Russia, Russia, Russia!
The last time that I remember hearing so much villainous reports about Russia was back in the days when Ronald Reagan kept referring to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire."
And is it not a sign of how ridiculous American politics have gotten that there was a virtual role reversal on the issue of Russians, with hard-line conservatives, who decades ago could not stand or trust Russia, defending Trump's efforts to be close to the Russians, while the Democrats, who had been accused by Reagan and his supporters of being soft on the Russian threat, suddenly fixated that everything evil that had befallen the nation in the past few years was the direct result of an evil plot designed by Putin and the Russians, specifically to undermine American democracy?
Ever since Hillary Clinton had managed to do what many thought impossible - getting Donald Trump elected into the White House - the mainstream Democrats who had bent over backwards to make her their nominee had been looking for anyone and everyone to pin this colossal failure on. Like Trump himself, they could not accept any blame themselves, and so they looked to blame everyone from Bernie Sanders and his supporters, to the "basket of deplorables" who were just too stupid and racist and hopeless to see how much better the country would be under her enlightened leadership,, to James Comey, to her health problems that prevented her from visiting some key states. But they eventually settled on Russia.
Ever since, it was Russia, Russia, Russia. Once again, Russia was the enemy, and Trump was a virtual Russian agent, according to them.
Now, there did appear to be some activity involving some interference by Russians during the election, although the case was not strong enough to be legally defined as conclusive collusion. But personally, I have long maintained my own strong skepticism over this fixation with Russia as the reason that Hillary lost.
The real reason why Hillary lost? She was a mediocre candidate, a Trojan horse for mainstream Democrats who believed that she, and only she, gave the party the best chance to win the White House in 2016, when she was actually probably the weakest candidate, specifically because she was an establishment candidate who Americans generally disliked and did not trust. The fact that mainstream Democrats bent over backwards to help her win the Democratic nomination, in a year when the Republicans allowed their outside candidate to win their nomination, meant that Clinton was seen as the candidate for a continuation of "politics as usual" in an election where clearly, this kind of standard politician with no imagination and no new ideas of her own, and with serious issues regarding trust and likability among the general population, was not going to end well for mainstream Democrats. The polls warned them as much before she received the nomination, but they went ahead with it - with her - anyway. And the results spoke for itself.
About one week after Clinton lost the 2016 election, I tried to explore the reasons why she lost the election in one of my blog entries. Here is what I said:
Clinton was the very symbol of politics as usual. And last summer, she seemed to stand alone, virtually unchallenged on the Democratic side. The only serious challenge that she might have, it seemed, was from then largely unknown Bernie Sanders, although he grew substantially in name and stature as his message gained traction. Hillary Clinton herself recognized this, and she requested help from the leaders of the Democratic Party, and received that help. The voice of the people seemed to be Bernie Sanders, who was bringing out thousands, and even tens of thousands, of people to his rallies. But she refused to be denied, and she got the help that she clearly needed in order to "win." But she was a seriously flawed and weak candidate, and those weaknesses came back to bite her in the general election, where the Democratic party insiders could no longer help her, or assure her win. She lost against probably the least qualified, and surely the most idiotic, presidential candidate in history. I would venture to say that she lost as only she could, precisely because she represented what she represented, which to most people, was this political elitist who clearly looked down on people who did not agree with her. She continued the shady activities, by taking massive contributions from "too big to fail" Wall Street firms, and by trying to hide all of her activities which people questioned, including the emails and the accusations facing the Clinton Foundation. She never did come clean on how a family of supposed public servants, like the Clintons, winds up as among the elite 1%. She promised that the FBI investigations would find nothing, and her husband illegally met with the Attorney General while this investigation was still active, which is not a minor breach of protocol. This was not right wing propaganda. This was arrogance typical of the Clinton family specifically. It was their trademark, acting like they are above everything, including the law. It caught up to her in a big way, and clearly cost her dearly in the end.
Too many demons there. Too many skeletons in her closet. Too much comfy contact with very powerful government officials in her name, if not by her specifically. Having your powerful former President husband meet with the sitting Attorney General (AG) at a Phoenix tarmac, temporarily closing the airport and inconveniencing thousands of people in the process, so that Bill Clinton could just talk with the AG and shoot the shit with her, have a personal discussion (just between friends, you see) that officially had nothing to do with the ongoing investigation is quite shady. Yet, the mainstream Democrats could never bring themselves to admit that this indeed looked suspicious.
