “Negro” was finally supposed to have achieved the White House. Many things BarryHO may be, but a Negro he ain’t. Don’t believe me? Just ask any African-American in the know what he really sees.

    Like some classic, Looney-Tunes character, I’m expecting more every day for BarryHO to reach up behind his neck, grab a zipper tab, and pull it around his head, ultimately to reveal GWBush’s sickly, smiling face popping out of a BarryHO body suit. There’s been absolutely no difference between BarryHO’s administration and the one it replaced, except that (among many other war crimes) the drone-war against colored people has multiplied exponentially.

    No less than was the old Soviet Union, America IS a one-party state. The capitalist political party controls everything, especially the politicians, and (eversoincestuously) even its corporate godhead. Meanwhile, ever-so-frequently, the most politically diabetic among us al continues to drink the institutionally cracked-out kool-aide. As with all insane operations, we perpetually vote for a new oligarch, and still, the same old shit once again blows back at us.

    Look at us, look at what they make us give … and see the expanding hopelessness that we increasingly get in return. Where ever corporations are “people,” human beings will always be nothing more than corporate-owned, economic slaves.

    DanD

    • It’s all in the scheme of things, DanD – Harry Reid has proclaimed Clarence Thomas to be one of “five white guys”! It all comes out in the wash! 😀

    • Therefore, the admonitions to “Vote For Hillary” (or we will have more wars) are moot. She said in the German TV interview that her daughter and her coming grand-child are more important to her. Take a hint, you guys! She ain’t gonna run.

  2. Thanks for the belly laughs, Ted- the perfect end to a nice holiday weekend.

    This goes way beyond your usual complaining without offering viable solutions; this is an actual laundry list of what NOT to do if you want to make progress on any of the issues you claim to care about.

    Where to begin?

    “Comedian Bill Maher gave them a million cash dollars — yet Democrats don’t agree with him on anything. Why? Because he hates Republicans even more.”

    A) I’d like to see data backing up the claim that Democrats don’t agree with him on anything. B) Even if they don’t, Maher gets it- he’s an actual progressive and supports progress, unlike “progressives” who no matter what causes they pay lip service to don’t actually care about anything other than their own feelings.

    “The relationship between liberals and Democrats is dysfunctional and enabling, abused pathetics sucking up to cruel abusers. Progressives like Maher are like a kid with two rotten parents. The dad drinks and hits him; the mom drinks less and hits him less. The best call is to run away from home — instead, most children in that situation will draw closer to their mothers.”

    Actually, the relationship between liberals and Democrats is just fine. The relationship between “progressives” and Democrats can best be summed up as follows: “progressives” are the psychotic toddler threatening not to run away from home (because any parent can tell you the correct response to that is “Go ahead.”), but to burn down the house if they don’t get a pony RIGHT NOW.

    They don’t give a damn that it is anywhere between impractical to impossible for them to have a pony right now, they’re going to burn down the house if they don’t get one. And even if someone lays out a plan where if they work hard and make accommodations they can EVENTUALLY have a pony, they’ll double down on their threats- because in their own mind they’re too good to work and make accommodations- so give them their pony right now or the house goes up in flames.

    “If you’re a leftie, the Democratic establishment doesn’t care about your opinion. They certainly don’t want your input. What they want is your vote — in exchange for exactly nothing in return.”

    False. We want you to grasp that you cant have your pony right now, but we’re willing to work with you on getting it eventually- but you have to work with us; burning down the house will only put pony-ness further in the future than stopping whining and starting working.

    “while millions lose their homes to illegal foreclosures, poverty soars, the military gins up new wars and expands old ones, Gitmo stays open and killer drone planes fill the skies.”

    The majority of this can be traced back directly to Republicans and a handful of turncoat Democrats in the Senate. And you have yet to explain how handing the Republicans more power fixes ANY of this.

    ““It’s not a crazy strategy,” libbies are told. “The mere thought of Warren seems to rattle the Clintons, who are haunted by the debacle of 2008.” Actually, it is crazy. Because the Clintons watch the news — and Warren ain’t running.”

