Hillary's moment?

Imagine how social media, cable "news," and talk radio in a misinformed nation would have portrayed some candidates in the past.

A failed one-term congressman, wishy-washy on his party's most important moral issue, no executive experience, too homely for television — and despite the media campaign to make him out as a simple, honest frontiersman, in reality he was a highly successful lawyer for the nation's most powerful industry. His own law partner noted, "his ambition was a little engine that knew no rest." You know him as Abraham Lincoln.

An elitist intellectual, hotheaded, jingoist warmonger, impetuous and too young to be even vice president. Otherwise known as Theodore Roosevelt. The white privilege dandy who concealed his crushing disability and constant pain, running on a balanced-budget promise but in reality holding no fixed ideology and depending on a coalition that included Southern segregationists. That was TR's cousin, Franklin Roosevelt.

On the other hand, there was "the great engineer," a self-made man, the rightly lionized savior of refugees in World War I — the only man who came out of the Paris peace conference of 1919 with his reputation enhanced, according to John Maynard Keynes. This progressive and pragmatic man seemed ideally cut for his time. Yet Herbert Hoover as president was overwhelmed by catastrophe.

You see how it goes. How the digital age distorts. How contingency and crisis reveal character. Now, with the republic facing its greatest danger since the eve of the Civil War, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton steps forward to claim the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.

Consider me not horrified by the leaked DNC emails dismissing a man who hadn't even been a Democrat until 2015, when he decided the party infrastructure would best suit his presidential ambitions. Some of his supporters would rather see the nation left to the fascism of [the real-estate developer] than vote for Hillary. To hell with them. I would have gladly backed Sanders had he been the nominee (and finally subjected to the full fire of the right).

As for Clinton herself, she carried the wounds of nearly a quarter century of attacks and lies by the well-funded vast, right-wing infrastructure. Even a commenter on this blog seems to believe the Vince Foster fable. She faces real questions about her judgment with the private email server and the machinations of her husband's Clinton Foundation. I am less worked up over her time as Secretary of State, a position for which she mostly won acclaim. She worked for President Obama, who was, as his predecessor put it, "the decider."

Still, we wonder. Can Hillary, for all her experience and intelligence, avoid stepping on the landmines of her own, or her husband's, making?

There is the Clinton drama of her husband's administration, so different from the smooth and upright tenure of Obama. There is the paradox of her leading a Democratic Party with a large segment deeply alienated from the policies Bill Clinton either pushed, such as NAFTA, or tried to "triangulate" against a radical Republican Congress, such as "ending welfare as we know it" and deregulation, especially of the financial industry.

Within the liberal echo chamber, "neocon" is a word thrown around with the same weaponized force as "racist," "white privilege," and "mansplaining." One guilty of such thought crimes is automatically disqualified from even being heard. The original neocons were liberal Democrats who became conservative Republicans, "a liberal who has been mugged by reality," in the famous words of Irving Kristol. In the Bush administration, the term was applied to "the vulcans" who led us into ruinous wars. Now it's used on anyone the Bernie Bros dislike, especially Hillary.

Outside the liberal echo chamber, the reality is that Democrats only reclaimed the White House after the Reagan Revolution by moving to the right-center (and even then, with help from Ross Perot). Democrats also had to appear "strong" on defense issues, or they had no future in national politics. Whether this has changed by the loudness of the left and the right's defeat on several culture-war fronts is an open question. Look at the polling. This is not a liberal-majority nation, especially among the people who actually vote. Wishing will not make it so. Neither will protesting in safely Democratic central cities.

I write this as the Democratic National Convention is just beginning. Elizabeth Warren will give a good speech. Some "activists" seem to be hoping for 1968 redux. Otherwise, I have low expectations. We will have many victorious culture-war tropes brought out. Plenty of words about how we are better together. A fat, juicy target in [the real-estate developer] and his party, at least among the faithful in Philadelphia.

Will we hear substance on what this election should be about: combating and preparing for climate change; building 21st century infrastructure, especially high-speed rail and transit (there's never been a better time to borrow); addressing the coming wave of advanced automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence; identifying the national interest at a time when we are overstretched; bringing the rule of law to Wall Street; pushing forward the laws or constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and reversing the monopolies, monopsonies, and cartels that are damaging competition and killing jobs and communities?

Will we hear straight talk about how winning the White House is not enough? The Democrats need to beat Republicans in school boards, city councils, state legislatures, the U.S. House and Senate. Otherwise, we can expect four years where the GOP's scorched-earth opposition shifts from That (Black) Man in the White House to that Bitch in the White House. They will use any pretext to impeach her. The campaign to unseat her in 2020 has already begun.

Some pundits, notably Thomas Frank, have been thumping the tub about how Democrats need to do more to win back the white working class. I'm not sure it can be done. Their grievances are more cultural and demographic, with the accelerant of Obama Derangement Syndrome. They govern the states of the New Confederacy in our Cold Civil War. They are the Reagan Democrats, long gone. The fact that President Obama saved the nation from a second Great Depression (to be fair, with an assist from W on his way out) and has presided over a slow but very real recovery is an accomplishment the convention should celebrate in full Morning in America style. But this doesn't matter to them. That Obama is black matters a great deal. And all the LGBTQI celebrations in Philadelphia will only alienate them further. Thus, can the Democrats finally get some major Hispanic turnout, switch some purple states blue, and hold seemingly blue states (such as Washington) downticket? This will be the key to success.

Will we hear about the danger of vote suppression? This will mark the first time in 50 years where voting rights are less protected, especially in the Deep South and Arizona, thanks to the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Seventeen states already have new vote suppression measures in place, with more to come. Did I say Supreme Court? Anyone who really believes that Hillary and [the real-estate developer] would make the same nominations to the high court — please don't vote, you're a moron.

Outside the liberal echo chamber/firing squad, the Democrats face a formidable adversary in [the real-estate developer] and his extreme party, which denies mainstream science on climate, wants to roll back the New Deal and Great Society (and Nixon administration), and stick us in an Ayn Rand experiment. His rhetoric really resonates with many people — and remember, he says out loud what most Republicans silently believe.

Sinclair Lewis memorably said that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

This is where one is tempted to say, only Hillary Clinton can save us. But that's not enough. Democrats must retake the Congress, at least the Senate. They must find a "narrative" to overcome the Republican fairy tale that has entranced the majority since 1980. And take nothing for granted. This will be a battle for the ages with everything on the line.

 

 

Comments

[Bearsense]

Amen.
Your observation on President Hoover is very prescient. A visit to Hoover's library in West Branch, IA is really an eye-opener. He counseled Coolidge on the excesses of Wall Street and was ignored. He ordered MacArthur to take no action against the "Hooverville, Bonus Army" protesters and was disobeyed. His attempts to provide stimulus after the crash were rebuffed. He's also the reason we have a coherent highway numbering system, lighted airports and "lefty-loosey, righty- tighty"
Good post, Thax.

[Hillary for President]

Bravo Rogue!

[ytkealoha]

Show me all the secstate accomplishments and I'll eat them....

[Bradley Dranka]

The 21st century America Firsters are the ones supporting Trump's inward-looking orthodoxy. They are the real base for his candidacy because the more aberrational behaviors such as racism, hero (law enforcement, military) worship, religious intolerance, and regressive attitudes flow from this "America is supreme" attitude.

Clinton, for all her faults (and the faults of her husband), knows how to speak to the rest of the world.

Trump has yet to expound on, or demonstrate, how he might do this.

This is important because what goes on around the world is just as important to America as what goes on here. I truly believe this because our fortunes are intimately wrapped up with the world's progress.

An America First policy dismisses the above as heresy. I also strongly believe that if America pursues a course of independence from the larger (much larger) world, it will be tantamount to our "giving the finger" to every other country that doesn't want to be a vassal state to us.

There is real danger in that--and that is why I'll keep harping on that.

Trump's base is real threat to our country's continued success because most of them seem to discount the rest of the world as material and intrinsic to our economic fortunes.

This is why this election is beyond crucial.

Oh, and just so you don't think of me as an elitist, I drive a truck.

[Ruben Perez]

I had very, very little hope going into this election cycle.

That has not changed.

There have, however, been three bright spots in the whole process.

First, Trump has put a spotlight on the total corruption and dysfunction of the RNC.

Second, Bernie has put a spotlight on the total corruption and dysfunction of the DNC.

Third, Trump and Bernie have put a spotlight on the total corruption, dysfunction and complicity of the national media.

If I were a hopeful person, a naïve person, I would think these revelations would make a difference going forward.

They won't.

I'm just thankful that the media got exposed. I'm happy for small favors.

[wkg in b ham]

@RC: You left out what I would consider her biggest accomplishment, at least in my book. During the Lewinski controversy, Billery had a knock down drag out in the residential portion of the White House. She tagged Bill (fist? thrown object? who knows) and gave him a black eye: the real kind - not figurative kind.

[Mike Doughty]

If the polls are even close,it demonstrates that Trump has figured out that America wants a TV personality,not a president.Publicity is not good or bad-as long as you get it.And nobody gets more of it than the Donald.

[Cal Lash]

What do you call an Chicago University educated intellectual pizza delivery man?
Bradley Dranka of course.

RUBEN, thats one of your best posts ever.

Excellent column Jon but given I'm a moron Im writing in Bernie. I've been wearing Bernie T-Shirts around redneckville and so far no one has shot at me.
In my travels around this whiter than white community I have only found one person that bad mouthed Bernie but I'm not so stupid as to say the H word.

[Bradley Dranka]

Yes, Cal, I did like Bernie--and voted for him in the primary. But Robin Hood doesn't play well in the "red zone."

Hillary is not going to change much because she is so beholden to the existing system.

But then, how long has the "system," and how it protects it own, been around? Do you really think Reagan and Iran-Contra are much different, either legally or morally, from what the Clintons have done? Or what Kennedy did with his mistresses?
Or what "W" and his Neocons perpetuated in protecting our continued access to the oil of the Middle East? This is a what ambition, avarice, and the dreaded "g-word," greed, look like in politics. Truth is the victim in one getting "to the top."

These behaviors are as American as apple pie--as is wanting it our own way without thinking what the larger world thinks of this intrusive bullying behavior that marginalizes and ignores what "different voices," especially "godless scientists," have to say.

However, I honestly see Trump as a destabilizing force in a worldwide sense because he obviously has very little respect for others he disagrees with. This is telling, because it's a likely sign of how he view the diplomatic process and conventions of the larger world.

The evidence for this is in how UN-diplomatically he talks to, and about, others he disagrees with--or that contradict him. Does anyone really think his "loudmouth" style WON"T show up prominently on the international stage if he becomes president? Or that there won't be ramifications for such boorish behavior? It'll be called "The 21st Century Ugly American," but this reality show will make all of us losers.

I am pretty sure that Clinton, given her experience as Secretary of State, will at least listen to another head of state. Whether Trump will is at best uncertain because he's said nothing about that. He has, however, indicated that he'd pursue America's interests pretty much to the exclusion of all else. That's telling me he'd likely ignore another nation's concerns.

Nobody has addressed this: Is it because nobody here thinks that what goes on in the larger world doesn't affect us here in America? Or that what goes on "out there" isn't relevant?
It's not an intellectual argument; It is only that if it is a truism that considering someone your equal requires one to be an intellectual.

Keeping your enemies closer than your friends(to paraphrase Sun Tzu)requires
one to see their enemies eye-to-eye, at the same level, and as their equal. In this realm, arrogance is a form of stupidity because it blinds one to what their opponent is capable of.

Trump, in his arrogance, will be hard pressed to do that, especially given his xenophobic excesses.

Oh, I only have two years of university.
An idiot savant, perhaps! Anyway, how many commercial truck drivers are intellectuals?

[Cal Lash]

Good stuff Brad.
U know long haul truck drivers may have a better understanding of life's Highways than most politicians. I bet Hillary and Donald would fail the CDL test. It seems to me that for the next 50 years it will be the rule of violence and authoritarianism ruled by financial barons. I see Trump and Clinton as part of that evil.

I can forgive JFK and LBJ for their mistresses and mis understanding of Vietnam but I will not forgive the lying Bush boys for Iraq.

[Richard Thurston]

Good essay. I can't muster much enthusiasm for Clintonism V2.0. That said, the alternative is unthinkable. Who knows, I've been surprised before.

[dave]

other than your vituperance for people of lessor evolution i would have to agree. as a bernista i will follow my choice's choice and cheerfully vote for hillary.

i would have take the same tack had bernie been the nominee. i am a movement voter and know that not back sliding is progress--hell maybe we'll even progress!

hillary and trump--that's what's on the menu and i prefer eating perhaps a more bland dish than to eat what's on the other plate...

[Cal Lash]

DAVE,
Hillary and Donald are Carnivores. And currently the world has returned to Cannibalism. They will eat yours and thier own young.

[Cal Lash]

""Progress is a comfortable disease "
e e c

[INPHX]

Bradley writes:

However, I honestly see Trump as a destabilizing force in a worldwide sense because he obviously has very little respect for others he disagrees with. This is telling, because it's a likely sign of how he view the diplomatic process and conventions of the larger world.

The evidence for this is in how UN-diplomatically he talks to, and about, others he disagrees with--or that contradict him. Does anyone really think his "loudmouth" style WON"T show up prominently on the international stage if he becomes president? Or that there won't be ramifications for such boorish behavior? It'll be called "The 21st Century Ugly American," but this reality show will make all of us losers.

I think that's part of the appeal. I think he's Dirty Harry in a universe of do nothing, get nothing done, pontificating, rich, privileged, ivory tower politicians.

That's Hillary

It ain't Trump.

[Rogue Columnist]

Oh, I miss Soleri, Concern Troll, Ex-Phx Planner and more.

[wkg in b ham]

Me too. Especially Soleri. He and In Phoenix going at mano-y-mano was fun. I’d even like for him to step in for you posting wise when you’re tied up with other things that actually have an income.

[Cal Lash]

INPHX Dirty Harry is probably accurate. But more likley Trump is the Bad and Ugly out of a spaghetti western. More violent action is what we need. Trump and Putin can nuke Europe and the Middle East and build competing hotels. But in the end Putin wins as he has alot more money than Trump and ask the Italian mafia, the Russian gangsters are the most vicious Dirty Harrys on the planet.

Jon I miss Soleri also. Regardless if i agree or disagree with his philosophy, Soleri is this centuries poetic voice.

[wkg in b ham]

@Cal re: “Jon I miss Soleri also. Regardless if i agree or disagree with his philosophy, Soleri is this centuries poetic voice.” I complemented him once of the quality of his postings. I struggle to put words together. I do it off line so I can run it through spell check and grammar check to at least minimize mechanical errors.(To bad MS Word doesn’t come with “logic test”). I said something to the effect “it’s obvious that you compose off line and put a lot of time and effort into them”. He came back with “Nope. I just put the cursor in the box and let her rip.”

[Cal Lash]

Wkg, "Obvious "
That's the ass/u/me error I make on occasion.

[B. Franklin]

If Der Trump isn't "pontificating, rich, privileged" I don't know who is.

So three out of six on the INPHX scale of disqualifying characteristics.

He obviously isn't an intellectual, or even capable of the occasional deep thought. According to the man who wrote "The Art of the Deal" for him he has attention deficit disorder of the first degree and really only cares about one thing: Donald J. Trump.

Putin probably likes him because Vlad recognizes an easy mark.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Petro]

“Consider me not horrified by the leaked DNC emails dismissing a man who hadn't even been a Democrat until 2015, when he decided the party infrastructure would best suit his presidential ambitions. Some of his supporters would rather see the nation left to the fascism of [the real-estate developer] than vote for Hillary. To hell with them. I would have gladly backed Sanders had he been the nominee (and finally subjected to the full fire of the right).”

Oh, you’re not getting off so easily with that paragraph (I left the last mitigating sentence in, out of a sense of fair play, but...)

The easy conflation of disparate negatives into a single narrative here says more about the speaker than the subject here. “Hadn’t even been a Democrat,” “presidential ambitions,” “supporters would rather see... fascism... than vote for Hillary.” The latter having nothing to do with Bernie Sanders at all, so I don’t understand how this makes the smoke-filled machinations of the DNC any less sleazy.

To press that last point further - when https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phWtqe5kvHA“>PUMAs were losing their shit eight years ago, it didn’t even occur to me even briefly to associate them with Hillary Clinton.

In any case, I think it’s unfair to afflict Sanders, of all politicians, with the denigration of “presidential ambitions” - by my lights he was stepping up to fill the vacuum created by the overwhelming corporate narrative of media and “possible” politics that we have been subjected to for so many years, that is bringing us to the breaking point. Sanders is the closest I have ever seen to an actual “public servant” manifesting him or her self in a politician.

As to the date of his registration as a Democrat - I had no idea that there was a period of time that one is considered a “pledge” before they enjoyed the same respect as more august members of the party. Of course, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has perhaps disabused me this naivete.

Fair enough for the rest of your post, though the word we’re using is “neoliberal,” not “neocon.” Hillary has not earned that particular badge of evil being sported by Cheney, et. al. But the DNC has slammed that drafty window shut this year, the draft that was bringing in actual fresh progressive air into the conversation, and this woman who is the embodiment of status quo remains for us, because, you know, [the real-estate developer.]

With your complaint about “weaponized” words you also reveal that you have not traveled that far from that Republican past. That you are a Democrat speaks well for your intelligence, but I don’t think your heart understands progressivism very well. Which is great, because that makes you an archetypical Democrat in the party as it stands.

Archetypical Democrats will never get Bernie. Ironically, that means you win this argument - frankly, Sanders had no business sticking his nose into the Democratic tent in the first place. However, it was a tactic on his part to open the conversation, and the platform. He was as surprised as anyone else, including Clinton, that the entire fucking #Occupy movement showed up for him. So I forgive him for changing his stance to “we’re going to win this thing.” What would you have done?

He did a lot. There are a lot of new voters out there that will get over the “betrayal” and can be tapped for down-ticket and off-year local voting. That’s how the Tea Party destroyed the GOP, and that’s how Sanders’ little army just might reform the Democrats (I think there’s something in the DNA in this country that will always marginalize parties outside of the Blue vs. Red superbowl mentality of our population and media. I hope I’m wrong about that.)

Anyway, great column and thank you for letting me shout at you for a moment.

(BTW - I’ll be watching carefully. If there is a possibility that AZ could swing either way, I’ll vote for Clinton. But if we’re in the tank for the GOP again this year, I’m probably writing in Sanders or Stein if she’s not on the ballot.)

[Cal Lash]

B franklin. Donald ain't got a clue when it comes to Ruthless Putin. While the Israelis may occupy most of America's Kiosks. Putin's boys cut your hair. And in the back room you can buy rubies and gold and meet a woman. I'm sure Donalds forehead will be much more visible when the Russians scalp him.

[Cal Lash]

Clinton worth 80 million
Trump worth 4.5 billion
Putin worth 100 to 200 billion
And Putin didn't get that from his daddy and mommy nor on a stupid TV show, like make a deal. Putin is the real deal
Donald is a blustering egomaniac spewing bullshit that attracts ignorant white flys.
Democrat ticket 2020 Elizabeth Warren and Michelle Obama.

[INPHX]

Ben:

Trump's not a politician. That's a necessary condition; the criteria apply only to politicians.

Contrast Trump, with say, John Kerry.

See the difference?

[INPHX]

Rogue writes:

Consider me not horrified by the leaked DNC emails dismissing a man who hadn't even been a Democrat until 2015, when he decided the party infrastructure would best suit his presidential ambitions. Some of his supporters would rather see the nation left to the fascism of [the real-estate developer] than vote for Hillary. To hell with them. I would have gladly backed Sanders had he been the nominee (and finally subjected to the full fire of the right).

CNN reports:

One email features DNC staffers appearing to ponder ways to undercut Sanders, an insurgent Democrat who had a bitter relationship with party leadership.

On May 5, a DNC employee asked colleagues to "get someone to ask his belief" in God and suggested that it could make a difference in Kentucky and West Virginia. Sanders' name is not mentioned in the note.
"This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote.
Marshall did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/dnc-email-leak-wikileaks/

I guess I'm not horrified, either, but appalled seems to fit pretty well. Maybe aghast? Sickened?

[B. Franklin]

Just curious INPHX, but I'm wondering what a Republican would have to do to appall you?

Surely there must be something? Anything?

I know! Act like they had any concern for anyone who wasn't more or less exactly like them! That would do it.

Regarding contrasting Trump and Kerry, one was a decorated hero in a pointless, needless war, who upon his return home did what he could to stop the carnage.

And the other had something wrong with his feet...

Am I close?

[Bradley Dranka]

To INPHX: Regarding your "Dirty Harry" reference: Do you recall what Clint Eastwood said to the leader of those rogue policemen???

I think it went something like, "You may not like it, but the system, as bad as it is, is what we have to work within."

Your "Dirty Harry" reference is way off-base because he didn't advocate scrapping the system as Trump seems hell-bent on doing.

And nobody has answered my assertion about Trump's brash "loudmouthed" behavior playing out on the world stage.
Whether it might have consequences or not, I hear nothing, and the silence is deafening.

Guess that proves my point about most Americans not being able to look outside their borders in their short-sighted tunnel vision.

That's why this particular area of consideration--the international stage--is unmentioned and ignored.

[Bradley Dranka]

That is why this election is one for the ages: because whoever wins will project our image anew on the world stage.

I cannot emphasize the benefit of restraint in dealing with the leaders of the world. It is the grease that makes international relationships work smoothly and underpins the many beneficial trade relationships the U. S. enjoys with the rest of the world.

Clinton understands this.

Trump? Given his intemperance and arrogance? At best, NOT SO MUCH!

It's the economy, stupid--and not so stupid!

[wkg in b ham]

@Bradley re “America First” et al.: Let’s break the silence. AF does not mean non-involvement or “isolationism” (whatever that means in your mind). Nor does it mean bulldozing the interests of others. TR’s “walk softly and carry a big stick” slogan probably comes closest. Operationally it would currently ask “what is the US’s national interests for the situation in Syria?” I see little to our national interest in what’s going. Probably slightly better off Assad prevails.

BTW the capstone of HRC’s SecState tenure was to engineer the takedown of Momar Quaddafi (spelling?) Oh that turned out just great! Arab Spring here we come!

BTW we’re still waiting for the answer to HRC’s stunning SecState accomplishments. Be best I can offer via “HRC” is some symbolic gesture in Burma (whatever it’s called today).

It repudiates “endless war”. It repudiates the existence of hundreds of military bases (albeit some very small) throughout the world. It repudiates being the fixer of all problems everywhere.

It does mean when our national interests are affected that a vigorous but appropriate response is called for.

Closely related. What is the US interest in essentially open borders? None that I can tell. In my opinion is definitely NOT in our interest. I can’t see where it really in the interests of any people exporting countries except maybe to dump excess population. I guess in your book that makes me racist and xenophobic.

PS: The Neocon movement is about dead in the GOP. None of Bushes, McCain or Romney even showed up.

[Petro]

PS: The Neocon movement is about dead in the GOP. None of Bushes, McCain or Romney even showed up.

Heh. It's not dead until Cheney's batteries run out. But I'll concede that the GOP itself is on the ropes, neocons or not.

[INPHX]

Ben:

Well, there's certainly a lot of contrast between Kerry and Trump. One of then was so stupid that they thought John Edwards would be a suitable VP. You know, a heartbeat away.

Which one was that?

There's no doubt that Republicans do appalling things. Nixon lying to the American people about a scandal, for example.

Funny. There's a guy like that on your side who did the same thing (lying). Got impeached, disbarred, cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Makes Roger Ailes look like the Pope. Was found guilty and fined for being in contempt and then he paid Paula Jones $850,000.00. He was married, with a child, and the most powerful man on earth. She was about 22, single, and an intern.

And he's speaking at YOUR convention.

Appalling?

Yep

[Cal Lash]

Wow R resident poet may have left for another universe but the ever Deconstructing sage, Petro emerges from his secret order to punish with hammering words. Great Chit Mike.

[Cal Lash]

INPHX R U intentionally missing the point here. This is not a Hillary love fest. It's about who is less likely to blow up the world. Well the answer seems to be Hillary not so much.

NEOCONS: NEVER go away and have loyalty only to making war for personal gain and power.

Jon. Me thinketh that Soleri left believing he had nothing more to say and for his personal sanity as one can go quite batty trying to make sense of the absurdity that we swim in. I have sent him emails and he has not responded so hopefully he is aboard his bicycle and stopping only for great views from the road and an occasional pint here and thar.

[Greg Hilliard]

Did anyone notice that so many delegations tried to one-up each other as job meccas during the floor nomination -- at the Republican convention? What happened to that terrible economy the Republicans carp about?
I still say it comes down to the Electoral College, and I don't see Hillary with anything but a total of at least 330.
Best tweet I saw Tuesday was one that said at this time last week, we were hearing from the general manager of Trump Winery. Tonight, from the 42nd president of the United States.
Oh, one other point, Jon. Perot affected Clinton and George H.W. Bush equally. When he left the '92 race in June, the poll gap stayed essentially unchanged. It remained that way when Perot re-entered the race in October.

[B. Franklin]

Heartbeat away?

Sarah Palin comes to mind. Dan Quayle, too. Dick Cheney. Spiro Agnew for some of us of a certain age.

For some reason, Republicans love bringing up Dems' private lives. Especially their sex lives. Is being a Republican so miserably dreary that you have to dig around for cheap titillation? I guess so.

As for lying, the patron saint of the GOP, dear old Ronnie Reagan, was a master of it. Nobody ever did bullshit better than him.

Oh, and Al Gore won the 2000 election. It took a Republican majority on the Supreme Court, doing a "this one time only" legal contortion to give us W.

[Bradley Dranka]

wkg in b ham: What I fear is that the America First mentality will be an America First all the time.

I see Trump wanting to "win" all the time, which means other nations concerns being in at least second place all the time.

His ego is so monumental that anything less than being "on top" all the time will be seen as a total failure.

That kind of thinking is hardly a recipe for getting along with others.

Is it reasonable to want him to turn down the volume on his tone-deaf, "in your face" brass-balls approach, so that he seems halfway human? He really is, and this is easily pictured, a sort of humanlike creature--with a megaphone for a head.

Modern diplomacy is not conducted in snarling, barking, and shouted insults.
Trump is not known for speaking "softly."

Maybe overturning convention has its place, but I fear attempting it in diplomatic circles will backfire disastrously.

The rest of the world has a say in how diplomacy is conducted. Trump would be wise to recognize that. And if he comes to that realization, saying some words that he would conduct himself in an orderly fashion in international relationships would allay many concerns "worldly" (not to be confused with "elitist") people currently have.

That would require a dose of humility, which, unfortunately, I doubt he has the capacity to get in touch with--much less enunciate publicly.

Is that a reasonable fear? Or that large missteps on the diplomatic front could foster grave economic repercussions for the U. S.?

There are other potential wars than World War III.

Think about it....

[Bradley Dranka]

Part of diplomacy is understanding that it's a form of negotiation.

Rule number one of negotiating: Don't expect to get everything you want.

Then you separate your "must-haves" from your "want to haves."

The best negotiations, with both sides willing to negotiate again, is where everyone gets something--as in "win-win." Diplomacy is a never-ending negotiation.

That would require Trump to consider his negotiating (and diplomatic) partners across the table as equals--even if they're adversaries.

One would think Trump, being an alleged businessman, would have something to say regarding the similarities between negotiating and diplomacy. And, being a businessman, would speak to the facts of international trade's integral place in our standard of living.

However, he seems so blinded by playing to his inward-looking base that he can't see the larger world--or its concerns. It's just another version of not seeing the forest for the trees.

If he says nothing about the larger world, all we have to judge him by on this important issue is his bombast.

[Greg Hilliard]

The Democrats need to take a page out of the Republican playbook and attack Trump on his strength, showing how he is not a sharp businessman or negotiator. I think they've been heading that way.

[Ed]

Will we hear about this? Trump Enrages the War Party http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/07/21/trump-enrages-war-party/

Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-jSrS49dss

[Bradley Dranka]

Greg Hilliard: The thing I fear is Trump thinking he can blind foreign leaders with his alleged brilliance--or baffle them with his bull----. Much of this "attitude" seems rooted in his desire to engage in condescending behavior toward adversaries.

I seriously doubt this will get him very far when dealing with other countries' leaders--who have egos at least as gigantic as his.

Precipitous behavior, as evidenced by his talk of getting out of NATO and the World Trade Organization, is almost not contingent to reassuring our allies. It certainly isn't statesmanlike.

It just sounds like the child that "takes his ball and goes home."

I offer you, and all the Clinton-bashers, the fact that she has demonstrated the ability to at least talk with world leaders. Maybe little has been done (though I suspect things have been accomplished), but she has, largely, had a hand in "keeping the peace."

Stability in world affairs is something business prizes.

Trump has said nothing on how he would actually CONVERSE with world leaders, and how he would view them.

That he has said nothing on this important issue is a sin of culpable omission in my knowing his temperament--and fitness--for conducting our nation's foreign policy.

[Concern Troll]

Ha, Rogue that real life thing keeps on interrupting fixing the world.

Plus the fact that I am now really middle aged and like a nap.

The really funny thing is that as my time in the barrel recedes, I no longer have that much desire to fix the world- or even this misbegotten place. Gov DoubleD is still failing and flailing, the R party is now fighting with savage glee over who is proTrump and who is real Tea.

Meanwhile, the Chamber types should be quietly sneaking over the very small D party. Instead, LLT and Begay quit to get a very small seat at the table.

The really funny part of being a regulatory policy expert is the crickets when you quit. NObody really wants to solve problems, because when the problem is solved, the money flow from the irritation stops.

Lobbyists understand this- a big victory is followed by lower earnings, because problem is solved!

The entertaining part is those that fight against the current system now are the biggest insiders. Look at the R folks who run the show, old lobbyists that all railed against the D club that ran Arizona and were kids when Symington started wrecking state government.

Ok folks, look at the dysfunction and wreckage, and then ponder how Andy Tobin keeps getting plum jobs.

So, where is the national level of politics in this?

Um, well, Trump says a lot of stuff that makes sense and is causing the neocon foreign policy cabaal to have a heart attack. I am fine with that.

Indeed, it was highly entertaining to watch Two Penny walk back his membership in the eternal war club and align with the Trumpet.

Indeed, the Dem party has not done a damned thing for most of flyover for decades.

Neither has the R party.

So there are a lot of folks who don't feel Guv DD or Hilary reps them.

And the eCONomy of Aridzona is a joke.

We live off of military spending and Social Security, plus retirement of middle class California selling out their house and moving to Ahhhhwaaaahhhhtooookie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

We try, and just can't seem to understand how our country is going to change.

Especially if Trump wins, all bets are off the table. Hillary is status quo and no go.

[Bradley Dranka]

Concern Troll:

Is a quite likely destabilizing agent like Trump better than keeping the status quo Clinton?

I'm guessing business, that entity the Republicans are famously friendly to, and who are mostly in the Republican camp, would overwhelmingly agree on Clinton.

Ain't that a kick in the head?

[Cal Lash]

"With rebellion awareness is born."
Al Camus
If nothing else Bernie and Donald have led a rebellion. Will be interesting to see if it has much follow thru or we all just go back to watching the giant ego show, Make A Deal and the Cardeassein family. (SP) Well U know the ones that have moved us from breasts to butts watching.
Come 2017 I anticipate little change except more world violence. Not rebellion just ignorant violence.
I'm "hoping" Obama and others make more roadless wilderness. Wilderness that is not industrial tourism but left Wild. (YES JON, less sprawl).
And of course my captalistic desires are that we end the hopeless 80 year old war on "Illegal Drugs" and move some DEA folks over to the FDA.

[B. Franklin]

I would say that at this point the status quo is probably preferable to economic, social, and perhaps even military, chaos.

On the other hand, some folks just like to stand back and watch stuff burn.

I guess we'll see.

[Cal Lash]

"One can only settle a nomad by force, by economic or political coercion. For him, the freedom that the desert gives has no price.
Ryszard Kapuscinski, "Imperium".

[Cal Lash]

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal".
Red Emma Goldman.

[Bradley Dranka]

I really am not a fan of stasis, but a complete upheaval could lead to anarchy.

Both the idealist and the pragmatist in me see the benefits of relative stability.

I think Trump's egomania fuels his thought process to the point that he wants to shake things up completely. Then he can direct (or thinks he can) how the pieces are put back together, and so create a larger-than-life legacy.

Is this not characteristic of a megalomaniac? As in egomania run wild or projected onto a much larger stage?

It doesn't get larger than the world. Not for us humans.

I prefer my presidents to be a bit more humble.

Oh, one might refer to the lyrics of Living Colour's, "The Cult of Personality..."

Cult Of Personality

By Living Colour

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
I'm the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality

Neon lights, a Nobel Prize
Then a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face on your T.V.
I'm the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me

I tell you one and one makes three
I'm the cult of personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality

Neon lights a Nobel Prize
A leader speaks, that leader dies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You gave me power in your own god's name
I'm every person you need to be
Oh, I'm the cult of personality
I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of
I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of, I'm the cult of personality

Songwriters: WILLIAM CALHOUN, COREY GLOVER, VERNON ALPHONSUS REID, MUZZ SKILLINGS

© Peermusic Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

For non-commercial use only.

Data from: LyricFind

I rest my case on Trump's alleged popularity.

[Bradley Dranka]

The line in the last paragraph is actually sung in the recording as:
"You gave me power beyond God's name"

Kind of apropos, huh?

[wkg in b ham]

@ Petro re: “(Neocon) It's not dead until Cheney's batteries run out. But I'll concede that the GOP itself is on the ropes, neocons or not.” You forgot Carl Rove. Lefties are obsessed with them. The axis of evil! Otherwise how could a dumb shit like W ever be elected anything. Only elected governor of Texas; the first time over a very popular Ann Richards. Clearly he must be stupid and needed someone smart/evil to lead him by the hand.

@ In Phoenix re “And he's speaking at YOUR convention.” I hear it was 42 minutes and great. Say what you want about Slick Willy, the guy really knows how to give a speech. I only heard a snippet on the middle of the night ABC news (WNN). I’m told it was 42 minutes of what a great wife, mother and agent of change she was/is. The wife part makes me want to throw up. If she was such a great wife….well never mind.
`
@Cal re “NEOCONS: NEVER go away”: Yep. Neither do Marxists unfortunately. But at least you can keep them in the corner where they’re harmless.

@Ben re “Oh, and Al Gore won the 2000 election. It took a Republican majority on the Supreme Court, doing a "this one time only" legal contortion to give us W.” Wrong. W won because he got more votes in Florida than Gore.

@Bradley re: Modern diplomacy is not conducted in snarling, barking, and shouted insults.
Trump is not known for speaking "softly." I honestly think DT will appoint a SecState and let him do his job – and that the SecState will let the State Department do its job – something HRC wouldn’t do. Her constant jumping onto planes to micromanage things almost killed her.

Re: “That would require Trump to consider his negotiating (and diplomatic) partners across the table as equals” No. Most, if not all, are not our equals. Even so I don’t see him being intentionally insulting, or even having that much to do on a personal level.

Re: “the facts of international trade's integral place in our standard of living.” Under its present form the “integral place” is killing middle and working class America. For the elite internationalist it has been a fun ride.

@ Troll Re “And the eCONomy of Aridzona is a joke.” Hard for me to say from here. But from everything I’ve heard you’re right on the money. I can’t even think of a realistic way to fix it.

[B. Franklin]

In 2000, the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount as W's lead slowly--but surely--evaporated. They explained this by a breathtaking legal contortion. Read Vincent Bugliosi's book, The Betrayal of America if you doubt this.

The subtitle of the book is "How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President".

[NormW]

@wkg in b ham "The wife part makes me want to throw up. If she was such a great wife….well never mind."
So what you're saying is if she was a great wife he never would have gotten a blowjob from an intern, serially screwed around his entire marriage, etc. etc....
Wow, what an enlightened viewpoint you have, I'm planning on ignoring any future posts you happen to puke out.
In 2016, in the upcoming election, in life in general there is no longer any place for a double standard, no longer any excuse for codewords that belittle, no longer any place for people not working towards a solution for all

[Bradley Dranka]

wkg in b ham:

I seriously doubt Trump will get anyone with diplomatic experience to take the job for the same reason you assign to Hillary: He's going to want to micromanage how the negotiations go for the purpose of one-upsmanship (the ego thing).

I also doubt anyone diplomatically inclined and vested in the idea of restraint will believe Trump actually will show restraint in delegating any authority to them, much less in his communication style.

As to your point about "most of them not being our equals," that is exactly the kind of superior attitude that gives "them" a reason to despise us and be suspicious of our motives. Also, try to get "them" to agree with you that they aren't our equals

And as far as international trade "killing middle and working-class America," capitalism's eternal ethos of profits "uber alles" making companies search for ever cheaper labor has a big hand in "killing the middle and working class." Those allegedly inexpensive goods from overseas carry a hidden cost: Ask yourself what that cost is the next time you go to the big box store or Walmart, Target, etc. And are you willing to pay the price if international trade suddenly declines because of protectionist trade "walls" such as tariffs, duties, etc.?

[INPHX]

Brad:

Vernon Reid's guitar solos in "Cult of Personality" are just epic; unimaginable shredding but in a perfect context. Angry, much like the song. Man, could he rip.

Ben:

Did Bugliosi's book come with a tin foil hat or did you have to get your own?
You keep fighting that fight, though.

[Greg Hilliard]

INPHX: It's explained at consortiumnews.com. The report came out in December 2001, three months after 9/11, so its conclusion that the wrong man was in the Oval Office was soft-pedaled. No one wanted to seem unpatriotic after the attack (except for those thousands of Muslims still dancing in the streets of New Jersey), so it was played inside in most newspapers.
The report showed that had the recount continued, it would have shown by any measure that Gore had won Florida, and hence the Electoral College vote and the presidency. As it is, Gore did get 500,000 more votes than Bush received.
The Supreme Court decision was a black mark against that institution, what with both Scalia and Thomas having family members who were involved in Bush v. Gore and the court's ruling that this was a one-time decision and could not be considered a precedent for future cases.

[Cal Lash]

Greg good comment on election. Had Sandra voted her conscious the world would likely be in a better place. Pero ahora no le hace

PS I'm sending the invisible squad out to help INPHX with his conceptions of aluminium foil.

[emmy brighton]

Why concern troll does the religious right give Trump a bye on his amoral behavior? Three wives and children by all of them. Romance with second wife played out in the tabloids. It speaks to his lack of self control and sense of entitlement. Rules are for everyone else. And he can say anything with no regard for the consequences. The epitome of the loose canon.

[Cal Lash]

The good news. Americas comatose pot needed stirring. The bad news the crud rose to the top. Hopefully the party of Sanders and Warren will continue to gain momentum.

Emmy U know the answer to your question, "religion is bullshit and its bad for you."
Trump would have us believe he is the tooth fairy. He gets elected, we go to sleep and when we wake up Donald has made America great again. Except he kept the dimes.

[Bradley Dranka]

Emmy:

I think this is a good way to characterize Trump's way of "speaking his mind:" Not only does it tell you how out of touch he is with the world outside his mind, but to cast an "aye" vote to with you, "loose cannons have a bad habit of firing at the wrong tome and in the wrong direction." Like how often he shoots himself in the foot.

Or, as I've said before, arrogance is a form of stupidity because it discounts what others are capable of--in this case, making Trump a bad caricature.

His head must be so far up his own butt that it's coming out of his mouth again!

Which is why the excrement spews forth from him.

To quote Steve Martin, "Comedy is not pretty."

If he gets elected, we'll all be the butt of his enormous joke.

[Bradley Dranka]

To put into a proper context, I want a smart president--not a smart-ass president who thinks he can trample on common decency and has no idea what humility means.

While there is a place for pride, without some humility, you risk not getting cooperation. This means from outside this country--and that means looking at people outside our borders as being equal to us.

If Trump has the same attitude as wkg in b ham, I think the U. S. is in for a very rocky economic surprise. Those countries wield a great deal of economic power (remember, we gave them the seed money), and irking those countries carries with it the risk of retaliation. Does anyone think that our standard of living won't take a hit if that happens?

I like living decently: I think Trump is a serious risk to that simply by his mercurial, outlandish, and precipitous nature. This unpredictable rogue, who doesn't believes the rules apply to him, is a "wild card" who, I believe, could possibly turn worldwide "conventions" upside down.

That's not a risk I'm comfortable with.

[B. Franklin]

INPHX, ever hear something about "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"?

Probably not.

If at this late date you can't recognize that the Republican Party's hacks, judicial and otherwise, stole the 2000 election, then maybe you're the one in need of tin foil.

Oh, by the way, how's that Carly 2016 working out for you?

[Concern Troll]

LoL- too many losers voting against the system and no think they have little or no interest in maintaining the current system.

Every time I meet Galt's Gulch folks in their prime I think I have met the biggest fools in history.

Kill Social Security and finish killing off the social safety net, while legalizing guns will make a paradise on earth. Instead we end up with hell on earth, cops with targets on their heads doing less and less real police work- while crime will increase in the very neighborhoods that need more help.

I guess when the starving start invading Scottsdale, then the richie roos will finally begin to see their zombie apocalypse heave into sight. Hope they pay their private security well, because that will be all they have to keep the masses at bay.

Building a society requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice from those who think that future generations will benefit from their labors.

Now we have what can I get now, and what can I loot before anyone knows it is gone. In some ways the old time ranchers and farmers were very good stewards of government because they understood the long run for their families were tied to their current decisions.

The professional lobbyist and the professional politician used to have that same perspective, because judicious use of power allowed them to manage growth and grow wealthy. Now, look at the wall street model. Rip 'em and stick 'em.

Our entire society is based on that model.

It just makes me tired. So I dream of moving out to the sticks, and coming into the big smoke every month or two for a big supply run, but otherwise just reading and relaxing in my abode of retirement.

Family will keep me here another 5-10 years, then they will be gone, and so will I- but until then, here I will sit and watch the holes get bigger.

Like in those roads.

Potholes are getting bigger in Arizona, but hey, it is a wonderful state- just keep buying suspension parts!

[Concern Troll]

Emmy, just look at Mike Two Penny Pence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence#Personal_life

Righty tighty evangelical xtian, well now evange catholic, whatever that means.

Sooooo, the dog whistle is sounding loud and clear, with the TRUMPets of the apocalypse.

And then we can talk about his religious freedom restoration act, which is all good until them thar musselman start using it to oppress da man.

Trumps takes a powder, and the tea party will run America, which should terrify any Bernie Bro who thinks this is a good idea.

On the other hand, why not burn it all down? Revolutions make for interesting times- just ask all of those involved in Cromwell's times. I especially find it interesting to read a bit of the noted diarist Pepys.

[Cal Lash]

Trump and the Russians:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/donald-trump-2016-russian-ties-214116

[Cal Lash]

Can Putin and Julian Assange bring down Hillary?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-emails_us_5799188be4b01180b5317d08?section=

[Bradley Dranka]

Though this comment could have also been posted with the "1964" story, it works very well here:

It speaks to the dysfunction and disorganization in the Republican party that the Democratic nominee, by merely having, for the most part, a "steady as she goes" economic policy, is the much better candidate--especially to the "great middle" of the electorate.

I don't think many people really like this stasis, but Trump is so unpredictable, undisciplined, and off-the-wall that a calm, steady hand--instead of his haphazard approach--is preferable.

Again, this points out that the Republican party is all over the map when it should have coalesced behind someone more mainstream. But while the Republican leadership dithered, Trump was taking over the electorate in much the same way Fidel Castro took over the Cuban countryside before marching into Havana.

Had they nominated someone more centrist, the Republicans might have had an excellent chance of regaining the White House. Instead, they have a much more "radical" candidate with an enormously controversial and confrontational platform.

Does that sound like Goldwater in 1964?

To redirect the Republican sarcasm over Obama, "How's that "change" going for you?"

[INPHX]

Ben:

Ever hear of "History is written by winners"?

And that ain't Al Gore.

You may have missed it, but in this country, we have legal processes. The Florida Secretary of State confirmed Bush as the winner of Florida ( I think someone once said "elections have consequences"- well, yeah).

And, incredibly, SCOTUS agreed that a completely arbitrary recount was unconstitutional. Geez, those partisan bastards!!!

Now, you and folks with similar smarts to the whole "Hillary whacked Vince Foster" group will characterize that as "stealing an election". I think a more accurate characterization is "a lawful outcome based on the legal options available and in place".

Studies are all over the amp over who would have "actually" won:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/

But you wouldn't bother broadening your perspective as long as someone showed you something that maybe Gore would have maybe sorta won. That's good enough for you.

I think Gore threw in the towel, didn't he?

Well, at least he's a man of his word.... kinda.

Carly couldn't get things done. Too many solid competitors, I guess.

BTW, how's that whole "hope and changey" thing doing for you? For the country? For blacks?

Just swell........

[wkg in b ham]

Let me start over of the “Bill’s Speech” issue. Let me digress a little bit. I learned something new today – and apparently I just ignorant. FDR had a thirty-year long affair with Lucy Rutherford even though he had promised to Eleanor banish Lucy from his life in 1918. Lucy accompanied Franklin on out-of-town trips and was smuggled into the White House on many occasions. In fact she was in FDR’s presence when he had his fatal stoke in Warm Springs, Ga. (He was sitting for a portrait). He traveled to Warm Springs 41 times during his presidency. Healing waters and Lucy to boot! Although many of the trips by then couldn’t have been too sexual – his health was not all that good in the later years of his term. I think more than anything else they were soul mates. She probably provided warmth that just out of Eleanor’s nature. Alice Roosevelt (his cousin) knew of the arrangement and approved. In her words “He’s deserving of a good time, he’s married to Eleanor”. Many, if not most, pundits say that FDR was one of our best presidents. I will concede that he was a great war-time leader.

