Now, it's a full-fledged Hillary love fest.
Yes, perhaps the most undeserving nominee in the history of the Democratic party is getting the royal treatment, with a uniformity of major party figures giving her praises.
"You cannot believe one word that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth," said Tim Kaine, Hillary's hand-picked running mate.
True. No arguments there from me. But if you turn that around and ask whether or not you can believe a word that Hillary says, would the answer be to the liking of the Democrats?
Not likely, no.
Of course, when I say that, someone like NPR reporter would Tamara Keith (see yesterday's blog entry) would suggest that I am being sexist. According to her report, which I spoke at length about yesterday, Hillary Clinton is not liked or trusted not because of all of the lies that she has repeatedly told, or the shady sources of funding that she received for her campaign, including Wall Streets banks and other big corporations, as well as Saudi Arabia. Or that she has, at different times, described her political stance as rooted in conservatism, as moderate, and also suggested that she was the "real progressive" (Bill Clinton worded it by saying that she was the real "agent of change" the other night). Of course, anyone who pays attention could easily figure out that she cannot possibly be all of those things at once, because they do not fit together. How can she be conservative, moderate, and a real progressive all at the same time? It's things like that, and so many, many others, that make many people distrust her. As her husband Bill also pointed out, she receives considerable criticism from people on both the left and the right. We know that Republicans do not like her. That is no secret. However, Bill Clinton and others have sounded almost wounded when they speak of the criticism that Hillary Clinton received from the left. How could this happen?
Well, maybe that's what happens when you not only tell all of those lies, and when you pretend to be a progressive and claim that you will get tough on Wall Street and corporate America while taking millions, both personally and in her campaign, from those same people. But I suspect that there is a lot more to it than that, because, after all, she stole this election.
In fact, the more I think about Hillary Clinton and who she reminds me of politically, the clearer it gets. She reminds me - a lot! - of George W. Bush.
Sounds crazy? Well, they both pumped tons of corporate money into their campaigns. They both stole elections. They both supported the disastrous Iraq invasion (albeit, Hillary outwardly remained very critical of Bush's performance in conducting the war, but when push came to shove, yes, she supported the war). They both had close ties with the Saudis, and they both favored a hard-line approach to the so-called Drug War, favoring the for profit prison system. Both are ridden with corruption scandals, and both repeatedly got away with these, time and time and time again. Both had a part to play in helping to set up the "Great Recession" of 2008, and both favored the bail out that gave money to the big banks that were responsible for the economic fall out, while those struggling American homeowners got nothing.
Frankly, it sounds like there are two Republicans in the race together. And that's the danger of the two party system, because the two parties simply look way too much alike. That's what happens when they both take enormous sums of money from the same sources. Really, it is not a surprise, and this did not originate with Hillary Clinton. This has been going on for a long, long time. That is why I essentially do not disagree with Republicans who claim that a Hillary victory would be a third Obama term. But I will go a step further, and suggest that a Hillary win would mean a fifth Bush term since, after all, President Obama seemed entirely too comfortable keeping some of the key Bush policies in place. Let's take it a step further, and say that this might be a seventh straight Bill Clinton term. Or a tenth consecutive Ronald Reagan term. Or, let's call it what it really is: a tenth straight Presidential term of a pro-corporate elitist determined to continue the "deregulation" practices that have led to a de facto corporate supremacy state inching it's way closer to a dictatorship.
That is why, I believe, that so much is made of her being a woman, and her nomination being seen as a true sign of progress for women, while in reality, this is a step backwards for Americans at large. Oh, many Democrats are suggesting that this is the most progressive Democratic platform in our lifetime. Maybe it is. But it is almost guaranteed that she will go back on her word on numerous aspects of this platform, just as it is almost guaranteed that she will move swiftly to the right for the general election. And you had better believe that her opposition to the disastrous Trans Pacific Partnership is temporary. She might make a few gestures with symbolic changes to alter it, but the worst parts of it will be kept in place when she makes sure that this is passed - with Republican approval almost guaranteed. Because if you want to know the real Hillary Clinton, her history has shown that this is not some wild prediction on my end, but rather typical of what she has done in the past, and thus, what she is likely to do in the future.
Of course, many will disagree. Maybe I'm just being sexist. I am, after all, a man, However, this particular man has always felt that he would see a woman become president in his lifetime and, what is more, I have actually looked forward to it. Just not this particular woman. I do not have trust issues with Elizabeth Warren or, for that matter, Jill Stein. But with Hillary Clinton, it's hard not to have trust issues. Let us remember that during the 2008 campaign, one theme that President Obama - yes, the same President Obama who heaped praise upon Hillary Clinton last night - suggested that Hillary would quite literally say anything to become president.
Yet, in an obvious piece of propaganda from NPR, of all people, Tamara Keith suggests that this issue with trust is merely the product of sexism. If Tamara Keith is right about this perception of Hillary Clinton as being dishonest is correct, then apparently 68% of Americans are sexist, as the results of a very recent poll released on Monday showed that a huge majority of Americans do not find Hillary Clinton trustworthy.
Perhaps Sarah Silverman, in her infinite wisdom, might tell us that we're being ridiculous.
All I know is that, as a Bernie Sanders supporter, I feel disillusioned and totally turned off by all of the hoopla now. There is another endless parade of red, white, and a blue, and countless speeches where plastic politicians with plastic smiles once again deliver a plastic, one size fits all vision of a sunny future, if you go ahead and vote for them. And there comes Meryl Streep, donning red, white, and blue, and trying to appeal to women by describing this as a truly historic milestone for women. And here's Tim Kaine, now the officially minted running mate, who was seen as basically the equivalent of the middle finger to truly progressives, who were hoping that someone far more progressive might get the nod.
Yet, we keep hearing from these major party figures that Hillary is the "most qualified candidate in history." Move over, George Washington and John Adams. Get lost, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. You obviously pale in comparison with our beloved Hillary.
And have you noticed how quickly the email scandal of how the Democratic party establishment was swept under the rug? It was all the rage just a few days ago, after it hit over the weekend, and now, already, people have forgotten about it, despite how large of a shadow now looms over Hillary's victory in the primaries.
Actually, it's not entirely forgotten. It confirmed what many, if not most, supporters of Bernie Sanders not only suspected, but really knew all along. It symbolized a perversion not only of the democratic system, but the reinforced the perception that these hand-picked candidates will get into office no matter what.
Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate. She has among the most staggeringly high disapproval ratings of any nominee ever. The only thing that makes this less glaring is that her opponent is right there with her, neck and neck in terms of disapproval. Truly, this election is one of the most pathetic embarrassments in the history of this country. President Obama suggested that people around the world do not understand what is happening in this presidential election. Frankly, neither do I.
But I know one thing: I cannot, and will not, support either of these weak, pitiful candidates that the two major parties will now try to push on us. Never Trump, sure. But never Hillary, too. I am tired of wasting my vote on major party candidates that put on their smiles and loudly proclaim false promises, while delivering on the pro-corporate agenda that is truly killing what greatness the United States still has. To me, the idea of voting for candidates from either major party truly is a waste of a vote, because you are voting for a lie. That, to me, is truly wasting my vote. While some people feel that there really is no choice but to vote for one or the other, I see this election and am starting to believe that we have reached the point where almost anyone else would be better.
Or am I just being ridiculous?