Lord, just when we’re convinced that only Republicans make stupid and embarrassing mistakes that could cost their candidate the election, Hillary Clinton goes and does something enormously stupid. It confirms my view that she prizes loyalty above propriety, and her latest shenanigans will make me hold my nose even harder when I’m forced to vote for her in November.
Most of you probably know the backstory: WikiLeaks revealed a bunch of emails circulated by Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff. They show that the DNC, which is supposed to remain neutral about Democratic candidates until after one is finally nominated, was, behind the scenes, working hard to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. That’s a no-no. Even worse for us atheists and secular Jews, some of the emails suggested that the DNC should somehow emphasize that Sanders had a Jewish background and might even have been—horrors!—an atheist. That, they said, could hurt Sanders, especially in the South. The suggestion that my own partyfor I’ve been a registered Democratic my whole adult life—would denigrate a candidate by associating him with either Judaism or atheism (or in fact any religion or form of nonbelief), is deeply offensive.
When this information came out—and there’s no suggestion that Clinton was involved in any of this—the chairman of the DNC, Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, fell on her sword, announcing yesterday that she’s resigning that position. That’s as it should be, for she’s ultimately responsible for these biased shenanigans. But Schultz didn’t want to resign, and, as the Washington Post reports, she stepped aside only after Barack Obama phoned her.
Then Hillary pulled a bonehead move: she hired Wasserman Schultz as her “honorary campaign chair”. As Fortune reported:
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee says she looks forward to campaigning with Wasserman Schultz in Florida “and helping her re-election bid.” Clinton responded after Wasserman Schultz agreed to step down as chair at the end of this week’s Democratic National Convention.
We already know that many Sanders supporters feel poorly treated because Clinton’s vice-presidential pick is not a supporter of Sanders’s progressivism, and now it’s gotten worse. Sanders was gracious enough to give Clinton a strong endorsement, and then she takes aboard someone who bears responsibility for favoring Clinton over Sander when she was supposed to be neutral. It doesn’t look good: it looks like a reward for undercutting Sanders before the nomination (which, by the way, hasn’t formally occurred). Needing the support of Sanders supporters, Clinton also made a tactical error.
I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, and will vote for her mainly to avoid the much worse alternative of having Donald Trump as President. But this latest stupid move just confirms Clinton’s “screw you” attitude towards the many of us who would have preferred Sanders as the nominee.
Hillary’s statement:
The hiring of DWS by HRC certainly looks like a political payoff. As such, it at the very least adds credence to the reasonable assumption that HRC was well aware of the shenanigans at the DNC during the primaries.
Whatever happened to the concept of the appearance of impropriety?
The existence of shenanigans has not been established. The emails exchange was merely a suggestion by some functionary that was not acted on, and the idea was apparently quashed by D. W-S herself. On top of that, the email suggestions were apparently all dated after Bernie had been mathematically eliminated. Bernie has conceded that he lost fair and square, and is actively working to elect Clinton, and his followers need to get on board ASAP.
This seems to be a classic non-scandal to be added to the list of imaginary scandals blown up by the right wing and injected into the main stream media. Notice that this is one of Trump’s talking points this week? — trying to discourage Sanders supporters from getting behind Clinton.
I think this response is “Hillary-washing” It was obvious from the beginning of the campaign that DWS and the DNC were actively trying to sideline Sanders, including trying not to share info with him, trying to set the primary debates for obscure times, etc. And Hillary was an accomplice.
From the beginning Sanders’ campaign relied entirely for its fund raising and organization on the database provided to him by the Democratic Party. No database, no Sanders campaign. Remember when Sanders people raided data from the Clinton campaign and Sanders howled that two days without data access cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars? can any anyone locate a place where Sanders says “Thank you?”
“It was obvious …” – please support this, as well as the comment about debate times. Achrachno’s comment seems spot on to me.
DWS resigned because the evidence against her was doubtful? Pull the other one.
“It was obvious …” – please support this, as well as the comment about debate times. Achrachno’s comment seems spot on to me. And now we have Sanders supporters yelling “rock her up.”
Does anyone doubt that the debate times were deliberately scheduled for off-hours or weekends, and were fewer than normal (only half as many as the Republican debates this season)?
Thank you for pointing out exactly what I’ve read in all the stories: nothing happened, and DWS was not mentioned in any of those emails, which seem to have been written by mid-level people who never got to do anything about their bad ideas.
Let me also point out that DWS has been under attack for I’m not sure what over the past several years. While I don’t normally regard misogyny as an answer to everything, I do wonder about it. A lot nowadays. And DWS is Jewish and not conventionally pretty.
More sinister, to me, is the willingness/eagerness of people otherwise smart enough to read the news for facts but who don’t, who jump on the “scandal” bandwagon and misstate what has actually happened, or hasn’t happened.
I’m used to seeing stuff from ignoramuses who generally support Trump, but ignorant comments from Sanders supporters shock me.
With all the gobbledegook, with all the vast obscene money Citizens United unleashed into our political campaigns, I keep thinking: yeah, but each I vote. That is, nobody has to believe the ads, the banner headlines, the inflammatory language used by journalists whose TV scripts seem to require a “devastating scandal” every day.
Get the FACTS about candidates, stop smelling the odors, figure out who best represents your values, understand that no politician will perfectly mirror your values–we can only vote for people who run, who want to be in government and will do the hard and certainly disgusting work it takes to be in a campaign–and…VOTE.
And everyone should remember that the only votes that could be suppressed in this election are those of minority voters unlucky enough to live in deep red states with unconstitutional voter ID laws.
That is the biggest scandal of this election. Do remember those who are prevented from voting when you fill in those little ovoids on the ballot sheets.
Thanks for this clarification.
I’m with her,
Yes, I’m with Jill Stein.