    Finally, an accurate sentence. “Progressives” pinning all their hopes on a women who isn’t going to run to avoid doing the necessary work to eventually get what they claim to want is just as bad as those buying the right wing bs (currently peddled by the plant), and thinking that revolution will make things better instead of 100x of times worse. Its a way to assuage their hurt feelings that they are too good, too pure to work and make accommodations to get what they claim to want.

    ” In other words: we’re out to beat Republicans, not help poor people.”

    Beating Republicans into the ground is the first step in helping poor people. Duh.

    “I’m quoting the following section from Scheiber’s piece at length because it supports my contention that, at this early stage, it is perfectly obvious that Hillary Clinton will screw over progressives. Not only is it evident that she will break their hearts, it is clear how she will go about it…”

    Utter nonsense. Progressives like myself will be fine under a Hillary presidency. Because unlike “progressives” we understand that hard work and accommodation brings about eventual progress.

    The only people who will be disappointed or surprised by Hillary are the same ones who believe Obama is a failure-“progressives” who project their own hurt feelings(because to a “progressive”, their feelings are the most important thing in the world, far more important than actual progress) and bullshit onto her (just as they did with Obama) rather than dealing with reality and what is politically possible and working their asses off so that they can eventually get that which they only claim to want.

    • A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for all the extra deaths from the wars she will promote. If she were in office now, we’d be even more involved in Syria and Ukraine, killing civilians by the score.

      I don’t want to help enable a mass murderer.

      • Anything other than a voter for Hillary is a vote for more deaths by several orders of magnitude, guaranteed.

      • This is a reply to Whimsical. (The system doesn’t allow replies to replies to replies…)

        No, even when Hillary Clinton ran against Barack Obama, she was more warlike than him. If she were president now, we’d be more engaged in Syria and Ukraine. When she runs in 2016, there will also be a less warlike candidate, especially if one looks outside the Democratic Party, as Ted is recommending.

      • @antiwar7-
        As usual with Ted’s advice, it is great at making yourself feel better, but utterly useless in terms of practical results.

        Given the reality of the system as is, the only thing looking outside the Democratic party will do is help elect a Republican. And I promise you, Hillary will be less warlike than her Republican opponent.

        So, no matter how looking outside the Democratic party makes you FEEL, in REALITY, anything other than a vote for Hillary is a vote for much more war than you’d get otherwise.

        If you actually want less war, instead of just wanting to feel good about claiming to want less war – then if you think it through clearly, you know what the correct choice is.

      • @Whimsical-
        You wrote:
        “””
        Given the reality of the system as is, the only thing looking outside the Democratic party will do is help elect a Republican.
        “””

        It’s peoples minds that create this reality. If enough people think like you, then that is the reality.

        But free your minds! Vote your conscience, everyone!

        You’d be surprised what would happen.

      • @Antiwar 7

        “It’s peoples minds that create this reality. If enough people think like you, then that is the reality.

        But free your minds! Vote your conscience, everyone!”

        Ah, the standard- “If everyone thought like me”, reply. Problem is, while technically correct- its facile nonsense.

        I might as well say “If everyone on Earth gave me a dollar, I’d be a multi-billionaire”. This statement is also technically correct, and yet so unlikely to happen as to be statistically impossible. And it’s STILL more likely than third parties being anything other than spoilers under the system as is.

        No, in the real world, until there are massive changes in the way we hold and fund elections, third parties are more or less worthless(especially in Presidential elections) and my statement that all not voting for Hillary does is support the Republican is entirely correct.

        I suggest you come out of your bubble, and start dealing with the world is, rather than the way you wish it was.

        @CrazyH-

        I didn’t see the reply you allude to; I do have a life outside of trying to coax recalcitrant “progressives” out of their bubble and back to the real world to acknowledge all the terrible damage they’ve done over the past 40 years, so we can finally begin to repair it.

        That said, I’m loath to answer you now for the following two reasons:
        1) I’m quite sure you’d make up some bullshit excuse why the (admittedly slight) progress “doesn’t count” in your “progressive” mind
        2) Anyone who cannot find a number of issues that (again, admittedly slight) progress had been made on either a) is deliberately not looking or b) has thick partisian blinders on.

        As for my comment about Hillary’s opponent; All of Hillary’s potential opponents are greater hawks then she is. Therefore, electing them will cause more, not less war. Q.E.D.

        It certainly does not require abilities on the level of Mr. Wizard to see that. All that is required is to pay attention to the world as it actually is, rather than as you wish it would be. I do know that “progressives” have trouble with that.

      • @Whimsical-

        I’m sorry, exhorting people to vote their conscience is not the same as exhorting people to send me a dollar. The first is something people would like to do, whereas people don’t want to send money to strangers.

        Some people thought racism and homophobic bigotry were endemic, and yet those attitudes are melting away, from people changing their minds.

      • @antiwar7-

        The actual example I used wasn’t the point- I could’ve listed any one of a thousand statements that would’ve been technically true but statistically impossible, and ANY of them would’ve been more likely to happen than third parties being other than a spoiler in 2016, which is the election we are talking about.

        And you know this, or you wouldn’t have moved the goalposts in your second paragraph.

        But, to respond to your point: First, I know several people that would tell you that racism and homophobic bigotry are STILL endemic.

        Second I agree with you – attitudes change SLOWLY, over LONG periods of time- not going to happen by 2016. Period.

        My statement remains correct for the 2016 elections, and probably several election cycles beyond that.

        Now I have no doubt that with hard work and accommodation, there will come a day when not voting for the Democrat will do something other than help the Republican (but not in 2016, which is the election we are discussing).

        The problem with that of course, is that “progressives” have no interest in doing the hard work and think their too “good” and too “pure” to make accommodations – but that takes us off on a whole different argument…

    • Funny you should mention “practical results” – in our last episode, you were challenged to list some. You didn’t. Have you thought of any, yet? What has voting for Obama brought other than ‘more of the same’?

      “Anything other than a voter for Hillary is a vote for more deaths by several orders of magnitude, guaranteed.”

      Guaranteed? SERIOUSLY?!?! You can do that? Gosh, Mr. Wizard, can use your astounding powers of prognostication to tell me the winning Powerball numbers for next week as well?

      • I’m looking to cut a deal with one of my conservative coworkers: vote offsets. He’ll vote Libertarian, I’ll vote Green.

  3. Yikes! This afternoon I watched a German TV interview with Hillary Clinton and I have to wonder if this is her setup for a bid for the Presidency? It only reinforced my decision to vote anyone except Hillary! (Fortunately, I’m fluent in German. I could follow the discussion and was distracted only when the translator spoke over Hillary. I didn’t know whether to listen to the German or the English, with the assistance of lip-reading.) If you’re interested, maybe you can find the English-language version: http://daserste.ndr.de/guentherjauch/index.html

  4. Right on!

    I felt compelled to join your blog just to agree with your point.

    Hillary Clinton is a serious warmonger, not just because of Iraq (how long did it take her to change her mind about her vote?), but because of every war-making policy decision while she was in the Obama administration (Syria, Libya), and informally as First Spouse (Kosovo/Yugoslavia).

    She’s an emphatic humanitarian interventionist. But to show you how twisted that is, that means wanting to arm the Syrian rebels, not exactly a force for multiculturalism. Instead, a winner-take-all approach only for the official aggrieved party in the conflict. (Victims on the other side don’t count, or had it coming to them, or simply not talked about or personalized or given a voice).

  5. This country functions a lot better when conservatives are apoplectic with rage…..that is my sole justification for voting for Democrats at the national level, it makes the crazies even crazier, and I like that. The world is right in my mind when bigots are beside themselves. Self-centered? Yes. Selfish? Yes. Based on revenge? Yes. I don’t have to answer to YOU for my decisions. I voted for Obama both times because it would piss of old white men….I will vote for Hillary for the same reason. I want them so infused with rage that they do just get even more psychotic.

    I think largely I have given up on democracy.

  6. DanD on July 4, 2014 at 11:43 AM

    “Alex, when telling a woman to “grow-a-pair,” you’re generally referring to “teats.” I learned this from a Black English professor who grew up in the Northeast.”

    That’s only approaches certainty when speaking to that specific Black Professor. He may be pranking you.

    He may have learned that from a pranker. You know how out of touch professors can be, always having to leave truths unspoken to avoid jeopardizing his track to tenure.

    It must become a habit for some.

    • Actually Glenn,

      The Black English professor is a female (about 65). And it does make sense, think of it.

      When we (us guys that is) talk about guys having BALLS, we generally refer to it in bucket-sizes (bowl-legs and all that). When women talk about having a size-surplus issue of in-your-face bravery and chutzpa, (equivalent to balls), well, they’re talking about TEATS. For a woman to refer to ovaries would be like a man bragging about the size of his prostrate (manly, but in a very disgusting way).

      And no, I don’t think she was yanking my chain.

      DanD

      • And as to ball size? Surprisingly, I’ve never used the expression to mean “grow a giant-sized set of balls.” In my mind, on those occasions where I actually visualize actual testicles forming, they’re of normal size. This is perhaps due to there already being an expression that specifically encompasses large testicles. “You must have a balls the size of grapefruit (or something equally preposterous) to try to get away with that.”

        I’ve met a lot of ballsy people in my life. Some have been men, some have been women. Perhaps that’s the compromise we can all agree on: Hillary sure ain’t ballsy. It’s the straight follow-thru of whatever her corporate handlers tell her she believes.”

  7. As I’ve said many times, the enablers like The Idiot Whimsical are THE problem. Not A problem — THE problem. Until they are dealt with, and dealt with in the strongest terms, this system will remain. So, another words, get ready for “more of the same” with Billary.

  8. Well, this is ONE Progressive whose cage got rattled and who woke up and decided Hillary is not my choice for U.S. President any more. The kicker was her enthusiastic support for Monsanto and GMO’s in general. Mind you, I lived next-door to the Clintons in Little Rock and I have met both of them, with less enthusiasm for her than for him. I worked for his campaign, I drove in the motorcade to North Little Rock for the victory celebration, and my name is written on the main beam of the Clinton Presidential Library (so they tell me).
    I am a Founding Member of “Ready for Hillary” (and have the certificate to prove it).
    But this GMO crap is more than I can stomach, and I’ve let her supporters at the “Ready for Hillary” website know it. I like the idea of electing Bernie Sanders, and I would vote for him in a split second — or for Elizabeth Warren if she runs. (Ted, I note your article states that she “ain’t running” – but at this point neither is Hillary.) [BTW, the link you provided isn’t working.]
    I also note from one of the links you provide: “Warren herself seems inclined to keep the Clintons on edge. She recently needled Hillary in The Washington Post over her ‘dead broke’ comments and refused to entirely rule out a presidential run.” So let’s not eliminate her just yet.
    All I know for sure at this point is that Hillary won’t be getting *MY* vote.

  9. Don’t forget to give a great big thanks to the French King Louis XVI, and father of this country, Benjamin Franklin, without whose assistance the incompetent General Washington, who failed to engage the filthy Brits army for a stretch of over three years during the war, defeat would have been inevitable.

    • Sorry, Glenn, but that sentence doesn’t make any sense. With ellipses: “… without whose assistance … Washington … defeat would have been inevitable.” [I’m a retired English teacher, and I’m can’t understand your message.] 🙁

      • I’m not perfect (yet). Read: “… I’m unable to understand….” 😀

      • I’m not perfect either. Let’s play a game.

        You tell me what you think it means. You give me possible (mis)interpretations, and I’ll tell you if you’re getting close.

        By the way: Hillary’s pro-war vote on the Iraq invasion was based on information only an idiot, or evil personified, could believe; that disqualified her for me long ago.

