|May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)|
|Contents||Bulletin||Scripting in shell and Perl||Network troubleshooting||History||Humor|
Hillary claims that she cares about women's rights but takes millions in donations from KSA, Qatar, and friends. Not to mention, facilitating killing woman and children in such countries as Iran, Libya and Syria. And taking "donations" from countries which are steeped in poverty (Ukraine is one of the largest donors of Clinton foundation), money that are stolen from woman and children in those countries. Take a look at the donors to the Clinton Foundation.
|News||Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton||Recommended Links||US Presidential Elections of 2016||Hillary Clinton email scandal||Clinton Foundation - Wikipedia||Hillary Clinton links to financial industry|
|Hillary role in cover up of Bill Clinton sexapades||"Clinton Cash" Scandal: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and financial industry||Is Hillary Clinton a war criminal?||Pathological lying||Lock her up movement||Is Hillary Clinton a toxic manager?||Etc|
"The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -- actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties -- "identity politics." "
"By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. "
Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.compretzelattack November 15, 2016 at 6:03 pmKukulkan November 15, 2016 at 9:37 pm
if poor whites were being shot by cops at the rate urban blacks are, they would be screaming too. blm is not a corporate front to divide us, any more than acorn was a scam to help election fraud.Jay Mani November 15, 2016 at 9:41 am
They are. Why #BlackLivesMatter should be #PoorLivesMatter.
Also available as a video .JTFaraday November 15, 2016 at 1:02 pm
It's lazy analysis to suggest Race was a contributing factor. On the fringes, Trump supporters may have racial overtones, but this election was all about class. I applaud sites like NC in continually educating me. What you do is a valuable service.JTFaraday November 15, 2016 at 1:11 pm
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
Indeed, this site has featured links to articles elaborating the demographic composition of today's "working class". And yet we still have people insisting that appeals to the working class, and policies directed thereof, must "transcend" race and gender.Fieryhunt November 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm
And, of course this "class first" orientation became a bone of contention between some loud mouthed "men of the left" during the D-Party primary and "everyone else" and that's why the "Bernie Bro" label stuck. It didn't help the Sanders campaign either.
"Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean?Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 11:16 pm
So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics.different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:18 am
This is, actually, complicated. It's a reasonable position that black lives don't matter because they keep getting whacked by cops and the cops are never held accountable. Nobody else did anything, so people on the ground stood up, asserted themselves, and as part of that created #BlackLivesMatter as an online gathering point; all entirely reasonable. #AllLivesMatter was created, mostly as deflection/distraction, by people who either didn't like the movement, or supported cops, and of course if all lives did matter to this crowd, they would have done something about all the police killings in the first place.
Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again.
Activist time (we might say) is often slower than electoral time. But sometimes it's faster; see today's Water Cooler on the #AllOfUs people who occupied Schumer's office (and high time, too). To me, that's a very hopefully sign. Hopefully, not a bundle of groups still siloed by identity (and if that's to happen, I bet that will happen by working together. Nothing abstract).pretzelattack November 15, 2016 at 10:04 pm
I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left.Knot Galt November 15, 2016 at 1:52 pm
what "men of the left"? the "bernie bro" label only stuck for Clinton supporters who had already had the kool aid. Much like the "putin stooge" label.Knot Galt November 15, 2016 at 2:06 pm
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
That statement is as myopic a vision as the current political class is today. The statement offends another minority, or even a possible majority. Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side.
Focus! The larger battle is is about Class.different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:21 am
To clarify, from Links:
In False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump.animalogic November 15, 2016 at 8:58 pm
I wonder if there is an even simpler more colorful way to say that. Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling.
If the phrase "Tiffany Glass ceiling" seems good enough to re-use, feel free to re-use it one and all.JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 12:01 pm
For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification.
Class is the primary political issue because it not only affects everyone, but in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation.
I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests.TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:43 pm
"Just how large a spike in hate crime there has been remains uncertain, however. Several reports have been proven false, and Potok cautioned that most incidents reported to the Southern Poverty Law Center did not amount to hate crime.
Levin of California State University added that there was no "independent evidence to sustain the contention that there were more [hate crimes] in the days after the Trump election than after 9/11."" http://www.voanews.com/a/hate-crimes-surge-after-donald-trump-victory/3596298.html
All us ordinary people are insecure. Planet is becoming less habitable, war everywhere, ISDS whether we want it or not, group sentiments driving mass behaviors with extra weapons from our masters, soil depletion, water becoming a Nestle subsidiary, all that. But let us focus on maintaining our favored position as more insecure than others, with a "Yes, but" response to what seems to me the fundamental strategic scene:
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
Those mostly white guys, but a lot of women too, the "rich classs," are ORGANIZED, they have a pretty simple organizing principle ("Everything belong us") that leads to straightforward strategies and tactics to control all the levers and fulcrums of power. The senators in Oregon are "on the right side" of a couple of social issues, but they both are all in for "trade deals" and other big pieces of the "rich class's" ground game. In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right.JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm
The comparison with 9/11 is instructive. That is not minimizing hate crimes. Within days after 9/11, my Sikh neighbor was assaulted and called a "terrorist". He finally decided to stop wearing a turban, cut his hair, and dress "American". My neighborhood was not ethnically tense, but it is ethnically diverse, and my neighbor had never seen his assailant before.
Yes, the rich classes are organized…organized to fleece us with unending wars. But don't minimize other people's experience of what constitutes a hate crime.
In 1875, the first step toward the assassination of a black, "scalawag", or "carpetbagger" public official in the South was a friendly visit from prominent people asking him to resign, the second was night riders with torches, the third was night riders who killed the public official. Jury nullification (surprise, surprise) made sure that no one was punished at the time. In 1876, the restoration of "home rule' in Southern states elected in a bargain Rutherford B. Hayes, who ended Reconstruction and the South entered a period that cleansed "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and scalawags" from their state governments and put the Confederate generals and former plantation owners back in charge. That was then called The Restoration. Coincidence that that is the name of David Horowitz's conference where Donna Brazile was hobnobbing with James O'Keefe?
The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion.readerOfTeaLeaves November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm
Not minimizing - my very peaches-and-cream Scots-English daughter is married to a gentleman from Ghana whose skin tones are about as dark as possible.
the have three beautiful children, and are fortunate to live in an area that is a hotbed of "tolerance." I have many anecdotes too.
Do anecdotes = reality in all its complexity? Do anecdotes = policy? Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect.animalogic November 15, 2016 at 9:09 pm
If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud.
When there's no justice, its as if the society's immune system is not functioning.
Expect more strange things to appear, almost all of them aimed at sucking the remaining resources out of the system with the knowledge that they'll never face consequences for looting. The fact that they're killing the host does not bother them.Crazy Horse November 15, 2016 at 12:14 pm
Corruption is both cause & effect of gross wealth inequities. Of course to the 1% it's not corruption so much as merely what is owed as of a right to the privileged. (Thus, the most fundamental basis of liberal democracy turns malignant: that ALL, even rulers & law makers are EQUALLY bound by the Law).Elizabeth Burton November 15, 2016 at 12:46 pm
Here is the way it works:
The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police.
Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude.
Once upon a time there was what was known as the Middle Class who taught school or built things in factories, made mortgage payments on a home, and bought a new Ford every other year. But they now are renters, moving from one insecure job in one state to an insecure one across the country. How else are they to maintain their sense of self-worth except by identifying a tribe that is under them? If the members of the inferior tribe look just like you they might actually be more successful and not a proper object of scorn. But if they have a black or brown skin and speak differently they are the perfect target to make you feel that your life is not a total failure.
It's either that or go home and kick the dog or beat the wife. Or join the Army where you can go kill a few foreigners and will always know your place in the hierarchy.
Class "trumps" race, but racial prejudice has its roots far back in human social history as a tribal species where the "other" was always a threat to the tribe's existence.mark ó dochartaigh November 15, 2016 at 11:04 pm
Anyone who thinks it is only class and not also race is wearing some very strange blinders
No one with any sense is saying that, Katharine, and constantly bringing it up as some kind of necessary argument (which, you may recall, was done as a way of trying to persuade people of color Sanders wasn't working for them in the face of his entire history) perpetuates the falsehood dichotomy that it has to be one or the other.
I can understand the desire to reduce the problems to a single issue that can then be subjected to our total focus, but that's what's been done for the last fifty years; it doesn't work. Life is too complex and messy to be fixed using magic pills, and Trump's success because those who've given up hope of a cure are still enormously vulnerable to snake oil.kramer November 15, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name.sinbad66 November 15, 2016 at 9:43 am
yes, racism still exist, but the Democrats want to make it the primary issue of every election because it is costs them nothing. I've never liked the idea of race based reparations because they seem like another form of racism.
However, if the neolibs really believe racial disparity and gender issues are the primary problems, why don't they ever support reparations or a large tax on rich white people to pay the victims of racism and sexism and all the other isms?
Perhaps its because that would actually cost them something. I think what bothers most of the Trumpets out here in rural America is not race but the elevation of race to the top of the political todo list.
For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words.
Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. Its a trap the media walks right into. I think most poor people of whiteness do see racism as a sin, just not the only or most awful sin. As for Trump being a racist, I think he would have to be human first.JW November 15, 2016 at 9:46 am
… whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.
Spot-on statement. Was watching Fareed Zakaria (yeah, I know, but he makes legit points from time to time) and was pleasantly surprised that he called Bret Stephens, who was strongly opposed to Trump, out on this. To see Stephens squirm like a worm on a hook was priceless.fresno dan November 15, 2016 at 10:05 am
"…what divides people rather than what unites people…"
Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown.
Sanders and others on an ascendant left in the Democratic Party - and outside the Party - will continue to do the important work of building a sense of class consciousness. But more is needed, if the left wants to transform education into political power. Of course, organizing and electing candidates at the local and state level is enormously important both to leverage control of local institutions and - even more important - train and create leaders who can effectively use the tools of political power. But besides this practical requirement, the left also needs to address - or co-opt, if you will - the language of economic populism, which sounds a lot like economic nationalism.
It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. Nationalist sentiment is the single most powerful unifying principle available, certainly more so than the concept of class, at least in America. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I do see the Alt-Right using nationalism as a lever to try to coax the white working class into their brand of identity politics. But America's assimilationist, "melting pot" narrative continues to be attractive to most people, even if it is under assault in some quarters. So I think moving from nationalism to white identity politics will not so easy for the Alt-Right. On the other hand, picking up the thread of economic nationalism can provide the left with a powerful tool for bringing together women, minorities and all who are struggling in this economy. This becomes particularly important if it is the case that technology already makes the ideal of full (or nearly full) employment nothing more than a chimera, thus forcing the question of a guaranteed annual income. Establishing that kind of permanent safety net will only be possible in a polity where there are firm bonds between citizens and a marked sense of responsibility for the welfare of all.Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:09 am
And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and "Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many were engaged in explicitly criminal activity).
For those who think its just Hillary, its not. There is no way there will ever be any acknowledgement of Obama;s real failures – he will no more be viewed honestly by dems than he could be viewed honestly by repubs. Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO…
I imagine Trump will be one term, and I imagine we return in short order to our nominally different parties squabbling but in lock step with regard to their wall street masters…Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 12:30 pm
That's the problem though – the Democrats are not honest and have not been for a very long time.
Democrats seem to be the more visible or clumsy in their attempts to govern themselves and the populace, let alone understand their world. By way of illustration, consider the following.
One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived good thing may be hazardous to one's health. Too much free stuff exhausts the producers, infrastructure and support networks.
To extend and torture that concept further, just because, consider the immigration of populist ideas to Washington. There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on.
Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained.
Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior (What, you sold my family and me out and reduced our prospects, so why should we vote for a party that takes us for granted, at best), which would be counter-intuitive by some in our media.
The New York Times
Mrs. Clinton's legal work included unsavory criminal cases. When a 41-year-old factory worker was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, and requested a female lawyer, a Fayetteville judge appointed Mrs. Clinton, over her objections. The crime lab mistakenly discarded crucial evidence, and she reached a plea bargain, reducing the charge to unlawful fondling; her client served less than a year in jail.
The victim in that case, Kathy Shelton, who supports Donald J. Trump, has accused Mrs. Clinton of attacking her character and putting her through "something you would never put a 12-year-old through."
Mrs. Clinton's first jury trial was distasteful in an entirely different way.
She had married Mr. Clinton, moved with him to Little Rock - he was then the state attorney general - and joined Rose, the state's most prestigious law firm and the oldest one west of the Mississippi, as it calls itself. Her clients were mainly businesses
Hillary Clinton raged Tuesday night against a protester at her rally who denounced her husband as a sexual predator.
About three minutes into her 20-minute stump speech, a heckler shouted, "Bill Clinton is a rapist!" as he waved a neon green sign declaring the same statement.
Clinton pointed a finger at the protester.
"I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and behavior of people who support Donald Trump," Clinton shouted at her Fort Lauderdale, Fla., rally.
It's not uncommon for "rapist" protesters to show up at Clinton rallies, but the Democratic nominee offered a rare reaction.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.orgKillary PAC | Oct 28, 2016 1:31:52 PM | 20
The Top 10
Rank Name Donations
1 Tom Steyer $38 million
2 Donald Sussman $23.4 million
3 Miriam &
Sheldon Adelson $21.5 million
4 Robert Mercer $20.2 million
Bloomberg $20.1 million
6 Fred Eychaner $20 million
7 Paul Singer $17.3 million
8 George Soros $16.5 million
9 Maurice "Hank"
Greenberg $15.1 million
10 Elizabeth &
Richard Uihlein $14 million
Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business. (See: "On favors.") And a far greater threat than murderous Muslims adhering to a fanatical 7th-century religious ideology lurks right here at home - those pesky Roman Catholics and their silly 2,000-year-old faith. (See: "On Catholics.")
Oct 22, 2016 | www.unz.com
I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing.
For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism. In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson of WWII.
Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants and citizens.
Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you .
And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme" vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you right here:
Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.
In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives.
The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.
The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign.
It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.
The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.
The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.
White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages.
If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on JSTOR ) is a good place to start.
The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.
However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion. White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy, despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.
The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups.
The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics."
The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders.
My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s, Sanders had affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley condemning "the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.
To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement, the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general in 2016.
So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".
In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.
Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.
Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.
As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach, as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is, playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.
The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.
That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump.
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.
By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.
Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.
In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.
Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.
Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.
But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.
(Reprinted from China Matters by permission of author or representative)
Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.comKokuanani October 7, 2016 at 6:26 pmWaldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm
I'm surprised not to see anything here about the "political bombshell" of Trump's latest sexist remarks.
As I listen to the talking heads bloviate about what a "death blow" this is to the Trump campaign, it occurs to me that if the Repubs could engineer Trump's withdrawal from the top of the ticket, they could probably beat Hillary with Pence. They would have to arrange it so that Trump goes agreeably - should not be too hard to do, since many doubt if he WANTS to be president - and Pence could pledge that he would carry forward all of Trump's wonderful Screw the Establishment policies. Trump without the messy Trumpisms.
Disgusting as Trump is, I'm sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp. And, just another distraction from talking about policy.
1. Clinton is corrupt (again), liar (still), dishonest (again), warmonger (still) etc. Trump is racist(still), bigot (again), misogynist (still), Hitler (Putin, Ahmedinejad)…. gets tedious after the 20th time.
2. I think Trump does it on purpose as a response to a Clinton dump. It looks like her GS speeches are out today so the networks can cover Trump's latest bigoted statement and ignore Clinton insulting the voters and sucking up to the oligarchs.
Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.
I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.
First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.
So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact, the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.
And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about 4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except for hackers.
I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign.
The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children.
This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.
Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 8:02 amJim Haygood , September 3, 2016 at 8:36 am
Navy analysis found that a Marine's case would draw attention to Afghan 'sex slaves' WaPo
The Martland case opened a dialogue in which numerous veterans of the war in Afghanistan said they were told to ignore instances of child sex abuse by their Afghan colleagues. The Defense Department's inspector general then opened an investigation into the sexual assault reports and how they were handled by U.S. military officials who knew about them.
US values in action – protecting the powerful and screwing the helpless…..Pat , September 3, 2016 at 9:19 am
"This is a serious turning point for all the people of Afghanistan, but in particular for the hard-fought gains women and girls have been able to enjoy." - Hillary Clinton, Nov 15, 2013
Lie back and think of Kabul …Jim Haygood , September 3, 2016 at 9:32 am
Found myself in a discussion with a recent ex-senator about invading Iraq. I had been attacking the premise that we needed to attack Iraq because terrorism, AND military capabilities and that it was based on lies and misinformation and doing pretty well, when the Senator said but think about Afghanistan – women no longer have to wear the Burka, and girls are going to school. This was after a report in the foreign press about attacks on schools with female students and how women were choosing to wear the burka because the harassment of women wearing western clothing being ignored. The utter ignorance of that statement floored me. I fully admit I was so gobsmacked I was speechless, and he moved on. I ended up sending him the link to a very good series in Newsday about how badly things were going in Afghanistan less than six months later. Already too late. Funny how the women get mentioned at the most interesting times.Pat , September 3, 2016 at 9:43 am
Your comment illuminates how politics focuses on "hot button" secondary issues to distract attention from dismal primary issues.
When gross insecurity rules in a war zone, all other aspects of life (including gender equality) take a back seat to survival. Indeed, war is correlated with social conservatism, so the cultural climate is not receptive to change, and may even backslide.
Here's a glimpse into the lost world of Kabul University in the 1980s (complete with a dandy in the left background who resembles an Afghan Tom Wolfe):
http://www.internationalist.org/afghanstudentswww.jpgPaid Minion , September 3, 2016 at 10:20 am
I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks.
So much of the run up to the AUMF vote and the invasion reminds me of the current climate surrounding the election.diptherio , September 3, 2016 at 11:14 am
It's "Talking points/The Script"/"Staying on Message. It keeps being repeated, because the warm and fuzzy story is what most people want to hear.Eclair , September 3, 2016 at 10:59 am
I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo , which is available on both Netflix and Youtube (at present). The realities of what we're doing in Afghanistan are indefensible.
See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her…Paid Minion , September 3, 2016 at 11:45 am
My spouse, bless his heart, works for a company embedded in the military-industrial complex. Three years ago, I accompanied him to the company Christmas bash (one of those compromises in a marriage and besides I am living well on his paycheck) where the new CEO spoke to the 'troops.'
He ended his talk with a paean to the marvelous gains in freedom for Afghan women and girls that the US's invasion (sorry, liberation) of Afghanistan has produced). The employees cheered and I refrained from vomiting only by incredible force of will . And, I would have ruined my new dress specially purchased at GoodWill for the occasion.Jeremy Grimm , September 3, 2016 at 12:24 pm
"They are dead, but thanks to us, they can be buried in a bikini…….."
The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" plan.
Somehow, I don't think we'd have gone to war in the Middle East, if "Fighting for Women's Rights" was the justification.
"Personally, I don't think……..they don't really want to be involved in this war…….they took our freedom away and gave it to the g##kers. But they don't want it. They would rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
Private Eightball, "Full Metal Jacket"
RE: Marine's case: Be sure to read two of the comments attached to this link - they're both recent and show on the first page of comments:
From - Buckley Family: "… Bear in mind when Maj. Brezler wrote his report he had no Classified Networks in his area. He used his personal computer to write that report and other reports many which were Classified by the Higher Command once they received them. They failed to let Maj. Brezler know that they had classified his reports. He was trying to do his job with the resources that he had available to him."
From - tsn100: " … Afghans hide behind Islam, this is not at all what Islam teaches, this is a cultural thing, Afghan culture allows this, the Taliban movement started when a young boy was raped and the family came to Mullah Omar who was just an unknown preacher and asked him to help, this was at the height of the Afghan civil war, Mullah Omar went and caught the culprit and had him shot, or hanged cant remember, that
Aug 31, 2016 | Washington Examiner
Hillary Clinton's favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself.
Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54 percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped in the last few weeks, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive view. This is the first time in year that more women have disliked Clinton than liked her.
Women were probably never as pro-Clinton as Democrats and liberal writers had hoped. They certainly were never as pro-Clinton as most of the African-American community was pro-Obama. Earlier this year, polls found Clinton's lead among women collapsing, as young women in particular favored her then-rival Bernie Sanders.
As Clinton has fallen in popularity among women, her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump, has gained. Trump has gained 7 points in favorability among women, from 26 percent in early August to a better-but-still-not-great 33 percent now.
Obviously, that doesn't mean Trump is going to end up winning women in the general election, or that the gap between him and Clinton among women will be close. But it is interesting to see that the changes Trump has made in his campaign - most notably his softer rhetoric - might have resulted in this small boost.
Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.comJohnnyGL , August 31, 2016 at 2:11 pmsleepy , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm
In the absence of strong Water Cooler leadership, we'll self-organize!!! :)
It's one poll, but ouch…..that's substantial losses among core groups of support…
"Notably, Clinton's popularity among women has flipped from 54-43 percent favorable-unfavorable last month to 45-52 percent now; it's the first time in a year that most women have viewed her unfavorably. Clinton's favorable-unfavorable rating has also flipped among those with postgraduate degrees, from 60-39 percent in early August to 47-51 percent now. She's now back to about where she was among postgrads in July. She has gone from about an even split among moderates, 50-48 percent favorable-unfavorable, to a more lopsided 41-56 percent now. Among liberals, she's dropped from 76 favorable to 63 percent favorable. And among nonwhites she's fallen from 73 to 62 percent favorable, largely due to a 16-point drop, to 55 percent, among Hispanics."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050Higgs Boson , August 31, 2016 at 4:28 pm
It seems the public views Trump as a screwball and Clinton as some inevitable vile slagheap that's slowly oozing its way to town. She'll still probably win but I suspect her poll numbers will continue south.Arizona Slim , August 31, 2016 at 5:10 pm
HRC and her worshippers don't care, as long as she wins in November. "Let them hate, so long as they fear"MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:06 pm
She'll win and misinterpret the victory. She will think that it's a mandate and it will be anything but.
I still predict that she'll serve less than a full term before a combination of legal and health problems and substance abuse force her to resign.cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 5:59 pm
Many people (women, Hispanics, etc) are asking, more and more often, "What do I have to lose?"
So it seems.
Most of them were going to lose this cycle no matter what.
It's not like Hillary really cares about most women, latinos, etc, etc.
We really should do something about the corrupt duopoly or hey we could just keep doing the same thing over and over.
The American Mirror... "They've gotta see her as a human. They have to see her - I think in society they always say, 'If you were a mother, you can't be half bad. There has to be some love or gentleness or compassion within in you birth a child,' but that's not true.
"There's some pretty bad mothers. I had one," Miller says. She said her mother had abused her for years.
Referring to Clinton again, Miller tells The American Mirror, "She is a Gloria Steinem kind of feminist. If you've ever seen picture or heard Gloria Steinem, just a cold, conniving bitch. That's just it.
"And they don't care about anyone but themselves. That's what most feminists are all about. It's about themselves," according to Miller.
"And most of them don't link men, incidentally. They only use men for income (and) appearance.
"Hillary could never had made it to Washington, DC without Bill. He was the song and dance routine. He's the one that played the sax and he could laugh and joke and talk and Hillary can't do that.
"She can't put on her black nightie and run around and she can't play the sax," Miller says, referring to her previous claim that, during their trysts, Bill Clinton would wear Miller's nightie and play his instrument.
... ... ...
- RELATED: Hillary's 'violent temper', 'cusses like a sailor'
- RELATED: Bill Clinton snorted cocaine off my coffee table, former lover says
stonehillady > Johnny Wendigo
All you women who think you can climb the ladder of success, Hillary did by sleeping with the Partners of the Rose Law firm. Chelsea is the byproduct of that so called feminist, Hillary Rotten Clinton....
Kinds of Feminism
These definitions are selected from a longer list of terms (compiled from a feminism news group) at http://www.landfield.com/faqs/feminism/. The initials in parenthesis are the people who contributed the definition to the news group.
This is the variety of feminism that works within the structure of mainstream society to integrate women into that structure. Its roots stretch back to the social contract theory of government instituted by the American Revolution. Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft were there from the start, proposing equality for women. As is often the case with liberals, they slog along inside the system, getting little done amongst the compromises until some radical movement shows up and pulls those compromises left of center. This is how it operated in the days of the suffragist movement and again with the emergence of the radical feminists. [JD]
[See Daring to be Bad, by Alice Echols (1989) for more detail on this contrast.]
Provides the bulwark of theoretical thought in feminism. Radical feminism provides an important foundation for the rest of "feminist flavors". Seen by many as the "undesirable" element of feminism, Radical feminism is actually the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising from feminism; ideas which get shaped and pounded out in various ways by other (but not all) branches of feminism. [CTM]
Radical feminism was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It is no longer as universally accepted as it was then, nor does it provide a foundation for, for example, cultural feminism. [EE]
This term refers to the feminist movement that sprung out of the civil rights and peace movements in 1967-1968. The reason this group gets the "radical" label is that they view the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of oppression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions, in fact. [JD]
The best history of this movement is a book called Daring to be Bad, by Alice Echols (1989). I consider that book a must! [JD] Another excellent book is simply titled Radical Feminism and is an anthology edited by Anne Koedt, a well-known radical feminist [EE].
Marxist and Socialist Feminism
Marxism recognizes that women are oppressed, and attributes the oppression to the capitalist/private property system. Thus they insist that the only way to end the oppression of women is to overthrow the capitalist system. Socialist feminism is the result of Marxism meeting radical feminism. Jaggar and Rothenberg [Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations Between Women and Men by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg, 1993] point to significant differences between socialist feminism and Marxism, but for our purposes I'll present the two together. Echols offers a description of socialist feminism as a marriage between Marxism and radical feminism, with Marxism the dominant partner. Marxists and socialists often call themselves "radical," but they use the term to refer to a completely different "root" of society: the economic system. [JD]
As radical feminism died out as a movement, cultural feminism got rolling. In fact, many of the same people moved from the former to the latter. They carried the name "radical feminism" with them, and some cultural feminists use that name still. (Jaggar and Rothenberg [Feminist Frameworks] don't even list cultural feminism as a framework separate from radical feminism, but Echols spells out the distinctions in great detail.) The difference between the two is quite striking: whereas radical feminism was a movement to transform society, cultural feminism retreated to vanguardism, working instead to build a women's culture. Some of this effort has had some social benefit: rape crisis centers, for example; and of course many cultural feminists have been active in social issues (but as individuals, not as part of a movement). [JD]
As various 1960s movements for social change fell apart or got co-opted, folks got pessimistic about the very possibility of social change. Many of then turned their attention to building alternatives, so that if they couldn't change the dominant society, they could avoid it as much as possible. That, in a nutshell, is what the shift from radical feminism to cultural feminism was about. These alternative-building efforts were accompanied with reasons explaining (perhaps justifying) the abandonment of working for social change. Notions that women are "inherently kinder and gentler" are one of the foundations of cultural feminism, and remain a major part of it. A similar concept held by some cultural feminists is that while various sex differences might not be biologically determined, they are still so thoroughly ingrained as to be intractable.
This branch of feminism is much more spiritual than political or theoretical in nature. It may or may not be wrapped up with Goddess worship and vegetarianism. Its basic tenet is that a patriarchal society will exploit its resources without regard to long term consequences as a direct result of the attitudes fostered in a patriarchal/hierarchical society. Parallels are often drawn between society's treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchal culture, eco-feminists feel that they are also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth. And vice-versa. [CTM]
(End of news group quotations.)
1990s Definitions of Feminism
Barbara Smith, interviewed in off our backs (October 1998, pp. 1 and 16-17) describes her contribution to a new book called A Reader�s Companion to Women�s History, a new book of which she was a co-editor, along with Gwendolyn Mink, Gloria Steinem, Marysa Navarro, and Wilma Mankiller . The liberal feminists among the book�s editors so disagreed with the definition of feminism that Smith and Mink wrote in an early chapter that they collectively co-authored an essay that responds to it. Smith says there is nothing in the book to indicate that the essay by Steinem, Navarro, and Mankiller (which follows Smith and Mink�s chapter) is a response to it.
Steinem et al. clearly take a �liberal feminist� approach. Smith and Mink�s might best be called �radical feminist,� although Smith says in the interview that she defines herself as a feminist who is radical rather than a radical feminist, meaning �leftist, socialist . . . someone who believes in revolution as opposed to reform� (p. 1). Later in the interview, Smith says she prefers the label �Black feminist,� where �Black� refers to a particular politics rather than to color (p. 16).
Here are the two definitions of feminism:
Steinem et al.:
"The belief in full economic political and social equality of males and females . . . usually seen as a modern movement to transform the male-dominant past and create an egalitarian future. On this and other continents, however, feminism is also history and even memory"
Smith and Mink:
"Feminism articulates political opposition to the subordination of women as women, whether that subordination is ascribed by law, imposed by social convention, or inflicted by individual men and women. Feminism also offers alternatives to existing unequal relations of gender power, and these alternatives have formed the agenda for feminism movements"
I-Feminism � new wave? http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/
Ifeminists, or individualist feminists, say that the feminist slogan "a woman's body, a woman's right" should extend to every peaceful choice a woman can make. Ifeminists believe that freedom and diversity benefit women, whether or not the choices that particular women make are politically correct. They respect all sexual choices, from motherhood to porn. As the cost of freedom, ifeminists accept personal responsibility for their own lives. They do not look to government for privileges any more than they would accept government abuse. Ifeminists want legal equality, and they offer the same respect to men. In short, ifeminism calls for freedom, choice, and personal responsibility.
The website also includes an essay tracing their roots in 19th century feminism: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/essays/introduction.html
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, 1913
Aug 25, 2016 | www.theguardian.comphilipsiron 46m agoI would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.shockrah 54m agoThe real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally racist. TWynberg 1h ago
here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T
hey will, in the absence of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.Dear Dorothy,stoneshepherd 44m ago
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Grow up and dump him.
You don't need him anymore!
Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!People here seem to be posting without thinking things through. Do they really want another Clinton in the White House? Especially this warmonger?SerbCanada Ulmus Glabra 1h ago
Maybe they should try a dose of reality and read John Pilger's op ed over here https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356846-provoking-nuclear-war-media /
We shouldn't be sleepwalking into another disastrous war just to please the shareholders and CEOs of the major armament manufacturing companies.
[PS Please read Pilger's op ed before trolling this post]Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President.unlywnted kieran2698 1h ago
Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.thinlizzie mkevinf 1h ago
After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue). It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.Maitreya2016 MrIncredlous 1h ago
I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time. We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.DanBlues 3h agoOk, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.musolen 3h ago
Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!Karega 3h ago
... ... ...
Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.
... ... ...I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?" Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.MelindaHaye 3h ago
Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter in the race for White House.
Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!Wobbly 4h ago
Alternative media is so valuable.
The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is her crowds are tiny. You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.
It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.
Lots of people are releasing stuff on this topic.Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.camcitizen 4h agoIsn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be friends.inquisitor16 4h agoSailinghomeo 4h ago
Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.
It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.
The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...
On the eve of Hillary's announcement that she is running for president, Judge Jeanine reminds us all just how vile her character really is, playing a tape of Hillary laughing about getting her client only 2 months incarceration for the brutal rape of a 6th-grader.
www.nakedcapitalism.comJune 15, 2016 by Lambert Strether
Readers, I apologize for a posting miscue. I set the publication date for this post to June , 2016. And so it appeared, and promptly fell off the front page. –lambert.
By Lambert Strether of Corrente .
In this post, we continue taking a close look at primary sources, in this case a second speech by presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump. Yesterday, we looked at the speech that Trump gave on national security , prompted by the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Today, we'll look at the speech Trump gave on the occasion of his primary victory at the Trump National Golf Club (!) in Briarcliff Manor, a small town in New York state and a pleasant fifteen minute drive away from Chappaqua; Clinton "clinched" her nomination shortly thereafter. The video follows, and the transcript is here .
If you just skipped over the video, I urge to reconsider, grab some coffee and/or start checking your mail, and listen to it now; it's only a little over fifteen minutes long. (Note: I listened; I did not watch. I'd be interested to know what readers who are more visual see, perhaps with the sound down?) As a speech, it's excellent, and it inspired me to give Trump, as a speaker, the same level of attention that I've previously given to Obama , Clinton , Rubio , and even Julia Gillard , then Prime Minister of Australia. Since Trump's speech on national security was timely, I had to post on it first; and since that speech bumped a speech he had planned to give on "Hillary Clinton and how bad a President" she would be, analysis of that speech to come will be forthcoming.
This Trump speech is a "victory speech," a genre where a candidate accepts the mandate of the voters, so it's simpler than a speech on policy. As before, I won't annotate or mark up the entire text. Instead, I'll look at four major themes:Appeal to Sanders Supporters Populist Appeal Corrupt Elites
1. Appeal to Sanders Supporters
The contrast between Trump's appeal to Sanders supporters, and Clinton's, is most immediately seen in the form of a table. Trump's text comes from the video above; Clinton comes from her own victory speech at the Brooklyn Navy Yard ( video and transcript here ).
Figure 1: Appeal to Sanders Supporters: Trump vs. Clinton
At a high level, both appeals have the same structure: A direct address to Sanders supporters, followed by a discussion of policy discussion. I won't discuss the rhetoric of the two in detail, but their stylistic differences are plain. Where Trump is concise, Clinton is verbose. Where Trump is concrete ("money… and jobs"), Clinton is abstract ("an economy with more opportunity"). Where Trump is about the voters ("To those who voted…"), Clinton is about Clinton ("And as your president, I…").
Trump Clinton [TRUMP:] To those who voted for someone else in either party, I will work hard to earn your support and I will work very hard to earn that support. To all of those Bernie Sanders voters who have been left out in the cold by a rigged system of super delegates, we welcome you with open arms. And by the way, the terrible trade deals that Bernie was so vehemently against and he's right on that will be taken care of far better than anyone ever thought possible and that's what I do. We are going to have fantastic trade deals. We're going to start making money and bringing in jobs.
Now I know some people say….
And as your president, I will always have your back. I want to congratulate Senator Sanders for the extraordinary campaign he has run. He has spent his long career in public service fighting for progressive causes and principles, and he's excited millions of voters, especially young people. And let there be no mistake: Senator Sanders, his campaign, and the vigorous debate that we've had about how to raise incomes, reduce inequality, increase upward mobility have been very good for the Democratic Party and for America.
This has been a hard-fought, deeply-felt campaign. But whether you supported me, or Senator Sanders, or one of the Republicans, we all need to keep working toward a better, fairer, stronger America.
Now, I know it never feels good to put your heart into a cause or a candidate you believe in – and to come up short. I know that feeling well. But as we look ahead to the battle that awaits, let's remember all that unites us.
We all want an economy with more opportunity and less inequality, where Wall Street can never wreck Main Street again. We all want a government that listens to the people, not the power brokers, which means getting unaccountable money out of politics. And we all want a society that is tolerant, inclusive, and fair.
We all believe….
Let's contrast these two appeals in more detail. Trump (a) appeals to Sanders supporters in simple language ("we welcome you with open arms"), (b) recognizes a strongly felt and still painful sense of injury ("left out in the cold by a rigged system of super delegates"), and (c) pivots to policy ("the terrible trade deals that Bernie was so vehemently against and he's right on that"). Trump's talking points also have the great merit of being true: The superdelegate system is "rigged," by design , and the trade deals are terrible .
Clinton's appeal follows the same sequence of appeal, injury, and policy, but in a way that is at once more abstract and more clumsy. For (a) appeal , Clinton begins with a lengthy shout-out to "Senator Sanders" (not "Bernie"), much as if she were at a ribbon-cutting ceremony, in which she manages to condescend ("excited") to those she most needs ("young people"), and then meanders through mentions of "the Democratic Party" and "America" before coming to (b) the injury , which, again, is all about her ("Now, I know…"), is couched in terms both abstract and infantilizing ("…it never feels good…), is framed as inside baseball ("…. cause or a candidate…."), and twists the knife in the wound at the end ("and to come up short."). Finally, Clinton pivots (c) to policy , where as we have seen, she is bloodless and abstract, and Trump is simple and concrete. Worse, there are very few Sanders voters who would view her professed desire to get "accountable money out of politics" as anything but ludicrously and imperviously hypocritical, given the contrast between the Clinton and Sanders fundraising operation.
Trump reminds me of a vacuum cleaner salesman: When he comes to my door, I know just who and what he is, his patter may be entertaining, and I can make him go away. When Clinton comes to my door, she does so with all the charm of a process server presenting a demand note to garnish my vote.
At this point, I should reiterate the caveat that I'm not endorsing any candidate; what I am saying is that if Clinton is to gain Sanders voters, she'll do so using techniques other than those she used here. If it's possible for her to do so without reintroducing herself again, she should ask herself why Trump can say something as simple as "we welcome you with open arms" and she cannot.
2. Populist Appeal
Now to Trump, les amis du peuple :
[TRUMP:] Now I know some people say I'm too much of a fighter.
I confess: I laughed out loud at Trump's humblebrag, because it's exactly like an answer to the classic job interview question: "What is your greatest weakness?" ("I care too much"; "I'm obsessively punctual," "I work too hard," etc.) However, Trump is canny, on multiple levels: First, he's recalling his successful TV show, The Apprentice ; second, he shows that he understands that he is asking us for a job, that we are his boss; and third, for those of us who are looking for a job, or worried about the job we have, Trump puts himself in our place. Let it never be said that simple language cannot send complex messages!
[TRUMP:] My preference is always peace, however and I've shown that. I've shown that for a long time. I built an extraordinary business on relationships and deals that benefit all parties involved, always. My goal is always again to bring people together. But if I'm forced to fight for something I really care about, I will never, ever back down and our country will never, ever back down.
Always. Be. Closing.
Thank you. I've fought for my family. I've fought for my business. I've fought for my employees. And now, I'm going to fight for you, the American people like nobody has ever fought before. And I'm not a politician fighting, I'm me. You're going to see some real good things happen.
"I'm me," along with "some people say I'm too much of a fighter," pre-empts pearl-clutching about Trump's Twitter eruptions, outrageous statements, and so on; the storm comes, but passes quickly, and all is sunny again. (Paul LePage used a similar strategy in Maine, successfully. "He may be an assh*le, but he's our assh*le." )
Just remember this: I'm going to be your champion. I'm going to be America's champion because you see this election isn't about Republican or Democrat; it's about who runs this country – the special interests or the people and I mean the American people.
Astonishingly, Trump steals Clinton's clothes while she's at the swimming hole: "I want to be your champion" is an abandonted iteration of Clinton populism.
Every election year politicians promise change. Obama promised change and it didn't work out too well.
A neat transition to our next theme.
3. Corrupt Elites
Here is the "headwind" - to use an elite metaphor - that Clinton is fighting. Pavlina Tcherneva's famous chart, presented by a political figure some may recognize:
What Tcherneva's chart shows is that under Obama - and unlike all previous "recoveries" - the 1% creamed off all the income gains, and the rest of us (on average) were left worse off. Income inequaltiy under Obama is worse than Bush! That's not good news for Clinton, the candidate of stability. Worse news for Clinton: Anybody who's seen the The Big Short ( Oscar-winning, Oscar-nominated , box office smash ) understands that the 2008 crash was, in large part, brought about by elite criminals who benefitted, personally, from their crimes, and were never prosecuted . And people understand that the country is still run by those same elite criminals , many of whom dominate Clinton's list of campaign contributors , and that based on past performance, those criminals have impunity for future crimes. With that as background, let's see what Trump has to say:
[TRUMP:] Every election year politicians promise change. Obama promised change and it didn't work out too well. And every year they fail to deliver. Why would politicians want to change a system that's totally rigged in order to keep them in power? That's what they're doing, folks. Why would politicians want to change a system that's made them and their friends very, very wealthy? [common sense] I beat a rigged system by winning with overwhelming support, the only way you could've done it – landslides all over the country with every demographic on track to win; 37 primary caucus victories in a field that began with 17 very talented people.
Putting aside parsing of words on "primary caucus victories," Trump is right. Trump took the Republican Establishment and beat it like a gong. To volatility voters, that's very appealing . Note also the appeal of "totally rigged" to Sanders voters.
After years of disappointment, there is one thing we all have learned – we can't fix the rigged system by relying on very, and I mean this so, so strongly, on the very people who rigged it, and they rigged it, and do not ever think anything differently. We can't solve our problems by counting on the politicians who created our problems.
This seems like common sense, but watch Trump's sleight of hand: First, we have "the very people who rigged it," who turn out to be "the politicians." But "the politicians" don't run the country. Crudely, they and the political class (and more diffusely, Thomas Frank's 10% ) manage the country, on behalf of its absentee owners, the 1%. Oligarchs "create," not politicians. Second, you should be extremely wary of any candidate who runs against "the politicians" while deploying a narrative of national restoration. We know how that movie ends: Badly . (When I look at Trump's next speech, I'll cover the question of fascism and Trump in some detail; for now, let me note that there are rather a lot of "-isms," being deployed in this campaign, and a large proportion of them call into the category of "any stick to beat a dog.")
The Clintons have turned the politics of personal enrichment into an art form for themselves. They've made hundreds of millions of dollars selling access, selling favors, selling government contracts, and I mean hundreds of millions of dollars.
In my view, this statement, again, has the great merit of being true .
Secretary Clinton even did all of the work on a totally illegal private server. Something about how she's getting away with this folks nobody understands.
Putting aside parsing of words on "totally illegal," right on both counts. "Nobody understands," for starters, because Clinton destroyed half the mail on the server before turning the rest over. I mean, come on.
Designed to keep her corrupt dealings out of the public record, putting the security of the entire country at risk and a President in a corrupt system is totally protecting her – not right. I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we're going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you're going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend, who knows.
Hoo boy. (This is the speech bumped for the national security speech.)
Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into her private hedge fund – the Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese – all gave money to Bill and Hillary and got favorable treatment in return. It's a sad day in America when foreign governments with deep pockets have more influence in our own country than our great citizens.
Trump's upcoming speech should be quite something.
I didn't need to do this. It's not easy, believe me. I didn't need to do it. But I felt I had to give back to our wonderful country which has been so good to me and to my family. I've traveled to many of our states and seen the suffering in people's eyes. I've visited communities in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Indiana and Ohio whose manufacturing jobs, they literally, these jobs have virtually disappeared, an embarrassment to our country and it's horrible.
Absolutely right. Notice, however, the sleight of hand again: Trump doesn't mention private equity, which played such a large part in "disappearing" those jobs.
I've embraced the victims of illegal immigration, moms and dads who have had to bury their own children because of people that shouldn't have been in the country – remember it, folks, remember it.
And absolutely wrong. I'm not a fan of nativism.
Again as a troll prophylactic, let me say that this post is not an endorsement of any candidate. It's easy to see how Clinton can and should assault Trump's nativism. It's not so easy to see how Clinton can defend herself against Trump's charges of corruption, especially when Trump connects, as he can and should, real suffering to the actions of corrupt and criminal elites. It's also not clear whether Clinton can, or even seeks, to connect to voters outside her relatively narrow base. Finally, Trump is not dumb. Trump is not a buffoon. Trump is focusing on the vulnerabilities of his adversary with laser-like precision and lethality. Trump can discipline himself to use a Teleprompter, select an excellent speechwriter, and deliver a scorcher of a speech; it will be interesting to see how he does in the debates when he's had time to polish his zingers. Whether Clinton can neutralize the truths (many) in Trump's critique and capitalize on calling out the bullshit (much, much, much) is unknown. Whether our famously free press can do to Trump what they did to Sanders is unknown. Whether Republican elites will do a McGovern on Trump is unknown, and whether Johnson will do for Hillary in 2016 what Perot did for Bill in 1992 is unknown. There is our rickety and fraud-prone electoral system to consider. And then there are "Events, dear boy. Events." But anybody who thinks that Clinton will get a free ride to the Oval Office is delusional.
 You will note the anaphora in Clinton's speech: "We all want…. We all want… We all want…." Trump uses even simpler figures of repetition, like diacope ("repetition of a word with one or more between, usually to express deep feeling"): " and that ." Other figures of repetition include epizeuxis ("We had some days") and the more general conduplicatio combined with parallelism (" who it is, who they are." Trump's rhetorical figures, like his vocabulary and syntax , are simpler than Clinton's. (One wonders whether the repetition is useful to achieve continuity in a speech punctuated by regular applause or laughter.) That doesn't mean that they're ineffective; to me, the repetitive words strike like hammer blows .
 Of course voters know that Trump isn't really "about" them. Voters, and especially NC readers, aren't children. They know that Trump is a billionaire, not an especially nice man, and a business past not without shade. But at least he cares enough to fake it!
 Nobody should take Clinton's crawfishing on trade seriously; Obama's for TPP. If Clinton is really against TPP, then she needs to start fighting Obama about it, to make sure it doesn't pass in the lame duck.
 At least when Trump says "loser," he uses only one word!
 It's unfortunate that Open Secrets categorizes finance as an "industry." In Veblen's terms, finance is not industry but business.
 Given Sanders' performance among all "identities" encountering today's economy, I hope we can finally put the nonsense about an "Obama Coalition" to rest.optimader , June 15, 2016 at 2:12 pmChrisFromGeorgia , June 15, 2016 at 2:42 pm
Fear and Loathing
we'll be seeing a lot of that HT hat tip.. appropriately so unfortunatelyAJ , June 15, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Just a point on those rust belt areas left behind (PA, Western NY, Ohio, etc.) Not only is it an embarrassment, it has greatly assisted the transition from a community-based sense of democracy and citizen engagement to a disengaged, depressed populace ripe for control by big government/transnational corporate forces.
One of the first things done by totalitarian regimes in order to unify large areas (Russia, China) was to deport the highly educated or send them to "work camps." The objective was to ensure that those most likely to make trouble for the regime would end up isolated and unable to connect with a larger community.
The same objective has been accomplished by the gutting out of the middle class in large regions of "flyover" country. Albeit somewhat more artfully and without the threat of being shot. Forcing the middle class to move away from their home communities and disperse across the land in search of "jobs" has led to an easier road for neo-liberal policies to take hold, and allowed the 1% to ram through legislation such as the TPP that would have had no chance back in the days of Mondale and Tip O'Neill.
These citizens in places like Buffalo, Cleveland and PA have been betrayed by their own government, and if Trump manages to get enough of their votes to take back some small measure of power from the corrupt gangs that ignore their plight, it will be a just result. Of course whether he'll actually do anything about the situation is debatable.dk , June 15, 2016 at 4:53 pm
Fear and loathing. Hope and change. What's the difference, really? God help us all come January.Vince in MN , June 15, 2016 at 3:05 pm
Fear the hope! Loathe the change! No wait, that's Hillary…DG , June 15, 2016 at 3:24 pm
If Trump is the vacuum cleaner salesman at the door, Clinton is the Jehovah's Witness.TG , June 15, 2016 at 3:27 pm
Just love the line about "…real change, not Obama change!"craazyboy , June 15, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Kudos! Well said. A pleasure to find a progressive who does not reflexively reguritate that Trump is 'idea free' and Clinton is full of 'specific policies'.
I must disagree about the 'nativism' part (we're really talking about citizens, not 'natives'). Would you open all the doors and windows on your own home and let anyone at all – and I mean ANYONE AT ALL – freely enter your house and help themselves to everything you have without your permission? Of course not. And nor should the American people be expected to take such a suicidal course. The rich want to open the borders to the overpopulated third world in order to drive wages down to third-world levels. The average American – 'native born' or recent immigrant alike – does not. I see no problem with enforcing the laws against illegal immigration, nor with reducing the rate of legal immigration. Slandering this moderate position as 'nativist' is – dare I say it? – almost Clintonian…TheCatSaid , June 15, 2016 at 6:09 pm
It may be called "abyrigonal" thinking, perhaps. Even "savage".Lambert Strether Post author , June 15, 2016 at 8:57 pm
I know someone who opened their house to anyone for a 6 month period as a personal spiritual exercise in being non-judgmental and keeping an open heart. Drug dealers, possible murderers–no one was turned away. They all said they grew from the experience, that it was profound and they had no regrets. The local police found it confusing, though. The explanation given to the police was that they were friends.sd , June 15, 2016 at 3:37 pm
I'm struggling with the word. I wanted something American, not European (although the unlucky soul who clicked through on the "Badly" link will find a European image).
Hence, "nativist." I thinking that, with respect to the abolition of human rental, we might call liberals "doughfaces."James Levy , June 15, 2016 at 3:47 pm
Trump is like able. He's that big loud guy you know, makes mistakes, owns them, and is who he is. He's no bullshit. Yes, Trump files for bankruptcy. That's what contractors and developers do. That's the game and Trump plays it.
In this particular speech, Trump owns who he is. He makes no bones about it. He doesn't deflect, or obstruct or blame someone else. He's out there warts and all. There's some overly vague language (regulation – no specifics there so tis unclear what he is referring to) He's hinting at some FDR populism (jobs especially). I wouldn't be at all surprised if a President Trump embraced public works programs of all sizes.
Background detail – it looked like his wife and daughter kept watching the teleprompter and the audience very closely. My take away impression is that as soon as he finishes speaking they give him or someone in his campaign detailed notes. Where he hit, where he missed, where the audience responded, etc.Otis B Driftwood , June 15, 2016 at 3:58 pm
I have been castigated because, it is said, no one around here actually likes Trump, they just hate Clinton. I am, I have been told, been holding up a straw man when I say that people at NC have often excused and at times praised and de facto endorsed Trump. Well, this is not the first example of someone who likes and endorses Trump (Working Class Nero certainly did also). Or are you going to tell me this is not a pro-Trump statement?sd , June 15, 2016 at 4:09 pm
There you go again, James. ;)
Just kidding. Certainly Trump can work an audience better than Clinton and it may win him some votes (even from the ranks of the NC readership, it must be admitted). At any rate the Clinton/Trump debates, while likely not to equal the gravitas of Lincoln/Douglas, may actually be fun to watch.craazyboy , June 15, 2016 at 4:33 pm
Big chip there fella.
I am being open and honest about my opinion which, I was under the impression, is what Lambert asked for. Would you prefer I lie?
If there was an American labor party, that is more than likely what my political label would be. For the first time in my voting life, Sanders is the first candidate I actually wanted to vote for.
I try very hard not to lie to myself about political realities which is why I just can't bring myself to vote for Clinton. I just can't. My personal reality is this: which candidate is more likely to help me work and feed my family without destroying the planet around us?
Sanders is my first choice. The question at this point is if he's not on the November ballot, how do I vote? In 2012, I opted third party.
So here are the options if Sanders is not on the ballot.
A. Leave it blank
B. Third party candidate
Trump has not at this point ruled himself out as an option.flora , June 15, 2016 at 6:52 pm
A third party vote is like one vote against two Clintons. A Trump vote is then like two votes against two Clintons. Math is weird sometimes. But one would be tempted to think of it as your big chance to commit election fraud.sd , June 15, 2016 at 7:48 pm
"two votes against two Clintons." Yep. That's what I keep thinking.craazyboy , June 15, 2016 at 9:22 pm
For the first time, I find myself genuinely afraid of a nuclear war. The idiocy of someone like Vicky Nuland is a great part of that fear .Vatch , June 15, 2016 at 4:45 pm
It's my second time, and I never thought there could be a second time. I thought I was gonna play golf. But the golf course is right down the road from the world's largest tactical missile plant!myshkin , June 15, 2016 at 5:11 pm
B. Third party candidate
The difference between 2012 and 2016 is that in 2012 there just wasn't enough disgust with the Democrats and the Republicans for a third party vote to matter much. In 2016, disgust is widespread, and nearly every voter either hates Clinton or hates Trump, and some voters hate both. So a third party candidate (maybe two of them) has a real chance to get 5% of the vote, which would qualify the candidate (or his or her party) for federal grant money.Vatch , June 15, 2016 at 4:50 pm
" I just can't bring myself to vote for Clinton."
-I don't think anyone is asking.
"Sanders is my first choice. The question at this point is if he's not on the November ballot, how do I vote? In 2012, I opted third party."
-This is the point I don't get from voters whose first choice is Sanders. NC boards have been weighted with Sander's supporters hopeful he will pursue a third party candidacy and wondering what he expected to accomplish within the Democratic wing of the Business Party. Yet with the opportunity to choose a third party candidate (Jill Stein is running Green or Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik Socialist) over both the Democratic and Republican wing of the Business Party somehow they want to vote for Republican Donald Trump.
As mentioned elsewhere, the third party option is particularly valid this year when third party sentiment has waxed considerably over recent previous elections.Aumua , June 15, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Likable? In some ways, I suppose. But in other ways, not so much. He is well described in the new book by philosopher Aaron James .jgordon , June 15, 2016 at 7:19 pm
Excellent analysis. It's easy to forget what Lambert points out several times, about the slight-of-hand aspect to Trumps orations. It's also quite fun to watch him straight up fuck with Hillary. I mean, really he's toying with her, and let's face it: we love it. I just wish I had the time or presence of mind to make the kind of breakdown Lambert presents.
Right now I see many of us pushing to the back of our minds the awareness of the dark side of all this, darkly hinted at in the final point of Trump's speech. As far as I'm concerned, Trump is just as much a crook as Clinton, he's just a different kind of crook, and to imagine that he actually has the well being of regular citizens in mind is a dangerous illusion. He's made it pretty clear that he is going to foster and perpetuate racial divisions, as well as a brutal and violent response to to any dissent. For all the smooth talking Trump does, let's not forget that you and I are likely next on the chopping block, after 'mexicans' and 'muslims' and 'immigrants'.
I can't convince myself to willingly embrace that, sorry.myshkin , June 15, 2016 at 7:57 pm
A non-rhetorical question: what racial divisions is Trump trying to foster? I have never seen or heard a single statement from him that he has anything against any race. It looks to me like a baseless meme the media created to disparage Trump.jrs , June 15, 2016 at 8:04 pm
"what racial divisions is Trump trying to foster?"
Who could think such a thing? In this particular 'victory' speech he's promised to, "take care of our African American people. " There is no race except the human race in acceptable political discourse at the presidential level, once you get past that hurdle you're into ethnicity and there you find Trump the xenophobe. Islam and Mexicans spring unhappily to mind. How 'bout that judge that must be prejudice against Trump cause he's Mexican?
Trump, if he was younger and had built a media empire instead of a half a$$ed real estate fortune, would likely suggest a similar dilemna as Berlusconi's corruptive work in Italy.myshkin , June 15, 2016 at 8:05 pm
I suppose it could be argued that Islam is not a race. It's a religion of course, but of course horrible discrimination can occur on the basis of religion as well. And it' wasn't really about Mexicans just illegal Mexicans (and is Mexican really truly a race?). And so on. And minorities hear loud and clear what Trump is (as do those of his backers who are r-ist), while some white people split semantic hairs on whether Trump is or is not r-ist. It's all so difficult to figure out … and like Bill Clinton said IS is problematic and …
Whatever. Dogwhistles that sound like trainwhistles as one article said. People get what is being communicated. I don't know how much Trump means any real harm (unlike some of his supporters who definitely do), but regardless people get what is being communicated.jgordon , June 15, 2016 at 8:35 pm
Actually come to think of it Berlusconi started out in real estate and construction with ties to the mob in vaguely similar fashion to Trump but he was younger and moved into media in a more seminal way than the Apprentice.sd , June 15, 2016 at 7:41 pm
"Take care of our African Americans." Trump is drawing a striking contrast to Obama here to Obama who, objectively speaking, has screwed black people harder than even W. Bush did. Trump is doing well to mention well to mention this because many black people operate under the delusion that Obama has been good for them and that Hillary will be good for them. In truth, under the neoliberal regime Clinton will usher in the lives of minorities everywhere will become even more miserable than they already are. At the very least Trump is not a neoliberal.
"Mexico" is a country, not a race. My best and closest friend is a Mexican – and after Bernie lost out he's now supporting Trump. One of the main reasons for that is because he does not like seeing illegal Mexicans streaming into his country, America, and stealing work. It has nothing to do with race; it's economics.
And yes confusing the Muslim religion for a race is somewhat offensive to me. People can change or abandon religions whenever they feel like it. If, under a Trump presidency, a Muslim really wants to enter the US all he has to do is abandon his faith. If this was about race that wouldn't be possible.Vatch , June 15, 2016 at 11:41 pm
Did you actually watch the speech? The comments were about the speech.
Why do I get the feeling many here are commenting without actually doing the homework that Lambert asked for?Lambert Strether Post author , June 15, 2016 at 8:59 pm
I didn't have time to listen to it until now. Trump gave a very good speech. But one speech isn't enough to persuade me to vote for him. I remember George W. Bush's speech on September 20, 2001, in response the the horror of 9/11. With the exception of one sentence, I think Bush's speech was excellent. The bad sentence is this: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Manichean bovine manure! I was quite favorably impressed by the rest of Bush's speech, and we know how badly things turned out over the next few years.
So I won't let a single good speech by Trump persuade me. I will base my vote on the gestalt of the candidates, and Trump has a lot of baggage, as does Clinton. I don't think either of them deserves to be President. A lot will have to change over the next few months for me to consider voting for Trump; for example, he needs to disavow his praise for Scalia.TheCatSaid , June 15, 2016 at 6:24 pm
Ha!ian , June 15, 2016 at 8:10 pm
There is something appealing about people who are being themselves. Sanders and Trump share that trait. B. Clinton also has it; H. Clinton doesn't.Lambert Strether Post author , June 15, 2016 at 11:05 pm
There is this idea out there that there is an 'inner Hillary' that is completely different from her outward persona – someone that is funny, warm, engaging, charming, etc…
What if there isn't? What if she _is_ being herself?grizziz , June 15, 2016 at 4:46 pm
Apparently, the Hillary in small groups is "funny, warm, engaging…." As far as inner Hillary, from Terry Pratchett, Making Money :
Mrs Lavish sniffed. … 'Ah, and she sees your inner self? Or, perhaps, the carefully constructed inner self you keep around for people to find? People like you…' She paused and went on:'… people like us always keep at least one inner self for inquisitive visitors, don't we?'
Moist didn't rise to this. Talking to Mrs Lavish was like standing in front of a magic mirror that stripped you to your marrow.Lambert Strether Post author , June 15, 2016 at 9:02 pm
and whether Johnson will do for Hillary in 2016 what Perot did for Bill in 1992 is unknown
It is interesting to note at RCP that the Johnson match-up pulls more of those polled away from HRC than from DT. It is only a frame in a long movie, however my intuition would be that Johnson would pull support from DT.wobblie , June 15, 2016 at 5:55 pm
Why the heck would that be? Clinton's fervent support for marijuana legislation? I suppose if the data is what it is, I have to accept it, but…. wow.Yves Smith , June 15, 2016 at 6:04 pm
Anybody who believes Trump is an outsider with his billions is a fool. He's on the same agenda as the rest of them.
https://therulingclassobserver.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/ruling-class-axioms/Pavel , June 15, 2016 at 6:42 pm
Sorry, Trump is an outsider to both the political classes and the elite power structure. He sits on no important not-for-profit boards, has not become a trustee or given a building or wing to a hospital or university, or an endowed chair. He does not collect art. Nor has he been a big political fundraiser. He borrows from only non-TBTF banks and hence does not have important relations with them. For them, Donald is just a rich guy from Queens who hasn't even tried to class himself up (unlike Jamie Dimon). You can be rich in America and not be part of the power structure.Vatch , June 15, 2016 at 7:36 pm
I know this is hardly an original observation, but Trump's Queens background may go far in explaining his bluster and narcissism - his father had money, but it wasn't Old Money and he didn't grow up mingling with prep school friends whose fathers worked on Wall Street or other Establishment places. It's really a Great Gatsby story more than anything else.
If he is legitimately against TPP and in favor of better relations with Russia and China that would be enough for my support. One problem is the Republican power base would force him to change his positions.
Lambert, great analysis as always, and especially the notes on the rhetorical devices.NYPaul , June 15, 2016 at 7:00 pm
One of the reasons I can't vote for him is that he praised the arch-ideologue Antonin Scalia, and he has promised to pack the Supreme Court with what could be described as Scalia clones. He's pandering to the extremists.
Then again, he has also threatened to nominate Gary Busey to the Supreme Court, but that's just a gambit to force rich Republicans to donate. He's not serious about Mr. Justice Busey.Lambert Strether Post author , June 15, 2016 at 9:04 pm
Plus, anyone who wants to be taken seriously, yet injects the arrogant pejorative, "fool," towards those who may have a different view, well, who's the fool here?flora , June 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Should I take back "delusional"?myshkin , June 15, 2016 at 8:18 pm
"You can be rich in America and not be part of the power structure."
Hope NC readers take this statement on board. I know it's not intuitive but it is true. One can be rich, very rich, and yet outside the web of current interlocking reciprocities that make up the power structure. Think of it as the powerful bureaucracy of connections vs. a single individual, rich or not.flora , June 15, 2016 at 8:26 pm
I've taken it on board. However if I wanted to have a word with my senator or congressman I doubt he or she would jump to attention as quickly as if the Donald requested an audience.
The same goes for a loan from a bank, whether TBTF or otherwise, as well the law firms hired, the waves made. Trump may not be part of the establishment power structure but he still has juice that connects to the grid in some fashion.Lambert Strether Post author , June 15, 2016 at 9:09 pm
I agree. My point is that assuming that because someone is rich means they're connect to the power structure and will therefore f' you is as erroneous as assuming that someone who is not rich and therefore not connected to the power structure will not f' you.
Both are false. See, for instance, Clintons when they were starting out.JCC , June 15, 2016 at 11:16 pm
Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans ("Philippe Égalité") was a revolutionary in 1789 (although he ulimately lost his head anyhow).
When the "misrulership class" (hat tip, Yves) splits, it splits all the way to the top.
We don't have good both/and language to describe sets with oddball members, that I know of. Maybe there's a sociologist or a mathematician who can enlighten me….TheCatSaid , June 15, 2016 at 6:21 pm
Very true, Yves. And, apropos of the articles noted yesterday on rational and polite political disagreement, he is not very polite to his political opponents either in the Republican or Democrat Parties.
As a candidate, calling out the media and your opponents out in public, especially the televised "debates", as wimps, liars, crooks, stupid, etc., including his very unflattering nicknames for all of them, is not how the game is played within the elite political and economic power structures nowadays.
And it shows… if the Republican Power Structure felt he was an "insider", why are they throwing all kinds of fits in public regarding his Primary Win?
Of course, that is part of his appeal, like him or not.jgordon , June 15, 2016 at 7:33 pm
Good analysis. Trump is easier to listen to than Clinton and he makes more sense. What he would actually do as president is anyone's guess. At least he's showing he can hire competent speech writers. His delivery was effective. He doesn't shirk from borrowing concepts from both Sanders and Clinton, which is good strategy.
Maybe the Russians will give Trump the low-down on the Clinton e-mails as grist for his next speech.Ajay , June 15, 2016 at 10:43 pm
I think it's an important point that even if Trump is not totally authentic, at least he cares enough to pander on economic issues. At the least it expands what can be discussed in political contexts.pretzelattack , June 15, 2016 at 11:16 pm
Are you really serious! Really you found all these faults with Clinton, all of which I agree. WHICH one of these is not true of Trump? Is he not the 1% that this site and especially this Lambert character loves to despise. And this BS is being eaten up by NC readers? Really? This is what this (pretty interesting) site has been reduced to? What BS.
for one thing he hasn't started any wars. he isn't surrounded by neocon foreign policy advisors, yet, tho i wouldn't be surprised. he claims to be against the trade deal, he didn't vote for the iraq war, so he doesn't need to pretend there was ever a reason to go in. he won't strenghten the clintons' grip on the democratic party. just off the top of my head.
www.theguardian.comFDiscussion , 2016-05-23 19:20:33how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?Lisa Glass Calvert , 2016-05-23 19:19:18Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.MartiniShaken1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:19:14
Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans. Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!Alexander Nekrasov , 2016-05-23 19:17:37
You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like that.
You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but high-level campaign contributors.
This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.
We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4 years in hopes that something good will happen.
But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do?BlooEyedDevil casta1139diva , 2016-05-23 19:16:58Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring, and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.aguy777 Paul Little , 2016-05-23 19:16:33Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?FrederikII nevermind84 , 2016-05-23 19:13:41
And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.Smells TheRat , 2016-05-23 19:13:33
I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where you are heading.Her Thighness has certainly used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and Slick Willie...RecantedYank , 2016-05-23 19:11:28I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.Obelisk1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:09:17
The only difference between the two on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a right to health care!
Hillary for women...my aunt fanny's a**!I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.Paul Little somebody_stopme , 2016-05-23 19:09:22
That Clinton was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.
If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to pick someone else.And she runs on Bills record, not her ownFrederikII InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:07:43Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not untypical of Clinton supporters.DHBarr InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:06:14
Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding the reins of power again.How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to a mental institution.FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:03:19Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing to fight back with and stop her slide.FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 18:57:04You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone he was getting nowhere.
The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your ...
Here's some more confirmation of what a crook Clinton is!
"In 2010/2011 Saudi Arabia was trying to secure the one of largest arms deal ever between a US company and a ME country. The deal was worth 29.4 BILLION dollars to Boeing and had to be approved by the State Department – specifically Hillary Clinton.
Regional allies were sceptical; Robert Gates wrote in his book that Israel had to be bribed to stop them from publicly attacking the deal. They worried the deal would destabilise the region. And in fact the State Department had released two reports outlining just how atrocious SA was, with it's endless human rights abuses, and endless subjugation of women Saudi Arabia donated at least 10m (some sources say as much as 25M) to the Clinton Foundation.
Boeing donated at least 10M to the Clinton Foundation (CF). Boeing also paid Bill 250K for a single speech.
And Hillary signed off on the deal.
When she did, she and her aides celebrated, and publicly admitted that the weapons deal was a "top priority". Not helping women in SA, not defending human rights, but signing off on a deal worth billions between two Foundation donors.
Hillary was confirmed in 2008, with the understanding that the CF would disclose ALL donors, to avoid even the look of impropriety. In fact Hillary signed an Memorandum of Understanding – a written promise to the President, that the donor list would be made public annually. Hillary broke that promise and stopped reporting CF donors. the Foundation also concealed over 1100 foreign donors by siphoning their money through a Canadian charity owned by yet another big donor.
Hillary's first big hire for her 2016 Presidential run was her Campaign Chairman, John Podesta. John and his brother Tony own one of DC's biggest lobbying firms. Tony has bundled many hundreds of thousands for Hillary and the DNC and (DSCC, etc). The Podesta groups, as the lobbying firm is known, counts among it's clients both Boeing and Saudi Arabia.
Oh and hey, those weapons Clinton signed off on, they're now being used to commit war crimes in Yemen. Two of the main groups benefiting from those Saudi military strikes in Yemen? ISIS and al Qaeda."http://investmentwatchblog.com/clinton-inc-aka-how-to-convince-any-real-democrat-to-dump-hillary
What an election cycle for feminism! Both Democratic primary candidates are running as self-declared feminists. One of them, Hillary Clinton, would, if elected, also be the first woman to serve as president of the United States. Major feminist organizations like Planned Parenthood have endorsed her, as have feminist leaders and heroines as varied as Gloria Steinem, Lena Dunham, Roxane Gay and Eileen Myles.
Clinton and her supporters often point to the potential of a woman president to inspire little girls, letting them know that women can do anything. Yet her own life narrative is not a stirring feminist parable. It is probably true that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton could have come so far without the other. But who wants to advise our daughters to marry an ambitious, egomaniacal man; stay with him no matter what; and be the first lady for many years? Eventually it will be your turn. Is this a career plan?
Hillary Clinton is not alone: Around the world, many female heads of state have attained their positions through marriage or bloodlines. While it is common for a woman to advance in this way, it is neither interesting nor feminist.
... ... ...With so many politically active young people fighting racism and the police state, it's no wonder that so-called "millennial" feminists have been rejecting Clinton in favor of her opponent. Many have also been troubled by her personal conduct toward women outside of her elite circles, especially on another issue of salience to this generation: rape. Hillary Clinton has said, "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported." But that has not been her attitude toward women who have accused her husband. Juanita Broaddrick, a nurse who accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978 and is now, at 72, still telling the same story, has said Hillary Clinton tried to pressure her to remain silent about the charges. (Bill Clinton has denied raping Broaddrick, and Clinton supporters point to a lack of documentation for Broaddrick's charges that Hillary tried to silence her; anyone who thinks they know for certain what happened should be regarded skeptically.) Bill Clinton was also accused of rape and harassment by two other women.
During the Clinton administration, speaking about sexual harassment accusations against moderate Republican Sen. Bob Packwood, a needed ally on health care, Hillary Clinton grumbled to a friend, who later described Hillary as "tired of all the whiny women."
Hillary Clinton's mudslinging and slut-shaming campaigns against women who claimed to have had consensual sex with her husband are well documented. In his memoir, George Stephanopoulos, quotes Hillary Clinton as saying of one such woman, "We have to destroy her story." Hillary biographer Carl Bernstein describes Hillary directing an "aggressive, explicit" campaign to discredit Gennifer Flowers, an actress who said she had a long affair with Bill Clinton. She referred to Flowers as "trailer trash." In a tough 2008 essay for Slate, Melinda Henneberger and Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Clinton "consistently relates to and protects and stands with the oppressors in the gender wars ... she invariably sees [Bill] as the victim, preyed upon by a series of female aggressors."
Jun 24, 2014 | youtube.com
HILLARY Clinton Took Me Through Hell Says 12yr. Old RAPE Victim! - YouTube
Ann Coulter On 1975 Rape Case Haunting Hillary Clinton - YouTubePublished on Jun 24, 2014
Hillary tapes reveal she voluntarily defended a child rapist that she knew was guilty. In this 1980's taped interview, Hillary Clinton laughed about getting the convicted rapist of a 12 year old child off on a technicality. Hillary got him off with time served in county jail, about 2 months. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge."
The audio recordings also capture Hillary chuckling about her efforts to exploit the local authorities' mistake, which ultimately allowed her client to get off with an extremely reduced sentence on lesser charges. Her laughter over decidedly unfunny developments is strange and off-putting. A legal expert quoted by the Washington Free Beacon, which published the original story, also questioned the ethics of Clinton revealing the results of her client's polygraph test. She told a reporter that the accused man passed the test, which "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," a clear indication that Hillary knew of her client's guilt. The Free Beacon piece did not quote the victim extensively, saying that the woman (now 52 years old) declined an interview.
In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers' guilt on the recordings. "Hillary Clinton took me through Hell," the victim said.
The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault. The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton's current campaign to fight for women's rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago. "I would say [to Clinton], 'You took a case of mine in '75, you lied on me... I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing."
The victim, who remains anonymous, says Hillary's claims about her supposed history of unfounded accusations were flat-out lies:
She also says that listening to the clip of Hillary discussing her case reduced her to tears and compelled her to speak out at greater length:
The Hillary Clinton Tapes; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13...
Links to ALL Documentation; Clinton ruthlessly challenged the victim in court documents. http://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/S... Child Rape Victim: Hillary Clinton 'Took Me Through Hell' Guy Benson | Jun 20, 2014 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenso... Exclusive: 'Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says 06.20.14 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles... Unearthed Audio: Hillary Discusses Defending Child Rapist Guy Benson | Jun 16, 2014 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenso...
For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty. Taylor's light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said. "It's proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me.
"I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don't think she's a role model at all... If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys," she said. "She did that to look good and she told lies on that. How many other lies has she told to get where she's at today? If she becomes president, is she gonna be telling the world the truth? The victim is concerned that speaking out will make her a target for attacks but she no longer feels she is able to stay silent. "I'm a little scared of her... When this all comes about, I'm a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not," she said. "They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what's true." This woman may sound like she has an axe to grind. Hell yes, she does. She was raped at a very young age, and Hillary Clinton called her a liar at the time, then laughed about how her guilty client eluded justice years later. The victim was a virgin at the time of her attack, and has struggled with addiction and depression throughout her adult life.
"Fair Use" provision, which allows reasonable use of copyrighted work, without permission, for criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or educational purposes.