It is not all that different from what is going on now, in fact. We are hearing reports that Joe Biden, the former Vice-President under Obama, and himself now one of those people constantly mentioned as a possibility for a presidential run, is at the center of some women coming forth and claiming that he inappropriately touched them. Whether he did or not, we will see. But the mainstream Democrats have taken the position that whatever Biden allegedly did or did not do, it cannot even come close to what Trump is and has been doing in the same respect. So, even when it comes to harassing women, the Democrats are making the argument for the lesser of two evils, instead of owning up and admitting that it is wrong. This, while many Democrats (particularly women) are finally suggesting that allowing Bill Clinton to get off scot-free with all of his bad personal behavior in harassing women while he was in the White House also might have sent the wrong message, and yet they are taking the same, standard position with Biden, who is not even close to being the official nominee yet! It really is rather remarkable, how ingrained this fallback behavior has become for them.
So, the Democrats did not lose because of Russia, or because of false information, even, as far as I can tell. No, they lost because they kept excusing very bad behavior, and their fallback position was that the alternative, the guy representing the other party, was way worse in that regard. And sure enough, it was a losing formula, something that the Democrats certainly have become familiar with ever since the rise of Reagan in the eighties. Because as bad as Trump was (and is), the popular perception was that Hillary was worse. Many, if not most people, do not necessarily believe that (and I will admit that I do not think Hillary would have been quite this bad at being president as Trump has proven to be), but enough Americans felt that she was less trustworthy, that it proved to be the difference.
The mainstream Democrats should have learned something from that loss. But their quick, almost reflective need to point the finger of blame on anyone and everyone but themselves strongly suggests that they learned nothing. No, it was not the fault of James Comey, or Bernie Sanders and/or his supporters, or even the so-called "basket of deplorables" who would never vote for Clinton in a lifetime. Hell, it was not even Russia!
Hillary Clinton lost the election because she assumed that she should win, that it was her turn. She had orchestrated a lot of things behind the scene to assure that she received the nomination, and that meant being too cozy with big banks and corporations at Wall Street, and having unofficial meeting between powerful people on her behalf. Her husband meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, for example. Or her asking the mainstream Democratic leadership for help against Bernie Sanders when they were supposed to remain impartial, and then having them indeed help her. Those decisions of the past, made in a smoky backroom, that helped this or that candidate receive the nomination were seen as "politics as usual," and this was what Hillary, and those who supported her, relied on, in an election year where all signs on both sides of the political aisle pointed to most people being sick and tired of "politics as usual." And low and behold, she lost.
It was her fault, and it was the fault of those who supported her and ignored all of the numerous warning signs. They acted like this came as a complete shock. Yet, all of the warning signs were there. They ignored all of this, and simply assumed that Trump was very beatable, and that Hillary should beat him. She did not, and all of their maneuvering to assure her nomination contributed to the trust issues that people had with her. It barely got her the Democratic nomination, as Sanders kept rising, winning numerous states and at one point pulling even with her in the approval polls, while those same polls also had Sanders beating all Republican challengers, and had Hillary losing the general election.
The mainstream Democrats did not want to accept any blame for what they had managed to do, which is getting Trump, of all people, to win this election. And I can feel it coming now: this arrogance, this hubris, will cost them dearly, yet again. Even worse, it will cost the country dearly, yet again.
Because the Democrats are already excusing some alleged bad behavior by their former Vice-President, instead of saying that he does not deserve the nomination if he is indeed guilty of what he is presently being accused of. They want to push him, or some other Hillary-like candidate, such as Kamala Harris or Beto O'Rourke, under the once again mistaken assumption that they will easily defeat Trump, that Trump is some kind of aberration. That is already the direction they are heading in, and again, it will cost them.
And if it does, if they indeed find themselves to losing a second time to Trump, the candidate that they were so sure could not win to begin with, what then? Will there be new allegations against Russia? Will they blame supporters of Bernie Sanders again? Will there be a new James Comey figure to point the finger at?
Or will they finally learn something, and do the one thing that Republicans definitely managed to do better in 2016 then the Democrats did that same year, and allow the democratic process to unfold, and allow the strongest candidate to emerge. Because my own suspicion is that the strongest candidate is not a corporate friendly mainstreamer, and that a business as usual candidate will not be able to beat Trump, and all of the people pulling strings to get such a candidate the Democratic nomination will predictably backfire on the Democrats once again.
All of the warning signs are there already, and many people, including Lee Camp in the video above, are pointing this out.
They cannot claim that they were not warned, no matter what happens from here on out.
Ever since, it was Russia, Russia, Russia. Once again, Russia was the enemy, and Trump was a virtual Russian agent, according to them.
Now, there did appear to be some activity involving some interference by Russians during the election, although the case was not strong enough to be legally defined as conclusive collusion. But personally, I have long maintained my own strong skepticism over this fixation with Russia as the reason that Hillary lost.
The real reason why Hillary lost? She was a mediocre candidate, a Trojan horse for mainstream Democrats who believed that she, and only she, gave the party the best chance to win the White House in 2016, when she was actually probably the weakest candidate, specifically because she was an establishment candidate who Americans generally disliked and did not trust. The fact that mainstream Democrats bent over backwards to help her win the Democratic nomination, in a year when the Republicans allowed their outside candidate to win their nomination, meant that Clinton was seen as the candidate for a continuation of "politics as usual" in an election where clearly, this kind of standard politician with no imagination and no new ideas of her own, and with serious issues regarding trust and likability among the general population, was not going to end well for mainstream Democrats. The polls warned them as much before she received the nomination, but they went ahead with it - with her - anyway. And the results spoke for itself.
About one week after Clinton lost the 2016 election, I tried to explore the reasons why she lost the election in one of my blog entries. Here is what I said:
Clinton was the very symbol of politics as usual. And last summer, she seemed to stand alone, virtually unchallenged on the Democratic side. The only serious challenge that she might have, it seemed, was from then largely unknown Bernie Sanders, although he grew substantially in name and stature as his message gained traction. Hillary Clinton herself recognized this, and she requested help from the leaders of the Democratic Party, and received that help. The voice of the people seemed to be Bernie Sanders, who was bringing out thousands, and even tens of thousands, of people to his rallies. But she refused to be denied, and she got the help that she clearly needed in order to "win." But she was a seriously flawed and weak candidate, and those weaknesses came back to bite her in the general election, where the Democratic party insiders could no longer help her, or assure her win. She lost against probably the least qualified, and surely the most idiotic, presidential candidate in history. I would venture to say that she lost as only she could, precisely because she represented what she represented, which to most people, was this political elitist who clearly looked down on people who did not agree with her. She continued the shady activities, by taking massive contributions from "too big to fail" Wall Street firms, and by trying to hide all of her activities which people questioned, including the emails and the accusations facing the Clinton Foundation. She never did come clean on how a family of supposed public servants, like the Clintons, winds up as among the elite 1%. She promised that the FBI investigations would find nothing, and her husband illegally met with the Attorney General while this investigation was still active, which is not a minor breach of protocol. This was not right wing propaganda. This was arrogance typical of the Clinton family specifically. It was their trademark, acting like they are above everything, including the law. It caught up to her in a big way, and clearly cost her dearly in the end.
Too many demons there. Too many skeletons in her closet. Too much comfy contact with very powerful government officials in her name, if not by her specifically. Having your powerful former President husband meet with the sitting Attorney General (AG) at a Phoenix tarmac, temporarily closing the airport and inconveniencing thousands of people in the process, so that Bill Clinton could just talk with the AG and shoot the shit with her, have a personal discussion (just between friends, you see) that officially had nothing to do with the ongoing investigation is quite shady. Yet, the mainstream Democrats could never bring themselves to admit that this indeed looked suspicious.
It is not all that different from what is going on now, in fact. We are hearing reports that Joe Biden, the former Vice-President under Obama, and himself now one of those people constantly mentioned as a possibility for a presidential run, is at the center of some women coming forth and claiming that he inappropriately touched them. Whether he did or not, we will see. But the mainstream Democrats have taken the position that whatever Biden allegedly did or did not do, it cannot even come close to what Trump is and has been doing in the same respect. So, even when it comes to harassing women, the Democrats are making the argument for the lesser of two evils, instead of owning up and admitting that it is wrong. This, while many Democrats (particularly women) are finally suggesting that allowing Bill Clinton to get off scot-free with all of his bad personal behavior in harassing women while he was in the White House also might have sent the wrong message, and yet they are taking the same, standard position with Biden, who is not even close to being the official nominee yet! It really is rather remarkable, how ingrained this fallback behavior has become for them.
So, the Democrats did not lose because of Russia, or because of false information, even, as far as I can tell. No, they lost because they kept excusing very bad behavior, and their fallback position was that the alternative, the guy representing the other party, was way worse in that regard. And sure enough, it was a losing formula, something that the Democrats certainly have become familiar with ever since the rise of Reagan in the eighties. Because as bad as Trump was (and is), the popular perception was that Hillary was worse. Many, if not most people, do not necessarily believe that (and I will admit that I do not think Hillary would have been quite this bad at being president as Trump has proven to be), but enough Americans felt that she was less trustworthy, that it proved to be the difference.
The mainstream Democrats should have learned something from that loss. But their quick, almost reflective need to point the finger of blame on anyone and everyone but themselves strongly suggests that they learned nothing. No, it was not the fault of James Comey, or Bernie Sanders and/or his supporters, or even the so-called "basket of deplorables" who would never vote for Clinton in a lifetime. Hell, it was not even Russia!
Hillary Clinton lost the election because she assumed that she should win, that it was her turn. She had orchestrated a lot of things behind the scene to assure that she received the nomination, and that meant being too cozy with big banks and corporations at Wall Street, and having unofficial meeting between powerful people on her behalf. Her husband meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, for example. Or her asking the mainstream Democratic leadership for help against Bernie Sanders when they were supposed to remain impartial, and then having them indeed help her. Those decisions of the past, made in a smoky backroom, that helped this or that candidate receive the nomination were seen as "politics as usual," and this was what Hillary, and those who supported her, relied on, in an election year where all signs on both sides of the political aisle pointed to most people being sick and tired of "politics as usual." And low and behold, she lost.
It was her fault, and it was the fault of those who supported her and ignored all of the numerous warning signs. They acted like this came as a complete shock. Yet, all of the warning signs were there. They ignored all of this, and simply assumed that Trump was very beatable, and that Hillary should beat him. She did not, and all of their maneuvering to assure her nomination contributed to the trust issues that people had with her. It barely got her the Democratic nomination, as Sanders kept rising, winning numerous states and at one point pulling even with her in the approval polls, while those same polls also had Sanders beating all Republican challengers, and had Hillary losing the general election.
The mainstream Democrats did not want to accept any blame for what they had managed to do, which is getting Trump, of all people, to win this election. And I can feel it coming now: this arrogance, this hubris, will cost them dearly, yet again. Even worse, it will cost the country dearly, yet again.
Because the Democrats are already excusing some alleged bad behavior by their former Vice-President, instead of saying that he does not deserve the nomination if he is indeed guilty of what he is presently being accused of. They want to push him, or some other Hillary-like candidate, such as Kamala Harris or Beto O'Rourke, under the once again mistaken assumption that they will easily defeat Trump, that Trump is some kind of aberration. That is already the direction they are heading in, and again, it will cost them.
And if it does, if they indeed find themselves to losing a second time to Trump, the candidate that they were so sure could not win to begin with, what then? Will there be new allegations against Russia? Will they blame supporters of Bernie Sanders again? Will there be a new James Comey figure to point the finger at?
Or will they finally learn something, and do the one thing that Republicans definitely managed to do better in 2016 then the Democrats did that same year, and allow the democratic process to unfold, and allow the strongest candidate to emerge. Because my own suspicion is that the strongest candidate is not a corporate friendly mainstreamer, and that a business as usual candidate will not be able to beat Trump, and all of the people pulling strings to get such a candidate the Democratic nomination will predictably backfire on the Democrats once again.
All of the warning signs are there already, and many people, including Lee Camp in the video above, are pointing this out.
They cannot claim that they were not warned, no matter what happens from here on out.
No comments:
Post a Comment