“Not About One Person”

This campaign season has featured a lot of attacks on the establishment. And last night, on the Democratic side, the establishment won. And the establishment never looked better.

As Sarah Palin proved so long ago, as Donald Drumpf proves every time he opens his mouth, our national politics ought not be put into the hands of the inexperienced, of the ignorant, of the crass. And as Hillary Clinton proved last night, we now have a national presidential nominee who is experienced, knowledgeable, and gifted. Her speech was fantastic, even if you ignore the history-making nature of it.

But who could ignore the history? She couldn’t:

Tonight’s victory is not about one person.

It belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible. In our country, it started right here in New York, a place called Seneca Falls in 1848, where a small but determined group of women and men came together with the idea that women deserved equal rights, and they set it forth in something called, “The Declaration of Sentiments,” and it was first time in human history that that kind of declaration occurred. So we all owe so much to those who came before, and tonight belongs to all of you.

Before her speech, Mrs. Clinton tweeted out the following:

hillary tweet and little girl.jpg

That tweet was especially poignant for me. I have a granddaughter. This was her reaction last night in Arizona:

livvy and hillary

That’s what last night meant. That smile. That excitement. That future.

If you didn’t see the entire speech, I posted it below. Try to watch it through the eyes of little girls everywhere:



  1. King Beauregard

     /  June 8, 2016

    There will be time for healing later, but for now, here’s what Bernie’s aides have to say about him:



    • I wondered when the postmortem would happen.

      Bernie, despite his followers’ beliefs about him, is a politician through and through. And a rather calculating and vindictive one, it turns out. But he’s also ignorant about American politics in general. One of the most telling things in that article was that Bernie is pissed at Sherrod Brown. Now, Brown is my favorite guy in the Senate, by far. And the reason he is my favorite guy is because he is a liberal who understands how American politics works. Bernie doesn’t have the slightest idea how it works. He’s a senator from Vermont. Sherrod’s a senator from Ohio. Bernie Sanders couldn’t get elected to any state-wide office in Ohio, obviously. But it’s not obvious to Bernie. Vermont is the USA to him. Those college kids who went to his rallies are the American electorate to him. He simply couldn’t see past the last row of a rally, couldn’t see that the real America is much like Ohio, where Sherrod Brown, as liberal as he is, has managed to get elected to the senate twice.

      How to manage Bernie the Bully, now that we’re almost to the end, is a problem. My inclination would be this: Hillary keeps saying nice things about him in public while her aides tell his aides to go straight to hell, if he makes too many ridiculous demands, like ousting Frank and Malloy as co-chairs of the rules committee. My response would be: “You fucking got smoked! You ain’t telling us what to do. You want to ruin what’s left of your reputation and be an asshole like Ralph Nader? Good fucking luck.” That, of course, is why I’m not running Hillary’s campaign. But, ultimately, if Bernie wants to go it alone, there is no stopping him. Because of his ignorance of American politics (just like Ralph Nader, by the way), he isn’t susceptible to normal persuasion.


      • Calling people ignorant while seemingly oblivious to the fact that two thirds supported Sanders compared to maybe 3% for Nader.

        The establishment presumed that Clinton would have no competition at all and that seems to be the point that you miss every single time. Not once have you acknowledged this for what it is, an anointing. It’s just a fabulous illusion of choice.

        What sort of “victory” would it be if Sanders had not run? Sanders made it so she actually had to work a little bit for the nomination, but still, she basically had it in the bag from the start.

        Personally I would have liked to see different people running, a different woman, a younger anti-establishment candidate (an old man lacks a certain je ne sais quoi), most importantly someone with clear anti-war credentials.

        Why didn’t anyone else challenge Clinton? Over a dozen clowns lined up for the Republican nomination, but no one else wanted the Democratic nomination, not even a little bit? The mindset in both parties reflects the establishment decision. The Republicans knew they were going to lose, so it didn’t matter who ran, knock yourselves out, while the Democrats knew they were going to win so they made sure to choose the candidate they wanted to win and made sure everyone else backed off. Again, I’ve repeated this several times, but all this time you’ve insisted on being oblivious on purpose, just like a right-wing religious nutjob.

        I’m baffled why Clinton’s war record is not much more of a concern after 15 years of war, the longest war in American history, with no end in sight. This nomination tells us one thing, that we should expect 4 more years of war and that the Republicans, in remaking themselves, will come along to end it for their own namesake, since they aren’t proud of the fact that they started it. Republicans will be a different party in four years, we won’t recognize them.

        If Clinton ends the war soon, early in her term, it may allow the Republicans to recover, but if she delays too long, the Republicans will have no choice but to touch what they’ve been afraid to touch for 15 years.


        • I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “two thirds supported Sanders compared to maybe 3% for Nader.” Two-thirds of whom? Certainly not Democratic primary voters. Besides that, Nader didn’t run in a Democratic primary the year he got 2.7% of the national vote. But she sure as hell helped make W. the president.

          In any case, you say I miss the point about the establishment assuming there would be no competition. Huh? Bernie’s been in the damn thing for over a year. What are you talking about? The establishment was well aware of Bernie but was clearly behind Hillary because, uh, she is part of the establishment and Bernie was not. He never has been and never will be. And establishment people tend to not like it when someone wants to throw rocks at them from the cheap seats.

          To the extent Hillary “had it in the bag,” it was because of the work she has done all of her adult life, work that was in tune with the larger Democratic Party. She didn’t have it in the bag because the system was “rigged,” as many Bernie people believe. That’s a load of horseshit. He got his shot to make his case and guess what? He put up a pretty good fight here and there, but mostly he got shellacked, especially when the electorate was more diverse. Part of his problem was that he essentially discounted black people in the South (and by extension elsewhere) by deprecating her victories there. That was a stupid thing to do. But he did it. The establishment had nothing to do with that. If he had paid more attention, at the beginning, to minority voters, as opposed to courting mostly white Vermontish liberals and young college kids, he would have fared somewhat better. Besides all that, he couldn’t explain the mechanics of his policies and he was horribly out of his element when it came to foreign policy and national security issues.

          As for others not challenging Clinton, they did. I guess you have forgotten about Martin O’Malley, who was a two-term governor who stayed in the race until February. Or Jim Webb, who was a senator from Virginia. Hell, even Lincoln Chafee gave it a shot for three or four months, as did the great Lawrence Lessig, who ran specifically to call attention to the whole money-in-politics thing. One of the reasons there weren’t 17, like on the GOP side, was that Hillary Clinton was perceived as a strong candidate. She was a former first lady, a U.S. Senator for two terms, and Secretary of State. Plus, she was battle-tested in a primary election. She was perceived, quite correctly, as pretty much unbeatable.

          Once again, your analysis of the Republican side is, well, strange. You said, “The Republicans knew they were going to lose, so it didn’t matter who ran…” That is just ridiculous. Since I’ve addressed it several times now, no need to do so again.

          But I will take a little time to address this:

          I’m baffled why Clinton’s war record is not much more of a concern after 15 years of war, the longest war in American history, with no end in sight.

          Her “war record”? What would that be? Her vote on the Iraq War? That’s not exactly a war record, but it is a record of poor judgment, a bad decision that many Democrats made at the time. She didn’t start that war, by the way. And she didn’t prosecute it, by the way. Bush gets the credit for that, no matter how many lefties want to act like it was all on her.

          But maybe you are talking about Libya? Would you have let tens of thousands be slaughtered there without Western civilization at least trying to help? Were you thinking of Yugoslavia? Was NATO supposed to sit back and watch genocide happen before its eyes? If you remember right, Bill was president, not Hillary. So, that is really a part of his record. As for that, ask Albanians in Kosovo if NATO did the right thing. After they tell you how much of a hero Bill Clinton is, they’ll say of course NATO did the right thing.

          Here’s the deal: It’s easy to present counterfactuals and make them more palatable than actual history. Libya is a perfect example of that. Every president is, in some way or anther, going to have a mixed record when it comes to war or anything else. Hillary, if she wins, will be no different. She’ll make mistakes of commission and omission. That much is guaranteed. But at least she’s been around long enough to see what goes into these kinds of messy decisions. Maybe she is too hawkish, maybe she isn’t. We’ll find out. But there is no room in the world today for someone who refuses to use American military power for good—in limited circumstances, obviously—or who knows absolutely nothing about the way the world works like, say, Drumpf.

          As far as “no end in sight” for the war in Iraq, what would you have us do? Leave ISIS to itself? At least say so if that is what you mean. Otherwise, criticizing either Hillary or Obama for continuing to organize the destruction of ISIS–to the extent it can be destroyed–won’t win you any points with me.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Two thirds of the vote that Clinton got.

            The thing that people like you never seem to acknowledge is that the people who voted for Nader would never have voted for Gore or Bush, just as the people who won’t vote for Clinton are not at fault if Clinton doesn’t win. Clinton isn’t entitled to the votes of people who will not vote for her. Nader didn’t cost Gore the election and he didn’t hand the election to Bush. Sanders can’t cost Clinton the election and he can’t hand the election to Trump. This is a very simple fact that you really need to learn. Stop blaming Sanders and his supporters for Clinton’s flaws.

            Clinton is the problem, her stance on war, her stance on campaign finance. That’s it. If she doesn’t win, that’s why she didn’t win. Sanders made those two points and Clinton has yet to convince anyone she even gets them. If you want Clinton to win, let her know, talk to her and her supporters. Blaming Sanders and his supporters all this time just makes you look crazy.

            You admit that the establishment always knew that Sanders was behind and therefore not serious competition. We all knew this, so why do you think I don’t know what I’m talking about? That was my point. Clinton didn’t have serious competition.

            This isn’t about rigging, it’s about anyone, literally any name face running against her. It doesn’t necessarily mean the race is rigged and few people believe that, it means that everyone already has a clear perception of what’s going to happen, that Clinton was going to win and therefore no point wasting time. You can see, as I said, the corollary of this on the Republican side with virtually everyone running because there is no expectation to upset. The thing about voters is that they typically vote for who they think is going to win not who they want to win. That’s why Sanders supporters stuck it out this long, not because they thought he was going to win, but because they thought he could win, whereas very few people voted for Nader because they knew he would not win.

            One other point about Nader which Nader himself pointed out, which is also equally applicable to Sanders, is that if Gore or Clinton cannot beat the utter moron they are running against, they deserve to lose. Both Bush and Trump are absolutely incompetent boobs. Yet Sanders’ numbers against Trump are substantially better than Clinton’s. Make sense of that. It’s you who’d rather scrape through by 1% than a comfortable 5% or more. But all this time you blame Sanders and his supporters for Clinton’s performance.

            The true irony is that Sanders policy against racism is much better than Clinton’s superpredator modern-day lynching rhetoric which she still stands by. Sanders isn’t the candidate to dissect racism for the masses, I’ll agree with that, but Clinton isn’t either, her victory in that demographic was basically handed to her for free. You congratulate her for something that she won in spite of herself.

            Clinton has had terrible real foreign policy and national security issues as Secretary of State, but somehow you think you can point blame at Sanders? From a “foreign” perspective, there is only one thing the rest of the world wants to hear from the next president of the United States and Clinton has not even suggested she is going to say it. I have no idea what you think U.S. foreign policy should be but it’s not likely a liberal left wing policy if you support Clinton’s. I have stated before my suspicion that you are not really liberal.