        That makes you a little slow on the uptake in my opinion.

        I figured out Obama during his senate run in a few minute long conversation on radio call-in program when he took the corporate position on the H-1B program.

        Obama couldn’t explain why degreed engineers up to PhD’s needed more education to compete with low wage lower qualified non-citizens.

      • *You tell me what you think it means. You give me possible (mis)interpretations, and I’ll tell you if you’re getting close.*
        .
        You are asking me to get inside your mind and tell you (and others) what you meant to post? That’s quaint.
        I don’t think I like your rules for this “game”; but if I were reading this from the viewpoint of the high-school English teacher of a Freshman composition course (in which case I would know you better), I would have to try to untangle the syntax and phraseology. Taking what you wrote and trying to understand what you meant is a challenge.
        *Don’t forget to give a great big thanks to the French King Louis XVI, and father of this country, Benjamin Franklin, without whose assistance the incompetent General Washington, who failed to engage the filthy Brits army for a stretch of over three years during the war, defeat would have been inevitable.*
        Only *you* can clarify what you meant. Perhaps a parenthetical comment was intended? However, I will give it my best effort:
        *Don’t forget to give a great big thanks to the French King Louis XVI and to one of the founding fathers of this country, Benjamin Franklin, without whose assistance the incompetent General Washington (who failed to engage the filthy British army for a stretch of over three years during the war) would have met with inevitable defeat.*
        Am I getting close? 😀
        [I still don’t know what is is to which you refer.]

      • RE: “That makes you a little slow on the uptake in my opinion.”
        .
        Opinions are like …. (you know)!
        When one is personally acquainted with the target, one is not so quick to be judgmental. 🙂

      • By George, you’ve got it!

        I knew you could if you only tried.

        Now about Bill Clinton. Is it possible you couldn’t understand what was going on when he tried to privatize Social Security, when big obstacle to this project was a Republican House that was too eager to impeach derailed it?

        Think it over.

        I’m trying to understand how perfectly intelligent people can’t see what’s in front of their eyes when it conflicts with their internal narrative, their “novelization” of a person like Clinton and especially Obama.

        Was it stupidity, indifference, or just evil that made Clinton sell out the middle class with NAFTA? Or allow the repeal of Glass–Steagall?

        An aside: I have been told I look like Bill close to about 75 times, been invited to impersonate him at a monetary conference (and did) and have had many “selfies” requested by strangers.

  10. I like everything about this except for the title. You’re good at words; do you really need a sexist cliche to make your point?

    • Please. Can we stop this one right now? Grow a pair is only sexist when the complaint is made by a sexist (i.e., “Ted musta meant balls because if I allow that there is a perfectly well-used sentiment of grow a pair of ovaries — google it; the expression is common, then I can’t soot down his argument.”)

      People told Obama to grow a pair, and his supporters, unable to defend him through facts immediately used the “Everyone knows that blacks were castrated during the Jim Crow era (and at other times) so the use of ‘grow a pair’ is not just insulting, it’s inflammatory, racist and demeans the totality of black suffering throughout all of time. We, the fractional group of people who need to win at any cost, refuse to accept debate on this, blah blah blah…”

      Enough.

      • But I wasn’t *trying* to shoot down his argument. I very much agree. That’s why I said “I like everything about this except for the title.” I’m not sure how that could be clearer. But hopefully I’m allowed, among friends, to disagree with one aspect of the way he put it.

        On that note, maybe I need to be a little more clear what I disagree with. Yes, people say “grow a pair of ovaries”, but it’s a reference to the more common expression. Don’t believe me? I just looked up the phrase “grow a pair” in some online slang dictionaries, and also googled it. All the definitions and explanations-for-foreigners given refer to testicles; one also glosses the phrase as “be a man”, and the ever-helpful Urban Dictionary even suggests “stop being a pussy”, which nicely contrasts the associations our culture makes between courage and genitals.

        So I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that, despite some laudable efforts to reclaim it, “grow a pair” is a sexist phrase, in that its interpretation depends on and reinforces harmful gender stereotypes. So let’s not use it.

        Note: Nothing in this comment is about Hillary Clinton, because I think everyone on the left can agree that she’d be a terrible president, regardless of chromosomes.

      • Alex, when telling a woman to “grow-a-pair,” you’re generally referring to “teats.” I learned this from a Black English professor who grew up in the Northeast.

        DanD

    • It is so sexist to assume Ted wasn’t referring to a pair of ovaries.

      No need to apologize. It’s just that even women who should know better habitually think in terms of the patriarchy without being aware it.

      What kind of pair do you think will dominate Hillary’s decision process, if given the chance? Will she try to be more vicious to prove ovaries are no impediment to imperial murder?

      • “It’s just that even women who should know better habitually think in terms of the patriarchy without being aware it.”

        I’m not sure what you mean by that. I often “think in terms of the patriarchy”, in that I interpret the world around me with the knowledge that patriarchy exists; I don’t think that makes me sexist, any more than noticing racism would make me a racist or noticing poverty would make me a capitalist.

        I’m also slightly confused about the “women who should know better”. Am I a woman who should know better? Are you? Are there men who should know better?

      • I don’t know whether you are a male or a female.

        It would be highly presumptuous for me to make a statement about how you think. Or for you to make assumptions about how Ted thinks. Or how I think for that matter.

        If the shoe fits, wear it.

      • I hope it’s possible to speak colloquially and grab attention without saying something that could unnecessarily upset people. In particular, if your headline upsets pro-Clinton “progressives”, good for you, especially if it upsets them into reconsidering their allegiances. But if it upsets people by reinforcing a nasty stereotype–people with testicles are braver than those without–then you might actually be turning away readers, or at least making them dislike you before they start reading. And I don’t like that idea, I agree with what you’re saying and I think you’re a hell of a lot better than me at putting it into words.

        If you’re not sure that it’s sexist–and you care, and you have time–google the phrase, and see where and when it’s used, and what it’s compared to. I discovered, among other things, that some people think the opposite of “growing a pair” is “being a pussy”, which makes it pretty clear in my eyes.

  11. I can think of one FANTASTIC reason to vote for Hillary. If she’s elected, we will be treated to the sound of GOPrano heads exploding all across the country. It’s glorious to contemplate, but I can’t think of any other reason.

    The sad part of the two-party trap is that you’ve only got one way to vote against the evil of two lessers. “Third” parties are hopeless in this climate, and most of them are hodge-podge collections of people who have some gripe with the main party rather than any focused agenda of their own.

    (This is where the Crazy One retreats to his corner to sharpen various pointy objects while muttering darkly to himself…)

    Have a great Fourth all, we can still celebrate the spirit of this country while wondering where the hell he wandered off to this time.

  12. Why not just title the article “Whimsical, Where Are You?”

    It’s truly amazing how America’s political leaders emerge. If we wanted Hillary to be president, we’d be the one’s begging for it to happen, rather than it being the other way around with her campaign machine begging us to accept it as a fait accompli, or “inevitable”.

    This country is being transformed into one big decaying luxury resort for our so-called leaders and captains of industry and financial capital. Growing service sector economy, indeed! Want to see the future? Come visit the Napa Valley, one of many places where these patronizing douchebags come to “get away” from the mess they consciously perpetuate.

    Every little crack in the asphalt of Highway 29 makes me smile when I think of how very democratically and impartially they wreck the tires of these yuppies’ roadsters, and the cars of the devoted service employees who cater to them.

    America the beautiful.

    Happy Fourth of July!

  13. Is it just me or are the drums getting louder? The division between Those Who Have and Those Who Have to Take Shit from Those Who Have seems to be much more obvious than even just a few months ago. Could 2016 finally be the campaign where the electorate wakes up? Because, honestly, I can’t believe that people can continue to buy all the bullshit that’s being shoved into their eyes and ears.

Leave a Reply