Not Crooked Hillary. This is the one statement tRump made that I agree with.
Talk to Caesar’s wife; Bubba’s ain’t listening.
I see what’s in the emails as just human nature. A guy over many years steadfastly refuses to be a part of an organization. Then at the 11th hour he joins and tries to catapult to the head of the organization. People in the organization shouldn’t resent that?
Who cares? Their duty is to impartially run the process, not act on their personal peeves.
really? you new to this politics thing, are ya?
I’m old at “this politics thing”. “This politics thing” relies on candidates competing in fair elections. When parties undermine one of the candidates they undermine confidence in the system.
One of the biggest problems we have here in the US is a shortage of confidence in the political process. DWS did her part to lower it further. It does not serve the Democratic Party, let alone the USA in general, to behave thus.
She and the DNC were manipulative from the very beginning of the campaign, even more than the Republican party this time around.
Evidence? And – really – more than the RNC??
I’m no Schultz fan but I don’t think your statement is based in reality.
The DNC is not a private club. Or shouldn’t be.
Does providing Senate and House votes and participating in the fundraising for the organization count as “steadfastly refuses to be a part of an organization”?
Then, let them discuss him as you do, without reference to his Jewishness and his atheism.
This reminds me of Caitlyn Jenner. As soon as she announced her support for the Republican party, the same people who had praised her to the skies started tweeting how you cannot trust those who do not know themselves of which sex they are.
That’s fine, but have the gonads to oppose him in public; don’t subvert the system surreptitiously.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the DNC bias occurred with tacit approval (maybe encouragement) from Clinton. DWS served Clinton well, and she’ll return the favor. To call it stupid is to miss the political calculation in it.
Terrible move. So many have been fond of saying that Trump doesn’t really want the presidency. But after a move like this, one has to wonder whether it’s Hillary who doesn’t really want it. Yes, I’ll be holding my nose too.
I agree with Professor Coyne’s analysis. I don’t think Hillary realizes how upset those on the left in the party (note: mainstream left, NOT regressive left) are upset with the corporate domination of American life. She has been much too cozy with the corporate interests. A large part of the party’s base are the people who supported Bernie Sanders. Some pundits, including Robert Reich, think Hillary made a mistake in nominating Tim Kaine, a centrist, for Vice President. He feels that a more progressive Democrat would have served the ticket better.
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/25/hillary_doesnt_get_it_she_doesnt_need_to_move_toward_the_middle_she_needs_to_move_toward_the_anti_establishment_partner/
Another major concern for me is that the Democratic “bench” is so weak. Where are the rising young stars? This situation doesn’t bode well for the future.
With all this being said, still nothing is more important than the defeat of Donald Trump. Hillary may not be great, but she does not threaten the end of democracy and the jeopardizing of our foreign relations. It is better to have a corporatist in the White House, who at least won’t make the economy any worse and will make future Supreme Court choices than a narcissist and a proto-fascist whose vice-presidential nominee is an extreme right winger. I am going to vote for the not-so-great as opposed to perhaps the most dangerous person ever nominated for president by a major party. Perhaps in 2020 the choices will be better.
Regarding rising young stars, I think Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor of California is one. I agree, there aren’t many, but they are out there.
I’ll be voting for a third party candidate. If a candidate makes me want to hold my nose in order to vote for him/her, I look for someone that won’t make me gag for four years.
During the election cycle we always state that we need a viable third party so we have more/better choices. The only way to make that happen is if we VOTE for a third party and MAKE it viable.
Good luck finding a candidate with no negatives. The Green Party platform is anti-GMO and pro-“alternative” medicine. Their candidate, despite possessing an MD, refusing to take a clear position in opposition to that.
Have you googled Gary Johnson, you’ll like about 50% of what he has to say cause the rest is nuts
Did you see the interview he did with Samantha Bee? The guy is completely unfit for the presidency.
No way could I vote for Gary Johnson either.
Gary Johnson, a self-declared “libertarian,” will be supported by the Kochs, who virtually invented “libertarianism.”
Our choices seem to be:
Theocratic republicans
Corporate democrats
Hippy flake greens
Selfish prick libertarians
On paper, I should be a green party voter but their stance on so many issues seems to based on emotion or conspiracy theories rather than evidence.
We need a fifth party.
I agree that the Green Party has an odd stance on some issues, but a president does not run the government as we once thought. So I’m not too concerned over some of the stances of Jill Stein. My main concern is that we continue to elect presidents who are indebted (aka employed by) to the oligarchy.
Agreed. Dare to dream….
Thank goodness you’re not stereotyping. 🙂
When you vote third party, the point is to send a message to the party that could have otherwise hoped for that vote. (Or both parties, in the Libertarian case.) The message is “move in this direction”. And basically nobody votes on GMO issues, so that isn’t a meaningful part of “this direction”.
Problem is, there’re only two people on the ballot with a shot at taking the oath of office next January, so the choice is binary — Clinton or Trump. If you don’t vote for one, you’ve cast half a ballot for the other.
I’ve got no objection to voting for a third (or fourth, or fifth, or whatever number) party strategically. Someone’s enthralled with Gary Johnson and wants to lift the Libertarian Party to the magic number needed to get federal matching funds, or an invitation to the debates, in the next election? So be it. It’s a pure protest vote to avoid a gag-reflex, I can’t abide.
So, Irena, I beseech you, join those of us pinching la nez and casting our ballots for Hillary. Pretty please, do it for the kids.
Strategic voting may be important in swing states, those of us in California are free to vote for the least stinky candidate because all California’s electoral votes will go for HRC. If the LP or GP get enough of the votes, then perhaps they will get debate time on national TV next cycle. They do deserve more visibility.