            Almost all of the Republican candidates were recognized. You named several unknowns who ran against Clinton, but there are lots of recognized people who didn’t run, especially Elizabeth Warren who would have done better than Sanders for sure. (Sander’s was not the ideal choice as an old white man and this is the real reason why he didn’t make out better than he did). They didn’t run not because they were afraid or lacked ambition, they didn’t run because they expected Clinton to win. This is the meaning of what I say Clinton was anointed. How many times have I used this word and you have yet to acknowledge it? I am telling you straight out there is something seriously mentally wrong with you if you can’t make a simple admission of an obvious fact. Even fundamentalist Christians I know have faced up to certain facts at some point or another, even if they find a different way to disqualify it later.

            Battle-tested in a primary election is a terrible qualification. If that were the case, I’d have preferred if Gore ran again because he at least won a primary and seemed more mellow afterwards, but before now Clinton only lost a primary. This counts as settling not seeking the best. Damn if Al Gore had run it would have been a glorious apology for Bush.

            What the hell does Clinton have on Joe Biden anyway? Does he owe her money?

            You’ve never acknowledged the fact that the Republican party is in chaos. You refuse to admit that and as long as you do your excuses are not even mildly amusing. Trump is not the establishment choice, surely you see that, they’re biting their tongues to support him, the Republican establishment has no authority in a blatantly authoritarian party. As to the Republican voters, they’ve been dragged around by the wedge engine for decades and that engine is out of steam. Abortion is virtually impossible to get in all the states Republicans control. What wedge issue do they pitch? LGBT? They’re screwing that pooch hard and it’s clearly not working. Trump on the other hand has taken them back to their roots, racism. These are the facts. Whatever other excuses you make ignore these fundamental facts, just as you do with Clinton’s anointing. You fail to acknowledge, over and over again, but you like to pretend that I’m ignoring the nothing that you have to support your delusion.

            Clinton has not as yet denounced her Iraq War vote nor indicated in the slightest way that the wars presently continuing would end on her watch. Obama gave that impression but failed to deliver despite his authority to do so. You show true right-wing thinking that the United States is obligated to unilaterally send troops into whatever country you think needs “help”, pretend that you are dragging NATO willingly in spite of the UN, and then fail to provide that help, instead exploiting and provoking the people there, which self-rationalizes the security argument for staying indefinitely. In order to convince me of anything you have to demonstrate that a place like Afghanistan is so much better after 15 years of unending war. Even mentioning Kosovo is downright dishonest since the US was not even a direct party to that war. Do you bring that up like conservatives do as a way to deny that you knew the middle east conflict would drag on this long? Or are you oblivious to the nature of peacekeeping? Canada’s military is organized explicitly for peacekeeping which is why we didn’t go to Iraq and were pissed when the US left us holding the bag in Afghanistan to go play in Iraq, a decision which Clinton stands by today while we knew it was wrong back then.

            I have no idea why you bring up Libya as it’s just more of the same shit we’ve come to expect. The administration doesn’t even understand why it went wrong even though it’s pretty obvious. Then there’s the whole sunk cost fallacy which keeps this train going even though it’s off the rails.

            With the Republicans the way they are now, a Clinton win will force them to find a new center. That new center may end up putting Clinton on the right. But even if Trump wins, the same thing could still happen because the guy’s a wildcard with lots of leftish opinions.

            To end war, yes, you leave them alone. Do you know why? Because they are only fighting your troops because they are there. Even 9/11 only happened because your troops were there, in Saudi Arabia, first. Did you not know that was why 9/11 happened? One guy has to be first to take his finger off the trigger. You’re hoping it’s the other guy and you’re willing to pay any cost and wait any number of years for that conclusion.


  2. Anonymous

     /  June 8, 2016

    Great speech!!! Go girl!!


  3. troy graham

     /  June 8, 2016

    Great speech!!!

    Sent from my iPhone


    • It’s funny how so many pundits on television, throughout the campaign season, said she was a horrible campaigner and now they are praising her for the last two speeches. The truth is, if you have paid attention to her past efforts, she’s been pretty damned good. It’s just that most of the focus has been on the orange buffoon.


%d bloggers like this: