It was reported that despite extensive evidence that the “neutral” Democratic National Committee headed by Clinton loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz had worked overtime behind the scenes to derail any obstacle to Hillary Clinton’s “entitlement” to the presidential nomination, “peace” with Bernie Sanders was “holding,” and opposition was “muted” during the roll call of delegates this past Tuesday. “History” had been made, although what kind of “history” that is, well, is subject to debate, interpretation—and history.
I suppose Sanders didn’t want to be blamed for “contributing” to a Clinton defeat in November, like Al Gore’s loss could largely be pinned on Ralph Nader taking votes from him in Florida, where Gore lost by a razor-thin margin following the right-wing partisan majority in the U.S. Supreme Court unlawfully blocking of the Dade County recount; whatever happens in this election can be left to happen on its own “merits.”
This might take some people by surprise, but given a country where white men and white women are de facto 1a and 1b in the rankings of society, I am certainly not the only person who is blasé about the fact of the first female as a presidential nominee (and potentially president), and only see it as an opportunity for the self-involved to engage in excessive self-congratulation. I’ve quoted from the book by Emeka Aniagolu, Co-Whites: How and Why White Women 'Betrayed' the Struggle for Racial Equality in the United States, which among other things exposed Hillary Clinton as an unprincipled opportunist willing to sacrifice one well-rehearsed line in favor of a new one. As Aniagolu noted during the 2008 primaries, Clinton readily abandoned minorities and played the race card with “working class” white voters. I wouldn’t be the least surprised to learn that the Rev. Wright “controversy” was inspired by Clinton and her allies in the DNC.
The past is something I cannot and will not forget. During the first Clinton administration, I recall that the sketch comedy show Mad TV—which hardly could be accused of being sympathetic to the right—frequently featured both the Clintons in skits lampooning their various ethical and moral lapses, and their deceits to escape censure; one skit even went so far as to portray a spokesperson for a Democratic group looking for “Anyone but the Clintons” to return to the White House, setting a rather low bar for qualification given the near invisible bar the Clintons had set for themselves during their first four years—and worse was to come. What has changed? Nothing--accept the media and public's willful ignorance.
And so Hillary will give her acceptance speech, which will be delivered with the usual patronizing sarcasm, rife with false promises and well-practiced disingenuousness. It will be the triumph of megalomania which will render the poverty of principle, ethics and substance moot. Last week, Donald Trump proved to be the embodiment of FDR's 1933 indictment of irrational fear--"nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Neither Clinton nor Trump have the character or principles to breach the chasm between what is said and what is done; they have made it so wide that practically everyone who decides to cast a presidential ballot in November can be counted among those ready to fall into the abyss.