Eisenhower had a mistress in Europe during WWII, Kay Somersby (or some like that). She was his driver. Later he had her assigned to his staff as Capt. in the U. S. Army. At the end of the war George Marshall ordered him to drop her and come back to the U.S.

JFK’s sexcapades are legendary.

I think Franklin and Ike get a pass on the issue. Bill and JFK don’t. I think the test is: Who is the man dallying with (preferably just one) and how discretely the affair is conducted.

I’m struck by the similarities of the Franklin/Eleanor and Bill/Hillary relationships; and the differences. The similarities in personality/ambitions etc. of Franklin/Bill and Eleanor/Hillary.

Back to Bill’s convention speech. The “I love her so much” and “she’s a great wife” just don’t ring true to me. Here’s why, and if I’m wrong set me straight. I believe there is very little warmth and affection between the two. To my knowledge, they have not resided under the same roof since leaving the White House. I think they spend very little time with each other and when they do it’s for business (for lack of a better word) rather than pleasure. To me the whole marriage is a sham. Hey it works for them – why should I give a rip? What they do with their lives is their own business and who am I to criticize? What they do with their private lives is private – and that’s OK. But if Bill wants it to be in the public square then it’s NOT private anymore.

[Cal Lash]

Wkg U dont recognize a business deal?
And U might find Eleanor's companion history interesting. There is a "friend" of Eleanor named Joe Lash that wrote a couple of books about her.
Maybe there is a psychological discussion about whether more or less sex will effect your decesion making when it comes to pusing the American Assassination Drone button? More sex more humane understanding, less sex more increased kill them frustration? Should we care who is having consentual sex?
Don't forget, write in Bernie.
I can't find that he has had sex?

[Rogue Columnist]

WKG gets to use this space for his Tea Party propaganda with no pushback now that Soleri is gone.

The difference between the sexual escapades of Bill Clinton and the Republicans (and they have so many, including the criminality of "Coach Denny") is that the Democrats don't try to tell people how to live their lives and intrude in their bedrooms. The Republicans are hypocrites.

Richard Nixon was totally faithful to Pat and was a disastrous president, except for a few moves today's Republicans would never make.

Anyone who would write in Sanders in the general is very misguided. See Soleri's many wise comments on previous columns. Bernie is with her, as we all should be if we are to avoid national suicide.

[INPHX]

The nexus of the Lewinsky scandal was the lawsuit that Paula Jones brought alleging that Clinton sexually harassed her while she was an Arkansas state employee and he was Governor. Lewinsky was called to determine if Clinton had a pattern of such lecherous behavior and that's when he lied.

No one cared what Bill did in his bedroom, unless it involved employees (actionable lawsuits), or lying while under oath.

Well, maybe Hillary.

Maybe.

[B. Franklin]

Oh INPHX, I get it now! Thanks for enlightening me.

Since the Republicans were able to steal 2000 (and 2004 for that matter), they're the "winners" and they get to write "history". Like Karl Rove and the neocons creating their own "reality".

The point I was making is that the "legal process" was rigged...but, oh nevermind.

I think I know why that Soleri cat stopped posting: there isn't any reason to argue with a certain kind of stoopid. You can grow old waiting for people to change.

If you can't see how fundamentally wrong your point of view is, as proven by facts, history, EVERYTHING, then blunder on, brother. Blunder on.

[Cal Lash]

Jon, I wondered how many times I would have to post “write in Bernie” before you responded? Maybe U held off thinking Soleri would show up? Maybe he will, but he is not yet ready. He is still pedaling for sanity in this absurd atmosphere we call freedom. It’s obvious how you and Soleri see the election. My head and my gut say NO to Trumps, Make America great again. And my gut rumbles and threatens to erupt and screams a gaseous NO to Hillary. I’m left with my head telling mark the x for Hillary and save the world from Herr Trump. Or I can walk out of the booth feeling high knowing I made my x for what my whole body speaks as the right choice, Bernie. I disagree that Bernie is “with her”. I think Bernie is with the Party knowing that Trump is worst of evil. When Hillary is elected lets hope it goes well and does not get to the point the kooks start shooting. Of course Hillary would win that war as she is much more the Field Marshall than Obama ever considered. U can glean that from one photo. The time they took out Osama Bin Laden. Will be interesting to see how Hillary makes her moves with regard to Sanders and Warren. Even as president I believe she will view them as dangerous to her moves. So hopefully no wars in the homeland as there are plenty of killing fields around the globe.
If I was as intelligent as some on this blog it might make it much easier to know where to mark my x. However I probably am “misguided” and a “Moron” but I have always let my bones influence my decisions as many times my head is in a place that is shitty. My shrink said this is the humanitarian social worker pathos cells that ooze through my veins. As some of my fellow officers used to say, the social worker with a badge. So not to worry Jon. Just show up and mark your x where ever it suits you.

[Bradley Dranka]

The interesting thing about the Bill Clinton impeachment was that Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican congressman leading the charge at the time (look it up), was found to be having, or have had, an extramarital affair. Whether it was during the impeachment proceedings or before (I want to say it was around 1969 or so), Hyde was pilloried in Illinois for his hypocrisy.

I can comment specifically on this because I was in Illinois at the time
this was front page news--and it was during or shortly after the impeachment hearings.

[Bradley Dranka]

Cal,

Certainly, Hillary is not the best we could hope for. And, apparently, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had a hand in thwarting Bernie taking the nomination in a way that Reince Priebus neglected to do with Trump. That's why we got the piss-poor choice we have.

In some ways, it's telling that a "let's not rock the boat" candidate is more attractive than a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" nominee.

That's because the latter may sink the ship of state in his intemperance.

[INPHX]

Well, Ben, you're right about one thing.

There's no reason to argue with a certain kind of stoopid.

[B. Franklin]

How often do we get the candidate we really want?

Never. Never sounds about right.

The last time for me was maybe RFK. And we saw how that turned out. Anyway, I was too young to vote then...

So we muddle on, hoping for the best.

This time that's Hillary. No doubt about it. Sorry to all the pure and good and unrealistically idealistic Bernistas. You lost.

So now it's either "her" or a narcissistic, pathological liar, un-tethered by reality, who has no idea how to deal with other people, unless they bow and scrape to him.

Yeah, it's come to that.

This isn't Europe. We don't have coalition governments. Voting for the Greens or the Libertarians or the Truly Loony Party won't give you anything but a momentary ego boost.

Unfortunately, you do sometimes have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

And I have no problem picking the establishment evil over the racist, homophobic, know nothing, science denying, oligarchic, possibly treasonous, pandering religious hypocrite evil.

[Cal Lash]

B. I dont believe in absolutes.
So R U sure Bernie LOST??
"U know they may not print it."

[B. Franklin]

Cal, when you get more votes you win. (Except in INPHX's world, of course.)

She got more votes.

I'm afraid the Dems aren't nearly as good at rigging results as the Republicans.

Still, if you don't want to trust the vote counts, don't.

It won't change anything, but we all must find whatever comfort we can in this hard, hard, world.

[Cal Lash]

According to some Gore got more votes, also. But he lost?
Well B "it aint over to the fat lady sings"
and I suspect more tunes are coming.

[B. Franklin]

You know we're not supposed to talk about Gore getting more votes.

It upsets some people.

Maybe makes them start to question their entire world view...

Or not.

Right now there's a beautiful desert storm drum rolling across the sky.

Time to pour out a couple of fingers of whatever and watch nature at her untamed best.

[Bradley Dranka]

B Franklin:

You got it right.

[Cal Lash]

Strong rain here in the great Sonoran desert. It's the deserts 5th season. The Monsoon season. I'd drink to that B But the desert has dried me up almost to bleached bones and the whiskey is to my throat like firewater. I learned that word from my two Indian wives. They both questioned the Europeans sanity of building permanent structures in the desert. But they were nomads not squatters in thier own shit.
Hasta luego.

[drifter]

Cal, you'll be voting in Arizona so no problem with a write in although it is simply a feel good act with no consequence.

Arizona will be solid Trump land in any scenario other than a Hillary electoral landslide. Arizona is way too Red to matter. Sorry PSF.

Colorado, Nevada would be a different story.

[Cal Lash]

Thanks Drifter, I'm well aware of such as has Petro has pointed out also quite eloquently.
Note I have been posting write in Bernie and also Jose Mujica in a dumb attempt to arose more conversation.
When it comes down to whether to vote for Trump or Clinton there is only one choice unless you really R a moron.
Since I do not believe in a mythical higher power, I'll can't pray for "God help us".

[Ramjet]

RE: The absence of Soleri is indeed a shame. I think he just gave up trying to fix stupid. I certainly miss him.
Write-in votes are simply wasteful. It would be better to just not vote. This column certainly woke up the troops, unfortunately most of them just don't get it.

As Forrest Gump put it: "Stupid is as stupid does."
Hill fills the bill for me.

[Bradley Dranka]

The following may sound like a lesson from Civics 101, but please bear with me because there is a most important truth here...

When we elect a president, we are actually delegating authority.

The 300+ million Americans own this country, but our 300+ million cannot actually govern it, so we delegate our authority to govern it by electing a president.

The first consideration is trust: One needs to trust someone in order to delegate their authority--because the person with authority needs to believe that the job will get done by the person the delegate their authority to.

The oath of office of the president is:

"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The first part of the oath relates to performing the job. The second part relates to upholding the Constitution.

Now consider this: Who has, over their career, demonstrated the temperament, communications skills, and past working traits that are closest in their consistency with what we as a people define as befitting the office and position of President of the United States?

When one frames the question of who should be President this way, I believe the majority of Americans are smart enough to understand, in their hearts and heads, who that is.

I think the majority of Americans, the ones who keep this nation great, are NOT "stupid" and will be SMART about this pivotal point in our history.

[Bradley Dranka]

As a post script to the above:

To execute the office of President DOES NOT mean to KILL IT!

[Bradley Dranka]

As far as all of those wishing to get into the 2000 election, I think that, when you look at the national treasure expended on wars to keep America's place at the oil wells secure, we got what we deserved: A congenial fellow who drank a good portion of his brain cells dead (listen to his speech patterns because he sounds like he's missing some), was a puppet to the hands (of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Libby) that were up his heinie controlling him, and we got stuck with the cost in both debt, bodies, and Al Qaida's good will.

We got what we paid for, and because we didn't pay attention, we got a big bill!

Don McLean said it best, "They did not listen, they're not listening still, perhaps they never will."

But maybe they are listening to the volume of each of the candidates.

There's a clear and noticeable difference!

[INPHX]

Brad:

Love "Vincent". Still, my favorite tune of that albumn was "Empty Chairs", which didn't get near the airplay of the other hits.

And I wonder if you know
That I never understood
That although you said you'd go
Until you did, I never thought you would

I believe HRC was for the Iraq war whereas Trump wasn't.

There is a clear and noticeable difference, at least on that.

[B. Franklin]

Here we go again.

From The Atlantic:

"Trump. Is. Lying. About. Having. Publicly. Opposed. The. Iraq. War."

Oh, I know. The Atlantic is just chock full of those crazy leftists. Bomb throwing Marxists all of them! Just like the Washington Post and The New York Times. America haters one and all.

We should all get our news from Fox, Breibart, and the Wall Street Journal. Oh, and from the voices in our head, too. They're never wrong.

But, and I'm sure this will come as a shock to some, just because Trump says something is true doesn't mean it is true.

Any Trump opposition was a posteriori. At best, he didn't agree with the way the war was being waged, and not with the war itself.

And then, of course, it became convenient to say that you'd always been against the Iraq war. That you were prescient in that way.

[Cal Lash]

B on Iraq
I AGREE with your assement of Trump.
But Iraq was another of Hillary's big mistakes. Or maybe it was not a mistake as she is a Neocon Hawk and her kids Wall street assets make big bucks on war.

[B. Franklin]

Cal, the Military Industrial Complex has had us all by the balls since the 1950's.

We've reached the point where any defense contractor worth his salt can steal more in a good day's work than all the welfare fraud ever committed.

Eisenhower warned us about it 56 years ago, but only after standing by as it grew stronger and stronger throughout his Presidency.

What would happen, at this late date, to any President that tried too hard to dismantle it and its CIA cohort?

I have my suspicions.

As for Clinton's "yes" vote, a more charitable view would chalk that up to a freshman Senator, beholding to the Israel Lobby, too trusting of the cooked intel, caught up in the post 9-11 hysteria, and erring on the side of caution. Still, it was a mistake that others did not make.

However, the quickest way for Clinton to be a one term President would be to get us into another war.

[cal lash]

Clinton kills female environmentalist in her right wing agenda to bring democracy to South America???
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled

Clinton and her noecon far right agenda,
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
and
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hillary_clinton_is_lying_about_the_criminal_u_s_backed_coup_in_honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/

[cal lash]

B,
the CIA, NSA, DEA and Neocon briefings given to Obama in his first weeks in office demonstrated their strength.
Drone on.

[Hillary for President]

Hillary will be a one term president if at all.

Sorry no charity for supporting the criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Any baby foreign service officer would recognize the outrageous lies the US government fed the public to back the invasion.

Your charitable spin for Hillary in supporting the Iraq evasion smacks of Fox News quality content.
Hillary needs to own it without varnish.

[B. Franklin]

"Any baby foreign service officer"?

Really?

I don't recall any organized State Department opposition to the war.

You mean the Brits? No, they went along, too.

The Iraq war was the Bush administration's doing(not the junior Senator from New York's).

It was then and it still is today.

They lied about everything. Some people believed their lies. Some didn't.

And some of the ones who didn't went along with it anyway for political expediency. As I recall, if you didn't get with the program you were likely to be called a "traitor" or worse.

Regarding Clinton, this is what she had to say, "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

I'm not sure how else she can "own" it.

Christ, you've got me defending a person I don't really like.

But if she isn't at least a one term president, we will have problems that make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

[Ruben Perez]

Has anyone else noticed that Trump selected a VP who is a slap in the face of his true believers.

Has anyone else noticed that Clinton selected a VP who is a slap in the face of her true believers.

That's the puppet masters at work, for those of you rubes out there who still think we have a say in our government.

[B. Franklin]

More or less completely off topic, but the latest issue of The New Yorker has an article entitled "Can Latinos Swing Arizona?"

Its subtitle is "fighting to vote in the Mississippi of the West."

Boy, you just can't put a price tag on advertising like that...

Your move, Chamber of Commerce!

[Bradley Dranka]

IN PHX: I believe Hillary has publicly stated that voting to go into Iraq was her greatest regret.

However, you say nothing about Trump's about my assertion about the volume of each of the candidates--or about the puppet W was for his supposed subordinates because he drank dead the brain cells necessary to make decisions. Instead the neocon hawks ran the show.

What's your take on these points I raise--And the insinuations I've made about Trump being too volatile for an office where deliberation and reasoned consideration are job requirements?

Something that happened some time ago, for which the person publicly regrets, does not carry near the weight as one's conduct in the present--especially when that conduct is juvenile, boorish, inconsiderate, mocking, and altogether UNSTATESMANLIKE.