Saturday, February 20, 2016

There is no "logic" in supporting a bad candidate

I had to laugh when media reports claimed that Hillary Clinton's win in the Nevada caucuses was “huge,” a state where just a month ago she was supposed to win “huge.” The problem, of course, is that the pro-Clinton media once more exaggerated her “victory” to puff her up. Exit polls actually showed that a majority of Latino voters opted for Bernie Sanders, but that didn’t stop CNN from claiming that Clinton had “won” their support. In fact, her narrow 53-47 percent victory was possible only because of a black vote margin of 4-1 in her favor. 

It seems that there is some confusion among black voters about who exactly the Clintons are, which apparently has led to “forgetfulness.” In 2008, Clinton and her bulldog spouse unashamedly used racial “code” in South Carolina against Barack Obama; Hillary even denigrated Martin Luther King, Jr. in a local interview. In Pennsylvania she again used racist code against Obama before a crowd of white voters, and her feminist supporters used barely concealed racist language. Have black voters already forgotten that? 

Have they also forgotten what her husband did as the first “black” president? While Bill Clinton (no doubt prodded by Hillary) managed to pass numerous laws that mainly benefitted well-off white women and their self-serving “feeling good about feeling bad” gender agenda, the Clintons’ had other plans for minorities: use them as bartering chips to get what they wanted from the Republican-controlled Congress after the disastrous 1994 mid-term elections (with “help” from Hillary’s arrogance, which alienated lawmakers on both sides of the aisle during the health care reform debate). Jail-filling sentencing and welfare “reform” were all understood to have racial inflections (at least to Republican voters), and agreeing to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Banking Reform Act was later used by the Bush administration as an excuse to end low-income housing subsidies while allowing now-unregulated financial institutions to spread the myth of even low-income people being able to afford their own homes—the result of which contributed to the economic meltdown of 2007-2008. 

Like all craven opportunists, Hillary Clinton says whatever is necessary to achieve her aims, but the actual doing is another matter altogether. Everything she does is principally to satisfy her colossal ego; even her feminist ideology is merely a tool to take short cuts on her way to personal inflation. Not that this bothers the media. After all, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was named TIME magazine’s “Person of the Year,” despite the fact her principle “accomplishment” is being head of the ruling party in Germany; a popular local saying, “to Merkel,” is in fact an uncomplimentary reference, meaning to “do nothing.” For the media, all one has to do is satisfy the narrow personal political and social demands of its members; if there is nothing else to show for it, just charging “sexism” and “misogyny” will do.

Unlike Obama, who wanted to do great things like his idol, Abraham Lincoln, and seemed at home in the white as well as black world, Clinton—ever the career opportunist—chooses whatever implement happens to be useful to her, whether she actually believes in or not. In the beginning, as a “young Republican” like her family, she didn’t “like” JFK—you know, the guy her future husband proudly shook hands with as a “young Democrat”—and received training in sneakiness canvassing for votes for Richard Nixon. In 1964, she was nearly a legal adult, so she didn’t have quite the excuse of ignorance and impressionism for “working” for Barry Goldwater, whose right-wing extremism was obviously a reaction to JFK’s and LBJ’s “quasi-socialist” policies, as he called them—particularly as they had to do with integration, civil and voting rights (for many years, his state of employ, Arizona, refused to recognize the MLK, Jr. holiday).

Clinton was still a Nixon supporter in 1968, although she toyed with the idea of supporting a candidate who opposed the Vietnam War, which she would have never had to fight in anyways, and her future husband was desperate to stay out of.  But Clinton apparently discovered that radical feminism suited her better, and conservatives generally were not supportive of this brand of ideology. Frankly, feminists were and are off-putting in their intolerance, tyranny, hypocrisy and bigotry, but for Clinton, their “promise” to run over “obstacles” rather than use persuasion and work also suited her ego. We can see that now, as Clinton clearly believes that her own conceit is sufficient reason for people to support her; she cannot fathom why anyone would want to vote for anyone else, since she is, well, a woman. It’s her time, after all, even though many voters wish they could vote for a different woman, not her and her record of deceit, lies, self-entitlement, failure to have accomplished anything of real substance, her laundry list of scandals; it seems her only other "qualification" is to have some inflated title in front of her name. That wasn’t the same dynamic that led people to vote for Obama; he was the “right” black man at the right time.

Before anyone counts Sanders “out,” let me quote from the 2008 Encyclopedia Britannica Year Book concerning that year’s Democratic primaries, and see if it sounds “familiar”:

Obama had a far-more-difficult road. Although he attracted enthusiastic crowds and solid fund-raising totals from the start, he plodded through innumerable 2007 candidate joint appearances without distinguishing himself. Clinton's campaign successfully portrayed her as the inevitable nominee, with a substantial early lead in establishment support, fund-raising, and public opinion polls. Clinton also had serious problems, however. Many Democrats feared that she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, were polarizing figures and that she could not win a general election; in addition, her campaign staff fought internally and failed to produce a winning strategic plan.

Obama, by contrast, combined an uplifting speaking style with a smoothly functioning campaign that became known as “no-drama Obama.” While Clinton went for knockout victories in early deciding Democratic states, Obama played a longer game, seeking delegates by the ones and twos all over the country. His campaign tapped thousands of small contributors through the Internet and then approached them repeatedly for more funding. To counter Clinton's inside experience, Obama underscored his status as an outsider, promising “hope and change” and encouraging rally supporters to proclaim, “Yes we can.”

Yes we can. In response to a Nevada caucus voter who believed in Sanders but decided to vote Clinton, there is no “logic” in supporting a bad candidate, no matter how much the media puffs her up.

No comments:

Post a Comment