Why Doesn’t She Change?

Supporters of Hillary Clinton tell the progressive supporters of Bernie Sanders that they have to change their politics, or compromise them, or ignore them, in order to join them in their fight to defeat the dangerous Donald Trump. But no one seems to ask: if Hillary Clinton wants our votes, why doesn’t she change her politics to suit us? Isn’t that what politicians do? Instead of pandering to the people, she panders to corporations.

74 thoughts on “Why Doesn’t She Change?

    • True.

      My support for Bernie comes and goes as easily as his support comes and goes for and away from Hillary.

      My support has always been for the issues and policies that meant something to his supporters, issues that were there before his candidacy, and will remain after; I supported his supporters sense of justice, not their infatuation with the man.

      When he actually changes direction, I will turn away from him on a dime, and tell him how useless he has become.

      The Democratic Party is where movements go to die.

      I couldn’t be happier than by being proven wrong this time.

    • «Even harder to take him seriously if he believes Killary would be so much better than Trump.» Even harder to take «Jack Heart» seriously, when s/he pretends to have done so earlier, but now is forced to change her/his mind because Mr Sanders, while not endorsing Ms Clinton, has said that he will vote for her, rather than for Mr Trump. As usual with «Jack Heart», a lie from beginning to end….

      Mr Sanders’ reasons for opposing Mr Trump are well stated in the interview with Stephen Colbert to which a link is provided in the RT article to which «Jack Heart» provides a link – i e, that Mr Trump is deceiving voters who feel a legitimate anger against the current political system by attempting to convince them that the Other – Mexicans, Muslims, etc, rather than the policies on behalf of the 1 % (most of whom are neither Mexicans nor Muslims) carried out by politicians in an utterly corrupt political system, are responsible for their plight (nothing new, merely an upgrading of the «Southern Strategy»employed, e g, by GOP politicians at least since Goldwater’s time, just a bit more open and more vulgar). His reasons for finding Mr Trump more dangerous than Ms Clinton are hardly a figment of an overactive imagination and cannot be dismissed out of hand, thus his statement to the effect that he would vote for Ms Clinton in November if that would contribute to defeating Mr Trump….

      On the campaign trail, Mr Sanders – and indeed, throughout his adult life – has proved that he merits being taken very seriously indeed, which I do, just as I take the views of, e g, Avram Noam Chomsky very seriously. Still, if I enjoyed the franchise in the United States, I should, like Ted, find it impossible to give my vote to a neocon warmonger like Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Rather, I’d be searching instead for an alternative, like the Green Party’s Jill Ellen Stein, and enjoining all my friends and acquaintances to do the same. The United States – and with it, much of the world – has for far too long been governed by the tyranny of the evil of two lessers. It is long past time for that tyranny to be broken….

      Henri

      • ” Mr Trump is deceiving voters who feel a legitimate anger against the current political system by attempting to convince them that the Other … are responsible for their plight (nothing new, merely an upgrading of the…”

        … strategy that worked so well for Herr Schicklgruber.

      • Lawrence Britt’s little list has been posted here more than once, so instead I’ll post the National Socialists’ own social agenda:

        Extreme homophobia leading to the systematic persecution of homosexuals

        Persecution of “degenerate art”

        Strong rejection of premarital sex, prostitution, pornography and “sexual vice”. Smoking, drinking and use of cosmetics were discouraged.

        Anti-intellectualism.

        Revindication of a glorious past as the key to a glorious future.

        damn, but that sounds familiar.

        Although Trump is quite obviously in favor of prostitution – not only did it help create his inheritance, but it’s how he gets his own women. (You didn’t think those hot babes were attracted to his “personality” did you?)

      • CrazyH on June 25, 2016 at 9:43 AM said:

        “Although Trump is quite obviously in favor of prostitution…”

        Do as I say, not as I do, is the rule of the day.

        Such is the nature of privilege, of a private “law”, a law that applies only to the “law” givers, not to those who are obliged to abide by the “law” under the lawful violence of the law.

        Some secret pleasures are just too delicious to share with the hoi polloi: like Dennis Hastert’s homosexual pedophilia.

      • Not to worry, Henri, I’ve never taken *you* seriously.

        I did indeed used to take Sanders’ very seriously for what I wrongly thought were good ideas. Now it’s difficult for me to take anyone seriously who peddles a failed doctrine. However, I could still take him seriously for his integrity. No longer now that he is supporting Killary. Now I can only take him seriously as a threat to this nation with his dangerous and destructive ideas as well as his apparent charisma.

        And yes indeed–voting for someone is an endorsement! And even if we pretend otherwise, an endorsement of Trump’s opponent is an important part of defeating Trump if truly that is his “major” goal.

        Honestly and logic have never been your strengths. Flooding America with Mexicans and Muslims is a policy of the “1%.”

        Then there’s the fact of Hillary’s own bigotry against men. And even if you want to ignore that–tell me how many more brown people has Hillary killed than Trump? Or are words more terrible than bombs now?

        So…how exactly is Trump v Hillary a tough call?

      • CrazyH,

        Of course, the Nazi leadership were fags. I know you know this because I know this, and you’ve told me you know history better than I do.

      • Seriously, Jack? You’d don’t understand the difference between homosexuality and homophobia?

      • > So…how exactly is Trump v Hillary a tough call?

        Usually, one votes for the candidate with the biggest dick. In this case, that is most assuredly a tough call.

      • And I wasn’t referring to the Pink Swastika. And the HuffPo author criticizes it.

        Anyone knows Rohm and much of the SA leadership were openly gay and thought it a great fascist virtue.

        I think it’s likely Hitler was gay along with other top Nazis but I don’t claim to be able to prove that.

      • “You don’t know that homosexuality was integral to Nazism at least up until the Night of the Long Knives?

        The Night of the long knives was in 1934 – the link you provided refers to a man who was born in 1950. I know there are rumors that the Nazis invented time travel as well but unless you can provide a credible source I’m going to call this one a fail.

        It’s entirely possible that Hitler may have been a closet homosexual – most homophobes are.
        :: innocent glance upwards ::

      • :: Sigh ::

        One more time – this is the statement you are failing to defend:

        “You don’t know that homosexuality was integral to Nazism at least up until the Night of the Long Knives?”

        By my count, Ernst Rohm [sic] is one person. One person is rather far removed from “integral to Nazism.” Regardless of one man’s personal proclivities (which are disputed) Nazism was rabidly homophobic.

        Since Hitler had his old buddy Ernst shot, one might assume that he was not all that integral after all.

      • «I did indeed used to take Sanders’ very seriously for what I wrongly thought were good ideas. Now it’s difficult for me to take anyone seriously who peddles a failed doctrine.» You’re a hoot, «Jack Heart» – are you now claiming that so historically aware a person as you claim to be only discovered that Mr Sanders was «peddl[ing] a failed doctrine» during the course of the campaign ? Or, given the fact that Mr Sanders has been consistent in his positions throughout the campaign – and for many decades previously – is your claim rather that it was the knowledge that the «doctrine» he was peddling had «failed» that you lacked when the campaign began ?…

        I fear you are more confused than usual, which is not saying little….

        Somehow I doubt that your decision to «no longer» take Mr Sanders seriously will play any role for anyone other then yourself….

        Henri

      • Well, Henri, people other than you or I have said here that they would question Sanders’ integrity if he were to support Clinton. And here he is doing so. See the relevance now?

        I’ve followed Sanders long before this campaign. The change came from myself. I abandoned socialism years ago.

        The new change is that he has shattered any illusions I had of his integrity. But I’ve already explained that. Twice. You’ve always seemed dense, but if I didn’t know any better I’d say you were purposely misunderstanding me.

      • Sanders said long ago that he would throw his support to Hillary if he lost the nomination. If he did not do so, that would be a dishonorable act.

        I respect his decision.

        He is seeking the Democratic nomination. Had he run as a “third” party candidate, then the honorable course of action may well have been to stay the course. But in that case he would have gotten 4% of the “liberals'” votes instead of 40%.

        It would be dishonorable for him to turn his back on the party after accepting their help.

        None of this changes the fact that I will not vote for Hillary. The honorable thing for me to do is likewise to follow through on my earlier commitment. I may write in Bernie, or I may vote for Jill Stein.

      • «I’ve followed Sanders long before this campaign. The change came from myself. I abandoned socialism years ago.» Your claim to have «followed Sanders long before this campaign» is about as credible as the rest of your posts, «Jack Heart» i e, not at all….

        «The new change is that he has shattered any illusions I had of his integrity» One has to admit that your chutzpah is not without its charm ; that a person with your combination of ignorance, meretriciousness, and confusion comments on the integrity of others has a certain panache, although I doubt that, apart from appreciating the length of your nose, Cyrano de Bergerac would be impressed. Not least because you pretend to «question Sanders’ integrity if he were to support Clinton. And here he is doing so.» For a person who has «followed Sanders [since] long before this campaign», it is odd that you fail to understand that Mr Sanders’ position on this matter – as on others – has been consistent from the very inception of his campaign, as this CBS report shows : Despite a recent surge in the polls, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, pledged once again that he’ll support the eventual Democratic nominee and forego an independent presidential bid if he isn’t the nominee.»

        The date of that report ? 14 September 2015….

        As I pointed out above, a «combination of ignorance, meretriciousness, and confusion». But «dense» you are not, rather so light you float on air (to be specific, at sea level with a mean pressure 1.01325 kPa)…. 😉

        Henri

  1. “I watched my parents vote for the lesser of two evils — and where has it gotten us?
    Has the lesser evil ever reversed climate-change?

    It has not — the earth continues to suffer beneath us.
    Has the lesser evil ever helped the millions of humans in our prisons?

    It has not — our prison populations are growing as I write this.
    Has the lesser evil ever protected us from the financial institutions that prey on us?

    It has not — in fact, it has protected them from us.
    Has the lesser evil ever stopped the seemingly endless wars?

    It has not — in fact, since leaving Vietnam, in 1975, we’ve only had 5 years of peace.
    Has the lesser evil ever reversed our increasing income-inequality?

    It has not — every year, income inequality only grows larger.
    “Honestly, has the lesser evil ever made things better?”

    https://johnlaurits.com/2016/06/23/why-i-am-bernieorbust-why-you-should-be-too/

    • Voting Lesser Evil is like moving to an upper deck on a sinking ship.

      The new media paradigm is Upstairs/Downstairs.

      The whole Left/Right paradigm works for the 1% in Old Big Media where Upstairs is neatly divided between Right and Left, and Downstairs is relegated to voiceless spectators.

      The Dinosaur Duopoly Parties have been shaken and stirred by Trump and Bernie.

      The world is not binary but the rules of the 1% serve them well when they can force life into a multiple choice test with only one of two possible outcomes.

      It is a Slave Mentality that compels respect for those who would capture and despise them in this way.

      • “The new media paradigm is Upstairs/Downstairs.”

        … and we live downstairs in the 1%’s outhouse.

  2. What the primaries have proven is that the difference between Bernie-tards and Hillaryites is so much greater than the difference between the Bernie-tard camp and those who are quite popularly supporting the Trump-turd! Really, Bernie is a democratic-socialist, and T-rump is a national-socialist. Hillary is a oligarch-predisposed, corporatist-“socialist” through-and-through. As it stands, Trump and Bernie together are philosophically more closely aligned than either are with Hillary.

    Trump should offer the VP spot to Bernie. Wouldn’t that cause a shit-storm in the political matrix.

    DanD

      • Oh, he’d be free to refuse … but it’s how he refuses that could really bury Hillary.

        DanD

      • I meant Trump would lose his own support.

        And I can’t imagine Sanders giving the offer any real consideration anyway.

      • Well, in a perverse sort of way, a campaign “marriage” between Trump and Sanders would be a perfect amalgamation of outsider wet-dreams … and being as old as he is, Sanders ain’t gonna get to do it again like Hillary is attempting. It also appears that Trump would treat the arrangement as a perfect “compromise.” He could endorse a Sander-esque version of health-care and free higher education and even do so on the cheap by promising such largess only to citizens and legal residents. That certainly would affect the majority.

        The Sanders base is not like the fossil-class backing Hillary, and Trump’s base is very unlike the corporatist neo-cons that backed the prevailing crew of Repug presidential rejects. It certainly would win in the “Interesting-Times” category.

        DanD

  3. The argument for Hillary really is as weak as you portray.

    How simple and elegant to state that she should have to DO something for your vote.

  4. Secretary Clinton won fair and square in ’16.

    In ’08, she ran on her own, so she could distance herself from Ma Ferguson, the First* Woman governor of Texas. That didn’t work out quite as planned.

    So this time, Billary are running on two planks: ‘If you want a woman president, you MUST vote for Billary. If you hate Hillary, please understand that she is just Bill’s way of circumventing term limits, so the 45% of Americans who loved Bill MUST also vote for Billary.’

    Bill convinced more than 80% of all African-Americans that he was the best president that ever helped African-Americans. Compared to Bill, Lincoln was a racist who wanted to replace de jure African-American slavery with de facto African-American slavery, while Bill freed all African-Americans by locking up more of them than any other president. And he helped undocumented Hispanics by removing more of them than any other president (before Obama). Bill knew to hire charismatic African-Americans and Hispanics to tell this to all African-Americans and Hispanics, and it worked (lie though it was). So now more than 80% of African-Americans and more than 70% of non-Cuban Hispanics want Billary as their next president, and they ensured that Billary won the nomination and will win the election. Romney had more than 60% of the WASP vote, but lost. Trump only has WASP men, WASP women and almost all non-WASPs will vote for Billary.

    Meanwhile, the evil Russian dictator says his one and only Mediterranean port is a strategic necessity for Russia, and he’s NOT giving it up.

    Billary has said that, as soon as they’re re-elected, they’ll remove the evil Syrian regime, put the Higher National Committee (all Wahhabis) in charge of Syria, and close all Russian access to the Med, an essential move to stop Russia’s hegemonic aspirations.

    Plus, it’s now said (as I thought) that Trump is not really American, he’s really from the Man ethnic group (from Northeast China)..

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/21/daily-202-is-trump-a-manchurian-candidate-or-maybe-the-1919-chicago-white-sox/57689ffd981b92a22d2421e1/

    So it will be Billary and war with the evil Russkies.

    Which is GREAT! If the US were foolish enough to elect anyone except Billary, it would be just like Chamberlain at Munich. Obviously, a thermonuclear war with Russia is far better than repeating Chamberlain’s mistake at Munich!

    • Quite agree, Michael, if we are clear about just what Arthur Neville Chamberlain’s – and Édouard Deladier’s «mistake» at München in 1938 really was ; i e, not that they were pacifists (which neither of them were), who miscalculated in assuming that by throwing Czechoslovakia to the German wolf, they could bring peace in Europe – but rather that the mistake for which Europe was to pay so dearly was that by refusing to form an alliance with the Soviet Union to stop German aggression in Europe, something for which, e g, the then Soviet foreign Minister,, Maxim Maximovich Litvinov, had been working tirelessly since 1933, and then throwing Czechoslovakia under the bus, they could guarantee that Germany would attack the Soviet Union first, leaving Britain and France to then go in and pick up the pieces when both these powers were exhausted. It didn’t work out quite that way….

      Henri

  5. Bernie has moved Hillary begrudgingly to the left on a lot of issues, but the reason to also move closer to her is that no candidate is going to make everybody happy. It’s not you compromising with Hillary, it’s you compromising with everyone who voted for Hillary.

    The primary process is about settling on a consensus candidate. Indeed, the reason you supported Bernie’s primary run was because you wanted him to have the backing of the DNC’s infrastructure. Otherwise, why not just have him run as an independent? If Bernie had won, you probably would have expected the Hillary supporters to turn around and endorse the winner instead of demanding that Bernie work harder to cater to them.

    Not all democrats want to raise taxes and rapidly expand government in a short amount of time. They want moderate, comprehensible change because they worry sweeping expensive reform might bankrupt the country or upset the social order against them. They think foreign military action is a necessary evil in some cases, and contrary to most evidence they think that doing something abroad is better than doing nothing.

    In any case, you’ve made it pretty clear that you’ll never vote for Hillary so it seems disingenuous to suggest you would if she made more of an effort to cater to you.

    • I’m not looking for a candidate to ‘cater’ to me – I’m looking for one to represent me.

      I’d be perfectly happy with moderate, comprehensible, change; so long as the change was proceeding the proper direction.

    • “they worry sweeping expensive reform might bankrupt the country or upset the social order against them.”

      Buddy, that ship’s long since sailed. Hence the meteoric rise of Lord Trump.

      • @Jack

        Candidates with for-profit-college problems doesn’t end with Trump.

        Although nearly one million students are enrolled at Laureate universities around the world, according to the Baltimore Sun, it has lost money every year since 2010, and carries $4.7 billion in debt.

        Through March of this year, Laureate International Universities has given the Clinton Foundation between $1 million and $5 million, according to the foundation’s donor disclosures.

        http://gawker.com/the-clintons-have-a-for-profit-college-problem-of-their-1781631216

      • Thanks for the link, Glenn. I just found out about that from it being mentioned in the video about the Clinton Foundation I posted below.

      • Loved that Gawker article, Glenn – thanks for the link ! I particularly enjoyed the interchange between a poster using the moniker «Richard Punch» and article author Brendan O’Connor :

        «Richard Punch : All those words, and Brendan could have just written, “I’m mad that Bernie lost and now I’m pouting and this is how I pout.”

        Brendan O’Connor : My editors cut that line unfortunately.»

        «Richard Punch»’s comment is rather typical for supporters of Ms Clinton on threads that I’ve seen, but alas, not many supporters of Mr Sanders are quite as skillful in their replies as Mr O’Connor….

        Henri

    • «Bernie has moved Hillary begrudgingly to the left on a lot of issues, …» I fear your analysis is incomplete, not to say meretricious, «doubtingapostle». Mr Sanders has not moved Ms Clinton to the left ; what he and his campaign have done is to force her to revise her propaganda so as to sound more «left». No one who has followed Ms Clinton’s career these last several decades can reasonably draw the conclusion that these two entities – what Ms Clinton claims to be her position and what, in practice, her position has shown itself to be – are the same….

      «In any case, you’ve made it pretty clear that you’ll never vote for Hillary so it seems disingenuous to suggest you would if she made more of an effort to cater to you.»Alas, the singular and plural forms of the second person personal pronoun in the nominative in modern English are identical ; thus the referent of the word «you» is not always entirely clear. If the male protagonist in the cartoon above is not taken to represent Ted alone (no spectacles), but rather others with similar views, then Ted has indeed made clear what he believes Ms Clinton would have to do to win over Sanders supporters. Nothing «disingenuous» about this at all. What might, however, be considered disingenuous, is the use of the verb «cater»to refer to a candidate representing important currents of opinion among those whose votes he or she wishes to gain….

      Henri

  6. It is kind of interesting. Liberals are told that if they want to have any influence and get anything done they have to compromise and we have been for the last forever. And fewer and fewer items in the liberal agenda get accomplished and liberals have less and less power and things get worse.

    Where as right wing reactionaries refuse to compromise and mostly elect their people and essentially control the federal and most state governments.

    Who is being more realistic here?

    • > Who is being more realistic here?

      Somebody other than “We the people,” The right wing electorate don’t get what they want either, they’re just slower to realize it.

      • Well put. It does seem to have taken the GOP electorate an inordinate amount of time to realize the GOPe and neocons hardly aim to do anything they claim to do–reign in government size and spending, respect the Constitution, defend traditional values, defeat terrorism, etc.

      • Lawguy: Specifics, please?

        I can’t tell from your comment whether you mean, “the GOP really does deliver on its promises.” or “The stupid bastards get what’s coming to them”

        The GOP runs on God, Guns, and Gays – but as soon as they get into office they ignore those issues and concentrate on dismantling our social safety net, emasculating unions, cutting taxes for the rich, removing the laws that protect humans from corporations, starting wars for oil, and gutting the constitution.

        These actions in turn, lower our standard of living, our life expectancy, and our freedom.

        I don’t know any conservative which thinks those latter are good things, yet they never make the connection. Instead, they hear “deregulation” and think that means more freedom for humans. They hear “cut taxes” and they think that means *their* taxes. They watch their sons and daughters get killed in unnecessary wars & think it bring them freedom. They cheer militarized cops and guns nuts, never realize that those same weapons can be turned against them.

        So, yeah, the stupid bastards do get what’s coming to them. I’m just tired of getting that which they so richly deserve when I’ve been fighting against those very things ever since I was old enough to vote.

  7. Because she doesn’t have to. You, (like most “progresssives” over the last 40 years who have chosen their own personal purity over progress) are irrelevant, and you’ve done it to yourself.

    You’ve made it perfectly clear- Hell, you’ve shouted it from the rooftops – that there is NOTHING Clinton could do that would get your vote. You’ve made yourself useless to Clinton, and thus she is rightfully ignoring you. Which you are whining about.

    You want Hillary Clinton to change? Demonstrate repeatedly you will have reasonable expectations and not punish her for not meeting unreasonable expectations immediately. And be patient. After all ,you have 40 years of the history of “progressives” betrayal of the Democratic party and the continual choosing of their own purity over progress to get over. That’s going to take a while.

    • * WHIMSY’S PLAN FOR WORLD DOMINATION *

      Stop _____ and vote for mainstream dems.

      A) Whining
      B) Expecting
      C) Punishing
      D) ????

      You see, Whimsy – it doesn’t matter what you put in the blank, because none of those things appear on the ballot. (although if “punish” were on the ballot you can bet your sweet bippy I’d check it)

      No matter how hard you try to reframe it, your plan is always “vote for mainstream dems” Which is exactly what “liberals” have been doing for the last fifty or so years as we’ve slithered further and further to the right.

      If you keep doing the same, old, thing, you’re going to get the same, old, results. It’s the philosophy generally known as ‘conservatism.’ If you really want to change something, you have to:

      Change.
      Something.

      (Yes, this post is a repeat – so’s Whimsy’s)

      • “Give me liberty or give me incrementalism.” – Patrick Whimsical

        “The price of freedom is eternal patience” – Thomas Whimserson.

        “Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers waited patiently for incremental change.” Abraham Whimsycoln.

        “Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to the DNC” – Thomas Whimserson.

        “Ask not what your country can do for you, quit whining and ask what you can do for the DNC” John F. Whimeddy.

        “We hold these Truths to be Self Evident, that all men should quit punishing King George, that they are endowed by their National Convention with incremental changes that will someday grant them Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a penis”

        “We the People of the British Colonies, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do hereby resolve to quit whining and wait patiently.”

      • Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed that. You know, CrazyH, you have a real talent for taking down Whimsical.

        I wouldn’t mind having “punish” as a ballot option either.

        And whining is almost always such an empty charge…it’s politics–we’re all “whining.”

        *Gasp” Whimsical! You’re whining that everyone won’t just hold their noses and vote Dem!!!

      • CrazyH,

        Oh, we’re all driven by personal ambition. I don’t object to that. I object to people who LIE about it. HRC wants to be president solely because it would be a feather in her cap. Helping other people? I honestly don’t think she believes other people are real.

        Now, wait! How can I possibly say that? I can’t know her mind. I’m being totally unfair, right? How can I say she’s not driven by a higher purpose, that she wants to be president to help people?

        Simple.

        There is no way in any possible interpretation of reality that has even a passing connection to sanity for HRC to get anything done as president. The House of Representatives is locked off to her. The Senate is also Republican-controlled. Nothing she tries to pass, no key legislation, no nothing, will get past the Republicans. Why? Because a lot of the Republicans absolutely, viscerally hate HRC.

        No one disputes that, right?

        But wait, don’t answer yet because there’s more. The Supreme Court has a vacancy. Who do you think those Republicans are gonna let through? These are the same Republicans who have been so effective at forbidding the sitting president from appointing a Supreme Court justice that Obama has pretty much already checked out. And they just wiped their asses on his “landmark,” “legacy” immigration legislation.

        ANYONE, regardless of WHO that person is, who is nominated by HRC (assuming the Republicans in Charge allow her to even get a nomination out) might as well not even bother accepting.

        See, the Republicans who are running things KNOW how to run things. Look at the Democrats. Did anyone see that idiotic display the other day? They had a sit-in. About gun control. Isn’t that adorable? It’s like when the sixth-graders start a picket against the principal.

        And HRC, approaching ALL that, is trying to convince people that she’s in it for some higher-minded goal? I don’t mind bullshit. I mind far-fetched completely unbelievable bullshit.

        HRC cannot rally a sufficiently enthusiastic base. She cannot win over the Sanders people in sufficient numbers. The apathy and cynicism will immobilize much of the Democratic/Progressive base. And HRC won’t mind one damned bit because she’s be the Christmas Queen. (Sorry, I was channeling Lucy van Pelt.) She’ll be the first woman president of the U.S.

        And her administration will have bugger all of any accomplishments. Just excuses, evasions and staffers pleading the Fifth Amendment.

    • «Because she doesn’t have to. You [i e, presumably Ted], (like most “progresssives [sic ! – Whimsical seems to have a predilection for sibilants] ” over the last 40 years who have chosen their own personal purity over progress) are irrelevant, and you’ve done it to yourself.» Well now, «Whimsical», I can readily believe that you have chosen something other than «personal purity» these last four decades, but perhaps you could tell us a bit more about that «progress» you have so proudly chosen and which figures like Ms Clinton have brought to US politics. Are you referring to the ever dearer presidential campaigns and the Super PACs, etc, financed by contributions from the super rich (who also are generous enough to contribute to such entities as the «Clinton Foundation»), the foreign wars of aggression that Ms Clinton has either signed off on or actively instigated herself, the welfare «reforms», which, unlike in the case of corporate welfare, made recipients poorer, rather than richer, or the destruction of the Democratic Party as an instrument for progressive action in the interests of the public as a whole, etc, etc ?…

      Given that, in the event Ms Clinton does manage to get herself inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States, she will take an oath to «to the best of [her] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States». Given that that document speaks (twice) of «promot[in]g the general Welfare», it would be of interest to learn just how, in that case, you expect her to do so. Or do you mean that provoking a direct military conflict with Russia and/or China, as she seems poised to do, in some mysterious way serves the general Welfare ?…

      Henri

    • What HRC would have to do to get my vote:
      1. Release the Goldman Sachs transcripts.
      2. Admit that the DNC rigged the game for her.
      3. Acknowledge her own personal ambition, and not some noble sense of a higher purpose, as her major motivation for running for president.
      4. Stop flip-flopping.
      5. Promise to actually do something progressive or liberal, rather than just bomb the christing bejeezus out of people and talk about being liberal and progressive.
      6. Admit that Edward Snowden cannot get a fair trial in the U.S.
      7. Promise to pardon Chelsea Manning the second her (HRC’s) hand comes off the bible at the inauguration.
      8. Close Gitmo. Even if it means pardoning every single person there. Right after 7.
      9. Get some Wall Street criminal trials going.
      10. Close some prisons.

      I’ll take any five from the list. And she can have my vote.

      • Hell, alex_the_tired, if you can get five from that list out of Ms Clinton, she’d get my vote as well – and I’m not even eligible to vote in your country ! (But maybe I could make it worth her while if I could convince «Whimsical» not to vote for Mr Trump (as members of Parliament here do, when they can’t make it to a vote on a specific measure – they kvitterar, i e, level the score by agreeing to balance a positive vote against a negative one….) 🙂

        Henri

      • Nice list, Alex – but one nit. I’m pretty sure that 98.6% of American politicians are driven by personal ambition rather than some Higher Calling.

  8. I still think that something’s coming. There’s still one more trick in the round. Whether it’s HRC getting caught finally in a scandal or Bill Clinton dropping dead in some woman’s bed or Trump being bumped out of the game by Republican chicanery, I simply cannot comprehend a reality in which Hillary Clinton actually wins something significant. Her entire career has been about failure. I just don’t believe she’s got the ability to win the presidency, even when it’s all set up so perfectly.

    • Has it really though, alex? While it’s true she’s a loathsome human being who has accomplished little of good and much of suffering, she has succeeded in becoming one of the most recognizable and powerful women (people?) in the country (world?).

      When I think about it, I suppose it’s because she lacks any scruples whatever, is so one-tracked on ambition, has no convictions, is totally obedient, and is a woman that she has come so far. Now if she had some appeal she’d be the perfect servant for the elite.

      • See, that’s the thing. If you’re going to have no scruples, if you’re just going to go after power, then you should have something to SHOW for it after all these years. HRC is described as powerful, but she’s always getting caught in penny-ante shit. Truly powerful people don’t get caught because powerful people are usually preternaturally intelligent (assuming they earned their power themselves).

        Seriously. Look at the scandals. It’s ALWAYS pissant crap. A hundred thou from a stock investment? What kind of a putz risks going to jail on a securities wrap for a measly 100K?

        Speeches for Goldman Sachs that EVERYONE knows was favor-buying. Bang! Caught red-handed. And she didn’t even need the money at that point. That’s what shows she’s a low-grade player. She risks too much for too little payoff.

        She tries to set up her Li’l Orphan Annie decoder ring e-mail server, and whoopsy! it’s granma Hilly getting caught sending money to the Nigerian prince ’cause she just doesn’t understand this e-mail stuff. Doesn’t even matter anymore if her motives were pure as snow. She looks guilty as the day is long. And it’s a pattern she’s followed for decades.

        I mean, come on. When does it simply become too ridiculous to believe anymore? She might be book smart, but she gets caught in things that any 12-year-old growing up in a bad neighborhood could see right through. She’d last exactly 11 minutes in a war zone. And she’ll last even less time against someone like Putin, who will have her running around like a simpleton trying to play catchup. (He’s almost certainly already got all her e-mails. When it becomes prudent, he’ll simply dumb them all: “Dear Americans, our spy service, which is much better than yours, got us copies of all of those e-mails your president deleted. Here they are, in case you want the complete set.”)

        If HRC was really “all of that and a side of fries” she wouldn’t have gotten caught so often. Beating the rap time after time? Pfui. Anyone can get arrested a few times and not actually be at fault. But when the cops run your rap sheet and it’s 45 items long? Even if you got a dismissal every single time, well, can we all put down the nonsense that you’re, somehow, innocent?

        There’s two ways to play it: completely straight or not completely straight. And if you’re going to get “clever,” you can do it two ways: really stupidly and get caught, or really smartly and never get caught. Very, very few people can do the last of those options. And HRC is not one of them.

      • There’s more scandals than I can keep up with but they are not *all* pissant.

        How about the theft of, oh, $100 billion? It appears that almost none of the money from the Clinton Foundation made it to the Haitians.

      • How pissant is murder? I also suspect her in Vince Foster’s death.

        And then as I said, I don’t know all her scandals, but there’s probably more big ones. Then there’s always the private server one. In my view, it’s a pretty big deal to endanger people’s lives by allowing classified information to be stolen.

      • «How about the theft of, oh, $100 billion? It appears that almost none of the money from the Clinton Foundation made it to the Haitians.» Here we see one of the significant problems with our dear friend who goes by the sobriquet «Jack Heart» : her/his utter inability to keep her/his political antipathies from misrepresenting the evidence. Here’s what the site to which s/he links above has to say about the matter :

        «Charles [Ortel] reports that the Clinton Foundation is part of an “international charity fraud network whose entire cumulative scale approaches and may even exceed $100 billion, measured from 1997 forward.”» Whatever one may think about Mr Ortel and his research, he is not here claiming that the «Clinton Foundation» has stolen 100 thousand million USD, rather that it constitutes a part of an «international charity fraud network» that has done so. Given that the Clinton Foundation has not, in the 19 years since it was founded, managed to collectquite as much as 100 thousand million USD, it would be difficult for even such professionals as those who run the Foundation to steal that sum of money, even had they been 100 % efficient….

        «Jack Heart» claims to find Ms Clinton «a loathsome human being». I concur. But I dare say that for both «Jack Heart» and myself, it is Ms Clinton as a political figure to which we object the most. But here the nature of our objections differ ; from what «Jack Heart» has posted to these threads, her/his political objections seem to be based upon her/his perception of Ms Clinton as a «Democrat» and part of the «Left», which s/he abhors. My political objections to Ms Clinton have an entirely different basis, i e, that she is a neocon warmonger, who, among other things, has played a not unimportant role in driving the Democratic Party ever further to the Right (think «welfare reform»)….

        The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend….

        Henri

      • “The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend….

        Henri”

        True.

        For those who believe otherwise, consider two wolves competing for the choice morsels of a lamb.

        The only way the lamb benefits from this competition is if both wolves wound each other mortally.

        May the Rs and Ds rip each others jugulars.

      • «For those who believe otherwise, consider two wolves competing for the choice morsels of a lamb.

        The only way the lamb benefits from this competition is if both wolves wound each other mortally..»

        Or with «Jack Heart» and your humble interlocutor as the wolves, and you as the lamb, Glenn ?… 😉

        Henri

      • Henri – I don’t know if you are thinking of the same Ben Franklin quote as am I, however I’ll post it here even though the attribution is contested.

        “Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what’s for dinner.”

      • Oops, speaking of attribution, it was Glenn who originally offered up the observation.

    • “Or with «Jack Heart» and your humble interlocutor as the wolves, and you as the lamb, Glenn ?…”

      I hardly see you as a wolf, Henri.

      But people will be what they will be.

      So, for now I’ll be an old goat.

      • «So, for now I’ll be an old goat.» Damn, Glenn, here I thought I’d have a chance at some tender lamb ! But as the saying goes, hunger is the best sauce – even for wolves !… 😉

        The ironic thing about this cartoon, to me at least, is that Ms Clinton is quite willing to change her apparent points of view, in response to the appropriate stimuli (I believe the technical term is «triangulation»), while Mr Sanders’ views, on the other hand, for the most part, seem to have been consistently held for the last half century. This makes listening to his speeches «boring» to some, e g, WaPo reporters, while others experience this fact as an indication of authenticity….

        Beauty is in the eye of the beholder – or as Upton Beall Sinclair was fond of saying : «It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it»….

        Henri

      • So Bernie will not win an award from Advertising Age for his campaign, being unlike the slick and deceptive Obama.

        Yet, I find his now-radical New Deal positions as comfortable as an old pair of shoes.

  9. «Why doesn’t she [Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton] change ?»Why should she ? She’s got it made – if those who care little for her and still less for Mr Trump vote for the candidate of a third party, they are castigated as «enablers», who might just make it possible for Mr Trump to be US president. Why then should Ms Clinton change – and thus risk the benefits she gains from her intimate connexions with the military-industrial and the financial elite – in order to win the votes of people like the chap (who looks suspiciously like Ted with his glasses off) in the cartoon above ?…

    Henri

Leave a Reply