Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Sunday, June 14, 2015


Hillary Clinton said many of the right things in her kickoff speech on (dig the symbolism) Roosevelt Island.
“These Republicans trip over themselves promising lower taxes for the wealthy and fewer rules for the biggest corporations without any regard on how that will make income inequality worse,” she said before a crowd estimated at 5,500, according to the campaign.
Mrs. Clinton specified policies she would push for, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and incentives for companies that provide profit-sharing to employees. She also spoke of rewriting the tax code “so it rewards hard work at home” rather than corporations “stashing profits overseas.” She did not detail how she would achieve those policies or address their costs.
Hillary said that she would support a constitutional amendment to defeat the Citizens United decision "if necessary." There's no "if" about it, but at least we know that she won't stand in the way, as would any Republican.

Good stuff. But Obama said a lot of good stuff in 2008, and he disappointed many.

Mind you, he did not disappoint me: I expected even worse. Awful as he often is, he is not nearly so awful as I expected -- at least on the domestic front. When it comes to foreign policy, he has turned out to be even more horrific than I feared.

Back in 2008, even I, Cannon the captious, would not have believed you if you had told me that Barack Obama's administration would engineer a neocon/neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine while simultaneously sending a proxy army against Assad of Syria. That proxy army is now known as ISIS. The jihadis broke free of our control and went marching into Iraq -- and ever since, the result has been hell, hell, hell.

When it comes to foreign policy, Hillary promises to give us even more hell, hell, hell.

We have every reason to believe that neocons will still run the show whether the Democrat or the Republican wins the next election. In effect, we will continue to live under the Netanyahu administration, with spokesperson Barack Obama replaced by spokesperson Hillary Clinton.

At least Obama displays the occasional flash of independence. For example, he struck a deal with Iran. And he dodged a war with Syria in 2013, using the novel method of allowing that decision to be made the way the Constitution prescribes. 

What can we expect from Hillary? We got a big clue back in 2011, when her goons beat the hell out of former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who was 71. Why did they beat up a senior citizen? While attending one of her speeches, he had committed the sin of turning his back on her as a silent protest. The subject of her talk on that occasion was freedom of speech -- and the need for same in Iran.

Some acts of hypocrisy are so outrageous as to be sublime.

McGovern here draws an interesting comparison: At a public speech given four years earlier, another man -- his name now lost to history -- had bravely turned his back on the speaker, who happened to be Donald Rumsfeld. That protestor was left unmolested. Donald Rumsfeld, not Hillary Clinton, was the one who understood that some fights are best avoided.

Yes, there is still much to like about Hillary Clinton -- and yes, she will no doubt be preferable to whichever maniac the Republicans choose.

Look at it this way: Back in the 1960s, there were things to like about LBJ -- if you could overlook Vietnam (not to mention the man's history of corruption, and the fact that he was just plain weird.)

But you couldn't overlook Vietnam. The Vietnam war was a big damned thing, too big to ignore.

Hillary's disastrous policy of regime change in Syria is a big damned thing too. We can't ignore it.

Given the fact that Haim Saban is a key backer of Hillary Clinton, we can't ignore this country's disgusting obeisance to Israel. We can't ignore the fact that that we have stupidly chosen sides in a Sunni-Shiite conflict which has nothing to do with our culture and traditions. We can't ignore the fact that neocons like the Kagan/Nuland clan continue to have a hammerlock on our foreign policy. We can't ignore the fact that powerful right-wing forces in this country are trying to rehabilitate the image of fucking Al Qaeda. We can't ignore the fact that this country staged a coup which brought Nazis to power in Ukraine. We can't ignore the way we've undermined reformist governments in South America. We can't ignore what happened to Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake.

We can't ignore the fact that some incredibly huge and populous nations have become so fed up with our neocon/neolib antics that they are quickly creating an alternative economic universe. And listen up, boys and girls: When that happens -- when the BRICS alliance reaches something like its full potential, when the Europeans understand that there is a workable alternative to our hellish system -- it's adios America, because people all over the world have simply had it with our shit.

In short, we can't ignore the fact that our foreign policy has given the world nothing but hell, hell, hell. Hillary Clinton was in charge of this country's foreign policy for four years. During that time, the State Department painted a depiction of the inferno that would have shocked John Martin -- and like it or not, Hillary's signature is in the corner.

I wish that we were dealing with the Hillary Clinton of 2008. But too much has happened since then.

Speak of the devil:
I've been thinking a lot about 19th century painter John Martin lately. He did hellscapes and apocalyses -- big, explosive paintings that the public loved. I've always gotten a kick out of his work, even though critics tend to sneer at it. At times, I've even considered trying my own hand at a hellscape, because I have a lot of cadmium red and it needs a home.

Here's the question: How does one make a living as a painter of the Inferno? Churches don't want such images. You can't hang them in public spaces. Are there many people out there who want to hang a hellscape above the living room sofa? Would you?

I can neither confirm nor deny reports that a John Martin hellscape decorates a certain family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine.
If the world is going to continue to be raped and pillaged by Republican policies, I want those policies to be put in effect by unashamed Republicans who actually call themselves Republicans, rather than by chickenshit Republicans who call themselves Democrats.

Would you have rather had a war on Syria in 2013, Phil? Easy for you to say: You don't live there. Would you rather NOT have the deal with Iran? Would you rather have global warming denialists face the coming drought problems?
Hillary said that she would support a constitutional amendment to defeat the Citizens United decision "if necessary." There's no "if" about it, but at least we know that she won't stand in the way, as would any Republican.

It's not possible for any President, of whatever party, to "stand in the way" of an amendment. The only parties involved in the amendment process are Congress and the state legislatures:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Besides, the real problem isn't Citizens, it's Buckley v. Valeo. All Citizens does is extend the precedent of Buckley to groups. Hillary knows this damned well - she's just playing to the rubes.
I used to have a hell fire pic up in my office....with the caption "this too shall pass." Hadn't thought of it in ages! I wish there were enough goth couples with a giant pic of hell fire over their living room sofa to make a market for such works!

I would rather someone who is honest about their self and who they are, than another fake Democrat. These fake Democratic Presidents, faux Democrats, we've had since the Nixonian Republican diaspora and the Carter administration, have totally wrecked the New Deal and rendered New Deal Democrats a powerless minority, who have no say in the Party. These last mid-term elections should have convinced everyone that the Democratic Party is a failure and a waste of time, a pale imitation and shadow Republican Party. The Obama presidency and administration is the worst administration this country has had yet, with the exception of policy toward aboriginal peoples by past administrations, writing this with an eye on psychopaths like Andrew Jackson.

I'm done with the Democratic Party and I am exiting it permanently. Joseph convinced me to vote for Barack Obama this last presidential election, I have regretted doing so ever since. Mitt Romney is a terrible, awful person, but is still far less fake than Barack Obama the anti-Democrat, not anti-Christ.

Thanks to user - Propertius for bringing to my attention the real culprit behind the Citizens United replacement of democracy with full fledged plutocracy.

Joseph, I look foward to reading your defenses of Hillary Clinton over the next year and a half or so. But make no mistake about it, while I will read your apologetics, there is no way you'll fool me again into voting Democratic Party. The Democratic Party does not represent the interests of the American people. The Republican Party, at least, is less pretentious about it.

I welcome the death of the Democratic Party, it's a parade or a charade that should be done away with.

"Good stuff. But Obama said a lot of good stuff in 2008, and he fooled many."

There, I fixed it for you.
Joshua, don't aim that gun at your head.
@ Bob,

Worry about yourself, bud.

@ Joseph,

With no dialogue forthcoming from you, I wonder what you make of James DiEugenio's recent article over at Consortium News. The article's title is 'The Saga of Cesar Chavez'. Here are the tastey bits for rancid Clintonian apologists like yourself.

"In 1996, with great fanfare – and under the influence of political adviser Dick Morris – President Bill Clinton signed the largest welfare “reform” bill of the last 35 years. It was so harsh toward recipients that many speculated that not even Ronald Reagan would have signed it. But Clinton, as a titular Democrat, had the cover to do so. Many commented at the time that this act demonstrated that the Arkansas governor’s association with the “centrist” Democratic Leadership Council was not just cosmetic.

Upon signing the bill, Clinton utilized the words of the late Robert Kennedy, quoting the liberal icon as saying that work is what the United States is all about; we need work as individuals and as citizens, as a society and as a people. When Rory Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy’s youngest daughter, heard this invocation of her father’s name to support a law that would hurt the poorest and most disadvantaged people in America, she immediately called Peter Edelman, who had been a legislative assistant to Kennedy when he was a senator.

Edelman, who was working for Clinton as assistant secretary for Health and Human Services, resigned in protest against the new law. A year later, the Harvard-educated lawyer wrote a blistering essay about the “reform” bill and Clinton’s role in it. Five years later, Edelman explained that not only was the bill a bad one but he was outraged at Clinton’s use of his former boss’ name in signing it.

Edelman wrote, “President Clinton hijacked RFK’s words and twisted them totally. By signing the bill, Clinton signaled acquiescence in the conservative premise that welfare is the problem — the source of a culture of irresponsible behavior,” while RFK envisioned a large American investment to guarantee that people actually could get decent jobs.

Kennedy wanted both protections for children and outreach to those who could not find jobs. In other words, he wanted to do something big about ending poverty. (See the introduction to Edelman’s book, Searching for America’s Heart.)

Perhaps nothing illustrates the difference between the Democratic Party now and then than Edelman’s role in getting Sen. Kennedy to Delano, California, in 1966. It’s a story Bill Clinton probably knew about, but – to my knowledge – never mentioned in public."

The rest of the article is well worth everyones time and attention. If you think my criticisms of the Democratic Party today are equivalent to putting a gun to my head, your pathology is boundless and without limit.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic