H.A. Goodman is
back on the point, this time slaying blinders-wearing
Clintonites for their shitty rationales. And he's taking
a lot of incoming. Because it is pissing them off so much -- and you should know by now
how much I'm enjoying that -- I'm going to pile on.
He begins with my biggest beefs against her: inevitability polls and perpetual war.
First and foremost, the latest unscientific poll out of Western Illinois University has Bernie Sanders winning the presidency. Therefore, if polls are gospel, we’ll have a Democrat in the White House who plans on fixing the structural issues plaguing Wall Street and the U.S. economy. With Sanders, we’ll have an honest attempt at breaking up “Too Big to Fail” banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and tackling wealth inequality. Perhaps one reason WIU predicts Sanders winning the presidency is that Vermont’s senator has more than 1 million online donors who’ve funded his campaign. No need for prison lobbyists, like his challenger Hillary Clinton, and no need for a super PAC.
Once again: I don't place much faith in year-away polling, and
the WIU poll is more than little screwy. Take a look at their electoral map (click it to big it). Note that the GOPer Sanders is defeating is named Bush, a tenuous proposition as we read and write today.
Would that it could be so: South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and both Dakotas are all blue. Stranger still, Illinois, Maryland, and Hawaii are red. This makes
Ted look reasonable by comparison.
Now that the crack pipe has been hidden away...
Also, one great thing about a Sanders presidency is that Americans will be able to trust a person who never had to evolve toward progressive stances on war, foreign policy, Wall Street and environmental issues like Keystone XL. While critics haven’t let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics. Naturally, Clinton supporters aren’t concerned with perpetual wars.
According to one conservative historian in the New York Times, Clinton’s foreign policy can easily be deemed “neocon”:
“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
When a conservative historian known for neoconservative views says Clinton’s foreign policy is “something that might have been called neocon,” it’s safe to say her foreign policy will be hawkish. In addition, another New York Times article states that neocons are “aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”
Yes, Clinton will have something close to a neoconservative foreign policy, and if you don’t believe me, trust the neocons who approve of her views on war and international relations. Or, you can just read Hillary Clinton’s book review of Henry Kissinger’s “World Order.”
This is all dead solid perfect. Perpetual war was the
topic of my Blog Action Day post, if you recall, and Shadowproof follows up today with
"Introducing the Next Cold War". Hint: Same as the last one, except more expensive. I don't believe it's going to be
all that cold. The latest headlines, in fact, demonstrate it's
pretty hot already.
But the macro-meme is, as you might have guessed, Clinton's trust issues. Add them up.
With Clinton, poor judgment is referred to as a regrettable mistake. Owning a personal server was a “mistake,” voting for the Iraq War was a “mistake,” she “wasn’t raised” to envision gay marriage, and now opposes the TPP based upon “What I know about it, as of today.”
Generally,
poor decision-making is addressed as an honest error, then acknowledged
wholeheartedly, while supporters find every way to justify the
flip-flop. Accountability is a foreign concept to the Clinton campaign
and any reasoned critique is met with“You sound like a Republican!” Even accepting $100,000 from Donald Trump is simply part of Washington politics.
Hillary Clinton has evolved on war, gay marriage, Keystone XL, the TPP, in addition to marijuana legislation,
and her supporters believe this is a good thing. All human beings
evolve, therefore politicians who do the same must be doing so for
altruistic reasons. For the rest of America, 57 percent of voters nationwide find Clinton to be “not honest and trustworthy.”
Finally there's the whole money thing.
Luckily, Clinton has made up for this deficit in trustworthiness by stating she’ll no longer accept money from prison lobbyists.
This is a relief since four of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks and there are questions about foreign donors to her foundation. Nonetheless, in the eyes of supporters, a Democrat is always better than a Republican, even if Politico labels Clinton to be Wall St. Republicans’ dark secret.
We
dare not vote based upon principle, since only the political power
Hillary Clinton is said to possess protects us from Trump, if Sanders
doesn’t get the nomination. Granted, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton, but we can’t rock the boat for fear of a Trump presidency if Clinton is the nominee.
Republicans are the enemy, says the thought process bolstering the Clinton campaign, therefore accepting money from prison lobbyists and Wall Street is part of the game.
There’s a reason Hillary Clinton waited almost three weeks to address the death of Michael Brown and the Ferguson protests. Sadly, part of this reason could be prison lobbyists.
Goodman's got a lot more, including taking down the tiresome 'SCOTUS' argument. This one has been easy since November of 2000 -- remember, Gore didn't drop his challenge until December --and was brought to us by
none other than Jim Hightower.
Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other
Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First,
Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his
cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had
taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes
wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000
self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted
for Nader.
And as you've been reminded several times, that was only
the third best reason Gore lost. Why did so many declared Democrats
ignore Barbra Streisand's plea
and vote Republican (not Green, mind you)? Can we call them stupid, or
is the argument simply too complex for low information and
infrequently-voting, semi-sorta Dems to comprehend? Whatever it is,
it's a problem Democrats alone need to solve.
So please finish
Goodman's latest, and either nod your head ruefully as the scales fall from your eyes, or grind your teeth and curse the people who fit the definition of the word 'progressive' as your enemy. Goodman's fail, however and again, is suggesting a write-in for Sanders. Those votes don't count in Texas unless you're a
"qualified write-in candidate", according to the Texas Election Code.
You will have the best progressive option on the Texas ballot
listed on the Green line, and by voting for Jill Stein you also send a message that Democrats don't hold the title to your vote. Getting them to understand that is Job One for this cycle.