I was too young to vote for John Kennedy. There were no candidates I was excited to vote for until Barack Obama. I have, nevertheless, voted in every election because I believed the democratic approach to leading the country preferable to the republican. And, as we’ve seen many, many times, the president is not the sole determiner of what gets done (and how) in our country. That is why, in the last 40+ years, so much republican money has gone into local, city, state, national elections, support of gerrymandering and other methods of restricting the vote. I hope that all of us holding our noses will vote against Trump.
As a dewy, new 19-year-old voter, I had the thrill of voting against Dick Nixon.
I expect to experience a similar frisson in the voting booth this Fall when pulling the lever against Trump.
All the more reason to vote for her Democratic primary opponent, Tim Canova, on August 30th in the Broward and Miami Dade Florida Primary.
It is clear to me that Hillary wants moderate republican votes more than she wants mine. I don’t want to vote for her so the feeling is mutual. I will definitely be voting on the down-ballot races but I’m not yet sure if I’ll cast a vote for president.
I agree.
Unless you think Trump is equally bad, I don’t understand not voting for Hillary. Maybe you do think they are equally bad, but if not, why wouldn’t you what you can to prevent the worst outcome?
If a man with a gun says to you, “I’m going to shoot you, either in the face or in the foot, you decide.” Does it make sense to say, “I don’t want to be shot in either of those places, really, so I won’t pick one. I’ll just leave the outcome to chance?”
If the voting process can be compared to a choice between a fatal or nonfatal gunshot wound, why would I participate?
You’re going to get shot whether or not you participate. You might as well choose where you get shot.
As much as it dismays me that this conversation centers on my hypothetical murder/attempted murder, I’ll keep going.
The problem is that the analogy assumes I have way more choice in the matter than I actually do. I do not get to decide who the president is so I could chose “foot” and still get my brains blown out. It also assumes that all outcomes are negative. Perhaps the tragic shooting of Alpha Neil would serve as a catalyst for the enactment of tougher gun control laws that save many lives. Bad for me, good for everyone else.
Well, then, let me invoke a different analogy.
I am sometimes asked, when I check out at a grocery store or pharmacy, if I’d like to donate a couple of dollars to cancer research. I always do. Taken by itself, my two dollars isn’t going to effect any kind of result, in precisely the same way that your one vote by itself doesn’t “give you a choice” about the election result. What if everyone thought they should abstain from donating because their individual donation won’t have an effect by itself? Thank goodness people understand that it’s the accumulation of individual donations that matters. That is why everyone needs to participate.
How’s that for principle?
I like that analogy better and not just because I don’t die at the end. I’m too cynical to just hand over money or votes to whoever asks for them. I donate to charities but never do so when asked at a checkout line. I don’t like feeling coerced and this election has me feeling pressured to vote a certain way so I’m pushing back. In this way, your analogy works perfectly.
I understand. It’s voting strategically. Most of where Hillary has shined in the primary (the South), she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning in the general. (Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho… etc.)
Since presidents are elected by electoral votes, it matters not one whit if a resident in those places votes, say, Green. Meanwhile, thresholds based on popular vote need to be crossed (5%, 15%…) to qualify third parties for matching funds, and to be taken seriously on state ballots in future elections.
If Ralph wasn’t such a goddamned dingbat in 2000, he would’ve recognized the “Nader Trader” movement and actively promoted it — where people in different states would get together to vote strategically… trading each others’ votes to push for Dem wins in swing states & letting more people vote their conscience. Instead he poo-pooed the idea openly, saying he was in it for the win. Several swing states went under, and Floriduh ended up close enough for Bush to steal it.
Here we are two presidents later, and the system seems to have gotten shittier and more expensive, with no end in sight.
I think Hillary has a real chance of winning the south. If all minority voters and most white women vote for her, it may win her those states. A lot of republican women will not vote for Trump.
It sure doesn’t look too rosy, if recent history is any indicator. (note the results of the previous two elections, when Obama was the candidate). http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
Obama wasn’t running against Trump.
Tis true. In any event, I take back a red Louisiana, but think the others in my list will still go red. Time will tell.
Go easy on Ralph, Stephen. It’s estimated that there are 4 million Americans alive today because they didn’t die in accidents prevented by the reforms Ralph and his raiders crammed past the auto industry. And that’s just one of the worthy causes Ralph has championed (pretty much selflessly).
I gave Ralph a few bucks back in 2000 (damn few, probably in the mid-to-high two-figures; no Diamond Jim Brady, me 🙂 ) so he could air the issues Gore refused to during his campaign. I nonetheless voted for Al — thank my (ineffectual) stars, since my (non-existent) soul would have otherwise suffered in eternal torment, inasmuch as I vote in Florida.
A lot of us are still sore over how Ralph handled the endgame in that election. But it doesn’t change the fact that the man is a legitimate American hero.
I agree, Ken. And I do remember all his good work (even abused myself doing door-to-door canvassing for Public Citizen in a rather difficult Arvada neighborhood). It was only that end game of his that ticked me off. I voted for him in 2000, but only as the arithmetic allowed it, given what I was seeing from here (as things got down to the wire).
We say the SAME DAMN THING in nearly every election. Both parties present us with assholes and we choose the lesser asshole. But the parties will never stop presenting us with assholes unless we stop playing their game. We don’t have to get shot in the face or the foot. We can choose who to play with, we can choose to play with someone who won’t shoot us. Alright, maybe that guy or gal won’t win this time. But sooner or later, if enough people start voting for real leaders rather than for the assholes presented to us by the two oligarchic parties, the system will fix itself. If we just play the parties’ game, we will always lose.
But a withheld vote is a vote for Trump. That, is seems to me is a little too “principled”.
In the long run, it would be a vote for a more radical Democratic party.
I’m not sure we’d have a “long run”.
