One of Hillary Clinton’s many challenges in her race against Bernie Sanders is that she’s running as an incrementalist technocrat against an inspiring idealist. In a year when voters are agitating for radical change, can a message of “more of the same, but slightly more so” resonate?
Patrick Henry Rodham Clinton
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
39 Comments. Leave new
I simply don’t see how any path leads to a White House victory for Hillary Clinton.
If Clinton doesn’t lose Iowa, she’s still going to come godalmighty close to losing it. Not impressive. Also, Clinton is running out of money. Her contributors have, mostly, tapped out completely. She’s bet the pot on a strong opening, and (to mix my metaphors) her horse is exhausted and starting to falter.
But let’s give her the nomination. She’s sunk then too. Many Sanders’ voters will not “hold their noses.” And that will probably affect the state level elections greatly. The Republicans already control the House and Senate. This election, with Clinton, could let them get more seats.
Also, Clinton’s scandals are still following her. The entire general election will be Clinton repeatedly saying that the investigations were political, no law was broken, etc. But the articles and analysis will keep saying that maybe the laws weren’t broken, but the activities still weren’t smart.
And, she has weak messages. Clinton reminds me of a fairly good actor being given a crummy script. “These are my lines? They’re terrible! Is this the best the writers can do?” A great actor could take the crummy script and really sell it. She’s not great. Her message is one part: same-old-same-old and one part: I’m a woman. Vote for me because, as feminism says, “Let’ stick it to those nasty men.”
But there’s no way she can win the White House.
We’ll see. I wouldn’t count her out just yet.
Well, we’ll all know in a couple of hours. I think Hillary’s going to lose by a really small margin. But, it reminds me of a scene in the last of the original Star Trek episodes. “It’ll stick in [her] craw. She’ll never accept it.”
If she does lose in Iowa, I think there are some pretty good odds that it will be the beginning of the end for her campaign. Even if she wins S.C. and Nevada by pretty big margins. Sanders will be like that nightmare creature that you can’t get away from, no matter how fast you run.
This is not directly relevant (I apologize), but I would really like to share this old Soviet cartoon with y’all. Jack Heart made me think of this last week when he posted something about how he hates war and is all for peace and yet he is also an admitted reactionary and completely pro-capitalist. This cartoon is educational and entertaining. I’m betting that virtually none of you have ever seen this before.
https://youtu.be/yyeOKxJBnSo
> This is not directly relevant
bingo.
> Jack Heart made me think of this last week
So why didn’t you post it in response to that? Need to get your quota for the day up?
I do not deny that I wanted to get the maximum possible exposure for this cartoon. If anyone likes it, please let me know.
It was certainly amusing.
I should be clear I am not a pacifist. I believe in military preparedness and property defense. I just hate most recent wars since they only succeeded in lining the pockets of leeches and furthering the agendas of the globalists.
Not to worry, prolecenter – the US has – or at least quite recently had – more than a thousand such «Islands of Peace» around the world (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MA12Df01.html). So Mr Wolf -of Wall Street, I presume – is still doing fine, unlike many of his compatriots, who for some reason don’t seem to profit quite as well as he under the libertarian regime of «personal responsibility», otherwise known as socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor…. 😉
Henri
No libertarian supports bailouts for the rich.
But you knew that.
«No libertarian supports bailouts for the rich.» Once again, «Jack Heart», you present categorical statements containing logical quantifiers as if you had an empirical basis – in this case, had discussed attitudes to bailouts for the rich with each and every person who considers himself or herself to be a «libertarian» – for doing so….
Consider the case of one particular person, who in this forum has chosen to post under the monicker «Jack Heart». This person claims to support a political figure, one Donald John Trump (Drumpf), who himself at the time supported the Wall Street bailout of 2008, aka TARP (http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/sep/15/club-growth/did-donald-trump-support-wall-street-bailout-club-/). Nota bene : the issue here is not whether Mr Trump was correct to support this legislation, but rather whether having done so, Mr Trump can call himself a libertarian (if, indeed, he does identify himself as such), and more importantly, whether «Jack Heart», a self-identified libertarian (at least on these threads) can be considered to support bailouts for the rich in the event s/he supports a candidate like Mr Trump who does/has done so….
So is Mr Trump, who supports bailouts for the rich, a libertarian ? Is «Jack Heart», who supports Mr Trump, who supports bailouts for the rich, a libertarian ? Quite frankly, «Jack Heart»’s standing as a libertarian is of little or no interest to me, but as someone who has trained in mathematics and logic, I do dislike seeing logical quantifiers abused…. 😉
Henri
Sadly, Mr. Trump is not a libertarian. This is a definitional issue. One hardly needs to speak to all “self-identifying” libertarians. Self-identifiers are crap as you well know anyway. One cannot be a libertarian and support bailouts because by definition, libertarians are against massive gov’t economic interference.
It’s the same as a socialist cannot be against central planning. Or a feminist cannot be against women going to college. Or a nativist cannot love immigration.
At any rate, only a sycophant ever agrees with everything his candidate says. Nobody here agrees with everything Bernie believes.
I cannot figure out whether you’re dense or purposefully obtuse.
«I cannot figure out whether you’re dense or purposefully obtuse.» Alas, dear «Jack Heart», there are many things of greater consequence than your assessment of whether my disagreements with your pronunciamentos derive from a lack of intelligence or moral turpitude that you seem unable to «figure out». If, as you seem to imply, the issue of bailouts for the rich is a significant matter for libertarians (and I agree that it should be), why then do you choose Mr Trump as «your» candidate ? As you point out : «One cannot be a libertarian and support bailouts because by definition, libertarians are against massive gov’t economic interference.»…
One need not, indeed, agree with everything a candidate has said on the campaign trail in order to vote for him or her, but for a libertarian to embrace the cause of someone in favour of massive government interference in the market with the enthusiasm with which you seem to have embraced Mr Trump’s strikes me as odd….
But no doubt that is due to my lack of intelligence and/or my moral turpitude and has nothing whatever to do with a glaring inconsistency in your own thought….
Henri
Excellent, Ted.
> “more of the same, but slightly more so” resonate?
Sure, resonates just fine with the pigs. “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” (shout out to George Orwell)
Animal Farm is about Communism. Oops.
Actually, it’s about Stalinism – an important distinction which is probably as lost on you as it is on Trolecenter.
Orwell was a socialist; he meant Animal Farm as a critique. The revisions to the commandments show how easily good intentions can be twisted – under socialism as well as under democracy.
e.g. note how so many GOP use ‘religious freedom’ as an excuse to impose their religion on others.
So Hillary is Stalin. Gotcha. 😉
Let us not forget, CrazyH, that Eric Arthur Blair turned over names of people who he thought were or might be «crypto-communists» to the Information Research Department of UK Foreign Office. The enemy of my enemy is my friend….
Henri
> The enemy of my enemy is my friend….
right up until we need an excuse to invade. At which time the WMDs we sold him to use on our mutual enemy become horrendous threats to us and our other “friends”
I was thinking more of the desperately ill Mr Blair considering the enemy – the British Foreign Office – of his enemy – the Soviets – as his friend, despite his knowing full well what the former had been up to for centuries around the globe….
As to friends and enemies, I think Henry john Temple nailed it pretty well almost two centuries ago : «… I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow. …» Replace «England» by «the US government», and you have the modern situation in which that government is attempting by all available means to maintain and widen its claim to global hegemony, and in which «friends» and «enemies» can change places with a rapidity worthy of the most accomplished prestidigitators….
Henri
Here is something a bit more relevant – a piece I wrote for the website, Global Research:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-real-american-leftists-should-not-vote-for-bernie-sanders/5504075
Once again, replying to a thread at the top of the column (third reminder). Did you forget your lesson already? Or just give up trying to hide your spots?
Won’t bother looking it up, most of your arguments are superficial (“he doesn’t say “worker class”); outright lies (“he doesn’t say “worker class”) or guilt by association (he’s an American politician) – (as if I had a choice of voting for someone other than an American politician)
Instead, I’ll concentrate on “why?” – let’s say you convince “real leftists” to not vote for Sanders. Then what? Hillary is the dem nominee. Or, let’s say you convince all democrats to not vote, then what? Trump is the next president …
… hm, okay, I guess that does make sense. Putin likes Trump, and Trump likes Putin. They’ll be able to take their shirts off & go horseback riding together, take their shirts off & go fishing together, take their shirts off & go to the sauna together …
I wish I could convince all Americans to boycott the vote entirely to delegitimize the US government.
And I’ll never understand what’s so goddamn funny about a guy going shirtless (even a head of state) while on a camping trip.
I second that, prolecenter. I’m tired of meeting all these people who talk like the system isn’t legitimate, then act as if it is.
As for the shirtlessness, I’ve never heard anyone but liberals mock that, which at first seems odd, since they’re supposed to be so “liberated.” I can explain this for you. It has its roots in Second Wave Feminism, which created a culture of ridicule against masculinity. To them, there is no simply being a man and doing manly things. Putin is just feebly putting on a ‘macho act.’
I do wonder why you admire Putin though. He has made strong criticisms of Communism, Bolshevism, Lenin, and Stalin–and probably more than I know of.
It’s funny when a known homophobe goes out of his way to have shirtless photographs circulated. It’s not like they get published without his consent.
Nice evasion, btw “I wish I could” is not an answer. You’re specifically targeting Sanders voters which makes Trump that much more likely. (assuming anyone listens)
CH is very helpful here in illustrating the very hatred of heterosexual masculinity I was referring to by conflating it with homosexuality. What he is saying with his comment is that gong without a shirt is totally gay. Fascinating.
We simply have different ideas about masculinity, Jack. For instance, I don’t think constantly whining about how empowered women threaten society is very masculine at all. If one truly believes women are inferior, then what does it say when one is worried about competition therefrom?
Homophobia is even less masculine. It’s usually a sign that the ‘phobe is uncertain about his own sexuality, and worried that others may have similar doubts.
Jack,
Yeah, you’re right about Putin. I almost said something about it earlier in response to CH. I am a bit upset with Putin for some disparaging comments he made about Lenin a few days ago, actually. He got pretty brutal over Lenin, but then made some fairly positive comments about Stalin which I didn’t really understand.
I do admire Putin for having the balls to stand up to US imperialism and advocate a multi-polar world order. Also, many of his domestic policies to date have been fairly progressive. I’m thinking of healthcare, education and extended maternity leave even while the Russian economy is suffering a bit. Putin is also not afraid to bring the crony capitalist oligarchs to heel when they try to get out of paying their taxes, colluding with the West and really hyper-exploiting their workers.
Like you, I’m not into the “social issues” so much like gay marriage and what I would call bourgeois feminism and even taking political correctness to ridiculous extremes, etc. My feelings about the “gay rights” issue are pretty well expressed by this short article I did, if you’re interested in taking a look:
https://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/lgbtq-wtf/
CH is unusually generous today in instructing in the Leftist’s proclivity and talent in distorting the positions of his opponents and language itself. He also shows he is quite content to regurgitate tired feminist tropes.
A man’s concerns about the structure of society are dismissed as ‘whining.’ By implication, a feminist’s imaginary grievances are legitimate.
Pay particular attention to his next trick. Coddling by the state “empowers” women. Though men give women a handicap in the marketplace, which proves literally by definition that it is actually women who cannot compete with men, CH will boldly state the opposite of objective reality.
Note how distaste for aggressive women becomes fear of them in his mind. Much as how disgust with gays becomes fear or hatred or insecurity.
This has turned into quite a lesson!
Prolecenter,
Yes, when I mentioned the criticisms of Lenin I was referring to the recent ones. I heard this was the first time Putin had said such things. It is risky to say when so many of his people support a return to Communism. I believe polls put it around 30%.
I make no secret of my admiration for Mr. Putin. He is the strongest, shrewdest, most effective leader of my lifetime. I respect his nationalism, equitable and rational treatment of other nations, and his defense of traditional family values.
Bourgeois feminism indeed. Modern Western middle and upper class white women are the most privileged group in history.
I would very much expect a classical Marxist to have your position on gays. I do agree that gay rights positions will turn away many in the working class. However, you are missing a few things here. This is one behemoth can of worms, so I’ll just try to keep it brief.
First, just as bourgeois feminism is, the gay rights movement is indicative of the degeneracy, decadence, and frivolity of a civilization in decline.
Moreover, the New Left utilizes Critical Theory, attacking, criticizing, and undermining everything in the culture in order ultimately to bring it down. Once the current structure collapses, the utopia can be born. Since most people are straight, gays are excellent pawns in this strategy, useful as another point of attack, a wedge/distraction issue. More specifically, gay/gender agitation undermines the family, which is one of the main obstacles, along with nation and religion for instance, that Marxists have to overcome to get people instead to identify along abstract “class” lines. That’s the barebones of it anyway.
I also find interesting that Mr. Putin self-describes as a liberal, which he certainly is compared to his countrymen.
«I wish I could convince all Americans to boycott the vote entirely to delegitimize the US government.» Prolecenter, given the fact that less than half of the nominal electorate usually participates in national elections in your country – some because they are deliberately excluded, some because they can’t be arsed to participate in what they – with no little justification – consider a farce, and some for other reasons – wouldn’t you say that if non-participation really were a means to deligitimise the US government, the job would have been done long ago ? And yet that government continues merrily on its way, bombing the hell out of just about everyone who can’t fight back in the same manner and in its pursuit of global hegemony, risking the very existence of H [not so very] sapiens sapiens on this blue planet. Perhaps you would be advised to rather than trying to convince people in your country not to vote, instead attempt to convince them to vote for Mr Sanders, whose programme, flawed as it is, does offer a glimpse of a path to something other than destruction….
Henri
This “Loud & Clear” radio show, hosted by my good comrade, Brian Becker, is very relevant and informative on the subject of the so-called anti-establishment candidacies of Sanders and Trump:
http://sputniknews.com/radio_loud_and_clear/20160126/1033718746/will-there-be-an-extremist-us-election-outcome.html
FIRST!
This one will really upset CH. Below is a link to another of Ted’s cartoons that appears to have been done exclusively for Sputnik. I guess Ted is a Russian troll too!
http://sputniknews.com/cartoons/20160129/1033952402/keeping-secrets.html
Heh, I thought the G-man was gonna say they needed to get into gov’t power if they wanted to know what’s going on. I like what Ted had him say better.
FIRST!!
(not upset, merely trying to teach basic internet courtesy to a troll)
Paging mhenriday. Won’t you dump on CrazyH for taking it upon himself to moderate the comments?