Monday, April 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton Now Blaming Bernie Sanders For Rigged Political System

“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.” 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz


I have been meaning to print this for over almost a week now, so amazing were the ramifications of this story.

So common has it become to see Hillary making a sharp left turn to try and sound more like Bernie, and to steal some of his obvious thunder, that she now claims that he has questionable financial ties, which she would be in no position to criticize anyone for anyway, given the enormous sums of money that she gets to be speakers for certain corporations.

Now, however, she has taken it one step further. There she is, getting whipped by double digits in Wyoming, the eighth time in the last nine primaries that she lost. Yet, she actually gained more delegates from this Wyoming loss than Bernie Sanders did, because of a warped and, frankly, anti-democratic delegate system that exists within the Democratic Party. This system had been marking her as the clear cut favorite and de facto winner, despite the fact that she is unpopular, untrusted, and has been getting whooped by someone who had considerably less of a high profile than she did entering this race.

Despite that, she is now accusing Sanders for a rigged political system!

Oh, my, my!

Such a ridiculous and absurd claim from the ultimate establishment figure now proclaiming victim status on some rigged election system allegedly favoring Sanders renders one almost speechless.

Almost.

Again, though, I have to reiterate that the only thing - literally the one thing - that separate her from the other major candidates is that she happens to be a woman. That is the only thing remotely exciting about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, is that we can finally say that we have a woman as president.

In every other manner, Hillary is a typical politician. She says and does literally anything to get elected, although once in office, her actions will be different than her words leading up to her election. After all, that was what her husband specialized in.

What we would get in a Hillary Clinton presidency is much more of the same. It would be politics as usual, with this Clinton spinning everything in her favor, making grandiose claims much like her husband did not all that long ago, when he claimed to have paid off 60% of the national debt (he did so by borrowing money for short term loans to pay off this 60%, but it still meant that we owed that amount). Her husband can claim a pretty impressive environmental records, but upon closer examination, we find that much of the most impressive legislation in this regards came in the final 72 hours (that is the final three days) of an eight year term in office, when he knew full well that the incoming president would gladly play the bad guy and wipe these environmental measures out in an instant.

The biggest proclamation that Clinton had regarding his presumably successful presidency was that the economy was strong. Of course, there was indeed an economic boom with the explosion of the internet, and that certainly helped. But it was just like Bill Clinton to take credit for that, and to suggest that his economic policies, which favored the elite corporations that sponsored him, of course, were in fact the reason for the economic boom times of the 1990's.

President Bill Clinton said a lot of things, and made a lot of his presidency sound just great. But all I remember during that time was that he could not be trusted, and that it seemed the best aspect of his presidency was in managing his image, and spinning the facts in his favor, so that he looked better than he actually was.

Now, that is a neat trick. But is that what would be best for the country? Do we need to turn to the Clintons yet again now that this country finds itself feeling unsure about it's present, and not overly confident about it's future?

Sure, she would be better than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. After all, the prospect of a White House occupied by either of these two would be creepy, and it boggles the mind to think of just how poorly the nation would turn out in the event that one of these two men somehow won.

However, does that mean that we should automatically turn to Hillary, just because she is the biggest name and most recognizable face among the Democrats who is actually running, does it systematically follow that she would be the best choice to be the next president? Should we ignore the polls that suggest her favorability ratings just are not that high, or that people simply do not trust her? Should we also ignore the fact that most polls show Bernie Sanders doing noticeably better against each of the Republicans running for the White House right now?

Never mind all of that. And never mind that she can find a way to "win" more delegates than Sanders for a state that she lost by a significant amount (double digits). Just focus on how she is the presumed candidate even now, and how those who support her do not seem to get excited about her ideas, but just seem to like her personally, and loudly proclaim that she has already, in fact, won.

Going back quite a few years, I remember being enthusiastic in the summer of 1992, watching Bill Clinton's stirring acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention at Madison Square Garden. Although he had not been my favorite Democratic candidate (that would have been Iowa Senator Tom Harkin), I nonetheless came around when it looked, for the first time in my life, that a Democrat could actually win the election. He did, and it was exciting for me, as a young man just barely eligible to vote in that presidential election. I voted for him enthusiastically.

Four years later, he gave another great speech defending his record of the past four years, and making everything sound just wondrous. By that point, however, my enthusiasm for him was considerably dampened. I voted for him, mostly because I did not want a Dole presidency. But I did so kind of holding my nose. By then, of course, it was clear that he was every bit the slick politician that worried me about him early in the 1992 Democratic race. And Hillary is just like him.

You know, it's funny. Sometimes someone will say something that kind of puts it all in perspective, and my mom recently did that when discussing the Democratic race this year. She said that now that she has seen someone with the actual substance like Bernie Sanders enjoy as much success as he has, it is hard then to go back to a seasoned and all-too polished politician like Hillary Clinton. She will say anything and do anything to get elected, and that translates to a decided lack of substance, just like with her husband. This most recent statement where she places herself as a victim because she is losing numerous primaries at a point where she surely thought she would have wrapped things up by now is just further proof that she will say anything and do anything to win, as she continues to raise her millions with the big banks and major corporations, who are, of course, her biggest and most staunch supporters.

Hillary is the establishment, and she has done nothing but benefit from how rigged this election system is on the Democratic side. Her opponent, Bernie Sanders, is a man of conviction, a man who approaches this election with real integrity, and has not wavered from his consistent message. He is winning not because he will say or do anything to win, but in stark contrast to Clinton, means what he says and works to make this vision a reality.

My mom is right. Once you see someone like Sanders succeeding, it really becomes hard to take a look at someone like Hillary Clinton and take her seriously again. So much a part of the system is she now, that she claims victim status, when the major support that she gets is from the Democratic Party elites, Wall Street and the big banks. She then turns around and claims she will get tough on the establishment, claiming her "real progressive" status, even though she also proudly hails the "conservative" basis of her political ideology, and in December, when she thought the race was over,  she proudly claimed to be a moderate.

Don't we deserve someone better? Someone with integrity and consistency, rather than someone who will say and do anything to get elected, and then turn around and act much differently than her words as a candidate while running for office? When she claims to be the champion of the average American, we should remember her husband's policies, remember that he repealed Glass-Steagall, and thus empowered the big banks and corporate America at the expense of the average American. Considering Hillary's biggest financial contributions come not from average Americans, but from these same big banks and corporations, can we really expect any different from a Hillary Clinton presidency than from a Bill Clinton presidency?

If the success of Sanders says anything, does it not suggest that we no longer have to settle for mediocrity, for the lesser of two evils? Why not vote for someone who is worth getting excited about?


In Rich Irony, Hillary Clinton Blames Bernie Sanders For Rigging Political System by Kelly Riddell, April 12, 2016:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/12/rich-irony-hillary-clinton-blames-bernie-sanders-r/



The quote by Debbie Wasserman Schultz used above was taken from this Salon article:

Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists” Critics say the unelected superdelegate system is rigged. Debbie Wasserman Schultz basically admitted this is true by Ben Norton, February 13, 2016: BEN NORTON


2 comments:

  1. Hopefully, New York will be Feeling the Bern later today!

    ReplyDelete