Gee, how did that work out in 2000? It led to Alito and Roberts on the SCOTUS. If one lives in a deep red state like Utah or or deep blue state like Massachusetts, a vote for Johnson or Kline is OK. On the other hand, a vote for one of these two in a purple state like Virginia is a vote for the appointment of someone like Janice Rogers Brown on the SCOTUS. But of course, the Bernie Bros couldn’t care less.
http://www.pfaw.org/issues/fair-and-just-courts/janice-rogers-brown
Maybe we need to take a longer perspective. If we keep settling for what the two parties force upon us, things will never change. The only way to push the Democrats to change is to make them understand that we are not their captive rubber-stamp supporters. I realize that this comes with major risks. But how else are we going to get out of this trap?
The risks are so large, no reasonable person would shrug them off. 3 Supreme Court nominations, chance of a carbon tax to control global warming, Row vs Wade. With republicans holding all three houses of government…sheesh! I beseech you man. The stakes are too damn high. The way I see it, politics is ultimately pragmatic, not Utopian. Hold your nose if you must, but vote for Hillary.
But electing Nixon in 1968 and Dubya in 2000 didn’t get us out of the trap.
Ah shucks, Stein, not Kline.
My greatest fear is not about this election. I’m more concerned that Democratic Party establishment fails to understand the deep nature of distrust towards ruling elites. When a slightly less ridiculous fascist than Donald Trump comes along we’ll lose the democracy.
No need to wait — there’s a decent chance we’ll elect a quite ridiculous fascist this year. People seem pretty good at avoiding the “pretty good” in hopes of getting the perfect.
What is an Honorary Chairman? What are her responsibilties? How much does she get paid for her role?
I only no longer surprised by anything in the American politainment industry, but I do worry about the consequences.
I don’t like tribalism. I will vote for none of the above.
The American political machine has always been a shambles. I can’t think of any consequence more horrendous than sending a million young men to Vietnam — something I participated in.
Trump is making isolationist noises. This is a good time in world history not to interfere with the messes in other countries.
I don’t really believe Trump, and I will not vote for him, but I approve of this as a campaign policy. It might someday be a policy.
I’m not certain “bomb[ing] the shit out of ’em” can be considered isolationist.
Also, “you gotta go after their families.”
Trump is a “Fortress America” nationalist (to the extent he can be deemed to have any foreign-policy philosophy at all). He expressly eschews “nation building” (as if he knows what that phrase connotes) and wishes to disengage from foreign entanglements, yet wants to vastly increase military spending and bomb the shit out of anyone who gives America guff.
He is flat-out the most dangerous, foolish, embarrassing candidate ever to capture a major-party nomination in our nation’s 240-year history.
Roosevelt wanted to be isolationist and Pearl Harbor followed, G. W. Bush wanted to be isolationist and Sept. 11 followed. If I were an American, I’d be on high alert every time when a wannabe isolationist is elected. I even asked US commenters here whether there is a tendency for isolationist politicians to be harmful; the reply was in the line, “good subject for a PhD thesis”.
“Roosevelt wanted to be isolationist and Pearl Harbor followed”
No. FDR was not an isolationist at all.
You are completely wrong to say that FDR was an isolationist. In the United States during the 1930s there was a very strong isolationist element. The famed aviator Charles Lindbergh was perhaps the most prominent isolationist and a leader in the America First movement. Roosevelt opposed isolationism and believed that America needed to be involved internationally. Once World War II broke out, he took active measures to aide Britain, short of entering the county into the conflict. Once Pearl Harbor was bombed, he immediately called for a declaration of war against Japan.
This article discusses the isolationist movement in the 1930s and up to Pearl Harbor. This was a movement Roosevelt utterly opposed.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/the-debate-behind-us-intervention-in-world-war-ii/277572/
So Roosevelt proposed isolationists to be called “shrimps” in private and public, but apparently never did it in public :-).
Well, let me correct my position and statement:
When isolationism is strong in US public opinion and reflected in politics, expect attacks on US soil.
The American isolationists in the run-up to the Second World War were the Sen.-Robert-A.-Taft-wing of the Republican party and the “America First” (sound familiar?) demagogues like radio-host Father Edward Coughlin (among others, like Charles Lindberg, as Historian notes).
Franklin Roosevelt was an internationalist who new the US was destined to join the war in Europe, but knew as well that the nation had to be nudged to it.
new=knew
I do not deny that other US politicians were more isolationist than Roosevelt. Nevertheless…
“The main foreign policy initiative of Roosevelt’s first term was the Good Neighbor Policy, which was a re-evaluation of U.S. policy towards Latin America. Since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, this area had been seen as an American sphere of influence. American forces were withdrawn from Haiti, and new treaties with Cuba and Panama ended their status as U.S. protectorates. In December 1933, Roosevelt signed the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, renouncing the right to intervene unilaterally in the affairs of Latin American countries… Congress passed, and the president signed, a mandatory arms embargo at a time when dictators in Europe and Asia were girding for world war… At the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938 — with the U.S. not represented — Roosevelt said the country would not join a “stop-Hitler bloc” under any circumstances. He made it quite clear that, in the event of German aggression against Czechoslovakia, the U.S. would remain neutral… In 1917, United States declared war on Germany; in 1941, Roosevelt waited until the enemy attacked at Pearl Harbor.”
(Source: Wikipedia)
The trust of Roosevelt in Stalin, to me, is most easily explained as a mistake of a president who has never expected to be involved in global politics in the first place.
Do you really think that Roosevelt could or should of declared war on Germany unilaterally? Until Pearl Harbor the American public was not ready to go to war. Traditionally, Americans need to believe that they’ve been attacked before going to war. Presidents have to cite an incident to get the public and Congress to support a war. Here are some examples. Keep in mind that some of these “incidents” were manufactured to get the country into war.
1917 – Wilson uses Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare as the reason to ask for a declaration of war.
1941 – Pearl Harbor
1964 – Lyndon Johnson uses the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident to radically escalate American intervention in Vietnam.
2003 – George W. Bush cites the fictitious threat of weapons of mass destruction to invade Iraq.
Yes, in the 1940 election Roosevelt promised to keep the country out of foreign war. He may have been duplicitous here, but as a politician running for office, what else could he have said? In reality, Roosevelt was preparing for war before and after this election. He probably knew that American involvement in the war was highly likely and that entering it was necessary for the country’s security. This attitude was in contrast to the isolationists who viewed the European conflict as none of America’s business.
As FDR said at Chautauqua in ’36: “I hate war.”
Just ’cause you hate war, don’t mean war ain’t comin’ for you.
My (lay) opinion was partly formed in opposition to conspiracy theorists claiming that Roosevelt was a hawk who engineered Pearl Harbor to drag the USA into the war, and partly to the bitter tales of Europeans fleeing or resisting Hitler in 1939-41. I admit I may have considered Roosevelt more isolationist than he was. Of course, a democratic statesman should not disregard the assembly of representatives and the public opinion. (It is another thing whether he could or not; Islam has been pushed down the throats of people in supposedly democratic countries for decades.)
I didn’t formulate my statement well from the beginning. I tried to correct myself.
“Traditionally, Americans need to believe that they’ve been attacked before going to war.”
I know this from other sources as well. Unfortunately, it means that when the US elite thinks a war is necessary, it will be inclined to lie to the public, as in some examples you cited.
It’s a phony rightwing shibboleth that Stalin duped Roosevelt out of Eastern Europe at Yalta.
Stalin’s conquest of Eastern Europe was a fait accompli at that point, owing to the 25 million Soviet lives sacrificed in its brutal war for survival. Roosevelt simply acknowledged that reality at Yalta.
I do not mean the territorial distribution in Yalta, but the forcible repatriation of Soviet refugees, the general attitude of Roosevelt and his alleged deathbed confession: “Joe lied to me!”
From the CIA site:
“Contrary to Davies, Bullitt never missed an opportunity to warn FDR of Stalin’s treachery. In a typical exchange, Roosevelt responded:
“Bill, I don’t dispute your facts; they are accurate. I don’t dispute the logic of your reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he’s not and that he doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.””
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol47no1/article02.html
The war of Stalin in Eastern Europe was not for survival but for domination. My country had been an ally of Nazi Germany, but never declared war to the Soviet Union or committed any hostile act. It had just left the Nazis when Stalin sent a group of armies, the 3rd Ukrainian Front, to occupy Bulgaria and make it communist by installing our local communist thugs in power. This of course slowed the advance of the 3rd Ukrainian Front to Germany.
I would point out to you that the former Soviet Union came very close to losing in 1941. It was bailed out by a number of tactical and strategic mistakes made by Hitler in the years leading up to the war. In particular, attacking the former Soviet Union in June of 1941 without having driven Great Britain out of the war was a mistake of monumental proportions. The side shows in North Africa, Greece, Yugoslavia and Crete drew a number of German divisions away from the main event in the former Soviet Union, not to mention the aircraft and pilots lost in the Battle of Britain in 1940. Had Hitler built 40 or 50 ocean going Uboats instead of the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz, which contributed nothing to the German war effort, he could have starved Britain out of the war in 1940 before the latter could build up their anti-submarine defenses.
Excuse me, there is not a jot or a tittle of evidence that either Ms. Shultz or Ms. Clinton had anything to do with this or even knew about it. It should also be pointed out that nothing came of this suggestion and no action was taken.
As a matter of fact, many news sources are reporting that the hacking was done by Russians and that the Donald’s pal Vladimir Putin was behind it.
It looks to me like this is a tempest in a teapot; it does give the Bernie Bros an excuse to do their part to put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse, just as their counterparts put Dubya in the White House in 2000 and Richard Nixon in the White House in 1968 (I confess to being one of them in 1968).
“bernie bros”? It would violate da roolz for me to tell you to kiss my ass so I won’t do that.
Just for your information, I voted for Bernie in the Virginia Primary.
Bernie supporters now shouting “lock her up” at the convention. I think it’s perfectly fair to label them “Bernie Bros.” Maybe not representative of all Sanders supporters, but I’d appreciate having that confirmed by you.
You’re doing your candidate no favors, colnago80 — blinking at the rank DNC favoritism, but biting on the Trump-Putin bromance intrigue. (From what I understand, there’s an indication that the DNC emails were hacked by Russians; there’s no evidence yet that this hacking was done at Putin’s behest to boost the prospects of his comrade the Donald).
It’s time to get off the “Bernie bro” BS, and to get with the party-unity script.
Today, Bernie addressed the convention and was roundly booed by his delegates in the audience when he called for them to back Ms. Clinton. I will stop attacking the Bernie Bros when they stop being Bernie Bros, i.e. Bernie or bust.
Sam Harris often talks about what he calls “the narrative narrative.” It is the idea that if western politicians and news media identify Muslim terrorism as “Muslim terrorism,” rather than just terrorism or extremism, it will drive millions of otherwise peaceful Muslims into the hands of the extremists. We must not use the word “Muslim” or “Islam” so as to not alienate the majority of Muslims who are peaceful now, but could be driven to hatred and violence if we say the wrong things. Sam’s point is that this is either crazy/stupid or terrifying. Left unsaid is the conclusion that it is crazy/stupid because obviously normal, peaceful people do not suddenly become bloodthirsty lunatics based on a politician’s or reporter’s choice of words. I tend to agree with him, but the rhetoric and behavior of some Bernie supporters has me questioning this. If people who are members of the Democratic party and who supported Bernie Sanders for president are willing to vote for Trump just out of spite, then there may be something to the narrative narrative.
DWS is actually the originator of some of the emails
Citation needed.
I was a Bernie supporter from the get-go. My feelings about HRC are ambivalent, at best (though, given the hot mess that is her Republican opponent, I’ll be working for her in the Fall).
There’s no doubt Wasserman Schultz had to go. But now that she has, I can’t say it bothers me to see Hillary bring her on board. It’s actually kind of refreshing for once to see a Clinton making a move knowing it comes at a political price. Plus, it comports with my old family-and-neighborhood values: never leave your wounded in the battlefield, whatever the cost.
Sorry days for the Democratic party and Hilary is so very uninspiring … but the main thing is please can Trump Not get elected President!
I hope wilileaks releases another batch before the convention and Queen Hillary has to step down. You can bet she knew what was going on at the DNC with the emails. She does not stand a very good chance against even Dumb Donald. Bernie is the only canidate that could win a landslide victory against him. Wake up democrats!
Have you just put a pox on Hillary?
How about providing some evidence that she was aware of the emails.
You mean like the “evidence” you provided above to demonstrate that Putin engaged in email machinations to assist Comrade Donald? 🙂
All depends on whose Gore-like candidate is getting oxed, huh?
At this point in time, there appears to be a considerable body of evidence that the hacking was done by Russians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-emails.html
I stated that in response to your comment at #13. It’s your suggestion that the hacking was done at Putin’s behest for the benefit of his buddy Donald that is as yet un-evidenced — unless you’ve got something to back that up.
Oh come on, don’t be naive. Who do you think calls the shots in Russia these days?
And, I think, Sylvia (whose comment you responded to above) would say to you: “Oh, come on, don’t be naïve. Who do you think knew exactly what Debbie Wasserman’s DNC was up to?”
What you have in common is that neither of you have anything in the way of evidence to support your contentions.
Anyway, it’s a long way from saying that Putin knew, to implying (as you did) that Putin did it for the purpose of helping his buddy Donald.
Some of the statements by her attorney are problematic at best.
You forgot to call democrats “sheeple.”
And Trump gets a little bit closer to the most powerful position in the world.
I keep saying this: people on the left need to join the Democratic party, show up for meetings and clean house.
This is the only way to fix the party. People can complain all they like, that will never change things. They have to spend an hour or two a month at a meeting, get as many like minded people to join and show up, and directly influence the party. Take it over. Otherwise it will stay in the shape it is in until it becomes a left leaning reflection of the Republican party.
I’m not even American and I feel betrayed by them. I’ve been telling people the DNC staff can’t be so stupid as to favour one candidate before the selection.
They not only can be, but are.
It’s even more disappointing to see Clinton do this. It looks like a payoff. It gives all the crazy Sanders supporters conspiracy theories legitimacy, or at least they appear much less crazy.
sub.
Michael Moore’s prediction that Trump will probably win seems, unfortunately, accurate. It comes down to Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which combined have 65 electoral votes. If Trump wins those four, he can take the election. He doesn’t even need Florida. And those states have suffered more economically than the rest of the country, and have elected republican governors.
Combined with the disaffection for Clinton that is evidenced even in this comment section, Trump’s victory seems probable.
I’ll be voting not so much for Clinton as for 80 years of progress, everything from Social Security to LGBTQ rights, that will likely be lost if Trump wins.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html
Is there a pattern here?
2012: Michael Moore tells us to get used to saying “President Romney”.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/08/31/michael-moore-predicts-president-romney-in-november/
Right now I think the most interesting question about this election is, “Will Hillary sweep all 50 states, or will Trump manage to grab Oklahoma?”
I think Hillary may get a clean sweep.
I do hope you are right. I’ve been telling everyone not to worry, it’ll end up alright.
I wouldn’t bet the house on that.
I agree. I think we’ll see a low turnout among minority voters in the inner cities (no minority candidates in the running). That, plus general disaffection in the north could mean those key states are taken.
Meanwhile, most of the really big primary wins Hillary had were in the South, where she doesn’t stand a chance in the general. I think it is a crapshoot, at this point.
In the gambling biz that’s known as a four-team parlay. A tough nut to crack, in any contest.
Jerry’s making book that Hillary will win, if you’re looking to get some action down on Trump.
Let’s recall what Stephen Fry says about offense : so f-ing what.
… I can almost put quotes around that but I’m busy.
I think “disgusted” or “outraged” would fit better.
“I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, and will vote for her mainly to avoid the much worse alternative of having Donald Trump as President.”
Tactical voting is as old as democracy. Donald Trump makes this so easy.
But in the US(A) you can win an election where 78% of the voters are against you, and worse, in 5% of the elections the loser of an election has become president:
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k”
Another example of the Democrats being their own worst enemy. Somehow they always find a way. Hilary taking on yet more baggage is just stupid. Instead of listening to the Bernie movement she is the old dog with no new tricks.
I find myself frustrated by this post.
I’m not sure I’ve sorted out all the reasons why, but I think it’s because it captures in micrososm so many of the narratives about Hillary in the past 20 years. One frustration is that, I agree that Clinton has a way of attaching the latest controversy stemming from political expediency to herself, building on the (apparently) widespread view of her as “dishonest.” “Not again, Hillary!” Then I remind myself that over time I have looked at what she has actually said and done, and delved more deeply into the alleged controversies (health care under Bill Clinton; emails; Bengazi; this; and, you’d think *she* was responsible for Bill’s infidelities). I honestly find it hard to find significant fault with her actions. (That includes the hiring of Schultz, and I disagree that it’s a “screw you” – the reasons require a longer discussion, but are readily found in a number of NYT and other articles.) Then the arc is complete when I remind myself of the 90%+ agreement I have with her actual policy achievements, not to mention her left-tilting policy goals that she has stated throughout the campaign. (How many people how dash off “dishonest” can list even three of them?)
I am glad Schultz is out, and that the DNC is cleaning house. But I also continue to endorse Hillary without reservation.
This move of Clinton make the impression complete that the whole system is rotten to the core. It also demonstrates that Clinton has no political instinct.
Voters expect a punitive measure when someone resigns over a scandal. Now it looks like a promotion. And “honorary campaign chair” sounds like a fantasy job created to complete a corrupt exchange of favours.
I’ve never seen it how such an disliked candidate can essentially rest on strategic votes, simply because the alternative is worse. You know you are in trouble when both candidates are big business corpocrats, while income equality is one of the biggest problems.
Sometimes a system needs to crash to make a reboot possible. And that will be the (only) silver lining of a Trumps presidency, which seems likely at this point. Over at Nate Silver’s FiveTiertyEight the chance of winning are:
42.5 Clinton
57.5 Trump
Have four years Trump, roll with the punches, then attempt a restart. And the Democrats are to blame for it alone. They didn’t want to go with the better candidate how showed how to win over masses, and who represented especially younger (i.e. future) voters. The Democrats threw it away in such an arrogant fashion and gave the strong impression that they bully people to vote for Clinton with emotional appeals and fearmongering. Britains know how well this strategy works.
I wouldn’t vote for Clinton and stay home, but I can afford this opinion, since I’m not American and don’t have to deal with the consequence.
Except that electing the Donald will almost certainly lead to at least 2 and possibly 4 SCOTUS appointments. Replace Ginsburg, Kennedy and possibly Breyer with three clones of Scalia/Alito/Thomas and expect to see Obergefell, and Roe overturned at the least. We have heard this song sung before, it was sung in 2000 when Dubya was elected and in 1968 when Nixon was elected. Both Dubya and Nixon won 2nd terms. No guarantee that the Donald would be any different.
Would be sad if something happened to SCOTUS. Essentially blackmail, and giving in to it.
The chances of winning you cite for each candidate are found only in 538’s “Now-cast” forecast — viz., the forecast that predicts what would happen if the election were held today (with Trump enjoying the usual, and usually short-lived, “bump” following a convention).
In the other two 538 forecasts, both of which aim to predict what will happen in November, Hillary remains in the lead (53% to 47% in one, 59% to 41% in the other).
N.B.: These forecasts relate to the odds of each candidate winning; they differ from polling, in that they are not statements of the percentage of voters supporting the candidates.
I don’t understand the comment, I gave the link and wrote “likely” and “chance of winning”.
Now, I’m a bit confused. What is it you don’t understand — my comment or the methodology used at Nate Silver’s 538 website (or, perhaps, both)?
“The suggestion that my own party for I’ve been a registered Democratic my whole adult life—would denigrate a candidate by associating him with either Judaism or atheism (or in fact any religion or form of nonbelief), is deeply offensive.”
I feel the same. It’s disturbing. I became aware of this yesterday due to Lawrence Krauss’ tweet, which I promptly RT’d:
http://twitter.com/LKrauss1/status/757307749302611968
It’s disappointing to me anyone in the DNC would promote this sort of intolerance and reinforce illiteracy for the sake of manipulating votes their way, and in such a revolting display of internecine undercutting. Of course, I know this is politics, and it is all about dirty persuasion, but I had thought the DNC was better than this. Truly.
But this is unconscionable behavior. It suggests the DNC cares more about its identity than about each other, reason and moral progress. The DNC should have been prizing and praising Bernie’s efforts, and integrating much of his vision. To disparage him for his ethnicity and putative secularism is reprehensible.
Except that no action was taken on this suggestion so there was no manipulation. This is typical, blaming Ms. Clinton for things she didn’t do.
As for praising Bernie, many of his ideas were included in the Democratic platform, despite Bernie including appointing Israel bashing gay basher Cornell West as one of his representatives on the platform committee. It is to be noted that Dr. West has now endorsed Jill Stein, noted vaccine critic and panderer to homeopathy proponents.
Words are actions.
But, you accuse me of blaming Clinton. I didn’t mention her even once in my response, neither was she mentioned in Krauss’ tweet nor the quote of Jerry’s I responded to.
As for West, Stein, and Bernie’s potential sympathy to the anti-vaccine agenda and homeopathic pseudoscience, that’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that before and would obviously need to read up on this. The aspects of Bernie’s platform that appeal to me are about the support for the working class. Unlike Jerry, I’ve been a Clinton supporter from day one, though, despite also disliking aspects of her ticket and record. (I will greatly miss Obama, who is a gem of a human being and wonderful leader–a hard act to follow on any account.)
But I reiterate that it is sad that the DNC wasn’t more integrated, and it is horrifying that the DNC fostered a culture in which Bernie’s ethnicity and secularism were toyed with as tools to undercut and win. Shameful.
Excuse me, in no way, shape, form, or regard did I mean to imply that Sanders or West had expressed any sympathy for either the anti-vaxers or the homeopathy proponents. Those accusations apply to Jill Stein.
See the attached link, especially the comments of David Gorski, who is a surgical oncologist and longtime critic of anti-vax rubbish on his ORAC blog.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/07/sorry-clinton-supporters-but-jill-stein-is-not-an-anti-vaccine-presidential-candidate/
I have not seen Stein be a vaccine critic, but rather offered a convoluted response that most of the nutbag wing of her base would not follow. She pandered, in other words, saying in effect that vaccine trial evaluations should be done by groups that were entirely impartial. So she evaded & pandered. Pretty standard fare for a politician.
There is another side to this: yes, there are Sanders supporters with hurt feelings. But HRC also has a constituency that likes DWS quite a bit, so she was between a rock and a hard place.
I don’t see the harm in an “honorary” position.
A ruthless opportunist versus an operational lunatic. As the lyrics gently remind us, “and these are the hands we’re given.”
To paraphrase Dubya’s Secretary of War (I know, I know), you go to election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you might wish to have.
Whether HRC and/or DW-S knew of the content of these emails, it’s sad that “our” party contains people who use such obscene tactics.
The “leader” falling on the sword because “the buck stops here” may be traditional, but if done in all cases when underlings behave inappropriately might lead to no leaders. Then, which of the underlings will lead?
I just wonder how much longer it will take for
certain individuals to learn that emails are not sacrosanct forms of communication. Especially given all the recent kerfuffle about HRCs supposed misuse of email as Secretary of State.
“It confirms my view that she prizes loyalty above propriety, and her latest shenanigans will make me hold my nose even harder when I’m forced to vote for her in November.”
As someone who highly prizes loyalty, this has caused me to respect her more than less. I think it gives lie to one of the most common argument against her, that her ambition trumps everything.
I take issue with one of your statements.
You do not HAVE to vote for her. I can guarantee your vote will NOT change the election. What you vote for has absolutely no effect on other people’s votes.
Vote for someone you can respect. It won’t change the outcome.
This is everything that is wrong with the elite not just in politics but in business too. Once you are in the club you can only fail upwards. DWS should have been fired and left to look for work lobbying in Tallahassee not because of these emails but because she sucked bad at her job.
During her tenure when she took over there she had 53 Senators, 193 Reps, 20 Governors, 16 state legislators 8 split. Now 44 Senators, 188 Reps, 18 Governors, 12 state legislators and 7 split.
She publically criticized Obama foreign policy while Chairperson. She has endorsed republicans for Congress. She has allowed herself to become an ongoing story to the point the president had to fire her.
This is to say nothing for her support of the pay day loan industry.
Normal people with this kind of record are unhireable.
For context, Obama had 35 “Campaign Co-Chairs”. I don’t know how that title stacks up to “Honorary Campaign Chair”. Anyway, Obama’s chairs included prominent Democratic operatives and politicians, but also people like:
Eva Longoria, Kalpen Modi (“Kumar” from the “Harold and Kumar” movies), a retired teacher, a high school counselor, a university student, someone simply described as “a volunteer”, and someone described as a “retiree”.
I don’t think Obama’s chairs are paid positions. And I honestly don’t think they are leadership positions either. This makes me wonder what an “Honorary Campaign Chair” gets. Quite possibly nothing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/obamas-campaign-co-chairs_n_1325035.html
I believe “honorary campaign chair” to be essentially a status sinecure, with little in the way of actually power or authority (or pay).
I don’t especially like Hillary, but there is nothing sinister about her appointment of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as “honorary chair” of the campaign. Hillary was desperate to ease DWS out of her job as head of the DNC. Wasserman-Schultz initially resisted the pressure, which in turn infuriated the left. It was clear that Hillary had to get rid of DWS, and just as clear that DWS would refuse any deal under which she had to accept blame. So, to salve her ego and let her save face, Hillary Hillary bestowed on DWS an utterly meaningless title, which DWS would receive after she stepped down. Just politics, reasonably well played.
I am supporting Hillary for one major reason, the future makeup of SCOTUS. Long after a president leaves office their SCOTUS picks live on deeply impacting our lives and rights. Look at the people Trump has promised to appoint to SCOTUS and compare his list to the people Hillary would appoint. This one issue alone should have every rational, caring, thoughtful American voting for Hillary.
The Bernie Bros are not rational, caring, thoughtful Americans. It’s their way or the highway.
“.. her latest shenanigans will make me hold my nose even harder when I’m forced to vote for her in November.”
but seriously, we’ll force you to do it for the rest of the planet.
Just take a deep breath and don’t pass out.
I think we are all a little spoiled by eight years with a president of admirable honesty and integrity. Most of my life, the choice has been between the lesser of two evils (or weevils.) Back to normal.
It’s instructive to consider how all of the Hillary surrogates crying “nothing to see here” and “look, Russians!” would react if the International Olympic Committee had responded in the same way when similar leaks of their emails revealed corruption and cheating — with a call to “put it behind us and move on” and a token reassignment of their leader, followed up by FUD about “catching the hackers.”
Look, no one cares how you got caught — the point is you cheated, got caught, and now want to pretend it didn’t taint your supposed “victory”.
Hillary is going to have to apologize personally for what her “dear friend” did, denounce her, and promise measures to prevent reccurence in the future to win my support.
Screaming “Trump Bad!” ain’t gonna cut it.
+1
Demagogues like Drumpf don’t come along every election. I too will be holding my nose and voting for Hillary. I view her as nothing more than maintaining our status quo of politicians being politicians. But the alternative is to elect a wild card with literally zero experience and the potentially to be an unmitigated disaster.
I think it is very simple. In a 2 party system you’ve got to choose 1 of 2.
We had the balm of eight years of a good US president, but now we have to choose between a dishonest (I’m not even convinced she is *that* dishonest) ‘apparatchick’ and a craving bonkers lunatic.
I know it is not *nice* to be forced to choose between 2 alternatives you do not like, but the loot has been devided as is, and one has to choose.
IMMO a presidential election is really not the moment to ‘break’ the system, if one tries, one only gets the worst possible outcome ic. a craving bonkers lunatic, who is going to decide on your life and all other lives world wide.
[‘Promoting’ DWS to a meaningless, but good sounding, position is possibly a smart move, at least I’m less convinced than Jerry it was a bad move].
Please ‘balking’ Bernie supporters (yes, I would have voted for him in the primaries, if I ‘haz been US citizen’, although there is quite a few things I do not like about his proposed policies, affordability being prime there),… Please Bernie supporters, come to your senses! (as Bernie himself did btw). There is so much at stake here.